On Jan 3, 2011, Vinay Bharadwaj filed a case against Nithyananda and some of the US organizations for money.
Original Complaint filed in California
In the original complaint, there’s no mention of “battery”.
On June 8, 2011, Vinay Bharadwaj filed a first amended complaint against
First Amended Complaint filed in California
In the FAC, notably a Battery cause of action is added to the complaint.
Why is the addition of battery significant?
Initially the Original Complaint was an attempt by Bharadwaj to:
- Bring in the Indian allegations against Swamiji and the morphed video so that he could officially reference the same as evidence in the criminal case in which he was being prosecuted against him by the State of Washington for sexual crimes against a minor.
- To obtain money from the US organizations
- To attack and discredit, humiliate the minor victim and her father as they were the main witness against him in the Washington Case.
- To position himself as a whistleblower in the Nithyananda case in India.
However the evidence in the Washington criminal case against Bharadwaj were too strong.
In the criminal case, the US detectives unearthed 100s of inappropriate chat messages between him and the minor at late hours of the night and the prosecution had multiple credible witnesses, other than child or her family to testify to the inappropriate behavior they saw of Bharadwaj with the minor child.
As the evidence piled against him, Bharadwa needed more ammunition than what his own California complaint would provide.
He had to make a last ditch effort to form a defense in the Washington criminal case, where his freedom was at stake.
So Bharadwaj filed a First Amended Complaint (an update to the Origianl complaint) in the California case to
- fabricate that Bharadwa was infact a victim of Nithyananda. And Bharadwaj was an important witness statement to the Indian police against Nithyananda in India. Bharadwaj now alleged Nithyananda had sexually abused him over a several year period.
- To establish that Bharadwas an important witness in the India case and because of that, Nithyananda is using this sexual abuse victim’s family to file a false case on Bharadwaj—thereby reducing the Washington sexual abuse case Bharadwaj was facing to a false retaliation case.
- To discredit the August 2009 California non disclosure agreement Bharadwaj signed in which he admitted that he had inappropriate contact with the minor and would leave the US organizations and stop defaming them. This was evidence that could be used against him in the Washington criminal case and in his own California civil case.
Why are the changes from the California Original Complaint to the Amended Complaint of significant?
First, let’s see what he wrote in his Original Compliant
In the Original Complaint, Bharadwaj stated:
Original Complaint Excerpts.
How can you “discover” in May 2009, if you were being abused by the same person for five years prior?
Excerpts from the First Amended Complaint
If the abuse Bharadwaj alleges were true, he couldn’t have “discovered” it in 2009 it would’ve already known to him.
The actual truth is Bharadwaj fabricated not “discovered” the sexual abuse claims only to use as smokescreen in his Criminal case.
His lousy fabricated defense didn’t work. A US Judge heard all the evidence including Bharadwaj’s bogus claims and decide to convict Bharadwaj of 4 counts of child molestation. Bharadwaj was convicted to 5 years in prison in a high security prison in Washington and then deported form the US as soon as he was released.
Note: Both the Original Complaint and Amended Complaint are verified complaints which means the Plaintiff is stating under oath, everything is true. This just shows that Bharadwaj will say anything to anyone, even a court of law to get what he wants. No disregard for life or the law his modus operandi.
