SRF Legal Expenses - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Legal Department > SRF Legal Expenses
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
bheema ma Registered User (4/10/03 9:09 am) Reply	SRF Legal Expenses Just how much does SRF'S legal department spend of the members’ money? A while ago, I met Patricia Lyons, the woman who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against SRF in 1998. (LA Superior #BC184382) Eventually, Sister Savitri negotiated a settlement with Patricia. During the course of the negotiations, Savitri and Patricia also talked about the SRF vs. Ananda lawsuit. "SRF must have spent $7 million dollars on that lawsuit," Patricia said. "Oh, much more than that," Savitri replied. "$14 million?" Patricia asked. "More like $40 million!" Savitri said. Savitri was in a position to know. She was Daya’s secretary, on the Board, and one of SRF’s official representatives in that lawsuit for more than a decade. She went to all the depositions and hearings. She filed declarations and gave depositions herself as an individual and as a "designated SRF witness." After the $40 million was spent, SRF continued to sue Ananda for several years more, ending with a month-long trial. SRF’s final total must be millions more. Savitri missed the trial because she left SRF shortly before it started.
True Enuf Registered User (4/10/03 12:39 pm) Reply	Re: SRF Legal Expenses Something doesn't compute here. $40 million up until Savitri left and then a few more years' legal fees on top?? That's an astounding amount of money for a case of this nature. I could be wrong... but I don't buy that figure. I can't. Not calling anyone a liar, maybe someone misheard or is mistaken or who knows what. But that amount is inconceivable to me. Just my two cents.
bheema ma Registered User (4/10/03 4:20 pm) Reply	Re: SRF Legal Expenses The way I heard it, it was 40 million up until the time of that conversation. Then some more years (around 3.5 or 4), then an expensive trial in Sacramento. Savitri left a few months before the trial. Friends at Ananda tell me that Ananda spent somewhere around 10 million over the course of the 13 years. It sounded like they hired a lot of their own people at well below going-rate legal firm rates to try to keep the costs down. Of that 10 million+/- they still owe 3 million in various loans--they've announced that publicly. It doesn't sound so far-fetched to me to think that SRF could have spent 4 or 5 times as much (as 10 million) by hiring the most expensive attorneys in the LA area and paying going-rate legal fees for everything the handful of monastics in the loop couldn't do themselves (probably almost everything--can you visualize the monastics writing up legal briefs?).
Lobo Registered User (4/10/03 7:59 pm) Reply	Re: SRF Legal Expenses Isn't Brahmananda an attorney? At least he is said to be so on the yoganandarediscovered.com (Ananda) website. If he is it isn't out of the realm of possibility that he composed some of the legal pleadings in this case. Also when Savitri left SRF her leaving was reported in one of the New Times LA articles, which went on to report that she went to work for Flynn, et al. This would seem to suggest that she too had some legal ability, not necessarily as a lawyer, but maybe more along the lines of paralegal/secretary sort of training. It is a staggering amount of money that's been described as coming from the lips of Savitri, whom I agree has an insight into the inner workings of the organization that seems to be beyond questioning. As DM's secretary and board member she probably would be privy to the member funds being spent on the lawsuit. It would be a public service of the highest degree for someone to find a way to open SRF's accounting books to public scrutiny. Would the IRS allow, as a tax-free organization, this to be done? That is are religious organizations required, as a part of doing business and especially because of the tax-free issue, to allow their books to be part of the public's purview such as stock-traded corporations are required to do? And if so how would one go about doing so? My guess is that it isn't possible for the layman. As they aren't regulated by the SEC and therefore required to submit to open book and bottom line openess they probably have the right to secrecy; which seems odious but hey how much is the Catholic church worth? The Mormons? Ananda?
crogman1 Registered User (4/10/03 8:34 pm) Reply	$40 million?? The nuns are clueless about money. Savitri included. 40 million? 4 million? I would not be surprised at either amount. A dollar was too much. However, let us do some math here and test the number. They hired a pretty powerful guy but let us be conservative and say he and his firm charged $300/hour. Let us estimate a 10 year billing period. For 40 million over 10 years you would get 13,300 hours of work a year. Most people work about 2000 hours a year but lawyers much less. Even with double billing and cheating it would not hit that rate. Chalk this one up to the issue we Walrus people know plenty about. The senior nuns are totally clueless. The Mata’s are not rocket scientists and they don’t surround themselves with big brains either. I fully believe that Savitri DID say 40 million and that SRF wasted a lot of money. On another topic, Brahmananda is not an attorney. He spent some time in law school but I don’t believe he ever got a law degree and certainly never passed the bar. He does deal with legal issues for SRF but they have real lawyers to help.
True Enuf Registered User (4/10/03 10:49 pm) Reply	Re: $40 million?? Crog, I believe SRF could have spent up to $10 million, perhaps a bit more, but 40? No way. Even though the case was involved, requiring lots of research, discovery, motions, etc..., at 40 you're going into the tobacco litigation realm. No way it could be that much for this kind of deal, even if SRF was getting gouged, the usual scams of billing the paralegals' time at the full attorney rate, excessive charges for copying, filings, etc... Law is like medicine. Even if Brahmananda had a degree, this is very specialized law (e.g., one doesn't hire a real estate attorney or general practitioner to argue complex patent issues or trademark/copyright law.) I'd doubt if he had much input in this. To be fair, it's quite conceivable that the board had no idea when they first initiated the suit that the legal expenses would soar into the many millions. This then becomes the question of knowing "when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em," sort of like stopping throwing good money after bad. Then again, the picture that emerged regarding the Peoplesoft debacle was not encouraging, what with the IT monks and employees trying their darnedest to make senior management aware that something was radically wrong there, only to be dismissed, moved out, fired, etc..., and the madness continuing, with millions being poured down the drain. One can allow for honest mistakes, even the occasional massive blunder, but when sound warnings are continually ignored, when perhaps the very financial well-being of the organization is imperiled, an objective outsider might observe and conclude this is either insanity or incompetence. Take your pick. Neither is very flattering.
bheema ma Registered User (4/18/03 9:52 am) Reply	Re: $40 million?? Someone tried to do the math about how much billing a lawyer could accumulate in 12 years. Clearly that person has never been involved in a lawsuit! It takes so much more time, and so many more lawyers. Its a quagmire. SRF never had less than two attorneys working on the case, most of the time they had four different lawyers from two or three different firms. And those were just the ones who appeared in public. It doesn't count the research attorneys, and the ones who probably helped write the briefs. For the entire month-long trial, three lawyers sat at the conference table, and Flynn sat in the audience -- until he was thrown out of the court. But then Flynn seemed to continue to work from a hotel room nearby. The lawyers were all from Southern California, the trial was in Sacramento. They often worked through the weekends. All that time gets billed, plus hotels, food, travel, etc. There were depositions that went on for weeks at a time. Again, often away from where the SRF lawyers lived, which brings in travel, hotels, etc., again. The estimate was $300 an hour, but $500 is more realistic, at least for the lead attorneys from each firm. SRF was using some of the most prestigious and expensive firms in LA. $40 million is mind blowing, but not unrealistic. SRF did litigate this case as if it were the U.S. government suing Microsoft. Obviously their attitude would be money is no object, spare no expense.
True Enuf Registered User (4/26/03 9:15 pm) Reply	Re: $40 million?? Hi Bheema, Since we’re unable to accurately quantify the numbers, I’m certain we may agree that the legal expenditures were enormous. The onward and upward vibration of this age unequivocally demands fair disclosure, accountability and transparency in all sectors of life. We all know what’s been going on in the corporate and financial realms in this regard, but it also extends to the world of non-profits and governments. The United Way was hammered a few years back for CEO improprieties. Look at the pounding the Red Cross received last year for not applying donations as specified to the 9/11 fund. See China, on account of a little virus, forced to backtrack, to bow to international pressure for full disclosure, for action, not on Chinese conditions but international terms. Hit severely in the pocketbook by foreign business which abhors uncertainty and requires reliability, the Chinese now are learning the hard way what it means to act stupidly and narrowly, for having thought foolishly that they could hide or ignore SARS without incurring the costly displeasure of the international community. The whole vibe of the age is changing, and all entities are subject to it, including SRF. Any organization that thinks they can spend any which way they want, without offering any accounting for the money whatsoever, while expecting that unquestioning members should just keep sending in more and more is sadly mistaken. Yes I’m sure there were a few here and there who were mildly confused when the other church changed its name, but no way should so much money have been spent for something so minor. Anyway, wasn’t it always supposed to be the superior vibration in the end that would draw souls accordingly? Would it be fair to apply Babaji’s test of obedience for a highly advance disciple (‘Jump then, I cannot use you in your present state of development’) to a beginner on the path? Should an average devotee have to accept, all the while seeing clear evidence to the contrary, that the money nevertheless is ever spent wisely, and to ask anything is inherently disloyal? Anyone with a modicum of discernment knows this is unreasonable. Look to the actions, for right behind is the thinking that originates and drives them. Ultimately, Master’s true work in SRF will go on, reconfigured for the better at some point in future. Edited by: True Enuf at: 4/27/03 9:06:18 am
crogman1 Registered User (4/28/03 5:31 am) Reply	Re: $40 million?? I see the logic and understand that it might have cost $40 million. Wow. What I heard over and over and over from SRF was "Nothing can harm this work". They don't listen to themselves. That statement is only a cult tool to indicate that God is on the side of SRF and SRF is something special. In their own day to day operation they are terribly afraid of organizations using names like theirs, of members knowing the inner workings, and so on. They are fakes running a cult.

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - SRF Legal Department -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.