U.S. court ordered default judgment against false rape accuser -
This text was machine-transcribed from the printed book and may contain errors. Select the words and choose “Report a mistake”.
Aarthi Rao - for failing to appear for the court-ordered deposition.
A U.S. court ordered default judgment against Aarthi Rao for her total disregard for the law by failing to appear for her court-ordered deposition. Aarthi Rao, a US citizen, had pressed fake rape charges on His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda in India and filed similar charges in the US as well. In 2010, Lenin Karuppan had filed a false rape complaint against His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda. Lenin did not mention anybody as the victim. After a couple of months of filing of the false complaint, the High Court of Karnataka was just about to quash and dispose off the case. Lenin brought in Aarthi Rao to pose as the rape victim as a last ditch effort to keep the case alive.
1. On May 6, 2011, Plaintiff served Ms. Rao with the first notice of deposition to take place on June 3, 2011.
2. On June 1, 2011, Ms. Rao, through counsel, unilaterally cancelled the deposition and failed to appear.
3. On June 2, 2011, Ms. Rao's deposition was re-noticed for June 23, 2011 in Michigan.
4. On June 16, 2011, Ms. Rao, through counsel, advised that she would not be appearing for deposition as she intended to file a motion for protective order to stay the action pending resolution of an unrelated criminal matter in India.
5. On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Aarthi Rao to attend deposition.
6. On June 22, 2011, Ms. Rao, through counsel, filed a motion for protective order seeking to stay discovery and her deposition for three months pending resolution of an unrelated criminal matter in India.
7. On August 1, 2011, the Court heard the motions and ordered the "taking of the deposition of Ms. Aarthi Rao stayed until the conclusion of the Indian criminal proceedings or further order of the Court."
8. On August 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling of August 1, 2011, or in the alternative, for an order lifting the stay of the deposition of Aarthi Rao. The motion was heard on September 21, 2011, and the Court ordered the deposition of Ms. Rao to be taken within 90 days at a date, time, and location agreed upon by the parties. The deposition was limited as follows: 1) there would be no inquiries with respect to the allegations of rape or the criminal proceedings in India; and 2) the deposition would be supervised by a referee at Plaintiff's expense, chosen by mutual agreement between the parties.
9. The parties mutually agreed that the deposition would take place at the office of Plaintiff's counsel on November 18, 2011 and that Judge Michael A. Latin was to serve as the discovery referee. Consistent therewith, Plaintiff served a deposition notice on October 17, 2011 to take Ms. Rao's deposition on November 18, 2011.
AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AARTHI RAO
10. In addition, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents (Set One) to Defendant Aarthi Rao, which responses were due November 21, 2011. To date, she has not responded to the discovery requests.
11. Before her deposition and document production dates, Ms. Rao filed for bankruptcy in Michigan on November 1, 2011.
12. During the bankruptcy, Ms. Rao moved for an order excusing her appearance at the mandatory Section 341 meeting of creditors, citing concerns for her physical safety. On January 3, 2012, the bankruptcy court denied her motion finding no evidence of any threats made to her physical safety and ordered her to appear at the Section 341 meeting on January 11, 2012. The order provided that a Court security officer shall chaperone and assist Ms. Rao in walking to and from her parked vehicle or any other transportation service she may use and shall remain with Ms. Rao during the meeting. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Ms. Rao intentionally failed and refused to appear at the meeting. As a result, the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion for dismissal, which Ms. Rao did not oppose. The court granted the motion and Ms. Rao's bankruptcy petition was ordered dismissed as of February 7, 2012.
13. Thereafter, Plaintiff served a notice to take the deposition of Ms. Rao on March 6,
2012. That notice also contained a request for documents to be produced at the deposition. Consistent with the Court's order of September 21, 2011, Plaintiff secured Judge Michael A. Latin as the discovery referee for the deposition at its own expense. No objections to the notice were ever received by Ms. Rao, nor did she contact Plaintiff's counsel at any time prior to her deposition regarding the notice.
14. Notwithstanding, Ms. Rao failed to appear for deposition on March 6, 2012, and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was issued.
15. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Ms. Rao regarding her failure to appear at the deposition. That letter requested she contact their office by March 15, 2012 to reschedule her deposition. That letter also gave notice to Ms. Rao that, if she failed to respond, Plaintiff would file a motion for terminating sanctions requesting the court strike her answer and render a default judgment against her.
AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AARTHI RAO
- Based thereon, Defendant has violated the Court's Order of September 21, 2011 requiring her to appear for deposition.
- Defendant's violation of the Court's Order was willful.
- Defendant has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process.
- Plaintiff has been prejudiced as a result.
- Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice that the Answer of Defendant Aarthi Rao to Unverified First Amended Complaint be stricken, a default judgment be entered against her, and the Court set a hearing for prove-up of damages. THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Aarthi Rao is GRANTED. It is further ordered that the Answer of Defendant Aarthi Rao to Unverified First Amended Complaint be stricken from the record, default judgment be entered against Defendant Aarthi Rao, and the Court sets a hearing for prove-up of damages for IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Aarthi Rao shall pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Life Bliss Foundation in the amount of $5,590.00 within the next ten (10) days.
Date: 4/18/12
Hon. Judge John W. Vineyard
AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AARTHI RAO
Some key highlights in Aarthi Rao’s false charges against His Divine Holiness in the USA:
- Before her deposition and document production dates, the false rape victim Aarthi Rao, filed for bankruptcy in Michigan on November 1, 2011
- The bankruptcy court denied her motion finding no evidence of any threats made to her physical safety and ordered her to appear at the meeting.
- The false rape victim intentionally failed and refused to appear for the meeting.
- As a result, the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion of dismissal, which the false rape victim did not oppose.
- The court granted the motion and the bankruptcy petition was ordered dismissed as of February 7, 2012.
Legal Attacks to grab temples and aadheenams owned or managed by His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda
Extremist Hindu Outfits Oppose Paramahamsa Nithyananda’s Appointment as Head of Madurai Aadheenam
Following Paramahamsa Nithyananda’s coronation as 293rd Pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam, several Hindu outfits misled by the media mispropaganda against His Divine Holiness, protested against His appointment. The current head of Madurai Aadheenam defended his decision t crown His Divine Holiness as the succeeding Pontiff.
27 April 2012
His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda was coronated as the successor and 293rd Pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam, the most ancient religious organization and monastery in the world.
Immediately, following His coronation, Hindu Makkal Katchi (HMK) and other Hindu outfits, misled by the media mis-propaganda against His Divine Holiness, opposed His appointment, staging protests against Him in Madurai. They claimed that Paramahamsa Nithyananda was chosen without the consultation of disciples and heads of other similar traditional mutts. They further alleged that He was not qualified to be coronated, as He had not been trained in religious rituals, which was also not true.