| |||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think News  PeoplePolitics2000 Technology - Free Software Project Travel & Food  Columnists - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Current Click here to read the latest stories from the wires. - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon People stories, go to the
People home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon People Nothing Personal Brilliant Careers Nothing Personal Nothing Personal Column - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
The art of the spiritual smackdown
- - - - - - - - - - - -
March 7, 2000 | Chopra was riffing on the title of his recent book "How to Know God" as well as making a catty reference to his tangled, five-year legal battle with Weaver, a former employee of the now-defunct Sharp Center for Mind-Body Medicine in Del Mar, Calif., where Chopra once worked. 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.
| ||
 |
 |
 |
 |
Next page |