Mark Baker vs. 3HO

1. Plaintiff Mark Baker is a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and was a resident of New Mexico at all times pertinent to this Complaint.
2. Defendant Yogi Bhajan is a resident of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and, on information and belief, is the chief religious and administrative authority for the Sikh movement in the Western Hemisphere. He is sued both individually and in his official capacity, including his capacity, if any, as an officer or director of one or more of the corporate defendants.
3. Defendant Guru Terath Singh Khalsa is, on informa tion and belief, the director and chief religious and administra tive authority of the Sikh Dharma of New Mexico and of the Sikh movement in the western region of the United States. He is sued both individually and in his official capacity, including his capacity, if any, as an officer or director of one or more of the corporate defendants.
4. Defendant Guru Tej Singh Khalsa is Vice-President of defendant Akal Security, Inc., and is sued both individually and in his official capacity, including his capacity, if any, as an officer or director of one or more of the corporate defend ants.
5. Defendant Guru Jot Singh Khalsa is a resident of Virginia, and is, or at all times pertinent to this Complaint was, the National Affairs Advisor to the Sikh movement of the United States, second only to Yogi Bhajan in authority in the Sikh movement in the United States. He is sued both individually land in his official capacity, including his capacity, if any, as an officer or director of one or more of the corporate
6. Defendant Hari Kaur Khalsa is Director of Public Relations, Sikh Dharma of New Mexico, Inc., and is sued both individually and-'in her official capacity, including her capaci ty, if any, as an officer or director of one or more of the corporate defendants.
7. Defendant Daya Singh Khalsa is Secretary, Treasu rer, and Chief Operating Officer of Akal Security, Inc,, and is sued both individually and in his official capacity, including his capacity, if any, as an officer or director of one or more of the corporate defendants.
8. Defendants Unidentified Khalsas Nos. 1 through 10 are individual members of the Sikh movement in the United States whose role. and identities vill be discovered and specified dur ing the pendency of this action. They are sued both individually and in their official capacities, including their capacities, if any, as officers or directors of one or more of the corporate defendants.
9. Defendant Sikh Dharma of New Mexico, Inc., is a New Mexico Corporation which is the official arm of the Sikh movement in New Mexico. Its headquarters is in Espanola, New Mexico.
10. Defendant Akal Security, Inc. ("Akal") is a New Mexico corporation. Its principal place of business is Santa Cruz, New Mexico.
11. Defendant 3HO Foundation of New Mexico incorpor ated is a New Mexico Corporation. Its headquarters is in Espa nola, New Mexico.
12. Defendant 3-H-0 is a California corporation author ized to operate in New Mexico. Its principal place of operation in New Mexico is Espanola, New Mexico.
13. Defendant Sikh Dharma Brotherhood is a California corporation authorized to operate in New Mexico. Its principal place of operation in New Mexico is Espanola, New Mexico,
14. Defendant Siri Singh Sahib of Sikh Dharma Brother hood is a California corporation authorized to operate in New Mexico. Its principal place of operation in New Mexico is Espano la, New Mexico.
15. Defendants Unidentified Sikh Corporations Nos. 1 through 10 are corporations controlled by the Sikh movement in the United States, whose roles and identities will be discovered and specified during the pendency of this action. Allegations Common To All Counts
16. The Sikh movement in the United States ("move nent," "Sikh") is a unified enterprise consisting of a number of individuals, organizations, associations and corporations such as those named as defendants in this action, all of whose activities are under the close, if not complete, control of Yogi Bhajan.
17. No official or semi-official communication or action taken by or on behalf of any officer, element or person of authority within Sikh movement in the (United States takes place without the express or implied knowledge and approval of Yogi Bhajan, or of one of his highly-placed deputies such as the individually named defendants.
18. Every official or semi-official communication or action taken by or on behalf of any officer, element or person of authority within Sikh movement in the United States, including the actions complained of here, is taken in furtherance of the aims and purposes of, and on behalf of, Yogi Bhajan and the Sikh movement which Yogi Bhajan controls through, among others, the individual and corporate defendants named and yet to be named in this action.
19. Although the Sikh movement professes to have certain religious beliefs and objectives, it is also, among other things, a local, regional. national. and international political movement, and a commercial enterprise, No Sikh religious belief or practice is any way at issue in this proceeding.
20. On information and belief, the movement, in the person of defendant Guru Jot Singh Khalsa and perhaps others, is and/or has been involved in trafficking in drugs and in launder ing funds derived from drug-trafficking to further the general, commercial and political aims of its affiliates,
21. Mark Baker was a member of the New Mexico arm of the Sikh movement from the summer of 1977 through early 1985.
22. While he was a Sikh Mark Baker participated in extensive study of all aspects of security work, and soon became a highly valued employee of Akal, where he was, as Director of Training for the corporation, responsible for the security train ing and supervision Akal provided to its employees and clients. 23, As reflected in documents written by defendants Guru Tej Singh Khalsa and Daya Singh Khalsa on their official capacities and on behalf of defendant Akal (Attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 1 and 2 and incorporated here by refer ence), Mark Baker was at all pertinent times a person of the the highest character, reputation, responsibility, accomplishment, reliability and stability.
23. So great was Mark Baker's accomplishment, and so great was the esteem in which he was held by all who knew him, that he became a key member of the armed security team that was responsible for the personal safety and security of Yogi Bhajan whenever he was in New Mexico, Arizona or Texas, and of Yogi Bhajan's New Mexico corporate and personal property, including real estate.
24. Upon or shortly after his 1984 departure from the movement Mark Baker learned of the movement's involvement in drug-trafficking and money-laundering. Mark Baker's awareness of this activity was at all pertinent times known to some or all of the defendants.
25. In the spring of 1986 Mr. Baker, already highly accomplished in many aspects of security work, enrolled in the New Mexico State Police (NMSP) Recruit Academy, seeking to become a New Mexico State Police Officer and thereby to continue to develop his already promising career in security and law enforce ment in New Mexico.
26. By the tenth week of his twelve-week NMSP train ing, Mark Baker stood at or near the top of his class, was widely respected and admired by the faculty as well as his fellow recruits, was a likely candidate to be class valedictorian and was certain to complete his training successfully and embark on a highly promising tour as a NMSP officer.
27. On May 231 1986, defendant Hari Kaur Khalsa ("Hari"), acting on behalf of, and using the letterhead of, defendant Sikh Dharma of New Mexico r Inc., wrote and signed a letter, a true copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3 and incorporated here by reference.
28. This letter contains a massive number of blatant and outrageous falsehoods, including aspersions cast upon Mark Baker's background, character, reputation, performance as a Sikh, potential reliability as a State Police Officer, hostility to Yogi Bhajan, and other false and outrageous aspersions against Mark Baker,
29. This letter was hand-delivered to the Office of the Governor of New Mexico, whence it was transmitted to the NMSP .
30. Also on May 23, 1986 defendant Guru Tej Singh Khalsa ("Guru Tej") wrote and signed a "To Whom It May Concern" memorandum, a true copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4 and incorporated here by reference.
31. This memorandum contains a massive number of bla tant and outrageous falsehoods, including aspersions cast upon Mark Baker's background, character, reputation, performance as a Sikh, performance as an employee of Akal, potential reliability as a State Police Officer, and other false and outrageous aspersions against Mark Baker.
32. This memorandum was also transmitted to the NMSP,
33. On June 6,'1986, defendant Guru Jot Singh Khalsa ("Guru Jot") visited then-Attorney General Paul Bardacke to discuss Mark Baker. During the meeting Guru Jot alleged that Mark bad been dismissed from the Coast Guard because of continued alcohol and substance abuse, that Mark had been intoxicated while on duty at Akal Security on more than one occasion, that he had fought with a supervisor, that he posed a threat to the life of Yogi Bhajan, and cast other false and outrageous aspersions on Mark Baker,
34. At the request of Guru Jot the Attorney General passed this information on to the NMSP in the form of memoranda, true copies of which are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 5A, 5B and 5C and incorporated here by reference.
35. On or about July 1986 Mark Baker was summarily dismissed from the NMSP Recruit Academy,
36. Since his dismissal Mark Baker has been unable to obtain appropriate employment in the security field, and has been forced to take on night watchman work and odd day jobs in order to support himself, and his promising career in security and law enforcement has been tragically demolished.
37. The statements about Mark Baker reflected in Exhibits 3 through 5 [3, 4, 5C] were known to be substantially false by the people who made them at the time they made them.
38. The statements about Mark Baker reflected in Exhibits 3 through 5 [3, 4, 5C] were made with the avowed intention of so defaming and discrediting Mark Baker that he would be dismissed from the NMSP and would therefore never be able to pursue his chosen career.
39. The conduct alleged above is part of a pattern of practice engaged in by the Sikh movement to defame former members and to destroy their opportunity to pursue fruitful employment and a satisfying existence following departure from the movement.

    Count I: Defamation, Including Self-Defamation

40. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth.
41. Mark Baker has a legitimate and meaningful interest in maintaining his reputation and good name.
42. The communications described above proximately caused Mark Baker to be held up to scorn and contempt and proximately caused him to be dismissed from the NMSP.
43. The communications described above proximately caused Mark Baker to be dismissed from the NMSP under circum stances which made it inevitable that the fact of his dismissal would become widely known, and which made it inevitable that Mark Baker would, in effect, have to defame himself by recounting the circumstances of his dismissal from the NMSP whenever the subject came up in conversations and whenever he attempted to obtain any meaningful employment in law enforcement or security work.
44. As a proximate result of the events described above Mark Baker's reputation was injured irreparably.
45. Defendants are liable to Mark Baker for special, general and punitive damages for defamation,

    Count II: Tortious Interference With an Employment Relationship

46. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth,
47. The communications described above were made in an avowed effort by the Sikh movement, under the leadership and control of Yogi Bhajans to see to it that Mark Baker would be unable to complete his training and employment with the State Police, and to do so in a way that did the greatest possible damage to Mark Baker's career
48. Plaintiff's relationship with the New Mexico State Police constituted a legitimate employment relationship -- one in which he had a right to expect that there would be no wrongful interference from people and entities such as the defendants.
49. On information and belief, Defendants interfered with Mark Baker's employment relationship because he had left the Sikh community and because he had knowledge of criminal acts which both had been and were about to be engaged in by one or more of the defendants. Such knowledge in the hands of a capa ble, respected and vigorous officer of the New Mexico State Police, or of any other law enforcement agency, posed an intolerable threat to the drug-related activities alleged above, and to the standing and reputation of the Sikh movement.
50. Mark Baker's relationship with the State Police was severed as a proximate result of the interference by defend ants described above.
51. Defendants are liable to Mark Baker for special, general and punitive damages for their tortious interference with Mark Baker's relationship with the NMSP.

    Count III: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

52. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth.
53. The publication to State officials of knowingly false statements of the sort reflected in Exhibits 3 through 5 [3, 4, 5C] constitutes outrageous conduct.
54. Defendants acted intentionally maliciously, or grossly recklessly in conveying these statements, as they knew of the falsity of the statements and intended the results that such statements eventually had on Mark Baker's reputation and career prospects,
55. Defendants knew or should have known that those results would inevitably cause great mental anguish and severe emotional distress to Mark Baker,
56. As a proximate result of his dismissal from the State Police Academy under the circumstances described above. Mark Baker suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
57. As a proximate result of discovering the existence and contents of the letters mentioned above, Mark Baker suffered additional severe emotional distress.

    Count IV: Invasion of Privacy

58. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth.
59. Mark Baker had a right to expect that allegations about his past would not be made by people who had no legitimate interest in making them, or who were not motivated by a legitimate interest at the time they made them.
60. Defendants' actions, as set forth above, consti tute an outrageous, unwarranted and unjustified invasion of Mark Baker's right to privacy.
61. The letters written and the statements made to the State officials were unsolicited; in making them, the Defendants intentionally invaded Mark Baker's privacy.
62. The false statements caused embarrassment and emotional distress to Mark Baker.
63. Defendants are liable to Mark Baker for special damages, general damages, and punitive damages for invasion of his privacy.

    Count V: Presentation to the Public in a False Light

64. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth.
65. The statements made by Defendants describe Mark Baker as suffering from erratic mood swings, a tendency toward deep depression, and psychological and emotional instability. They also characterize him as having alcohol and drug problems, constituting a serious security risk, and being unfit to serve as a law enforcement officer,
66. The actions by defendants described above were intended to present Mark Baker to the public, and had the inevitable effect of presenting Mark Baker to the public, in a false light, and defendants knew or should have known that this would be so.
67. Being so portrayed was highly objectionable to Mark Baker, and has caused him great mental anguish and emotional distress, as well as great financial damage.
68. Defendants are liable to Mark Baker for special general, and punitive damages far holding him out to the public in a false light,'

    Count VI: Civil RICO

69. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth.
70. [An Amended Complaint will shortly be filed alleging civil RICO liability.]

    Count VII: Civil Conspiracy

71. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated here by reference as if fully set forth.
72. Defendants, or some of them, acted in concert with and conspired with each other and on behalf of each other and the Sikh movement to accomplish the results described in the foregoing counts.
73. As a direct and proximate result of this conspiracy Mark Baker was subjected to severe emotional distress and mental anguish, and suffered great economic harm and irreparable injury to his reputation.
74. Defendants are liable to Mark Baker for special damages, general damages, and punitive damages for having engaged in a civil conspiracy against him, thereby causing damaging him as alleged above.

Wherefore Mark Baker is entitled to the following relief:

1. A declaration that defendants have defamed him, have I tortiously interfered with his employment relationship with the NMSP, have intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him, have invaded his privacy, have held him up to the public in a false light, have violated applicable RICO laws to his detriment, and have engaged in a civil conspiracy to injure him, and that . they will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court;
2. An order enjoining all defendants from continuing to injure Mark Baker in any manner resembling those alleged in this complaint;
3. Compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs as provided by law;
4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems warranted.

Mark Baker demands a jury trial on all issues appropriate for jury resolution, and herewith tenders the required jury fee.

Respectfully,

Herbert M. Silverberg
200 West de Vargas Street, Suite 8
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(505) 988-3831
Attorney For Mark Baker