Annamalai Annamalai, the former guru of the now defunct Hindu Temple of Georgia in Norcross, was convicted this week on 34 counts of fraud and money laundering, according to federal authorities.

The conviction comes roughly six years after Randy Travis and the FOX 5 I-team first began investigating complaints against the Hindu preacher, who was also known as Dr. Commander Selvam and Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar. Annamalai once claimed a net worth of $60 million and lived in mansion in Gwinnett County. Federal authorities said he charged his followers fees in exchange for spiritual and related services, but then would run-up unapproved charges, using their credit card numbers.

 “This defendant traded on his perceived religious authority and spiritual powers to cheat the faithful who believed in him,” said United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates. “The jury saw through his deception.”

Following the I-Team reports on his activities, the very litigious Annamalai filed a defamation suit against Travis and federal RICO suits against WAGA FOX 5 and Travis. He also filed suits against many of the individuals who complained about his fraudulent activities.

The Counts Law Group secured a voluntary dismissal of the RICO cases within two weeks of filing in 2009 by persuading the plaintiff that sanctions and fees would be mandated under Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute. Soon after that, the firm also secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the libel case against Travis.

 

Is this a trend yet? Yet another person has been arrested and booked for uttering an obscenity in a public place, even though similar applications of disorderly conduct laws often have been found to violate the First Amendment.  

This time, the scene of the alleged crime was just over the Georgia line in a Kroger supermarket aisle in North Augusta, South Carolina about a week ago. Danielle Wolf was shopping with her husband and her children, and she told reporters that her husband kept squishing the bread in their cart by putting frozen pizzas on top of it. She used the F-word to express her significant displeasure at his behavior.

Another shopper took offense, accusing her of using obscenities in front of her kids. Ms. Wolf insisted that was not the case, but somehow the police were called and before it was all over, the young mother was arrested and booked on disorderly conduct.

Ms. Wolf was later released on a courtesy bond, according to media reports, and the woman who complained subsequently apologized by telephone, saying she never intended for the young mother to be arrested.

The South Carolina legal definition of disorderly conduct says it is a violation to "use obscene or profane language on any highway or at any public place or gathering or in hearing distance of any schoolhouse or church."

The case appears similar to one in which the Counts Law Group represented a Cobb County woman who used obscenities in comments directed towards police when she witnessed the way police were questioning a burglary suspect.  After she cursed at police, they let the burglary suspect go and came after the woman.

In that case, the police charged Amy Barnes with one count of disorderly conduct under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39(a)(4), which bars "without provocation, us[ing] obscene and vulgar and profane language in the presence of a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace." The police justified this charge by alleging that a child was present when Ms. Barnes made her statement.

Cobb Judge Melodie H. Clayton concluded that the officers simply took issue with what Ms. Barnes had said and were determined to arrest her.

Judge Clayton also concluded that the alleged presence of the child was “inconclusive” and “irrelevant," because “the mere presence of children does not transform the Defendant's statements into 'fighting words.'" The judge dismissed the charge.

And, you may remember not too long ago when Reese Witherspoon was arrested on disorderly conduct charges for allegedly taunting a police officer who stopped her husband’s car and asked him to take a field sobriety test.

The law, at least in Georgia, is well established that citizens of this state have a constitutional right to criticize or question the police. Although it is not polite to do so, a citizen has the First Amendment right to ridicule, antagonize and annoy the police in the performance of their duty. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the “freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

It may be unwise, and definitely intemperate, to drop the F-bomb in a supermarket aisle, but it is hardly  sufficient to justify an arrest.

             The U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is directly questioning the relationship between Tiversa Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission over the FTC’s decision to initiate an enforcement action against Atlanta-based LabMD.

            The Counts Law Group is defending LabMD CEO Michael Daugherty in a libel action brought by Tiversa after Mr. Daugherty wrote a book about his company’s debilitating experiences with Tiversa and his concerns about Tiversa’s use of federal government connections. The book is titled “The Devil Inside the Beltway.”

          The House Oversight Committee has been investigating the activities of Tiversa. Its chairman, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sent a letter June 17 to the acting inspector general of the FTC requesting that the IG’s office also investigate the FTC’s relationship with Tiversa.

            The Oversight Committee’s news release about Issa’s letter summarizes the Tiversa-LabMD connection as follows:

            “In 2008, Tiversa allegedly discovered a document pertaining to LabMD, Inc. containing the personal information of thousands of patients on a peer-to-peer network.  Tiversa contacted LabMD in May 2008, explaining that it believed it had identified a data breach at the company and offering “remediation” services through a professional services agreement.  LabMD did not accept Tiversa’s offer because LabMD believed it had contained and resolved the data breach.  Tiversa, through an entity known as the Privacy Institute, later provided the FTC with a document it created that included information about LabMD, among other companies.  Tiversa allegedly provided information to the FTC about companies that refused to buy its services.”

            After Tiversa provided the information, the FTC initiated its enforcement action against LabMD, alleging it was responsible for the data breach. That matter is still pending.

            In his letter Rep. Issa said “the Committee has substantial concerns about the reliability of information provided to the FTC.

            “Further, the Committee has received information from current and former Tiversa employees indicating a lack of truthfulness in testimony Tiversa provided to federal government entities.

            “The Committee’s investigation is ongoing, and competing claims exist about the culpability of those responsible for the dissemination. It is now clear, however, that Tiversa provided incomplete and inaccurate information to the FTC.”

              For more, see the House Committee letter and press release.