Appeals court revives guru’s libel suit

A self-proclaimed guru who says he possesses a godlike ability to transform plants, animals and even distant humans with mental “energy transmissions” is free to pursue a defamation claim against a St. Paul writer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on Monday.

In its lengthy but unpublished opinion, the three-judge panel affirmed the bulk of an earlier decision from Ramsey County District Court Judge Robert Awsumb, who tossed the lawsuit from plaintiff Mahendra Trivedi, his three companies and his foundation on a summary judgment motion.

But in reversing Awsumb on one critical issue, the appeals court gave Trivedi another shot.

In his ruling last June, Awsumb concluded that Trivedi’s extravagant claims about his purported ability to transmit a universal intelligent energy — trademarked as the “Trivedi Effect” and, yes, available for purchase in the form of a remote blessing — made him a limited-purpose public figure.

As such, Trivedi would have to show that writer Dennis Lang’s statements about him were not simply false but made with actual malice. In Awsumb’s view, the guru failed to clear that hurdle.

The appeals court agreed that the actual malice standard applies to Lang’s characterizations of Trivedi as a fraud who also engaged in a variety of shady and likely illegal business practices. But the court concluded that the actual malice standard does not apply to Lang’s statements that the guru had preyed on – and raped — two young, female employees.

“[Lang’s] statements concerning Trivedi’s alleged sexual misconduct and improprieties are not related to the controversy surrounding Trivedi’s claims of miraculous abilities and [his companies’] products,” wrote Appeals Court Judge John Rodenberg. “Accusations of sexual assault and other sexual improprieties are materially different than accusations that appellants are charlatans.”

As a result, Trivedi did not need to show actual malice to defeat summary judgment on those claims arising from Lang’s statements about the alleged sexual assaults. Instead, the court said, they should be reviewed under common-law defamation standards.

The revival of the lawsuit is just the latest twist in a five-year-long, multi-forum legal fight between the retiree turned freelance writer and the new age healer from India.

The battle was first joined after Lang, casting about for a subject to write about, began posting questions on a now-defunct group blog, PurQi.com, where Trivedi’s critics (including some of his former employees) exchanged information about the guru’s allegedly illegal, unscrupulous behavior.

Since then, Trivedi and his associates have sued Lang six times in different courts across the country.

In the weirdest episode, a court in Arizona wound up entering a $59 million default judgment against Lang, which Ramsey County District Court Judge Margaret Marrinan subsequently vacated on jurisdictional grounds. Trivedi, undeterred, initiated a new action in Ramsey County.

Nathan Knoernschild, Trivedi’s current attorney and a partner at the Minneapolis firm of Chestnut Cambronne, did not respond to a request for a comment.

In a brief, Knoernschild called Lang “the most vocal” of the PurQi.com bloggers and accused him of engineering a “smear campaign” designed to destroy his client. The net result of the campaign “was almost a total loss of revenue” for Trivedi and his businesses, according to Knoernschild.

Mark Anfinson, Lang’s attorney, said he was disappointed by the appeals court’s decision.

“The court accepted our arguments across a wide swath of key legal issues, including whether there was even a public controversy, which Trivedi very much contested,” said Anfinson, a solo practitioner from Minneapolis who specializes in First Amendment law. “So it’s a little bit like jumping from a boat to a dock and making it seven-eighths of the way. You still land in the water.”

Anfinson said he was frustrated by the court’s view that Trivedi’s alleged sexual improprieties “had nothing to do with the public controversy over his pronouncements about his supernatural powers.”

“It’s all about his [Trivedi’s] credibility. For the court to pick that one narrow issue out of this entire pile and force a guy who’s living on social security to go back for a full-blown jury trial against a man who’s got millions of dollars, I’m sorry, but it’s just ridiculous,” Anfinson said. “Sometimes, these appellate judges just can’t see the forest for the trees. I know I’m getting a little intemperate but it’s warranted.”

As a practical matter, Anfinson said the remand to the district court means that Lang could be forced to try the question of the truth or falsity of the sexual assault allegations.

“In principle, it isn’t that complicated. Dennis had a couple of really good sources, so in theory we could just bring them in and they’d testify about their experiences with Trivedi,” Anfinson said. “The problem is, these young women live in California and Arizona and Dennis can’t afford to fly them here and put them up in a hotel.”

Anfinson said it is a virtual certainty that he will now petition the Supreme Court for further review. He said the case could appeal to the court given its implications for defamation law in the internet age.

“If you want to try to improve the law, it’s the starkest contrast you’ll find between the wealthy plaintiff and the simple, humble speaker who is trying to call the public’s attention to an important issue,” Anfinson opined. “That’s what New York Times v. Sullivan is supposed to be all about – protecting those speakers from the chill that the threat of libel litigation inflicts.”

For his part, Lang said he found the appeals court’s decision “bewildering” but vowed to keep fighting.

While Trivedi has initiated “at least 13 different lawsuits against watchdogs and whistleblowers,” Lang noted, the guru has yet to prevail on any of his claims and is now faces an abuse of process lawsuit from one of his previous targets, a researcher from Penn State who disputes Trivedi’s claim that his supposedly divine gift had been verified in scientific tests.

“I’m fired up about this whole damn thing,” said Lang. “I’m not averse to the challenge. Yes, there is a cost financially. But aside from that, none of us – none of the watchdogs — have ever questioned whether we’re on the right side. We are dealing with a moral abomination and, at some point, I hope he’s exposed for the animal that he is.”