The La Jolla-based author has made a name for himself as a spiritual advisor to such notables as Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Michael Jackson and even President Clinton. But he’s also garnered notoriety through his frequent visits to the courtroom.

According to press reports in the London Sunday Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Chopra’s legal woes started back in 1995 when prostitute Judy Bangert left a message on the voice mail of one of Chopra’s colleagues at Sharp, saying that she’d had sex with Chopra.

Weaver, an administrative aide at Sharp, heard the message and taped it. Chopra claims Weaver tried to blackmail him with the information. Weaver then filed a sexual harassment claim against Chopra, which was later dismissed. Ever the lion in the courtroom, Chopra sued Weaver for the alleged blackmail, a case he lost unanimously in January before a San Diego jury.

Undaunted, Chopra vowed to fight on, telling reporters, “Maybe it is my karma to dismantle the corruption in the San Diego judicial system.”

Chopra had better luck against the Weekly Standard, the ultra-right-wing rag owned by media titan Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. In July 1996, the Weekly Standard ran a cover story on the prostitute’s tales of expensive sexual liaisons with the bestselling author and proponent of alternative medicine.

Chopra, 53, hit the Weekly Standard with a $35 million lawsuit, referring to it as “an act of love” meant to lift the magazine to “a higher state of awareness.” In the end, Bangert retracted her claims of sex with Chopra and the Weekly Standard coughed up a $1.6 million settlement, according to Chopra, and an abject apology, which the paper printed in June 1997.

The most recent act in this bizarre legal drama finds Indian-born Chopra defending himself against a suit by Weaver that claims retaliation by Chopra because of Weaver’s original sexual harassment claim and wrongful termination from her position at Sharp.

Monday afternoon the San Diego jury returned a unanimous verdict in his favor. Just two days earlier, I spoke with Chopra by phone (he was in Chicago on a promotional book tour). In a candid conversation sprinkled with self-deprecating remarks, he discussed his reputation as a tough-as-nails litigant and his charges of venality in the San Diego legal system, among other matters.

Will this trial be a fair one for you?

I do think so, yes. You know, judges have their own interpretations of certain things and can influence the jury. But we’ve got a very eminent jurist on this case right now. It’s difficult to criticize him really. He has an impeccable record, and I think he’s very fair. If I lose, I won’t be able to blame anyone.

What was the problem with your previous experiences with the San Diego judiciary?

In any system, but particularly in San Diego, there’s a lot of cronyism, power-mongering and influence-peddling. Basically, they all hang at the same club and do each other favors.

Ever since I started speaking out about this, I’ve gotten thousands of e-mails, faxes and letters from people who’ve had the same thing happen to them. If you’re not a law firm from San Diego, forget it. It’s all inside power-mongering.

Why have you fought such a vigorous legal battle with Ms. Weaver?

The easy way out, always, is to give in. Somebody blackmails or attacks you, give in. But it also puts things out there which are not true. I can’t do that. I don’t know how to surrender to these opportunists who see you in the public eye and try to embarrass you so they can make some money. But I’ve learned not to have the sense of personal outrage about it. First of all — it doesn’t work. Secondly, it’s unhealthy. And thirdly, it brings you down to their level. Unfortunately, it costs a lot more money [not to give in], but you have to do it.

The San Diego Union-Tribune has reported that this legal battle has cost you $1 million, is this true?

More than that, actually. I should have just paid off. (Laughs)

Why do you think Ms. Weaver is suing you?

Well, she’s already made money on this. She sued Sharp, Dr. David Simon [Chopra's colleague at Sharp] and me. Sharp and Simon paid her off, because they said it’s more expensive to litigate. But you see, they’re not in the public eye. If I paid her off, it would make headlines.

Does a lawsuit like this hurt your reputation?

It does. But that’s part of life. You can’t do anything about it. Now, I just want to bring it to a conclusion in a manner that will ultimately reveal the truth. It may not, and I may have to say, “OK, I give up.” But to the extent I can do it, I will.

What was your relationship with Ms. Weaver before all this happened?

She worked for Sharp. She used to show slides for me in my lectures. My contact with her was in the first three months of her employment with Sharp. After that, she worked for another year-and-a-half at Sharp. Then there was a general layoff at Sharp. Everyone was laid off and she was one of them.

About the Weekly Standard article and your lawsuit against them: Why do you think they were going after you to begin with?

The Weekly Standard is a conservative, right-wing publication. The editors allowed that story to be published despite being told they were going to be given [opposing] evidence. But after we sued, they retracted. And they paid us $1.6 million. So I made some money there — and I got the apology.

Are you a Democrat?

Yeah.

Do you think that was part of it too?

Yes. The Weekly Standard has constantly attacked anyone who’s liberal. And that was part of the fact that the editors allowed it to happen. Now after the settlement and everything, I have very good relationships with people at News Corp. — at the highest levels. We might even do business together. This was something that was not at the highest levels of News Corp. It was at the level of the Weekly Standard and down.

Why do conservatives, especially fundamentalist Christians, take offense to you?

You should probably ask them. But Mr. Pat Robertson has done television programs where he’s called me Satan. But fundamentalists also fight other Christians who are a little more liberal than them. Their whole thing is fear-based, anyway.

Are you more of a doctor or a spiritual leader?

Neither. Right now I think of myself as a writer who is sharing his ideas in books, lectures and seminars. And there’s a big segment of the population who relates to these ideas. But I’m never going to take on leadership. I don’t have the slightest desire.

One chapter of your book “The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success” deals with the law of karma. How do you think that karmic law applies here, in this lawsuit?

It’s teaching me great lessons. That I should not get upset. That I should be more patient and more humble. That I should learn how to go beyond emotional turbulence. So I think the laws of karma are working as clues and messages of love from some domain, telling me, “Deepak, relax! Take it easy! In 50 years we’ll all be dead. It won’t matter.”

Your public persona is of a gentle, nurturing, spiritual individual, and yet many people regard you as quite litigious and a real barracuda in the courtroom. Is there any conflict there?

I think your primitive, primordial self emerges when you’re attacked personally and you know it’s a lie. Three days ago when I was in the courtroom, Mr. Friesen (Weaver’s lawyer) started to distort what I was saying. So I looked at the judge, and said, “Your honor, he’s trying to bully me.” And before the judge could say anything, I looked at Friesen and I said, “You’re a bully. Do you know that, Bully?” (Laughs) And the judge says, “Strike it. Strike that!” He didn’t want the jurors to hear it.

When someone’s distorting your testimony because they want to make a million bucks, your survival instincts come out. But generally speaking, I’m not a barracuda, not even in court.

Did you know that there are some journalists who are afraid to write about you, for fear of being sued?

If they’ve written lies, they’ve been taken to task. Every time someone has written an outrageous lie in a malicious manner, they’ve had to retract it. But there has to be malicious intent. Everybody has a right to their interpretation, but when somebody willfully and maliciously lies then I think they have to retract it because otherwise it goes on your record.

You seem to inspire extreme reactions in people — they either really admire or dislike you. Why is that?

I’m successful. (He sighs.) I’m very successful. People think I make a lot of money, but they don’t realize that I spend a lot of money. But it’s totally natural that when you’re in the public eye there are some people who are going to love you and some people who are going to hate you. Your image is always going to be defiled, because the image is never going to conform to reality.

Can I get a comment from you after the verdict?

You can have it now. Either way — if I lose or if I win — the comment is going to be the same. And that is, “Everything is as it should be.” We can’t control the big picture. We can only try.

Their findings grabbed attention not just in the UK but across the Atlantic, where headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post and Murdoch’s own Wall Street Journal must have made uncomfortable reading for News Corp. staff and shareholders.

The committee’s judgment carries no threat of sanction, but with lawsuits pending in the US over hacking and the threat of possible prosecution under the powerful Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it will offer little in the way of reassurance.

Having conceded that the British parliamentary inquiry was right to highlight “serious wrongdoings” at the now defunct News of the World title, News Corp. took issue with the “unjustified and highly partisan” verdict on its boss.

Murdoch himself issued a statement to staff admitting mistakes but declaring that “our business has never been stronger.” News Corp.’s board also issued a statement saying it had “full confidence” in its CEO and chairman.

However, with criticism of Murdoch continuing to mount in the UK, questions were being raised as to what extent the report would harm his business interests both here and in the United States, with some shareholders suggesting it was time to shift power out of Murdoch’s hands.

A day after the report, elements of his $50 billion media empire appeared to be attempting to distance themselves from Murdoch, not just by prominently reporting the committee’s scathing assessment, but by explicitly stating their independence of his command.

There was speculation that a small surge in News Corp. share prices in the wake of Tuesday’s verdict reflected anticipation that the company would soon divest itself of its troubled UK newspaper titles and set wheels in motion to reduce Murdoch’s influence over the company.

Rupert Murdoch is “finished in the United Kingdom,” wrote Michael Wolff, author of “The Man Who Owns the News,” an unauthorized biography of the News Corp. founder. “Understanding that Britain is a lost front, he will retreat to his U.S. stronghold. From New York, the process of disposing of the British papers, which, by reliable insider accounts, has begun, will hasten.”

Of primary concern in the UK is whether the “not a fit person” verdict will have any impact on a separate inquiry by British communications industry regulator Ofcom over whether News Corp. is a “fit and proper” owner of a lucrative 39.1 percent stake in prominent broadcaster BSkyB.

Any decision that would force News Corp. to offload its BSkyB holding would be a considerable blow to the media giant, which had hoped to buy the broadcaster outright but later abandoned the deal after the phone hacking scandal inflamed opposition.

On Wednesday, BSkyB’s chief executive, Jeremy Darroch, used the publication of record financial results to disassociate his company from Murdoch and — clearly wary of the threat to its prized broadcast license — talk up its annual $1.6 billion tax contribution to the British economy.

“I would emphasize that it’s important to remember that Sky and News Corporation are separate companies,” he told reporters. “We believe that Sky’s track record as a broadcaster is the most important factor in determining our fitness to hold a license.”

Aware of the potential damage his presence could bring to the company, Murdoch’s son James last month stood down as chairman of BSkyB, saying he didn’t want to be a “lightning rod” for criticism over the hacking scandal.

Speculation is now mounting over whether the News Corp. brand will also be vulnerable to critical, financial and legal thunderbolts if Murdoch senior resists shareholder efforts to usher him into a backseat role.

“I think you have to be careful about extrapolating from what has been an appalling set of circumstances around one newspaper group … to the continuing demise of News Corp.,” said Charlie Beckett, director of Polis, a media and society think tank at the London School of Economics.

Beckett said that while the parliamentary verdict would certainly cast a shadow over any News Corp. deals, mergers or takeovers in the future, there was nothing inevitable about the demise of the company or its subsidiaries.

Likewise, he said that while there was support for scaling down Murdoch’s control over News Corp., shareholders would also bear in mind the fact that the media tycoon’s sharp business acumen has consistently paid dividends, regardless of any questions of ethical culpability.

“There are some people who would welcome the defamiliarization of the company, but you could also argue that this is a guy who has an extraordinary track record on delivering profit,” he told GlobalPost.

Beckett said that plans would already have been in place to arrange a succession of command, and while these may now be fast tracked down from five years to two, News Corp. would be unwise to proceed with too much haste.

“It’s in everyone’s interest for the thing to not fall apart in the next year or two. Even those people who want Murdoch to recede don’t want him to jump out of the top floor. That would be far too destabilizing.”

Now, Murdoch appears to be fighting back.

He and his son James were in the U.K. this week to face the Leveson inquiry, a judicial investigation into press standards, begun last year in the wake of revelations that journalists at Murdoch’s U.K. titles illegally hacked the voice mails of prominent public figures.

This time, he and his family appear to have turned on the British establishment, pressuring Prime Minister David Cameron and putting a key minister in the spotlight over a controversial business deal.

In his evidence on Tuesday, James Murdoch released documents that appeared to show that Jeremy Hunt, a media minister charged with examining a $13.4 billion bid by Murdoch’s News Corp. for full control of British Sky Broadcasting, had secretly helped to progress the deal.

The revelations sent Cameron’s government into a tailspin. Cameron pledged to stand by Hunt — who is overseeing the 2012 Olympics — while Hunt himself was forced to defend his actions to Parliament, denying claims he gave News Corp. a “back channel” of influence over the bid.

In an attempt to limit the damage, Hunt’s advisor Adam Smith — a key link in communications with James Murdoch — tendered his resignation at the same time that a relaxed-looking Murdoch senior was taking the stand to deny he held any sway over Britain’s politicians.

News Corp.’s bid to buy BSkyB was ruled out last year in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, an outcome that soured the once-cordial relations between Murdoch and Cameron. This breakdown appears to have set the tone for Murdoch’s reappearance.

Even before giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry, Rupert Murdoch appeared to be on the offensive against the government. Last month he took to Twitter to complain about “old toffs and right wingers” — a likely dig at the British establishment.

More followed when he arrived in London last weekend. In one tweet he criticizes the economic policies of Cameron’s government. “Govt sending IMF another ten bn to he euro. Must be mad,” he wrote.

Murdoch’s offensive and the question mark over Hunt couldn’t come at a worse time for Cameron. His government is already under fire for provoking a recent fuel crisis and for a financial budget that was derided in Parliament as an “omnishambles.”

A recent poll showed the ruling Conservatives have lost their command over the main opposition Labour Party, largely as a consequence of the budget.

To make matters worse for Cameron, it was announced on Wednesday that Britain had slumped back into recession despite forecasts of economic recovery.

But, despite his tweets, Murdoch insists he hasn’t been gunning for the government. Asked by Leveson counsel Richard Jay if “rumors” were true that he had not forgiven Cameron, he said they were not. He added: “Don’t take my tweets too seriously.”

Speculation had been rife that Murdoch would use his Leveson appearance to launch a “slash and burn” offensive, as one commentator put it. Some speculated his revelations could take direct aim at Cameron, possibly making the prime minister’s position untenable.

The Brookses were arrested, along with four others, “on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.” This was the second time Rebekah Brooks, the former editor of the Sun and the now-shuttered News of the World, had been arrested — the last time it was for conspiring to intercept communications, or “phone hacking” — and this arrest suggests that News International’s extensive efforts to cover up their unethical practices may end up damaging the company just as much as the unethical practices did.

Brooks’ newspapers gathered a great deal of news by illicitly listening to the voice-mail messages of celebrities and members of the royal family and murder victims. They also had a private investigator on contract to do other law-violating things, and they had a bribery budget that would make most American newspaper publishers jealous. Once Murdoch’s British newspaper empire faced civil, criminal and Parliamentary inquiries, they went on an email-destroying binge. They have since become much more cooperative, but deleting half a terabyte worth of emails to and from executives and destroying computers used by journalists under investigation is really not a sound legal strategy.

James Murdoch, still the News Corp. heir apparent, has written a note of apology to members of Parliament. He owes them an apology because the recoverable emails among the deleted cache strongly indicate that he lied to Parliament about his awareness of the extent of phone hacking. James has also essentially fled the country, having resigned from his father’s British newspapers company and taken a job at his American-based international pay television company.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister David Cameron is in the middle of his well-publicized state visit to the United States. Barack Obama has taken him to a “basketball match,” which Cameron found “hard to follow.” The right-leaning U.K. papers have been extremely overexcited in their coverage of the PM’s visit, because, again, national insecurity.

Cameron was surely thrilled to be out of the country when the Brookses got collared. They’re neighbors and close personal friends. Charlie Brooks and Cameron go way back — they attended Eton together, and as equally ridiculous posh stereotypes they got along famously — and earlier this month it was revealed that Cameron had ridden a retired police horse that the Met had for some reason given to Rebekah Brooks. (The only way the ensuing scandal could’ve been more British is if it had involved a Tory MP and a dominatrix.)

Speaking of horses, Charlie Brooks has one running in a race today. As the Guardian noted, he had a column published the day he was arrested in which he said, tragically, that “the happiest moment of my year is about three hours before the first race at Cheltenham on Tuesday.”

As for old Rupert himself, he hasn’t tweeted anything since Saturday. But he assured employees at the Sun that they’re in the clear, and he’s headed to London to perform damage control. His British newspapers hold a special place in his heart, making it a bit poignant — or hilarious, depending on your perspective — that that tiny arm of his vast international empire is the one that is currently destroying everything he’s spent a lifetime building.

The Guardian is delightfully liveblogging the meeting, which is handy, because News Corp. banned all cameras and recording devices. Audio of the meeting was streaming on the News Corp. corporate site for investors or those willing to claim to be investors on a registration page, but it just ended while they hold their shareholder votes. As he took questions, Murdoch sounded much more involved and feisty than he did in his confused appearance before Parliament earlier this summer. “I’d hate to call you a liar, but I know exactly how you’re going to vote,” he said to a hostile questioner who claimed to have not yet made up his mind.

Watson rehashed the various criminal complaints against News Corp. and added allegations of computer hacking. Others complained about Murdoch’s management of the corporation as a sort of personal fiefdom, with nepotism rampant. One guy wanted to talk about animal rights for a while.

Media Matters has the audio of Watson’s questioning:

Murdoch is not in much danger of losing his company. As Reuters says, he has 40 percent control of voting shares, and next largest holder is Murdoch ally and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talai. But the L.A. Times suggests News Corp. president Chase Carey could end up being promoted to CEO.

There are three crucial votes: The vote to reelect Murdoch and the rest of the board, the vote to cut Murdoch’s pay, and a vote to specifically force Murdoch to step down. He’ll probably win all three but the votes could be close enough to force the board to make some changes. And in the longer term, this could ruin Murdoch’s plan to have one of his kids run the company some day. (Son Lachlan having failed, Rupert still has to choose between Elisabeth and James.)

All the “media watchdogs” in the world will never remove Murdoch from power or shame him into changing his business practices, but once major institutional investors revolt, there’s a serious possibility of the end of the Murdoch era. Money, as always, speaks loudest.

That touched off a storm of public outrage that rocked Murdoch’s media empire and ricocheted through Britain’s political, police and media establishments.

“Nothing that has been agreed will ever bring back Milly or undo the traumas of her disappearance and the horrendous murder trial earlier this year,” the Dowlers said in the statement. “The only way that a fitting tribute could be agreed was to ensure that a very substantial donation to charity was made in Milly’s memory. We hope that projects will be undertaken so that some good can come from this.”

Murdoch met with the Dowlers in July to personally apologize to the family, saying he was “appalled” to have discovered what happened.

In the statement Friday, he said he hoped something positive can be done in memory of Milly.

“The behavior that the News of the World exhibited towards the Dowlers was abhorrent and I hope this donation underscores my regret for the company’s role in this awful event,” he said.

The revelation that reporters eavesdropped on Milly Dowler’s voice mail messages while police were searching for her — and mounting evidence that phone hacking was routine at the newspaper — scandalized the British public.

In a letter to lawmakers disclosed Thursday, Surrey Police Chief Constable Mark Rowley acknowledged that his force knew as far back as April 2002 that someone working for the News of the World had accessed Dowler’s voice mail, giving false hope to the missing teen’s family and potentially interfering with the investigation into her disappearance.

The phone hacking scandal has forced the resignation of two of London’s top police officers, ousted executives at Murdoch’s News Corp. and claimed the job of Prime Minister David Cameron’s former spin doctor, Andy Coulson, an ex-News of the World editor.

Murdoch’s global News Corp. has expressed contrition, launched an internal inquiry and set aside 20 million pounds ($32 million) to compensate victims, who could number in their hundreds.

Still, the News Corp. CEO is under pressure. On Friday, he will face shareholders with small stakes in his company for the first time since the phone-hacking scandal broke in July.

British lawmaker Tom Watson, one of Murdoch’s fiercest British critics, traveled to Los Angeles to attend the annual general meeting and has said he plans to use the event to reveal new details of what he claims are covert surveillance techniques by company employees.

_____

Associated Press writer Jill Lawless contributed to this report.

_____

Cassandra Vinograd can be reached at http://twitter.com/CassVinograd