法庭文件
原告起诉状（Plaintiffs' Original Petition），Children of ISKCON et al. v. ISKCON et al.，得克萨斯州达拉斯县第192司法区地区法院（District Court of Dallas County, Texas），案号 01-09282
Windle Turley 律师事务所（Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C.），原告代理律师
原告起诉状（Plaintiffs' Original Petition），Children of ISKCON et al. v. ISKCON et al.，得克萨斯州达拉斯县第192司法区地区法院（District Court of Dallas County, Texas），案号 01-09282
正在加载文件…
方向键翻页，+ 和 − 缩放，0 复原。
详细信息
附件
1每个文件均以其 SHA-256 哈希值存储。要核验下载的文件，请对其运行 sha256sum 并进行比对。
SHA-256
1aa4ec963da275635235180cba9a1f8557a1210f1942d1f2015544a700cf9f91
提取的文本
为便于搜索而从文件中自动提取的文本。文件本身才是记录；引用前请核对原文件。
显示提取的文本
}10200103.wpd
PLAINTIFFS:
CHILDREN OF ISKCON:
0? COP LOR COP COR LO LOR LOA COD LOD LOD CO? 607 WOR COD 002 LOD LOD LOD LOD LO? C07 WO? LOD 007 LO? COD 60? LOD 607 LOD CO? COD 607 LOD COD COD CO CO? CO? LOD
NO. 0 | Y oy Va
at
ae re
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
E
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
”, Pit 5
$0? COR LOR COR HOD COD LOD OD LOD 609 LO? KOR LO? HOR 107 COD COR LO? KOR LO? LOR LO? OR LOD LOD LOD COD CO? LOD OD LO? LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD COD CO? COD (CO UO OD LOD
1j10200103.wpd
207 OP LP LR LLY LOD COD LOD WO? COP COD LOI 007 COD COD LO? COD LO? LOR COD 607 LOD LOD LO? 60? LOD LO? LOD LOD LOD LOD COD EO LOD COD tO tO tO On COD wD
Plaintiffs,
V.
DEFENDANTS:
ISKCON, a d/b/a of
THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS,
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR
KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS,
TEXAS KRISHNAS, INC.,
ISKCON FOUNDATION, INC.,
ISKCON OF WEST VIRGINIA,
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR
KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS OF
WASHINGTON,
DAMODAR TITLE HOLDING
CORPORATION OF DALLAS, INC.,
ISKCON, INC.,
ISKCON KRISHNAFEST USA, INC.,
ISKCON OF LAKE HUNTINGTON
PROPERTY CORPORATION,
ISKCON OF PORT ROYAL, INC.,
ISKCON TELEVISION, INC.,
ISKCON OF LOS ANGELES,
ISKCON OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
ISKCON OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA,
ISKCON OF SAN DIEGO;
NEW VRINDABAN COMMUNITY,
INC.,
1310200103 .wpd -iii-
NRS, INC.,
(OP OP LP COP LD WO? COD UO? LOD LOR CO? COD LO7 OR LO? KOR LO? 60D 602 LOD 60? LOD HOD LO? OR LOD KD LOD LOD WDD LO? KD COD UO COD WD
JAGA, INC.,
BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
GREGORY GOTTFRIED,
ROBERT GRANT,
THOMAS HERZIG,
GOPAL KHANNA,
HOWARD RESNICK, and
GLEN TETON, as Executors of The
Estate of A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA
SWAMI PRABHUPADA;
FARAMARZ ATTAR,
CHARLES BACIS,
WILLIAM BERKE,
ROBERT CORENS,
WILLIAM DEADWYLER, III.,
WILLIAM EHRLICHMAN,
JOHN FAVORS,
STEVEN GOREYNO a/k/a STEVEN
GUARINO,
MICHAEL GRANT,
KEITH HAM,
THEODORE RICHARD HARRIS,
THOMAS HERZIG, Individually,
JEFFREY HICKEY,
HANS KARY,
GOPAL KHANNA, Individually,
WILLIAM OGLE,
HOWARD RESNICK, Individually,
BRUCE SCHARF,
BRUCE JACOBS,
JOHN PATANE, and
DEFENDANT DOES 1-30,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
110200103.wpd -iv-
LAW OFFICES OF WINDLE TURLEY, P.C.
Windle Turley
State Bar No. 20304000
Thomas B. Cowart
State Bar No. 00787295
6440 North Central Expressway
1000 Turley Law Center
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone No. 214/691-4025
Telecopier No. 214/361-5802
-V-
410200103.
wpd
INDEX
LEVEL ULCASE., sc + wanes simy vans easy £8 gene Ru ¥ PORE D4 Bie £2 Bw ee Be es ee ji
Ul PARTIES, w x aso ca aw 0 5 ae os Qe £2800) oe edt oo tues e wedi want oe mowm a nmin eB aves dim 1
PLAINTIFFS 2.0.0... cece
eee eee eee e eee eeeeaes 1
DEFENDANTS. «és nes ave e i nese cane canes ce spun ee wien oe ain ewan aa 6
DEFENDANT MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF COMMISSIONERS (GBC) RESIDING IN THE U.S.A. .............. 10
Il JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...............-.- eee
e eee 13
IV ORGANIZATION OF DEFENDANTS ......... 0.0... 15
A. — ISKCON’S GOVERNING BOARD ..........
0... e cece eee eee 16
B. MOVEMENT, a cons « snpe as swnw «acre 9 gee § gee 8g Beee BRS Eg OLE 8 ewe Ee 16
Cc. GURUKULA BOARDING SCHOOLS ................00002
2005 16
D. INDIA BOARDING SCHOOL .... 0... . ccc eee eee eee 18
WRONGFUL AND ILLEGAL ACTS OF ABUSE OF MINORS .......... 18
A YEARS OF PRIMARY ABUSE .......0.. 0.0000. 18
B. ABUSE INFLICTED. «08 vswee ese ss wee sew exe esge nes we saas 19
VI. WRONGFUL AND ACTIONABLE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS . 25
A NEGLIGENCE sacs caw came os sor powers mee pe He Mee ener es eG ee 25
B. ISKCON’S BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ................08. 27
(i) | CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ...........
000. e cece 28
(ii) BREACH OF CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY ..... 29
Cc. DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR STATUTORY DUTY ........ 29
4}10200103.wpd -Vi-
D. GROSS NEGLIGENCE ...... cece
eee eee ees 30
E. DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT ASSUMPTION OF
RISK OF INTENTIONAL OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT............ 30
F. DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
INVOLVING RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM ...........0.0
000s ee 31
VII BATTERY sus ieee c a0 3 960 £5 698 8B oe ww iw e winnie e um 4 ainuns aoe momen & ian Soawel d « 32
VI ASSAUIGT. ose «a ceveis wsisd o pmomalawinusidl «hd wu wade Qinan Ea wana 6 duane a6 aun gam EB APES 32
IX FALSE IMPRISONMENT ooo cones smecs aes snese eer vane Pewee aa ncams 33
BREACH OF DUTY TO ACT IMPOSED
BY PRIOR DANGEROUS CONDUCT .........
0. ese e eee eee ees 33
XII CONSPIRACY AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT ................ 34
AIH DEFENDANTS’ CONCERT OF ACTION ..........
0c e cece eee e eens 37
XIV DEFENDANTS’ INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ............. lows sewed
mw va 38
DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTE A SINGLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ..... 38
DAMAGES OF PLAINTIFFS ....... 0.0.0.0 cece eee eeeeee 39
XVII REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER
SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ABUSE OF MINOR CHILDREN ..........:.. 41
XVIII REQUEST FOR ORDER PROHIBITING
DESTRUCTION OR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE .............----5. 41
XIX STATEMENTS TO THE COURT ....... 0... cece eee c cece eee ene 41
JURY DEMAND): 3 002255024 ae pamws sew eH ES OEE ORES BBE OR Rea we 43
CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST ..... 43
410200103.
wpd -vii-
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
COME NOW Plaintiffs Children of ISKCON, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) and file this
Amended Complaint complaining of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness
(“ISKCON”), et al., and state the following:
I.
LEVEL Ji CASE
1. Plaintiffs request that this case be categorized as a Level III case pursuant to
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.
PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS:
All the Plaintiffs named herein were minors at the time of the sexual, emotional,
mental and physical abuse and exploitation alleged herein.
1. PlaintiffPo resides in Oregon.
2. PlaintiffPF resides in Oregon.
3. Plaintiff
| resides in Florida.
4, Plaintiff [RE resides in California.
5. Plaintiff EE «sides in North Dakota.
6. Plaintiff EE «<sices in Florida.
Ts PlaintiffHE «<siccs in Texas.
8. Plaintiff «sides in Texas.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION ‘ Page !
4110200103.
wpd
9. PlaintiffHE «<sices in West Virginia.
10. Plaintift RE sides in Mississippi.
ll. Plaintiff
| resides in Virginia.
12. Plaintiff [resides in Oregon.
13. Plaintiff ee 28: in Oregon.
14. Plaintiff
| cesides in Florida.
15. Plaintiff EE resides in British Columbia, Canada.
16. ~——~PlaintiffHE «es ices in British Columbia, Canada.
17. Plaintiff [IEcesides in London, England,
18. Plaintiff TT cesides in Florida.
19. Plaintiff «sides in Colorado.
20. Plaintiff |resides in West Virginia.
21. Plaintiff «<sidcs in California.
22. Plaintiff
| resides in Hawaii.
23. PlaintiffHE «sides in California.
24. ~~ PlaintiffHE «<sices in England.
25. ‘PlaintiffBE «<sices in California.
26. Plaintiff EE sesides in Florida.
27. Plaintiff J resides in Pennsylvania.
28. Plaintiff [MY resides in Washington.
29. ~~ Plaintiff HE «<sices in Texas.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2
1}10200103.wpd
30. Plaintiff|resides in California.
31. Plaintiff
J resides in Florida.
32. PlaintiffHE «sides in Texas.
33. Plaintiff [I resides in Texas.
34. PlaintiffHE «sides in California.
35. Plaintiff J cesides in California.
36. Plaintiff |cesides in Florida.
37. Plaintiff
| resides in West Virginia.
38. Plaintiff I resides in Florida.
39. Plaintiff |resides in Ohio.
40. Plaintiff
| resides in West Virginia.
41. Plaintiff resides in Florida.
42. Plaintiff IM resides in California.
43. PlaintiffBE «:sices in New York.
44. Plaintiff [MD resides in Hawaii.
45. Plaintiff
| resides in New York.
46. Plaintiff «:s'¢s in Colorado.
47. PlaintiffHE «sides in Washington.
48. Plaintiff
I resides in California.
49. Plaintiff | resides in California.
50. Plaintiff |resides in British Cotumbia, Canada.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3
1j10200103.wpd
51. PlaintiffBE «<sices in Ohio.
52. Plaintiff
I resides in British Columbia, Canada.
53. Plaintiff
I resides in Pennsylvania.
54. PlaintiffBE «:sices in Pennsylvania.
55. Plaintiff
| cesides in Texas.
56. ‘Plaintiff’ HE ce siccs in Oregon.
57. Plaintiff
| resides in Florida.
58. Plaintiff
J resides in California.
59. PlaintiffHE «<siccs in West Virginia.
60. Plaintiff
| resides in England.
61. Plaintiff I resides in Quebec, Canada.
62. ‘PlaintiffBE «<siccs in Colorado.
63. Plaintiff |cesides in New York.
64. Plaintiff J “esides in Maryland.
65. Plaintiff MM resides in California.
66. Plaintiff EE resides in California.
67. Plaintiff [i ives in Japan.
68. ‘Plaintiff a «sices in Texas.
69. Plaintiff JE sesides in California.
70. Plaintiff TT sides in North Carolina.
71. Plaintiff |resides in New York.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4
110200103.
wpd
72. Plaintiff Icesides in Winois.
73. Plaintiff |resides in Maryland.
74. ~~ PlaintiffBE «sides in Massachusetts.
75. ‘PlaintiffBE «:sices in New York.
76. PlaintiffBE «esices in New York.
77. Plaintiff [I resides in Florida.
78. Plaintiff [Icesides in California.
79. Plaintiff
| resides in Canada.
80. PlaintiffBE «sides in Kentucky.
81. Plaintiff | resides in New York.
82. Plaintiff [resides in California.
83. PlaintiffHE «sides in Wisconsin.
84. Plaintiff J esides in New Jersey.
85. PlaintiffBE :<sices in Pennsylvania.
86. Plaintiff [Icesides in Texas.
87. Plaintiff
| resides in California.
88. Plaintiff
| resides in Michigan.
89. Plaintiff | resides in Michigan.
90. Plaintiff
| resides in California.
91. Plaintiff HE «sides in Japan.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5
4j10200103.wpd
DEFENDANTS:
1. Defendant International Society For Krishna Consciousness, or “ISKCON,”
is a nonprofit unincorporated association with its principal places of business located in
various places throughout the United States, including Texas, West Virginia, California and
Florida. Service of process may be made upon Defendant ISKCON by serving Ravindra
Svarupa Das a/k/a William Deadwyler, III, the Vice Chairman of the Governing Body of
Commissioners. He resides at] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19119.
2. Defendant DAMODAR TITLE HOLDING CORPORATION OF DALLAS,
INC., is a Texas corporation headquartered in Texas. Its principal place of business address
is 5430 Gurley Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75223. It may be served by serving its registered
agent for service of process, Tom Kerr.
3. Defendant INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
is a Washington corporation headquartered in Washington. Its principal place of business
address is 3114 E. Pine St., Seattle, Washington. It may be served by serving its registered
agent for service of process, Bruce Melzack.
4, Defendant ISKCON FOUNDATION, INC. is a Florida corporation
headquartered in Florida. Its principal place of business address is P.O. Box 1119,
Alachua, Florida 32615. It may be served by serving its registered agent for service of
process, Naveen Khurana, ee 4 chee, Florida 32615.
5. Defendant INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
OF WASHINGTON is a Washington corporation headquartered in Washington. Its
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6
410200103.
wpd
principal place of business address is 1420 228" Ave. SE, Issaquah, Washington, 98027.
It may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process, Harry Terhanian.
6. Defendant ISKCON, INC. is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in
Pennsylvania. Its principal place of business address is RD #2, Box 1075, Port Royal,
Pennsylvania 17082.
ve Defendant ISKCON KRISHNAFEST USA, INC. is a Texas corporation
headquartered in Texas. Its principal place of business address is 5430 Gurley Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75223. It may be served by serving its registered agent for service of
process, George Levington.
8. Defendant ISKCON OF LAKE HUNTINGTON PROPERTY CORPORATION
is a New York corporation headquartered in New York. Its principal place of business
address is P.O. Box 338, New York, New York 12752.
9. ISKCON OF PORT ROYAL, INC. is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Pennsylvania. Its principal place of business is RD #1, Port Royal,
Pennsylvania 17082.
10. Defendant ISKCON OF WEST VIRGINIA is a West Virginia corporation
headquartered in West Virginia. Its principal place of business address is RD 1 NBU 24,
Moundsville,West Virginia 26041. It may be served by serving its registered agent for
service of process, David Waterman.
11. Defendant TEXAS KRISHNAS, INC. is a Texas corporation headquartered
in Texas. Its principal place of business address is 5430 Gurley Avenue, Dallas, Texas
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 7
10200103.
wpd
75223. It may be served with process by
serving its registered agent for service of
process,
Joe Dinoffer.
12, Defendant ISKCON TELEVISION, INC.
is a California corporation
headquartered in Topanga, California. Its principal place of business address is 8133
Bristol Parkway, #100, Culver City, California
90230. It may be served with process by
serving its registered agent for service of proce
ss, Jeanne Carr, 8133 Bristol Parkway, #100,
Culver City, California 90230.
13. Defendant ISKCON OF LOS ANGELES is a
California corporation
headquartered in California. It may be served with proces
s by serving its registered agent
for service of process, Robert P. Owen, 3764 Watseka Avenu
e, Los Angeles, California
90034.
14. Defendant ISKCON OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is a Califor
nia corporation
headquartered in California. It may be served with proces
s by serving its registered agent
for service of process, Robert P. Owen, 3764 Watseka Avenu
e, Los Angeles, California
90034.
15. Defendant ISXCON OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
is a California
corporation headquartered in California. It may be served with process by serving its
registered agent for service of process, Dennis Brown, 3765 Watseka Avenue, Suite E, Los
Angeles, California 90034.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
Page 8
1}10200103.wpd
16. Defendant ISKCON OF SAN DIEGO is a California corporation
headquartered in California. It may be
served with process by Serving its registered agent
for service of process, Kelly Connor, 1030
Grand Avenue, San Diego, CA 92109.
17. Defendant NEW VRINDABAN COM
MUNITY, INC., is a West Virginia
corporation headquartered in West Virgi
nia. It may be served with process by servi
ng its
registered agent for service of process, David
Waterman, Rd. 1, Box 3 19, Moundsville,
West Virginia 26041.
18. Defendant NRS, INC., is a West Virginia corpo
ration headquartered in
West Virginia. It may be served with process by servin
g its regist ered agent for service of
process, Joseph Moffett, Rd. 1, Box 319, Moundsville,
West Virginia 26041.
19. Defendant JAGA, INC., is a West Virginia corporation headqu
artered in
West Virginia. It may be served with process by serving its
registered agent for service of
process, Ralph Seward, EEE Moundsville,West Virginia 26041.
20. Defendant BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST INTERNATIO
NAL,
INC., is a foreign corporation doing business in the United States. It may
be served with
process by serving its registered agent for service of process, David
Liberman, 1888
Century Park East, Suite 1750, Los Angeles, California 90067.
21. Defendant IKSCON - Property Holding Corporation is a corporation
headquartered in Pennsylvania. It may be served with process at RD #1, Port
Royal, PA
17082.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
Page 9
1}10200103.wpd
22. Defendant GREGORY GOTTFRIED is an Executor of the Estate of A.C.
BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA; he resides in Bangkok, Thailand.
23. Defendant ROBERT GRANT is an Executor of the Estate of A.C.
BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA,; he resides in New York.
24. Defendant THOMAS HERTZIG is an Executor of the Estate of A.C.
BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA,; as set forth below, he resides in Dallas,
Texas.
25; Defendant GHOPAL KHANNA is an Executor of the Estate of A.C.
BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA;as set forth below, he resides in Montreal,
Quebec.
26. Defendant HOWARD RESNICK is an Executor of the Estate of A.C.
BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA,; as set forth below, he resides in Beverly
Hills, California.
27, Defendant GLEN TETON is an Executor of the Estate of A.C.
BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA,; his address and whereabouts are unknown.
DEFENDANT MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING
BODY OF COMMISSIONERS (GBC) RESIDING IN THE U.S.A
1. Defendant FARAMARZ ATTAR (Krishna name, “Atreya Rsi das”) resides
at EEBeckley, W. Virginia 25801. Mr. Attar was a member of
ISKCON’S governing body commission (the “GBC”) from 1975 to 1987.
2. Defendant CHARLES BACIS (Krishna name, “Bhavananda das”) was a
member of the GBC from 1978 to 1987.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION : Page 10
3}10200103.wpd
3, Defendant WILLIAM BERKE (Krishna.name, “Bali Mardan das”) is a
resident of New York, New York. Mr. Berke was a member of the GBC from 1977 to
1978.
4. Defendant ROBERT CORENS, (Krishna name, “Rapanuga Swami”) resides
in Alachua, Florida. Mr. Corens was a member of the GBC from 1978 to 1986.
5. Defendant WILLIAM DEADWYLER, III (Krishna name, “Ravindra Svarupa
Das”) is First Vice Chairman of the Governing Body of Commissioners. He resides at
HR Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19119.
6. Defendant WILLIAM EHRLICHMAN (Krishna name, “Bhagavan Swami”)
is aresident of Berkeley, California. Mr. Ehrlichman was a member of the GBC from
1975 to 1987.
Ds Defendant JOHN FAVORS (Krishna name, “Bhakti Tirtha Swami”) resides
| at EE Washington D.C. 20002. Mr. Favors was a member of the GBC _
from 1982 to 1999.
8. Defendant STEVEN GOREYNO a/k/a STEVEN GUARINO (Krishna name,
“Satsvarupa das”) is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Goreyno alk/a Guarino was
a member of the GBC from 1975 to 1987.
9. Defendant MICHAEL GRANT (Krishna name, “Mukunda Goswami”)
resides at MME?
otomac, Maryland 20854. Mr. Grant was a member of the
GBC from 1984 to 1999.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 11
110200103.
wpd
10. Defendant KEITH HAM (Krishna name, “Kirtanananda”) resides in the Low
Security Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina. Mr. Ham was a member of the
GBC from 1975- 1986.
11. Defendant THEODORE RICHARD HARRIS (Krishnaname, “Panca Dravida
Swami”) resides in California. Mr. Harris was a member of the GBC from 1977 to 1986.
12. Defendant THOMAS HERTZIG (Krishna name, “Tamal Krishna Goswami”)
resides at MMMM
Dallas,Texas 75223. Mr. Hertzog was a member of the GBC
from 1975 to 1999,
13. Defendant JEFFREY HICKEY (Krishna name, “Jagadish das”) resides in
Florida. Mr. Hickey was a member of the GBC from 1975 to 1994.
14. Defendant GOPAL KHANNA (Krishna name, “Gopal Krishna Goswami”)
resides at T Montreal, Quebec, H1V2C5. Mr. Khanna was a member of
the GBC from 1975 to 1999.
15. Defendant HANS KARY (Krishna name, “Hansadutta Swami”) is a resident
of Cloverdale, California. Mr. Kary was a member of the GBC from 1975 to 1984.
16. Defendant WILLIAM OGLE (Krishna name, “Balavanta das”) is a resident
of New York, New York. Mr. Ogle was a member of the GBC from 1976 to 1999.
17. Defendant HOWARD RESNICK (Krishna name, “Hrdayananda das
Goswami”) resides at Beverly Hills, California 90211. Mr. Resnick was
a member of the GBC from 1975 to 1999.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 12
1}10200103.wpd
18. Defendant BRUCE SCHARF (Krishna name, “Brahmananda”) is a resident
of Miami, Florida. Mr. Scharf was a member of the GBC from 1975 to 1987.
19. Defendant Bruce Jacobs (Krishna name, “Bir Hrihna Goswami”) resides at
BE {il'sborough, NC 27278. Mr. Jacobs is a current officer on
special duty for the GBC.
20. Defendant John Patane (Krishna name, “Pramai Swami”) resides at
HB Graceville, Q.L.D., Australia. Mr. Patane is the current GBC chairman.
21. Defendants Does 1 - 30. Plaintiffs are not aware of the true names and
capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of defendants Does 1 - 30,
inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek
leave of this court to amend this complaint to include the true names and capacities of the
defendants sued herein as Does 1 - 30, inclusive, when the same have been ascertained.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereby allege, that each of the defendants
designated herein as a “Defendant Doe” acted in concert with each and every other
defendant, intended to, and did, participate in and cause the events, acts, practices and
courses of conduct alleged herein, or, alternatively, acted as the principal or agent of the
other defendants or in the course and scope of said employment or agency, and proximately
caused damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
Il.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
L. Venue is proper in that:
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 13
1j10200103.wpd
(a) a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims asserted
herein occurred in Dallas County, Texas,
(b) one or more Defendants are residents of or have their principal office
or principal place of business in Dallas County, Texas, and
(c) one or more of the Defendants are not natural persons but do not have
an office in the State of Texas and Dallas County is the county in
which at least one of the Plaintiffs resided at the time the cause of
action accrued.
2. The amount in controversy herein exceeds the minimum jurisdictional
requirements of this Court exclusive of interest and costs.
3. All Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because:
(a) Many of the Defendants named herein are Texas residents;
(b) Each Defendant, in concert with the other named Defendants, has had
continuous, systematic contacts with and in the State of Texas,
consisting of the distribution and sale of goods and services in Texas,
the recruitment of members in the State of Texas, the recruitment of
children to be sent to the different boarding schools and the formation
of contacts by which those children are sent to those schools, the
systematic solicitations of donations throughout the State of Texas,
and the purchase, maintenance, improvement, and sale of real
property in the State of Texas;
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 14
1jt0200103.wpd
(c) Although each Defendant is purportedly a separate entity, in fact, all
Defendants are merely components of a single business enterprise
which does business in all fifty states, including Texas, in the form of
the distribution and sale of goods and services in Texas, the
recruitment of members in the State of Texas, the recruitment of
children to be sent to the different boarding schools and the formation
of contacts by which those children are sent to those schools, and the
systematic solicitations of donations throughout the State of Texas,
and the purchase, maintenance, improvement, and sale of real
property in the State of Texas;
(d) Each Defendant is a member of a civil conspiracy to violate the rights
and to inflict damage on the various Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, and
has through its relationship with the other Defendants, purposefully
availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Texas.
IV.
ORGANIZATION OF DEFENDANTS
Defendant International Society of Krisha Consciousness, a/k/a ISKCON, and
sometimes known as “Hare Krishna” or “the Hare Krishnas,” is a nonprofit unincorporated
association founded in the United States by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (a/k/a
“Prabhupada”) in July, 1966.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 15
1}10200103.wpa
A. ISKCON’S GOVERNING BOARD
1. The Governing Body Commission of ISKCON (herein, “GBC”) is the
ultimate administrative and governing body ofsie capwenienh It was established in 1970,
at the direction of Prabhupada, the movement’s founder. The GBC initially consisted of
eleven high-ranking leaders in the movement. Although the primary activity of the GBC
is in the United States, it governs ISKCON worldwide.
B. MOVEMENT
2. ISKCON encouraged many of its followers to forego all of their material
possessions and devote their lives to the furtherance of “Krishna Consciousness.” This
often included the solicitation of donations from travelers at airports, public display of
“chanting” and street performances, and selling various of Prabhupada’s and ISKCON’s
books. Because of the total devotion demanded of its followers by ISKCON, adult
“devotees” of ISKCON were encouraged, and, in order to advance within the faith,
required to relinquish their primary parental duties and place their children in ISKCON-
founded and sponsored schools, primarily boarding schools, known as “gurukulas,” the
outward or stated purpose being to indoctrinate the children of ISKCON devotees into the
disciplines of Krishna Consciousness. |
Cc. GURUKULA BOARDING SCHOOLS
3. The first gurukula boarding school established by ISKCON was located in
Dallas, Texas, and commenced operation in 1972. By 1978, there were a total of eleven
gurukula schools in North America, including gurukulas in Los Angeles, California; Seattle,
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 16
410200103. wpd
Washington; and New Vrindaban, West Virginia. The gurukula boarding school system
in ISKCON was and is administered by the GBC.
4. Far from the promised transcendental spiritual and secular education purported
to be disseminated at the gurukulas, in fact ISKCON’s gurukulas quickly became havens
for widespread physical, emotional, mental and sexual child abuse.
5. The Defendants, at least in part, established and operated the school in order
to permit the parents to be freed to solicit and raise money for the benefit of the gurus,
temple leaders, and ISKCON corporations.
ISKCON and its leaders also enriched themselves by granting special favors to large
fund raisers and donors, even if some large donors were drug dealers and other criminal
elements. The special favors include, among others:
(a) Granting teaching positions to sexual predators so they would have access to
children for their sexual gratification;
(b) Giving young girls from the gurukulas as brides to older donor men;
(c) Creating “asylum” and a ring of protection against apprehension of fugitives,
including those dealing illegally in arms, drugs and murder, within the
ISKCON enterprise;
(d) Destroying evidence and failing to report criminal conduct on the part of
ISKCON and devotees.
6. Although sexual, physical and emotional abuse has occurred in almost every
ISKCON school, the worst and most widespread abuse was inflicted at gurukulas in Dallas,
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 17
4110200103.wpd
Texas; New Vrindaban, West Virginia; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Port
Royal, Pennsylvania and Lake Huntington, New York. Additionally, profound, severe and
extensive abuse of minor boys from the United States and Canada took place at the
ISKCON Vrindaban and Mayapur boarding schools in India.
D. INDIA BOARDING SCHOOL
7. Inaconscious effort to avoid policing and scrutiny
by U.S.A. child protection
agencies, ISKCON tooka large portion of its boarding school activities overseas to India.
In India, ISKCON managed at least two profoundly abusive boarding schools for boys.
These were the Vrndavan and Mayapur schools. Both were staffed and controlled by
appointees of ISKCON who were, for the most part, assigned from the United States. The
students sent there were almost exclusively from the United States, and the management
policies, devised and implemented by the GBC, originated in the U.S.A. The Indian
schools were among the worst offenders and abusers of minor boys, and many of the Indian
school teachers and leaders were also teachers, leaders and abusers in United States
schools.
V.
WRONGFUL AND ILLEGAL ACTS OF ABUSE OF MINORS
A. YEARS OF PRIMARY ABUSE
1. The sexual, physical and emotional abuse of the minor children occurred
primarily between the years 1972 and 1990, although abuse continued after 1990 and, it is
believed, continues to the present. The sexual, physical and emotional abuse of minor
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 18
{j10200103.wpd
children was inflicted on children from as young as 3 years of age to 18 years of age, and
included both boys and girls.
2 The abuse to which the ISKCON children were subjected was inflicted on
some children for several years. It included a pattern and practice of sexual abuse of both
boys and girls, physical abuse, and emotional abuse. In many instances, the abuse could
be accurately described as torture of children. Not all of the following described acts of
child abuse were carried out on every child, but every plaintiff in this case was subject to
multiple forms of child abuse over extended periods of time, some for years. Some
examples of the types of abuse and neglect to which the children, ranging in age from 3
years to 18 years, were subjected include but are not limited to:
B. ABUSE INFLICTED
3 Sexual abuse including rape, oral sex, intercourse with children,
sexual fondling of children, and masturbation with children.
Physical beatings of children with boards, branches, clubs, and
poles.
Physical beatings by adult teachers and school leaders with fists to
the head and stomach.
Kicking the children into submission.
Children were in some instances made to walk great
distances in bitter cold, including snow and rain, without
jackets, coats, or shoes.
Children were often forced to sleep on cold floors and in
unheated rooms.
Children were frequently deprived entirely of medical care
or provided such inadequate medical care as to suffer long-
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 19
410200103.
wpd
term and, in some instances, permanent injury. The medical
conditions for which children were not treated included
malaria, hepatitis, yellow fever, teeth being knocked out,
broken facial bones, and broken bones in their hands, often
inflicted as they attempted to shield themselves from
beatings.
10. Children were sometimes kept in filthy conditions. In at
least one instance, a local group utilized what had recently
been a cattle or horse barn for a nursery.
11. In almost every school the children were kept in severely
overcrowded conditions, often forced to sleep shoulder to
shoulder on the floor or in small rooms in three-high bunks
with 10 or 12 children to each tiny room.
12. The children were physically abused by being awakened
every day in the early morning hours (generally at 4:00
a.m.) and subjected to a cold shower, after which they were
taken, without any breakfast, to a daily religious service. At
some schools, the children were forced to walk great
distances in the dark to attend the service, and often in cold
or rainy conditions, clothed only in their thin gown-like
"dohti."
13. The children were not provided bathroom tissue, but instead
were expected to wipe themselves with their fingers, after
which they would dip their fingers into a bowl of water.
14. As punishment for not cleaning themselves thoroughly,
children were scrubbed with steel wool until their skin was
raw and sometimes bleeding.
15. Children were abused when they were forced to sleep on
their wet blankets or in tubs as punishment if they wet their
bedding.
16. Some children were forced to wear their soiled underclothes
on their heads for long periods of time because they had wet
themselves.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 20
4j10200103.wpd
17. Children were often forced to go without food entirely,
either because there was none, or as punishment. When
food was provided, it was always inadequate for a growing
child’s diet.
18. The inadequate food that was provided.was often prepared
in unsanitary conditions, was of very poor quality and so
unpleasant that even hungry children frequently could not
eat it. In at least one school, the children learned as a
matter of routine to remove insects from their food before
eating it.
U9: Each child was expected to eat what they were provided. If
they did not do so, their served portion was kept on their
plates until the next meal when it was served again. This
process often continued until the cold food -- even moldy
and insect-infested -- was swallowed.
20. In some schools, children were forced to lick up their vomit
from any foul food they may have thrown up.
21. At New Vrindavan, three young boys, about six or seven
years of age, who worked in the kitchen, took some food to
their hungry friends. They were caught and punished by
being gagged, having bags placed over their heads, and
being put in a small room for several days with only a
bucket for their waste and no food or water. One of the
same boys was later slammed by a teacher into a marble
wall, resulting in a loss of some teeth and fractured facial
bones.
22. Children were controlled by various threats to hurt or kill
them and by punishments. Young children, strictly limited
to a vegetarian diet, were continually terrorized when told
that non-Krishnas were meat-eaters, that they ate each
other, and that the children, if given to or taken by the meat-
eaters, would themselves be eaten.
23, Children often saw rats in their rooms and schools. Some
children (such as those at the school in Dallas) were told the
rats lived in a particular old closet, and the child would be,
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 21
4}10200103.wpd
and often was, placed in the closet if they didn’t do as told.
24. One form of punishment included forcing little children to
stand on a crate for long periods of time in a darkened
closet "so the rats would not eat them."
25: Very young children were in fact placed in those dark and
locked closets and left afraid and crying for hours at a time.
They were locked overnight in dark cellars with dirt floors.
One young child was made to sleep alone in the loft of a
cold barn for many nights.
26. Sometimes the children were sent by their superiors to
massage and bathe the religious gurus and then drink their
now “blessed bath water.”
‘27. In some cases, children were placed into trash barrels as
punishment for relatively trivial “sins.”
28. Children were almost universally told that if they disclosed
their condition or complained to their parents or others, they
would be severely punished. When complaints were made,
the children were publicly and often severely beaten or
subjected to other forms of punishment.
29. Girls, as young as 12 or 13 years, were frequently “given”
or “promised” to an older male in the movement. Although
their marriages were generally not sexually consummated
until the child was at least 16 or 17 years old, the little girls
were terrorized by the threats, and often reality, of being
given away by their leaders to become engaged to marry
“strange old men.”
30. Children were often forced to lie awake in their beds or
sleeping bags and listen as their little friends were sexually
molested by teachers and other leaders.
31. The children were emotionally abused by subjecting them
to near-total parental and societal isolation. In an effort to
totally control their minds, the children were, in most cases,
separated and isolated from their parents and were not
allowed to have regular contact with their parents. Personal
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 22
110200103.
wpd
visits, correspondence, and telephone calls were either
forbidden or discouraged. Gifts, particularly of food, were
intercepted. For example, one young boy felt abandoned by
his parents, and had no contact with his family for more
than a year. He later learned the one small package of
cookies sent by his mother was intercepted and kept from
him.
32. Children were frequently moved to different schools in
different states without the consent (or, sometimes,
knowledge) of parents. Some children were hidden from
parents. Some boys were shipped out of the country to
ISKCON schools in India. In at least some cases, after the
parents discovered their child’s whereabouts and made
arrangements for them to come home, their plane tickets
were intercepted, and torn up in front of the children. Then,
these children were punished for their parents’ attempt to
bring them home.
33. Even though the children were given by their parents to
ISKCON to educate, except for the reading of their “vedic
scriptures,” the children received little or no education.
34. Because of near-total isolation from the outside world and
lack of education, the children who remained within the
ISKCON schools for extended periods of time were totally
unequipped to enter outside society. They have
experienced extreme difficulty in earning a living, entering
and maintaining relationships, including marriage, and in
adapting to the laws and regulations of society. Many are
in need of extended psychological and/or vocational
training, rehabilitation, and medical care.
35. Plaintiffs, like almost all of the children who remained
within ISKCON schools for any period of time, were forced
to work many hours a day, at ages below the applicable
minimum age requirements of the state child labor laws in
which the schools were located. Compounding this illegal
work program put in place by the Defendants in the
gurukulas is the fact that none of the Plaintiffs was ever
paid for their many hours of labor. Thus, not only were
Plaintiffs forced to work by Defendants in violation of
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 23
1510200103.wpd
applicable child labor laws, but were forced to do so
without any compensation whatsoever, robbing them of the
value of their work.
36. The widespread use of child labor was a necessary part of the Defendants’
scheme. Because Defendants fail to provide adequate staffing to prepare meals, cook, wash
dishes and clothes, and clean the facilities and, in some instances, operate the farms,
Defendants utilized the children to performa large portion of these services. This practice
freed the children’s parents to continue to raise money for ISKCON and to provide other
services to the ISKCON enterprise.
37. The founder of the institution, Prabhupada, was informed in 1972, at a time
when he totally controlled the institution, that extensive physical and sexual abuse of minor
ISKCON children was occurring, but he concealed the wrongdoing from the public, parents
and all but a handful of close advisors.
38. Despite having been alerted to the physical, emotional, mental and sexual
abuse of children in its gurukula boarding schools and other schools as early as the 1970s,
ISKCON and the other Defendants conspired to suppress any public disclosure, or
disclosure to gurukula children’s parents, of the pattern and practice of rampant abuse and
theft at its gurukulas. ISKCON fraudulently concealed this information for decades,
allowing the offending gurukula teachers and supervisors continued access to children for
their sexual gratification and to subject them to physical, emotional and mental abuse.
Defendants also endeavored to dissuade and discourage parents of gurukula children from
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 24
4}10200103.wpd
visiting the schools. This was done at least in part to preserve the secrecy surrounding the
abuse of and theft from the Krishna children.
39. ISKCON, by and through its GBC, knew that if it did not conceal and keep
secret the theft, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse it had learned was taking place in
many of its schools, the very viability of the movement would be jeopardized. ISKCON
would face a large loss of students and their parents from the movement and with that a
large loss of funds and fundraisers. The individual income of many members of the GBC
would have been adversely impacted. Its leaders would also have been subject to criminal
and civil sanctions. The GBC made conscious decisions to conceal the fact that injury had
been, and was continuing to be, inflicted on minor boys and girls.
VI.
WRONGFUL AND ACTIONABLE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS
’ The actionable conduct described herein, unless stated otherwise, refers to the
conduct of all the defendant associations, corporations and individuals, both acting
collectively and singularly, and is stated as ISKCON’s conduct or acts.
A. NEGLIGENCE
1. At all times material herein from 1971 through 1996, Defendant ISKCON,
through the GBC, operated and supervised the gurukulas across the United States and in
India. The teachers and supervisors at the boarding schools and gurukulas acted upon the
delegated authority of ISKCON as its agents. The gurukula teachers and supervisors came
to know the Plaintiffs and gained access to them because of their status as leaders of
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 25
1}10200103.wpd
ISKCON indoctrination. The gurukula teachers and supervisors engaged in the described
wrongful conduct while in the course and scope of their duties with ISKCON and its
’ affiliated entities. Therefore, ISKCON is liable for the wrongful conduct of its gurukula
teachers and supervisors.
2. ISKCON negligently selected and placed the offending gurukula teachers and
supervisors in positions of trust, confidence and authority and in direct, unsupervised
contact with minor children, when they either had no knowledge of the teachers and
supervisors’ backgrounds or ISKCON had actual or apparent knowledge of these
individuals’ dangerous propensities towards physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse
of the gurukula children.
3. ISKCON failed to establish written guides and procedures to safeguard the
children entrusted to it.
4. ISKCON failed to provide proper training to its teachers and supervisors.
5. ISKCON encouraged, through its pattern and practice, the herein described
acts of wrongful and illegal conduct by its agents.
6. ISKCON failed to warn Plaintiffs or their families of the offending gurukula
school teachers and supervisors’ dangerous propensities towards abuse of minor children.
Indeed, it was ISKCON’S pattern and practice to encourage this abusive behavior from the
teachers.
7. ISKCON was under a duty to disclose the extent of the problem of physical,
emotional, mental, and sexual abuse by gurukula teachers and supervisors towards the
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 26
1j10200103.wpd
gurukula children, and the severe psychological problems that would result from such abuse
if not properly treated, but failed to make such disclosures.
8. ISKCON failed to notify state and governmental authorities of known and
suspected abuse when it was the law that it do so.
9. ISKCON failed to provide reasonable supervision of its teachers and
supervisors.
10. ISKCON failed to provide adequate staffing to provide a safe environment.
11. ISKCON failed to provide adequate funding to its schools, even though it
represented to parents and others it would do so, and despite the facts, parents and others
raised larger amounts of money for the operation of ISKCON enterprises.
12. ISKCON failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter and education in
its boarding schools, even though it represented to parents and others it was doing so.
13. The older students were sometimes appointed “monitors.” The Defendants
knew and encouraged monitors to abuse and beat the children. Actual rapes and beatings
of children by the older “monitors” were ignored by the ISKCON enterprise.
14. | ISKCON’s conduct during the time and occasions of the abuse in question
resulted in both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs.
B. ISKCON’S BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
15. ISKCON, as a religious organization, is granted special privileges and
immunities in the United States by society and is in a special fiduciary relationship with the
Plaintiffs. ISKCON owed the Plaintiffs, who were entrusted to its care, the highest duty
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 27
4}10200103.wpd
of trust and confidence and was required to act in the childrens’ best interest. ISKCON’s
actions and inactions, as described herein, violated that relationship when ISKCON failed
to act with the highest degree of trust and confidence to protect the Plaintiffs from physical,
emotional, mental and sexual abuse.
16. Plaintiffs and their parents were, at the relevant times, deeply devout
followers of defendants. Plaintiffs and their parents entrusted their entire physical,
emotional, economic, and spiritual lives to the control and direction of Defendants and to
the Defendant entities of which Plaintiffs were members and/or devotees. Plaintiffs and
their parents relied upon the promises and representations of the Defendants.
17. As devoted children, unable to care for or make decisions for themselves,
and entrusted in the care of the child care facilities and schools operated by the Defendants,
Plaintiffs were owed a fiduciary duty by each of the individual entities and by all the
Defendants. By failing to take steps to prevent, detect, and minimize the harm from the
incidents of abuse suffered by Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to
Plaintiffs.
(i) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
18. As fiduciaries of Plaintiffs, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to inform
their parents/guardians of thé fact that the child care facilities and schools operated by
defendants were staffed by unqualified individuals, did not contain sufficient staffing to
prevent, detect, and to minimize the effects of incidents of abuse, that their children were
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 28
1}10200103.wpd
being used for child slave labor, and that the child care facilities and schools were below
the child safety standards that would reasonably be anticipated.
19. By reason of the failure to make these disclosures to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’
guardians, and the resulting detrimental reliance thereon, the Defendants are guilty of
constructive fraud.
(ii) BREACH OF CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY
20. Atthe time that the ISKCON Defendants accepted Plaintiffs into the schools
and child care facilities operated by them, (and, at the same time, collected payment from
Plaintiffs’ parents for school tuition and/or room and board), they did, by both their conduct
and verbal statements, expressly and impliedly agree and warrant, in exchange for valuable
consideration, to provide good quality child care, schooling, boarding services in a safe,
nurturing environment, such that Plaintiffs would, among other things, not be intentionally
or negligently harmed. Plaintiffs were intended third-party beneficiaries of this express and
implied agreement and warranty between the Defendants and their parents.
21. ISKCON and defendants breached their express and implied contract and
warranty to Plaintiffs, and as a result of those breaches, Plaintiffs were harmed.
Cc DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR STATUTORY DUTY
22. In most jurisdictions where the Defendants operated, they were under a
statutory duty to protect children entrusted to their care from physical and sexual abuse and
to report to various child welfare and child protective agencies any known or suspected
occurrences of sexual or physical abuse of children. The Defendants breached their
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 29
1j10200103.wpd
statutory duty in that: (a) they engaged in a pattern and practice of, or knowingly permitted
their agents to, physically and/or sexually abuse minor children; and (b) the Defendants
learned of suspected sexual and physical abuse of children but concealed its existence from
state authorities, and to this day continue to fail to report known instances of physical or
sexual abuse of children entrusted to its care.
D. GROSS NEGLIGENCE
23. ISKCON, at the time and on the occasions in question, acted with heedless
and reckless disregard for the safety of the Plaintiffs, which disregard was the result of
conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and safety of the Plaintiffs in violation of the
laws of the State of Texas, and other states.
E. DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT ASSUMPTION OF RISK OF INTENTIONAL
OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT
24. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 302B, under
the legal doctrine of negligent assumption of risk of intentional or criminal conduct.
An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor realizes or
should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to
another through the conduct of the other or a third person
which is intended to cause harm, even though such conduct is
criminal.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 302B.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 30
1j10200103.wpd
25. Defendant ISKCON and the other Defendants realized or should have
realized that the abusive gurukula teachers and supervisors posed an unreasonable risk of
harm to minor children, including Plaintiffs.
F. DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION INVOLVING RISK
OF PHYSICAL HARM
26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 311, under
the legal doctrine of negligent misrepresentation involving risk of physical harm.
(1) — One who negligently gives false information to another is subject to
liability for physical harm caused by action taken by the other in reasonable
reliance upon such information, where such harm results
(a) . to the other, or
(b) to such third persons as the actor should expect to be
put in peril by the action taken.
(2) Such negligence may consist of failure to exercise reasonable care
(a) in ascertaining the accuracy of the information, or
(b) in the manner in which it is communicated.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 311.
27. Defendant ISKCON and the other Defendants informed parents of the abused
children that ISKCON would provide a safe and wholesome environment for their children.
Defendants’ failure to ascertain and apprise Plaintiffs and their families of the propensity
of offending gurukula teachers and supervisors to physically, emotionally, mentally and
sexually abuse minor children, and ISKCON and the other Defendants’ representation that
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 31
1}10200103.wpd
. the offending gurukula teachers and supervisors were not dangerous to young children
placed Plaintiffs in peril, and caused them injury.
VIL.
BATTERY
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if set forth at length herein, all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 13, under the legal
doctrine of battery, which states that an actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other
or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact
with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.!
Vit.
ASSAULT
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if set forth at length herein, all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 21, under the legal
doctrine of assault, which provides that an actor is subject to liability to another for assault
if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other
or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the other is
‘Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 13.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 32
4j10200103.wpd
thereby put in such imminent apprehension.” All Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the
assaults committed upon them; some of the Defendants participated directly in assaults
upon Plaintiffs at the gurukulas, while others are liable as principals of the actors who knew’
about and condoned the assaults upon Plaintiffs, and failed to take any action to stem that
abuse.
IX.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
L. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 35, under the legal
doctrine of false imprisonment. Defendants either directly committed, knew about,
condoned, and concealed acts intended to confine Plaintiffs within boundaries fixed by the
authorities at the gurukulas, which such acts directly or indirectly resulted in the
confinement of Plaintiffs, who were conscious of the confinement and were harmed by it.
X.
BREACH OF DUTY TO ACT IMPOSED BY PRIOR DANGEROUS CONDUCT
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 321, under the legal
doctrine of failure to act when their prior conduct is found to be dangerous. Under that
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 21.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 33
1)10200103.wpd
doctrine, if an actor does an act, and subsequently realizes or should realize that he has
created an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm to another, he is under a duty to
exercise reasonable care to prevent that risk from taking effect. ISKCON and the other
Defendants were aware that the conduct of them and their agents at the gurukulas created
unreasonable risks of physical harm to Plaintiffs, but failed to exercise reasonable care to
prevent that risk from being effect, and Plaintiffs were harmed as a result.
XI.
DUTY TO AID ANOTHER HARMED BY DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 322, under the legal
doctrine of duty to aid another harmed by an actor’s conduct. Under that doctrine, the
Defendants, knowing or having reason to know that, by their conduct, whether tortious or
innocent, they had caused bodily harm to Plaintiffs as to make them helpless and in danger
of further harm, were under a duty to exercise reasonable care to present such further harm.
Defendants failed to satisfy this duty, and never exercised any reasonable care to prevent
further harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were damaged as a result.
XII.
CONSPIRACY AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
1 ISKCON has acted in concert with the other Defendants in a pattern and
practice to fraudulently conceal the extent and nature of the physical, emotional, mental,
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 34
1}10200103.wpd
and sexual abuse occurring at its gurukulas, boarding schools, and child care centers, as
well as the harmful effects of that abuse, continuing through the present day. Defendants
have also acted in concert to fraudulently conceal the fact that Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of stealing the value of Plaintiffs’ (and other children who attended the
gurukulas) labor, forcing them to work several hours a day, for the duration of their
attendance at the gurukulas without any compensation whatsoever, as well as the value to
Plaintiffs of even a minimally sufficient education.
2s All Defendants herein entered into a civil conspiracy to act in concert,
accompanied by a meeting of the minds regarding concerted action, the purposes of which
were to suppress and minimize public knowledge (as well as widespread knowledge within
ISKCON) of the rampant physical, emotional, mental and sexual abuse of minor children
in the gurukulas by teachers and supervisors, and to take a uniform position and approach
to the handling of reports of abuse. ISKCON used benefits derived from child labor to
expand the scope of its impact, including its injury to children, by opening still more
schools, and by moving the children to avoid encounters with local government authorities
and parents, that risk exposing the maltreatment of children. This uniform position and
approach was designed to avoid criminal prosecution of the gurukula teachers and
supervisor offenders, to avoid civil litigation and to prevent or minimize claims for
damages, to avoid public exposure of the sexual and other abuse of children by teachers and
supervisors at the gurukulas, to protect the reputation of ISKCON and “Hare Krishnas”
from scandal, and thus to insure the continued financial contributions of Krishna devotees
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 35
110200103.
wpd
and outside supporters to ISKCON. This conspiracy to conceal includes spoliation of
evidence and is ongoing. Based on these actions, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
are equitably estopped from asserting any defense of limitations.
3. This ongoing conspiracy and concert of action was carried out by Defendants
to fraudulently conceal the fact that Defendants have committed acts of theft, negligence,
gross negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and the other wrongful conduct
described herein, and have engaged in concerted action to commit acts of negligence, gross
negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
4. In the absence of this conspiracy and concert of action, Defendants would
have responded to repeated notice of the abuse children suffered at the hands of gurukula
teachers and supervisors and issued general and specific warnings to the entire body of
Krishna devotees, particularly the parents of children in the gurukulas. Had a proper
warning been issued, the offending teachers and supervisors would never have had
unsupervised access to Plaintiffs and other minor children, and this physical, emotional,
mental and sexual abuse and exploitation would never have occurred. Moreover, the theft
of the value of Plaintiffs’ work, and the deprivation of their educational opportunities,
would not have occurred had a proper warning been issued. Thus, Defendants’ actions in
furtherance of this conspiracy are a proximate cause of the injury and damages herein.
ae As a part of their conspiracy to conceal the physical, mental, emotional and
sexual abuse of children by the offending gurukula teachers and supervisors, as well as the
theft of value of Plaintiffs’ work and their opportunities to receive even a minimally
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 36
4}10200103.wpd
sufficient education, Defendants followed a practice of refusing to investigate suspected
theft or abuse, or to disclose and warn of the dangers of physical, mental, emotional and
sexual abuse by gurukula teachers and supervisors despite actual notice and knowledge of
the risk dating back over two decades. Defendants failed to aggressively address abuse
issues by such actions as promulgating proper policies for the appointment of gurukula
teachers and supervisors.
6. Plaintiffs allege that ISKCON officials, with others as plead herein, also
engaged in a conspiracy to avoid the prosecution of gurukula teachers and supervisors and
to cover up the physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse of minor children suffered in
the gurukulas, and the theft of the value of Plaintiffs’ work and educational opportunities.
The purpose of this conspiracy was to prevent criminal prosecution, avoid adverse
publicity, prevent claims for damages by the numerous minor victims, and to avoid
exposure of this conspiracy designed to conceal the claims arising from the crimes of these
gurukula teachers and supervisors appointed by ISKCON through the GBC. Further,
officials of ISKCON, in furtherance of the overall conspiracy alleged, engaged in
affirmative acts to conceal the existence of this conspiracy, and to conceal acts of fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and gross negligence.
XII.
DEFENDANTS’ CONCERT OF ACTION
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above, and assert that ISKCON and the other Defendants are liable for
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 37
1j10200103.wpa
acts and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 876, under
the legal doctrine of concert of action, and as agents of these entities, under which theories
Plaintiffs seek damages from all Defendants jointly and severally.
XIV.
DEFENDANTS’ INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
l. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if set forth at length herein all previous
allegations set forth above.
Ds In administering the abuse against Plaintiffs, in conspiring to cover up that
abuse, in ratifying the acts of those gurukula workers who administered the abuse, and in
conspiring to assist those gurukula workers in avoiding detection by law enforcement
agencies, Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of outrageous conduct that
intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress upon Plaintiffs, for which all defendants
are liable both in actual and punitive damages.
XV.
DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTE A SINGLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
Defendants, through their internal structures and close relation to each other, have
integrated their resources to achieve a common purpose, and do not operate as functionally
separate entities. Thus, they constitute a single business enterprise, or a single enterprise,
as evidenced by, among other things, the subjugation of all entities to the governing body
commission of ISKCON, declared by ISKCON’s founder, Srila Prabhupada, to be the
central, supreme management authority of ISKCON. The single enterprise nature of
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 38
10200103. wpd
ISKCON is also evidenced by each entity’s primary responsibility to ISKCON as a whole,
the GBC’s exclusive and centralized control of the use of all ISKCON names, the funding
of ISKCON ministries, organizations, individuals or projects by either ISKCON or the
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), now a Defendant herein, the requirements that all
ISKCON entities devote between 25-50% of their profits to the BBT, and the centralized
property acquisition and property management by a centralized board, and in accordance
with the will of Srila Prabhupada, among other thing. °
As a consequence of Defendants’ single business or single interest enterprise, all
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages inflicted on Plaintiffs by
Defendants, and all of them are independently subject to the jurisdiction of this Court as
a result of their status as a single business or single interest enterprise.
XVI
DAMAGES OF PLAINTIFFS
Damages include but are not limited to the following:
1. As a result of the incidents of abuse described above, Plaintiffs have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, extreme emotional trauma, pain and suffering, and
chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
2. Plaintiffs have suffered Medical and Psychotherapeutic expense, a need for
therapeutic service, diminished earning capacity and lost earnings, social stigmatization,
reduced educational attainments, and substantial general damages.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 39
§j10200103.wpd
3. Plaintiffs have experienced both physical and psychological pain and
suffering and mental anguish in the past and in all reasonable probability will sustain
physical and psychological pain and suffering in the future as a result of their injuries.
4. Many Plaintiffs have incurred medical expenses in the past and in all
reasonable probability will continue to incur medical expenses as a result of the incidents
described herein.
a: A significantly large proportion of Plaintiff ISKCON children have become
alcoholics, drug users, unwed mothers, and suicides. They suffer from a profound sense
of guilt, helplessness, and loss of self-esteem. They all suffer from post-traumatic stress
syndrome as a result of their childhood experience.
6. As the result of Defendants’ conduct, all Plaintiffs were injured in their
property because they were robbed of the value of their forced child slave labor at the
gurukulas, as well as the value of even a minimally sufficient education.
7. Plaintiffs collectively seek $200,000,000 in restitution for their actual
damages.
8. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages in the collective amount of $200,000,000,
in order to punish and deter the outrageous conduct taken in heedless and reckless disregard
for the safety of Plaintiffs and, as a result of Defendants' conscious indifference to the
rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiffs in violation of the laws of the State of Texas, other
states and the United States.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 40
110200103. wpd
XVII.
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER SEXUAL,
EMOTIONAL OR PHYSICAL ABUSE OF MINOR CHILDREN
Plaintiffs believe and therefore allege that the pattern and practice of physical,
emotional, and sexual abuse to minor children currently enrolled in or residing at the
Defendants’ gurukulas, schools, temples, and child care facilities, is ongoing and continues
to this day. Plaintiffs therefore ask this Court to issue a temporary injunction prohibiting
Defendants from engaging in any further sexual, emotional, or physical abuse of the minor
children of ISKCON followers currently enrolled in or residing at Defendants’ gurukulas,
schools, temples, and child care facilities, and, upon final trial of this matter, to issue a
permanent injunction against Defendants from engaging in or allowing any such abuse of
said minor children.
XVIII.
REQUEST FOR ORDER PROHIBITING DESTRUCTION
OR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs request this Court to immediately issue an order instructing
theDefendants
not to destroy, discard or spoil any documents or records, whether written, recorded, or
stored electronically, that may be or may have become relevant to any issue in this suit.
XIX.
STATEMENTS TO THE COURT
1. Plaintiffs plead delayed discovery of their claims against Defendants despite
the exercise of reasonable diligence on their part, thus tolling the statute of limitations.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 41
410200103. wpd
2; Plaintiffs plead delayed discovery of the harm caused by physical, emotional,
mental and sexual abuse and exploitations by the gurukula teachers and supervisors and the
delay in treatment despite the exercise of reasonable diligence on their part, thus tolling the
statute of limitations.
3. Plaintiffs plead fraud and fraudulent concealment of this fraud on the part of
Defendants, thus suspending the running of limitations as to all claims.
4. Plaintiffs plead fraudulent concealment of facts under Defendants’ control
giving rise to this cause of action against all Defendants, thus suspending the running of
limitations.
5. Plaintiffs plead breach of fiduciary duty, including the duty to disclose,
against all Defendants, thus suspending the running of limitations against all Defendants.
6. Plaintiffs plead a concert of action, a conspiracy to conceal negligence, to
commit fraud and to fraudulently conceal the acts and the existence of the fraud and
conspiracy, thus suspending the running of limitations against all Defendants.
Ts Plaintiffs allege that the actions of the Defendants have caused them to suffer
an emotionally unsound mind as to the Defendants, thus suspending the running of
limitations, pursuant to Section 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
8. Plaintiffs allege that the actions of all Defendants, because of their conduct,
statements and promises, preclude them from claiming a bar by limitations to any of
Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs thus plead the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 42
¥10200103.wpd
XX.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby requests and demands a trial by jury.
XX].
CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Plaintiffs herein claim prejudgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with
Texas Finance Code Section 304.001 and 304.102 and any other applicable law.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be served and cited to appear and
answer herein, that a temporary injunction issue against any physical, sexual or emotional
abuse of minors under their control, that an ORDER be immediately issued against
destruction or spoliation of evidence herein, and upon final hearing of this cause, a
permanent injunction against further abuse be issued, and that Plaintiffs have judgment
against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages described herein, for cost of suit,
interest as allowable by law and for such other relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF EY, P.C.
indle Turley WA
State Bar No. 20304000
Thomas B. Cowart
State Bar No. 00787295
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 43
110200103.
wpd
6440 North Central Expressway
1000 Turley Law Center
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone No.:214/691-4025
Telecopier No. 214/361-5802
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 44
4}10200103.wpd引用于
6- 指控在其寄宿学校儿童虐待问题上的过失与隐瞒（Children of ISKCON v. ISKCON）国际奎师那知觉协会（ISKCON）
- 指控被指控未对新温达文（New Vrindaban）学校中的虐待采取行动Kirtanananda Swami
- 案件Children of ISKCON v. ISKCON：古鲁库拉虐待诉讼
- 人物Bir Krishna Das Goswami
- 机构国际奎师那知觉协会（ISKCON）
- 受影响者曾提出诉讼请求的 ISKCON 寄宿学校前学生国际奎师那知觉协会（ISKCON）