Explanation of Court Proceedings Involving 3HO

March 21, 2010

Dear Fellow Kundalini Yogis,

Many, many people in the world of Kundalini Yoga are thankfully and finally

finding out about and talking about the lawsuit filed by long-term members of

the community which more or less is attempting to prevent a Machiavellian

takeover of control of virtually every aspect of the lifestyle in addition to an

apparent misappropriation of funds for personal benefit. While there are those

who feel this doesn't affect them personally or is somehow tangential to

spiritual practice itself, I would suggest that it does go to the heart of the

integrity of the values we represent and live by. There is much disinformation,

rumor and speculation regarding the law suit. I do not hide my strong support

for this lawsuit and my strong opposition to the small group of people who are

trying to gain a stranglehold over the organization. But I have practiced law

for over 30 years in the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried, have

attended all the court hearings regarding this case and trust that my

description of what has happened in the courtroom is neutral and accurate to the

letter. Just as we've seen in other religious and spiritual organizations

(i.e., Catholic Church scandal), we are not immune from this and it would be

unconscionable to hide the facts from the rank and file (that is you!) out of an

attitude of condescension or manipulation. I truly hope the moderator of this

group does allow this message through as silence about this issue will only

serve the purposes of those who are in the midst of doing things that will

definitely have an impact on your lives personally. It would be very painful for

me to hear people crying out later...why weren't we told anything? So here you

are being told. Please find below a copy of the email that I sent out to members

of Khalsa Council in response to what I felt was a misrepresentation on the part

of defendants in a communication they sent out in regard to the judge's pretrial

rulings in the case. If any further supporting material is desired, for

instance a copy of the lawsuit itself, I will be glad to provide. Blessings and

Sat Nam, S.S. Hari Nam Singh (Portland, OR)

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Khalsa Council,

As promised, I would like to present my own perspective of what has happened up

to this point in regard to the lawsuit, and in particular to this issue of

" standing " . Many people have called or written me about all this, so perhaps it

would be a more efficient use of my time and energy to lay all of this out as

fairly and concisely as I can. The proceedings in Multnomah County Circuit Court

have provoked, in my opinion, an onslaught of rumors, misinformation, " spin " and

conjecture. Some of this is due to simple lack of understanding of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. Some of it no doubt is due to

" grandstanding " and " rooting for the home team. " I have been unabashed in my

support for this suit and what it stands for. However, my bias regarding the

outcome of the case has in no way clouded my neutrality and clarity about what

is actually happening in the courtroom. It's a place I'm very familiar with and

I do understand exactly where this case sits. I'll do my best to boil it down to

its essence and hopefully that will be sufficient for those of you out there

looking for more clarification.

1. We are still at the pre-trial stage and this may still go on for awhile.

Normally in any case, but particularly in a case as complex as this one, there

is a lot of jockeying for position before the main event (assuming there will be

a " main event " , but more on that later). This case is no exception. Let me take

you through some of these preliminary bouts.

2. Defendants moved to have our attorneys removed, more or less taking the

position that since the SDI board was lawfully removed (in their opinion) from

their positions and the attorneys were representing that group of people, the

attorneys really had no client to represent and they certainly had no authority

from UI/SDS to sue defendants. The judge DID NOT grant defendants' motion to

remove counsel; meaning, the attorneys still are very much on the case and the

judge has not come close to saying that there is no rightful plaintiff in the

court or no real client for the attorneys to represent.

3. Plaintiffs also moved to remove Roy Lambert and his law firm from the case,

primarily due to conflict of interest; i.e., Mr. Lambert was legal counsel for

the original SDI Board, had knowledge of its inner workings and historical

facts, thus could not now fairly represent another party against the interests

of the very group of people he had previously represented. The judge also denied

plaintiffs' motion to remove counsel and for this reason....even though the

judge herself was clear that Lambert's involvement at this point in time did not

pass " the smell test " , plaintiffs were not able to show specifically how they

would be prejudiced by Mr. Lambert's continued participation in the case, which

is necessary to get him removed. The judge did however gratuitously share with

him that if she were him, she'd be concerned that the dual representation could

eventually lead to a malpractice suit or bar complaint. This is one of the

subtleties of the legal system that people have had difficulty wrapping their

brain around. If somebody is engaging in conduct that could very well lead to

malpractice or disbarment, how can he still remain on the case. And I guess my

answer unfortunately is, that's the way it is. Unless we show specifically, not

hypothetically, how our case will be prejudiced, she has no grounds to remove

him. (I'm not saying that there aren't grounds to challenge the judge's legal

ruling, but I do understand her reasoning).

4. The plaintiffs also had on the table a motion for restraining order,

ostensibly to prevent the sale of part or all of the business being sold off by

the plaintiffs before the case was resolved. At the last moment, the parties

entered into a stipulation whereby plaintiffs would not oppose the sale of the

cereal business and defendants agreed to do or not do various things, including

putting the proceeds of the sale into escrow. The terms of that stipulation were

stated in great detail in previous emails, so I will not go through them again.

But I do want to repeat what I mentioned in an earlier correspondence and that

is that without having filed this lawsuit we would have not received any of

these concessions whatsoever and who knows how far they would have already gone.

The fact is that the attorneys for defendants only felt compelled to negotiate

because they were unwilling to invite the possibility that the judge would

somehow nullify a multimillion dollar sale that was all but done. These kind of

11 o'clock deals are also very common in pretrial maneuvering.

5. More recently, defendants brought a motion to dismiss, and this was the

matter just heard before the court. There has been probably more

misunderstanding regarding this court hearing than any other aspect of the case.

It is correct that the judge ultimately ruled that the members of the original

SDI Board did not have " legal standing " within the scope of that role. And

people are responding, " that's outrageous, this is a total sham, this is a

miscarriage of justice. " OK, here we go. What is " standing " in a legal case: a)

You have a clearly identifiable individual or legal entity, b) That person has

suffered an identifiable legal harm (i.e., I was wrongfully discharged and that

cost me $50G), c) The plaintiff is able to state the remedy the court should

grant if he/she proves his/her case, and d) This is actually the type of legal

claim that this court has the authority to adjudicate. I'm not here to advocate

a legal position. Perhaps the judge's ruling on this particular issue will be

appealed sometime up the road. However, I do understand where she is coming from

and I don't think it was completely off-base. However, contrary to the

defendant's throwing a premature champagne party celebrating total victory (as

evidenced by Ek Ong Kaar's recent email on behalf of the defendants),

helloooooo.....one thing that was not mentioned.....the judge DID NOT, I repeat

DID NOT grant the motion to dismiss. To the contrary, the hearing (the longest

pretrial hearing I've ever attended) ran for almost three hours, during which

the judge herself discussed with the attorneys numerous theories upon which

" standing " could be argued, as well as the pros and cons of every theory. At the

end of the day, the " standing " issue was left, well, still standing. The judge

gave plaintiffs two months to file an amended complaint, at which time the

" standing " issue, the only thing really standing (no pun intended) between where

we are now and trial before jury.

6. As I mentioned in my email last night, the assertion that the judge has

somehow declared the " new " SDI the real representatives of Sikh Dharma is so

ludicrous that I will not even give it the dignity of further comment. Suffice

it to say that this did not happen. To the contrary, this judge has demonstrated

many times in the courtroom her absolute unwillingness to preside over any

dispute regarding religious doctrine or how the religion itself is run. She is

taking a strict adherence to the constitutional mandate of separation of church

and state, as she should. Nobody wants a judge running their religion and she

has shown no intention of doing that. Basically at this time all she is saying

is that based on the documents in front of her, this UI Board, whatever louses

they may be, appear to have the absolute authority to do virtually anything they

want. But it bears repeating, " at this time " . If and when we get this to trial

and have the benefit of all the discovery we are already reviewing, then we will

have the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of this board and their

decisions, including their removal and appointment of subordinate boards. Again,

if we can get through this " standing " hoop, the scenery will start changing

rapidly. But this assertion that the judge declared UI and the " new " SDI to be

the lawful representatives of Sikh Dharma is not merely a gratuitous

exaggeration of her ruling, it is an outright lie. Sorry to be so blunt about

it, but if somebody is so bold as to intentionally put out that kind of crap

with the intent to deceive or foster insecurity in the community, a spade must

be called a spade.

6. Regardless of what you may have heard from others, even those who weren't

within 1500 miles of these hearings, the judge has reprimanded the attorneys on

both sides in regard to where their presentation of the case has fallen short.

From our side of the bench, this is what she is asking us to do. The complaint,

which really represents the map of the case, has to be more concisely drafted

and get to the point: who is your plaintiff, why does this plaintiff have

standing, what is the wrong that this court has the authority to address, and

what remedy are you asking this court to order that this court has authority to

order. Don't just tell me your getting screwed and that's that. Cite me legal

authority (statute, case law) supporting your position why you have the right to

bring this case in this courtroom. Bam, bam, bam. I don't have any problem with

her approach and at this point it doesn't matter what my opinion of her ruling

is. She's the judge and we need to play by her rules. So we have one job and one

job alone to do and this is to write the brief the way she wants it. To give

this some context...our original brief I believe was something like 90 pages. I

have no doubt we can effectively state our claims in 5-10 pages and be on to the

next stage of the case. At this point, I cannot guarantee that we will be able

to ultimately make a case for " standing " ; we do have work to do on this issue.

However, I heard enough thoughtful dialogue on the issue emanating from the last

hearing to understand that there still are numerous and substantial theories of

law to get over this hump. Bottom line: we have two months to get this right and

jump through this hoop. I don' want to reveal to the other side what our legal

strategy is going to be, but I am reasonably confident we will clear this bar.

8. One quick comment to an often repeated question. Why didn't the judge like

the original complaint and why is it so important that it is more concise? I

happen to agree with the judge. It needs to be more concise. Bam, bam, bam.

State the plaintiff, cause of action and remedy. If what I am saying is true, I

am entitled to legal relief. No need for laying out the whole factual basis for

our case in the complaint. That's what the trial will be about. So fine, that's

going to happen this time around, so no harm no foul. However, taking a 180

degree turn, I would like to give my unconditional approval for the way the

original complaint was written. To begin with, as just mentioned, the opening

complaint is too wordy...OK, we'll file an amended complaint. But more

importantly, to my eyes anyhow, the story told in that opening brief was a very

in-depth and articulately stated history of what has happened over the last 40

years. No matter how this case turns out in the court system, I believe that

complaint is one of the most important if not most important document in the

history of 3HO/Sikh Dharma. If nothing else, it was imperative that future

generations understand who we were, what it was we stood up to defend and how

our lives are forever interlaced with theirs. And that of course is our history

as Khalsa.

7. There has been much conjecture and debate in regard to the judge handling the

case, once again I believe based either on lack of correct information or

perhaps not being pleased with her rulings up to now. OK, so I am going to give

my unequivocal opinion about this judge...I have practiced law in the State of

Oregon for over 30 years. She is without a doubt the finest judge I have ever

sat before...incredibly intelligent, wise to the ways of the world, knows the

law inside and out, impartial. That's what I want in a judge. She's tough, but

she's got a good heart. I was absolutely blown away by her in-depth knowledge of

every aspect of this case. She absolutely does understand what this case is

about. In fact, I can state without hesitation that she understands this case,

at least in a legal perspective, better than any other person in the courtroom.

She is very high integrity in my eyes and is just trying to do everything right.

Again, that's what I want in a judge. If we get through these pretrial hoops, we

will want a clean trial and we will want the jury to understand what they are

actually deciding upon (and not buried by the complexity that the defense will

no doubt try to paralyze them with). To me, she's helping us get to where we

need to be and regardless of the outcome of the case (unless she unexpectedly

disappoints me), I'm a fan.

OK, sorry folks for being so long-winded: this letter went on far longer than I

initially intended. But the bottom line is this: at this point in time, nothing

to celebrate about, nothing to jump off a bridge about. Let the legal process

run its course. We have fine lawyers working on the case and the judge is of the

highest caliber. The defendants have spent an enormous amount of time and money

(our money) in an attempt to build a fortress impenetrable to legal challenge.

This is a very formidable opponent and yes this will be quite the challenge to

win. We are " in it to win it " and in spite of what you have heard from the

representative of the defendant, our opponent is nowhere near being able to

declare total victory, so please don't buy into that attempt to demoralize and

deceive you. To the contrary, what is really needed is your financial help to

support our fight. It is amazing to walk into that courtroom and see literally a

team of lawyers representing these group of defendants. And it is so

apparent....these attorneys don't give a crap about you or this Dharma or the

wishes of the SSS. All they care about is that they have a major " Sugar Daddy "

in the form of their clients and they're going to ride that wave in as far as it

takes them. I'm not criticizing them nor am I angry with them. That's their job

as attorney and I actually respect their talent and commitment to do the best

for their client. That's the way the system works. On the other hand, I can tell

you that the attorneys working on our case have consistently exhibited not only

an understanding of what the legal issues are, but really do care about us as

people and as a Dharma. I can see that it's not only important to them

professionally that we prevail, but they personally believe in and are inspired

by the cause. And for this I feel we're very blessed. Let's be frank. The other

side has virtually limitless resources and have shown themselves to be cold to

the bone. Don't be naive, if need be they will try to starve us to death

financially by whatever legal tactics available. Please do not let them get away

with this. Get in touch with Avtar Hari Singh, Sat Mitar Kaur, Sikh Dharma

Worldwide and help out in any way from your pocket that you can. Anyhow, adios

for now, and I'll do my best to keep you up to date as things progress on the

legal front.

Much Love,

S.S. Hari Nam Singh

March 23, 2010

Thank you S.S. Harinam Singh,

For taking the time and bringing me/us up to date. It's good to be

informed so I can know what to think about this.

I remember, at Winter Solstice, someone (Sunder Singh?) talking about

the "fight or flight" response. He said either is fine, just don't be

stuck in the middle, .....frozen.

Those who are perpetrating this offense (that's what I call it, until

convinced otherwise) expect to walk amongst us as though nothing has

changed.

They expect/hope us to be frozen and to not have a spine. Lets choose a

more enjoyable option. This is the year of the Fire Element. I can't

think of a better time to master it. When Fire is cooking for you

rather than burning down the house, it is called Tejas or Tapas, the

Transformative Fire. One thing, for sure, is not to turn it inward and

on ourselves. That's called Inner Anger and manifests in a multitude of

ways, depression being one of them. There is a whole list at

http://www.sahej.com/inner_anger-one.html (also check out video sample

at http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=1015087216484 )

When we have cleared the body

system of this Inner Anger, we have a

new area of freedom from which to act and project, or to say something

you've never said before. That's the opportunity. Stay true to your own

heart, and what you own eyes and mind are saying. No real interpersonal

conversation can take place unless we honor our self, deeply and to the

core.

And again, thank you Harinam Singh

Many Blessings,

Dharam

The ultimate paradox is that negation becomes affirmation.

-Rollo May

harinam56 wrote:

Dear Fellow Kundalini Yogis,

Many, many people in the world of Kundalini Yoga are thankfully and finally finding out about and talking about the lawsuit filed by long-term members of the community which more or less is attempting to prevent a Machiavellian takeover of control of virtually every aspect of the lifestyle in addition to an apparent misappropriation of funds for personal benefit. While there are those who feel this doesn't affect them personally or is somehow tangential to spiritual practice itself, I would suggest that it does go to the heart of the integrity of the values we represent and live by. There is much disinformation, rumor and speculation regarding the law suit. I do not hide my strong support for this lawsuit and my strong opposition to the small group of people who are trying to gain a stranglehold over the organization. But I have practiced law for over 30 years in the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried, have attended all the court hearings regarding this case and t

rust that my description of what has happened in the courtroom is neutral and accurate to the letter. Just as we've seen in other religious and spiritual organizations (i.e., Catholic Church scandal), we are not immune from this and it would be unconscionable to hide the facts from the rank and file (that is you!) out of an attitude of condescension or manipulation. I truly hope the moderator of this group does allow this message through as silence about this issue will only serve the purposes of those who are in the midst of doing things that will definitely have an impact on your lives personally. It would be very painful for me to hear people crying out later...why weren't we told anything? So here you are being told. Please find below a copy of the email that I sent out to members of Khalsa Council in response to what I felt was a misrepresentation on the part of defendants in a communication they sent out in regard to the judge's pretrial rulings in the case. If any fu

rther supporting material is desired, for instance a copy of the lawsuit itself, I will be glad to provide. Blessings and Sat Nam, S.S. Hari Nam Singh (Portland, OR)

<snip>

OK, sorry folks for being so long-winded: this letter went on far longer than I initially intended. But the bottom line is this: at this point in time, nothing to celebrate about, nothing to jump off a bridge about. Let the legal process run its course. We have fine lawyers working on the case and the judge is of the highest caliber. The defendants have spent an enormous amount of time and money (our money) in an attempt to build a fortress impenetrable to legal challenge. This is a very formidable opponent and yes this will be quite the challenge to win. We are "in it to win it" and in spite of what you have heard from the representative of the defendant, our opponent is nowhere near being able to declare total victory, so please don't buy into that attempt to demoralize and deceive you. To the contrary, what is really needed is your financial help to support our fight. It is amazing to walk into that courtroom and see literally a team of lawyers representing these group of

defendants. And it is so apparent....these attorneys don't give a crap about you or this Dharma or the wishes of the SSS. All they care about is that they have a major "Sugar Daddy" in the form of their clients and they're going to ride that wave in as far as it takes them. I'm not criticizing them nor am I angry with them. That's their job as attorney and I actually respect their talent and commitment to do the best for their client. That's the way the system works. On the other hand, I can tell you that the attorneys working on our case have consistently exhibited not only an understanding of what the legal issues are, but really do care about us as people and as a Dharma. I can see that it's not only important to them professionally that we prevail, but they personally believe in and are inspired by the cause. And for this I feel we're very blessed. Let's be frank. The other side has virtually limitless resources and have shown themselves to be cold to the bone. Don't be naive, if need be they will try to starve us to death financially by whatever legal tactics available. Please do not let them get away with this. Get in touch with Avtar Hari Singh, Sat Mitar Kaur, Sikh Dharma Worldwide and help out in any way from your pocket that you can. Anyhow, adios for now, and I'll do my best to keep you up to date as things progress on the legal front. Much Love,

S.S. Hari Nam Singh