VoyForums
Oklahoma Disaster Relief










American Red Cross
Together, we can save a life


See Kare11.com's page for more ways to contribute.

VoyForums Notice -- Quick Contributions:
Donate $10 to the Red Cross: Text the word REDCROSS to 90999
Donate $10 to the Salvation Army: Text the word STORM to 80888
* The charge will appear on your cellphone bill.

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:17:04 04/26/03 Sat
Author: one - 24 Feb 2003
Subject: KELLY SULLIVAN'S response
In reply to: one - 24 Feb 2003 's message, "Jaya Helin's rebuttal" on 04:16:26 04/26/03 Sat

By KELLY SULLIVAN

I was shocked by John Helin’s letter to the editor, publicly accusing me of spreading rumors and distortion with my article on the Ananda Church. That a member of an organization with a history of fraud has the audacity to call my honesty into question is grossly ironic.

“Ananda has not faced charges of fraud ‘for several decades’. Prior to the copyright lawsuit filed by SRF in 1990, it’s record and reputation were spotless.”

I did not say that Ananda faced LEGAL charges of fraud for several decades. But the women who claim they were sexually abused by J. Donald Walters, have stated instances going back to 1969. If what these women charge is true (and the court believed it was) then Ananda has had anything but a “spotless reputation” since at least 3 decades ago.

“Is that fair? (that the defense was not allowed to question the plaintiff).”
Let’s talk about what is “fair” in the context of a court trail. Was it fair for Ananda to hire men to scale a wall on the property of the plaintiff’s attorney and steal confidential documents? When the judge issued a sanction against Ananda for illegally possessing those documents, which contained the names of witnesses and the plaintiff’s courtroom strategy, to prohibit them from cross-examining those witnesses, I think that was more than “fair” considering the act was an extreme obstruction of justice.

“There was never any demonstration that past relationships, decades old, were anything but consensual.”

Well, Mr. Helin, perhaps the relationship between Monica Lewenski and Bill Clinton was “consensual”. Perhaps relationships between doctors and their patents are “consensual”, or between priests and alter boys. However certain positions hold certain ethics and morals. A monk who has taken a vow of celibacy is not supposed to be engaging in sexual behavior, consensual or not. A religious leader is not supposed to be having sex with his nuns, consensual or not. And to say that there was never any “demonstration” to support that the sexual acts were not consensual is preposterous as that is what the entire trial was about and Walters LOST.
“Ananda has established important precedents for religious freedom”

I suppose that all depends on what you want to address as “religious freedom”. In 1997, your church asked the court to have all alleged misconduct against them protected under the First Amendment as it relates to freedom of religion. That bid was denied.

“To repeat scurrilous, out of context accusations gleaned from the Internet in order to demean the character of someone is shameful.”

Mr. Helin, it was Karen Rider and your own wife who provided me with website addresses they asked me to confer. My information, however, was “gleaned” from the records of the Superior Court of the State of California.
“The use of inflammatory buzzwords such as cult and brainwashing easily identifies your piece as an effort at popular sensationalism”.

Prior to our interview, I explained quite thoroughly that this piece was about Ananda’s legal history. Although I let you talk extensively about how much you admire Walters and how wonderful the Ananda church is, I at no point gave the impression that I was going to abandon my original story to do a glowing article on Ananda’s reputation. THAT, Mr. Helin, would have been bias.

As for calling the word cult a “buzzword”, I see no way of writing a thorough story about the history of Ananda without using the word cult. That would have been like trying to write about the OJ trial without using the word murder. A CULT specialist was brought in during the trial to testify as an expert witness. The plaintiff’s lawyer specializes in CULT activities. The deposition of the expert witness states that Ananda meets all of the criteria for a CULT. This is not a “buzzword”, Mr. Helin, it is merely a word used in the trial that you obviously do not like. What is amusing to me that is your swami used the word himself. In Court Exhibit #1, a letter written by Walters concerning the plaintiff’s attorneys, he stated, “It isn’t that I am worried about their questions. What does concern me a little is the almost insane hatred they’ve evinced for cults, among which they see Ananda as a leading and vicious example of”.

As for my piece being an effort at sensationalism, I’d like to think that, if that WERE my intention, I could have achieved that to a higher degree. I could have included several things in the article that I did NOT. Such as Larry Rider becoming emotional when I first contacted him about my future article, asking me not to bring all this out because “my wife and I have put our lives on the line to come here and start this church”, and informing me that another local newspaper who knew about the legal history had promised not to write about it. I could have mentioned accusations of sexual abuse by former Ananda members which I found too lewd to describe in a small town newspaper, such as what one woman was allegedly told to do in the form of receiving a “holy communion”. Or what another woman was allegedly told to do, in order to get closer to God. I could have mentioned that, during our interview, you denied that Walters had a sexual relationship with a married woman until I informed you that Walters had admitted to the relationship. You then defended him by saying that although the woman was married, “she wasn’t living with her husband at the time”.

You see, Mr. Helin, had I attempted sensationalism, I could have done a much more thorough job.

“I had hoped she would at least have her facts correct”.

I was also hoping you would have your facts correct. When you told me that Walters retook his vows of celibacy after his sexual escapades, I asked you how one becomes celibate AGAIN. You looked at me blankly and replied, “That’s a good question”. I’m surprised that you do not have answers to something you so boldly and willingly defend.

“Walters voluntarily returned to America from India in 1962. He was never deported.”
Perhaps you should read Walter’s book “A Place Called Ananda” where he says in his own words, “The police arrived one day with a notice to the effect that if we didn’t leave India within ten days, we would be deported.” He then goes on to say, “For ten years, I was denied a visa to return to India.”
“Walters was not dismissed (from SRF) in 1962 because of immoral behavior.”
On September 6, 1995, Walters was asked by the plaintiff’s attorney if he was removed from SRF because of a sexual relationship. His attorney would not let him answer as the question concerned “personal relationships” and “sexual privacy”. If I understand monastic vows correctly, a celibate monk should not be having personal sexual relationships. To do so would in fact be IMMORAL.

On September 22, Walters admitted to the court that he did not fulfill his celibacy vows prior to 1981 when he was released from those vows. According to a court memorandum dated June 17, 1997, “Walters admits that on at least eight occasions, when he asked ( ) to massage him, she masturbated him to ejaculation. Walters admits under oath being naked and having ( ), who was in spiritual training at Ananda, massage him with oil. Her routine included sexually servicing Walters. Walters admits to having sexual intercourse with ( ) as a method of trying to cure himself from his relationship with ( ). Walters admits under oath that in 1969, while he was a swami, he had sexual intercourse with ( ) who had come to him for spiritual training. Walters admits under oath that in 1981 he had sexual intercourse with ( ) while she was married. Walters admits under oath that in 1981 or 1982 he had sex with ( ) and ( ) at the same time.”

“We hope our neighbors will judge by their personal experience and not by rumors and distortion”.

That is my hope too, Mr. Helin. Which is why I told both sides of the story and not just yours.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.