Accountability of the SSSC Regarding Unaddressed Conflicts of Interest


 Accountability of the SSSC Regarding Unaddressed Conflicts of Interest

The Khalsa Council is an “advisory” body to the SSSC and while it’s not a requirement for the SSSC to listen to the advice the Khalsa Council gives them, it is the only kind of check and balance there is for the SSSC at this point.

The Students of Yogi Bhajan have serious concerns about conflicts of interest in relation to the checks and balances of the SSSC and the autonomy of the Khalsa Council as an independent leadership body.

Our complaint is as follows:

There are four main leaders of the Khalsa Council.  The Secretary General, the Khalsa Council Chairperson, the Chief Facilitator (Whip), and the SDI Chancellor.

  1. The Secretary General of the Khalsa Council also sits on the SSSC Board and was appointed to the CRT by the SSSC. We object to the fact that Gurujot Kaur has had the simultaneous leadership positions of Secretary General, CEO of SDI, member of the CRT and SSSC Board member.
  2. The Khalsa Council Chairperson also sits on the SSSC Board. We object to the fact that Guruka Singh has had the simultaneous leadership positions of Chairperson of the Khalsa Council and SSSC Board member
  3. In early 2020, Pritpal Kaur was both the Chief Facilitator (Whip) and was appointed to the CRT by the SSSC. We object to the fact that Pritpal Kaur had the simultaneous leadership positions of CEO of 3HO, member of the CRT and Chief Facilitator/Whip of the Khalsa Council.
  4. In late 2020, Atma Kaur was appointed as the new Chief Facilitator (Whip) and she is a paid staff person of the SSSC. We object to the fact that Atma Kaur has had the simultaneous leadership position of Chief Facilitator/Whip of the Khalsa Council and is a paid staff member of the SSSC.

In their leadership roles, these leaders participate on the Executive Committee of the Khalsa Council, which sets the agendas and approves members applying to be part of the electorate to vote on SSSC Board members.

  1. There is a serious conflict of interest to the Khalsa Council operating freely and with autonomy, when leaders of the Khalsa Council who are setting the agendas and running the Khalsa Council meetings, also sit on the SSSC Board.
  2. There is a serious conflict of interest to the Khalsa Council operating freely and with autonomy, when leaders of the Khalsa Council, who are approving applicants to become part of the electorate are also either sitting on the SSSC themselves who have been and may continue to be up for election themselves, or are paid staff members of the SSSC.  These people should not be deciding on who can and cannot vote for obvious reasons.
  3. In their capacities as CEO of SDI, and CEO of 3HO, Gurujot Kaur and Pritpal Kaur were also appointed to the CRT by the SSSC.

Early on in the whole process of handling the allegations against the Siri Singh Sahib, the CRT and SSSC quickly came to the conclusion that he was guilty of the accusations against him.  And yet, the Secretary General did not bring this, THE BIGGEST ISSUE in our Dharma EVER, as a topic for the Khalsa Council to discuss and advise the SSSC about– even when one of the SSSC Board members themselves (Ek Ong Kaar Kaur) requested to have a special Khalsa Council meeting for the members to discuss (prior to the AOB report being issued).

Instead, after the AOB report was issued, then the Secretary General simply put the topic of the AOB report on the agenda, for the Khalsa Council members to “process” their feelings about it.

This demonstrated a serious conflict of interest, with the appearance being that due to her role on the SSSC and the CRT, and the fact that she was involved in making decisions regarding the AOB report, that she did not want to engage with the Khalsa Council members, where she may have been questioned, or received push back regarding those decisions.  This was a grave transgression against honoring the Khalsa Council members, as ministers and leaders of our community, and against our Spiritual Teacher, the founder of SDI and the Khalsa Council.

Gurujot Kaur, as CEO of SDI and the Secretary General of the Khalsa Council, is paid by SDI for these roles.  Therefore, her first duty was to SDI and the Khalsa Council, not to furthering the agenda of the SSSC and the CRT.  Her first duty should have been to involve the ministers and community members of the Khalsa Council in the discussion of THE BIGGEST ISSUE in our Dharma EVER as it was happening, and not to simply process their feelings about it after the fact.

  1. In addition to the Secretary General of the Khalsa Council sitting on the SSSC Board and being appointed to the CRT, her husband, Sat Want Singh, is the Executive Director of the SSSC. While the SSSC Board members are volunteers and are generally not paid for their work (except those who are appointed to the Board of Directors of the various for-profit Dharmic companies), the position of Executive Director of the SSSC is a paid position.
  2. In addition, Gurujot Kaur holds the simultaneous positions of CEO and Secretary General, which is appointed by the Siri Sikdar Sahiba. Upon the resignation or death of the Siri Sikdar Sahiba, the Secretary General becomes the Siri Sikdar Sahiba and appoints the next Secretary General.  So, unlike a normal CEO position, who is accountable to the board of the organization, the only person who has any legal oversight over the Secretary General is the Siri Sikdar Sahiba.  Currently, the Siri Sikdar Sahiba has been and is on a leave of absence.
  3. As part of either and/or the SSSC Board and the CRT, Gurujot Kaur, Guruka Singh and Pritpal Kaur supported the unfair and illegal investigative process, which lead to the AOB report. The SSSC attorneys advised that the AOB “investigation” was not a “criminal investigation”, and therefore did not follow the standard rules of an investigation, that 1) the accusations are not anonymous and 2) that the accused is entitled to representation.  How then, was the next step, once the AOB report was released, for the SSSC to hire a company to conduct a “Restorative Justice” process?

Restorative Justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior.” ~

As the Thompson Report concludes, the AOB report should not be a basis as to whether Yogi Bhajan did any of the things he is accused of.  You cannot have a just outcome, if your foundation is not based on a shared truth.

In summary, people who have leadership roles in so many inter-related organizations, and have a particular point of view, can move the entire organization toward the purposes of that view.  It would be very difficult to execute the objective independence that these roles require.  The way it transpired, there was no daylight between them.

The danger of these incestuous relationships is precisely what happened when Unto Infinity and Roy Lambert facilitated the attempted theft of Golden Temple– there were no checks and balances or recognition of real and potential conflicts of interest.  Have we learned nothing from that dark chapter in our history?

Whatever semblance of check and balance that was supposed to exist between the SSSC and the Khalsa Council is gone, which is demonstrated by:

  1. The Khalsa Council was never informed or able to participate as to how the allegations were handled
  2. Restorative Justice was deemed an appropriate next step by the SSSC and leaders of the Khalsa Council, who happen to be the same people, who were also integrally involved in determining the whole investigative process to begin with

Best practices for successful corporate governance, are that even when actual conflicts of interest are debatable, even the appearance of conflict of interest should be avoided.

The SSSC Board has been “missing in action” in its duties to make sure that our dharmic leadership entities (in this case the Khalsa Council) are operating free of such egregious conflicts of interest.

The SSSC has allowed the Secretary General of the Khalsa Council, an autonomous leadership body which supposedly acts as a check and balance to the SSSC, to also sit as an SSSC Board Member, for multiple terms.

The SSSC has allowed its own members to sit in an election for the role of Khalsa Council Chairperson, the leadership body (the Khalsa Council), which performs (at least in lip service) some form of checks and balances against itself.

All in all, 3 of the 4 main leadership roles in the Khalsa Council (Secretary General, Chairperson and Chief Whip) are currently composed of either SSSC board members, or their paid staff.

In addition, the SSSC appointed to the CRT, leadership of the Khalsa Council, Secretary General Gurujot Kaur and Chief Facilitator/Whip, Pritpal Kaur.

In addition, SSSC Board members have played an integral role in the Khalsa Council Committees/ Task Forces (either as Chairpersons of the task forces, or leading action policies in some way).

Please accept this as a formal complaint to the EPS from the Students of Yogi Bhajan.  We await your response.

We would also like to note that while the EPS website does not list anyone who works for the organization, our understanding is that Guruka Kaur is the Director.  In light of this complaint mentioning her husband, Guruka Singh, as both an SSSC Board member and the Khalsa Council Chairperson, and because the EPS is overseen by the SSSC, we have concern regarding a conflict of interest in the handling of this complaint. Please confirm how this will be handled.  Thank you.


The Students of Yogi Bhajan

Accountability of the SSSC Regarding their Handling of the Allegations Against Yogi Bhajan


Accountability of the SSSC Regarding their Handling of the Allegations Against Yogi Bhajan

Students of Yogi Bhajan is a group of 3HO/Sikh Dharma individuals who are committed to preserving the Legacy, History and Teachings of Yogi Bhajan. As part of this commitment, and in our resolve to seek the truth, we reject the August 2020 AOB report, because it presents itself as an investigation, and it was not.

In addition, we reject certain decisions and actions of the Siri Singh Sahib Corporation (SSSC) Board, the Collaborative Response Team (CRT), 3HO Foundation International (3HO), Kundalini Research Institute (KRI), Sikh Dharma International (SDI) and any other organizational entities who have used the AOB report as the basis for an unsubstantiated attack on the character of our Spiritual Teacher, as are outlined below.

Our complaint is as follows:

  1. The SSSC Board needs to be accountable to their failures in managing the allegations against Yogi Bhajan.

A.  The SSSC, through the CRT communications, stated that they were going to conduct an investigation. Rather, they conducted a survey, or inquiry, through private listening tours.

B.  During the so called “investigation”, members of the SSSC and the CRT conducted public events, in the form of Khalsa Council meetings and public listening tours where, while the said investigation was taking place, they allowed accusers to publicly state their claims, without any counter information. In essence, they were allowed to say whatever they wanted, and influence public opinion without any evidence.

C.  From the beginning, as this process began to unfold, a significant number of Sikh Dharma Ministers, community leaders, and senior members of the community insisted that the entire process be dealt with in a neutral way. For months, many Sangat members brought to the attention of the SSSC Board their concerns with the manner in which communications were being sent to the public, and the language and characterizations that were being used.

These concerns were generally ignored. Public communications by KRI, 3HO, the CRT, and the SSSC itself continued to promote the conclusion that the allegations of sexual misconduct by Yogi Bhajan were true.

All of this was done, before the supposed investigation was allowed to be completed.

D.  No discernable efforts were made by the SSSC or any of its affiliates to determine where the allegations against Yogi Bhajan were supported or refuted by facts, with regard to the time and space of any reported event, with regard to supporting witnesses to the events, and with regard to any concerns about the credibility of any of the reporters.

E.  The SSSC created the CRT and populated it with individuals who for the most part publicly asserted that they believed the allegations and were thereby biased and unable to be objective and neutral in their managing of the investigative process.

Many community members, even though they disagreed with the process, in good faith, because they felt they had important information for the investigation, which would question the allegations, contacted the AOB interviewers conducting the “investigation”.

As it turned out, the hours of their testimonies did not matter, since the interviewers did not use any of that information in the AOB report.

Indeed, what our community ended up with, through the actions of the SSSC Board, was a damning report, which provided no proof, and was ultimately shown to simply be a process of accepting the stories of anyone who wished to make a claim against Yogi Bhajan.  There was no actual investigation conducted.

F.  The findings brought to bear in the recent Thompson Report, an independent review of the AOB report, confirm the concerns expressed by many Sangat members.

G.  In summary, the decision, actions, and language consistently used by the SSSC, 3HO, and KRI have unfairly maligned the character of Yogi Bhajan and offended and insulted a significant number of Ministers and committed members of the organization.

The Thompson report was a review of the AOB Report and was written by a professional investigator and former attorney.  It is a 21-page serious indictment of the AOB report and its flawed methodology. Two damning summarizations are:

From the Executive Summary:  “As a result of the lack of qualifications to conduct an investigation and prepare an investigative report, the AOB Report is of no use in forming the basis for any findings as to whether the alleged behavior of Yogi Bhajan occurred.”

From the Conclusion: “Because the AOB Report does not appear to be investigative at all or provide sufficient facts to make any determination, it should not serve to assist anyone in determining whether the alleged behavior by Yogi Bhajan actually occurred.

The impact of the SSSC actions have been catastrophic and the extent of the impact warrants an honest, objective review of their actions.

In our view, the first step which needs to happen, in order for healing to occur in our community, is for the SSSC to review, reflect and acknowledge the flaws in their previous actions and communications regarding the allegations against Yogi Bhajan.  And from there, to honestly look at what can be done to rectify this situation.

  1. The voice of the Students of Yogi Bhajan needs to be recognized and heard.

Even though many individual Students of Yogi Bhajan have written to the SSSC, with concerns throughout the entirety of this process, the SSSC has not listened to or even acknowledged our voices.

And in fact, when Sangat members, and now the author of the Thompson Report, have called into question the veracity of the AOB report, and the process which lead to it, the SSSC has never once acknowledged that there is any possible truth to what has been said.

Instead, the SSSC, or their attorneys, answered with falsehoods (see “Mistruths from the SSSC“), or by maligning the character of the people challenging their actions.  The Thompson Report systematically demonstrated that all of the defenses previously asserted by the SSSC, to the criticisms of the investigative process, used by AOB, were wholly without merit.

Not only that, members of the CRT and the SSSC have also verbally maligned the character of individual Sangat members who brought up concerns about the process they had undertaken.

And most recently, Sangat members who have contacted the SSSC to address concerns raised in the Thompson Report, were told that the author, Barbara Thompson, is not qualified to provide such a report, even though the first footnote on the first page of the report clearly lists her credentials as follows:

“Barbara W. Thompson, J.D., L.P.I., is a former attorney and a current licensed private investigator in Pennsylvania who has managed a private investigations practice for 25 years. She was a first and second vice-president, secretary, and treasurer of the Pennsylvania Association of

Licensed Investigators (PALI), and served as an executive board member for eighteen years.  While on the board of PALI she co-chaired a team of board members who worked on the revision of the Pennsylvania Private Detective Act of 1953. She has actively worked to raise the quality of professional private investigators and private investigations throughout her career.”

Additional credentials found on the website are as follows:

Barbara W. Thompson, Managing Partner of The Worldwide Investigative Network, LLC (T.W.I.N.)- Research, has over fifteen years’ experience in investigative and legal research. She specializes in investigative and due diligence research both in the United States and internationally.

 Thompson practiced law in Pennsylvania, taught business and tax law for a major international publishing company and developed training programs in research for attorneys and accountants. She was a District Manager for CDB Infotek, the public records database, now Choicepoint. Thompson was also the Director of Research for a major international security and investigations company.

In 1999, Thompson and TW Consulting joined with Joel Bartow to form The Worldwide Investigative Network, LLC [TWIN]. TWIN provides general investigative services but specializes in fraud and money laundering investigations.

So, instead of acknowledging the concerns of Sangat members, the strategy of the SSSC has been to ignore receiving the complaints and disregarding the character or qualifications of the people making them.  It appears that their only concern is to be sure there is no resistance to the course they took and the outcome they achieved.

So, the question is, how does the SSSC handle engaging with the Students of Yogi Bhajan?  For that, our eyes and ears are on how they respond to this complaint.

And how do the Students of Yogi Bhajan intend to participate with our legacy organizations going forward?

Many of us did not participate in the Listening Tours, and some who initially did join, did not continue because the premise of the format was that of Yogi Bhajan being guilty.

We are not interested in participating in another process which is controlled by a predetermined narrative (i.e. Just Outcomes). Restorative Justice assumes a crime has been committed.  There is no proof that Yogi Bhajan is guilty of any of the allegations.  You cannot have a just outcome if your foundation is not based on a shared truth.

We are not interested in participating in events hosted by the legacy organizations (i.e. solstices, Khalsa Council meetings, etc.) where the premise of the organizers is the guilt of Yogi Bhajan.

As a first step, what we are open to, and what we are asking for, is a dialogue between the Students of Yogi Bhajan community and the full SSSC Board (without attorneys).  It is our hope and prayer that the SSSC will fulfill their duty as board members and have the courage to listen to us.

Please accept this as a formal complaint to the EPS from the Students of Yogi Bhajan.  We await your response.

We would also like to note that while the EPS website does not list anyone who works for the organization, our understanding is that Guruka Kaur is the Director.  In light of the fact that this complaint is against the SSSC, and her husband, Guruka Singh, is an SSSC Board member, and the EPS is overseen by the SSSC, we have a concern regarding a conflict of interest in the handling of this complaint. Please confirm how this will be handled.  Thank you.


The Students of Yogi Bhajan



In early 2020, the leadership of our community cited “credible allegations” and called into question whether our Spiritual Teacher was as we knew him to be – a man of God, whose integrity and grace is beyond reproach, or someone entirely different.

The impact of answering this question is HUGE.  Is how we’ve been living as a Spiritual Community for the past 50 years still our reality, or is there an alternate reality we never knew existed?

Answering this question is one of the most important decisions we will make in our lives. The answer to this question will affect hundreds of thousands of lives across the globe.  It will affect each and every one of us for the rest of our lives.

Is the AOB investigation process, and their subsequent report, and the information you were deliberately not given in that report, enough for you to make one of the most important decisions in your life?

For many of us, the answer to this question has been a resounding “NO”.  And so, many of us communicated with and shared our knowledge and experiences with each another and with AOB in order to get to the truth.

This analysis of the AOB report is what we determined through that process.

We found the AOB report to be a bogus (untrue, wrong and unfair) report.  If you want to take a more in depth look at the AOB report and what is missing, before you make your final determination regarding one of the most important decisions of your life, then read on.

Blessings to All,
OngKar Kaur
(Note:  Although I work for SDI, this work represents my personal thoughts; not any official position from SDI).

View the Analysis of the AOB Report

Bogus and Illegal Investigation

A quick FYI….AOB interviewed over 300 people: women who made allegations, people who supported them, and people who supported the character of Yogi Bhajan. Toward the end of their process, they refused to speak with some people who requested interviews to support Yogi Bhajan. Each person’s testimony was given an identification number, such as #56.

Not an Investigation

The report states many times that AOB was commissioned to perform a third-party independent “investigation” even though their website says: We are not investigators and do not try to uncover the past; instead, we try to improve things for the future. And indeed, due to the fact that AOB did not have the credentials to carry out an investigation, this report was determined to be Illegal.

In May 2020, the Siri Singh Sahib Corp (SSSC) was notified that An Olive Branch was not licensed to do investigations – the work the Collaborative Response Team (CRT) had hired them to do. The SSSC did nothing to correct the situation and tried to brush it off by saying it didn’t matter if AOB was unlicensed, because the situation would never be prosecuted.

The SSSC seemed to miss the point of why people are licensed in the first place: states require that professionals with minimum qualifications be licensed in order to protect the public from unqualified and untrained providers – doctors, engineers, contractors, private investigators and so on.  if the team of people conducting the “investigation” were not trained or qualified to properly conduct an investigation, what would the quality of that “investigation” likely be?  It is this report.

Why did the SSSC appoint AOB, when AOB was unqualified and unlicensed?  Did the CRT, the SSSC and their attorneys even ask whether AOB was licensed when they hired them?  And why did the SSSC release the report after they knew AOB was not licensed?  Why did the SSSC continue to direct and pay AOB for an investigation that they knew was illegal?

No Representation of the Accused

The problem with AOB’s illegal “investigation”, is that there was no representation of the accused, Yogi Bhajan.  The SSSC attorneys dismissed this as well, saying that the deceased cannot be represented. This is false – the deceased are routinely represented in legal investigations by appointees called “personal representatives.” It happens every day; in cases such as car accidents, contract disputes, property disputes, etc.

(See Mis-Truths in the SSSC Follow Up Letter.)

Allegations and Accusers Identities Were Kept Secret

The AOB investigation was patently unfair because not only the identity of the accuser’s was kept secret, but their accusations as well as the time and place of the alleged claims were kept secret. And yet supporters of Yogi Bhajan who were interviewed were asked by AOB if they had evidence to dispute the claims of the “victims.”  How is it possible to refute something you have no knowledge of?

In this age of #metoo, many women who claim sexual abuse have come forward publicly to tell their stories. Why were the women who reported abuse to AOB given special treatment and their identities and stories hidden from those who wanted to prove Yogi Bhajan’s innocence?

Lack of Credibility of the AOB “Investigation”

The AOB report gives no indication that they took the time to verify that the accusers ever met Yogi Bhajan or had the type of access they describe in their allegations. Since the claims were not made public, many community members did their own research to find out what they could about the allegations and who was making them. They were able to identity some of the women and contacted dozens of people who knew the accusers well and who were regularly at Yogi Bhajan’s home. Those contacted included personal staff, cooks, drivers, household staff, sevadars, etc.

No Verification of Identity or Statements

One Yogi Bhajan supporter recounts this conversation they had with AOB:

AOB said that they were confused by our names, and asked, “Do you know how many people we’ve talked with?  How could we verify their identities?  We don’t have to verify people; people call us, and we take them at their word that they are who they say they are.  We were told to take what we hear as credible.  We do not have an investigative team to verify everything. We took statements from people and we were told to provide counseling money to people who fit the criteria.”

Evidence Not Considered

As a result of the community’s independent research, important facts, including court documents and letters written at the time, were provided to AOB to disprove the credibility of some of the accuser’s claims.  This valuable evidence was not mentioned in the AOB report.  Yet the report states time and time again how it was “more than likely than not” that Yogi Bhajan had done the things these women accuse him of.

Medical Evidence Given No Weight

Yogi Bhajan’s health was poor during the later years of his life, and according to medical professionals, he was physically unable to do the things he was accused of during that time. At least three women who we believe made claims were on his staff in his later years. AOB was given Yogi Bhajan’s detailed medical history, and they were offered medical records to back it up. AOB did not request to see the medical records and completely ignored the medical evidence which refuted the claims of these women.  None of this information was mentioned in the report.

Communications Deliberately Kept Out of the Report

One community member spoke with a number of the accusers, and with many people who knew the accusers. Valuable information was provided to AOB which questioned the credibility of the claims they had heard about via social media and “listening tours” hosted on Zoom.  AOB then told them they were not doing an investigation. The person replied, “Yes, you were hired to do so, and all the communications from the CRT said you are doing an investigation.”  Again, AOB said they were not hired to do an investigation; they were hired to take statements and provide a report.

Another Yogi Bhajan supporter said none of  information they shared with AOB which questioned the integrity of the accusers and their stories is mentioned in the report; moreover, more than 20 other supporters of Yogi Bhajan say their information disputing the allegations is not included in the report either.

The purpose of an investigative report is to provide readers with an objective, unbiased statement of what information was found during the course of the investigation.  The fact that AOB left the information, provided by these supporters, out of the report could be nothing but a deliberate attempt to lead the readers to a specific narrative predetermined by AOB. Given that AOB spoke to 140 supporters, it is more than likely that there is even more information refuting the allegations that AOB omitted from their report as well.

Fabricated Stories Accepted by AOB

One person knew a woman who had never even met Yogi Bhajan, who had called AOB to make a claim. The person contacted AOB and inquired, “Can someone really just call and give a name and story, without it being verified?” AOB replied that they do not have the resources to look at both sides of a story; and admitted that they only take statements.

The person told AOB about the false claim given by this woman who had never met Yogi Bhajan and asked, “Do you want me to tell you about her?  She has falsely accused other men and has no credibility.”  They asked how he knew about it and he said the woman had told him.  He asked how they were going to verify her story.  AOB said they would not be verifying it; it would just be added to the report.  They said that they take people at their word as being credible.

After this experience, this person decided to do a “test” of AOB protocols. He called AOB multiple times using different names. AOB accepted whatever name he used. When he asked about their investigative process, he was told that AOB could only discuss their process with people making a complaint. So, he called back using another name and made a complaint about sexual abuse by Yogi Bhajan.

The AOB interviewer commented that they had received claims from women, but not men; that his being a man made it more “balanced.”  He proceeded to tell the interviewer a fabricated story of abuse. By doing so, he confirmed that accusers’ identities and stories are not verified in any way whatsoever!

After telling his fabricated story, he was told that his claim would be in the report and that it would be anonymous and if he wanted to contact them to tell them anything else, he could call back any time.

He asked the interviewer how they were going to verify his story.  They said that they were not going to.  The person asked the interviewer, “how do you know if my story is true?” The interviewer said that they take all stories as credible; that they do not confirm anyone’s story; that they do not do investigations; that it says on their website they don’t do investigations.

After giving his false story and confirming what their process was, the person asked to speak with a supervisor.  The supervisor came on the phone and he told both her and the interviewer that his story was not true; that it was a spoof; that he had made it up to see if they would do anything to validate it; that the name he had given was not his legal name; and that in fact, he had never met Yogi Bhajan.

The AOB interviewer said “What?”.  He said, “the story I just told you never happened.”  The interviewer said, “What do you mean?”  He said that it couldn’t have happened; that he came to the Dharma after Yogi Bhajan left his body; that he wasn’t even there.  The interviewer said that she didn’t believe him; that she thought his story was true; that it sounded like it was authentic and true.  She said that he was covering for Yogi Bhajan; she said she could “feel that he was telling the truth”; that he was emotional and that he was “crying while telling his story” (he wasn’t actually crying; it was her interpretation of him talking).  He told the interviewer and the supervisor that the reason he had called to give a false complaint was that 1) he had heard they don’t verify the identity of accusers and do not get confirmations of stories and that 2) he knew others who were giving false complaints; so he called in to test the system; to see what they would do if he made a false claim; that they had failed the system.

Bias of Guilt in Findings

AOB admitted to one supporter that they were told to ask supporters of Yogi Bhajan the final question in their interviews, “Did you ever hear anything about orgies?” Many supporters who had interviews said they were asked this question or something very similar. Many supporters said they felt that the AOB interviewers hadn’t heard a word they had said in support of Yogi Bhajan’s character because if they had, they would have known that the supporter did not believe Yogi Bhajan would ever have engaged in unethical sexual behavior with his students.

The AOB report contains nothing in the way of “evidence” other than the statements of the accusers.  Several accusers provided names of people who supposedly knew about the claims at the time they supposedly happened. Of these several people, either they could not be located, or they denied remembering the stories as they were presented to them. AOB explained away their denials and decided anyway that the claims were “more likely than not” to have happened.  This demonstrates a very clear bias of guilt.

Here are some examples of their impartial conclusions:

Page 36 of the report says:

“the individual in question could not be located to affirm or deny the allegation.  Since there were other accounts of Yogi Bhajan directing individuals (to engage in sexual activity)… we take ‘#xx’ allegation as credible…The alleged escort denied that they did this, but also may have blocked or forgotten this incident or believed the purpose of the encounter was not sexual in nature….after weighing all of the relevant information available to us, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not….”

An accusation this serious in nature should not automatically be deemed credible because the accuser says it is so. AOB was incapable of being neutral in order to get to the truth. They dismissed this testimony because it did not fit the narrative they wished to portray.  This demonstrates a clear bias. If the allegations had not been kept under wraps, it is more than likely that the community would have been able to locate the other person.

Page 39 of the report says:

“’#xx’: We picked [name] up at the airport. She had bruises all over her face – she had a split lip, bruised cheek, and puffy eye. And she said she had bruises on her body. She did not want to tell us what had happened, but eventually she said she was kicked in the head by a horse. I did not believe she was kicked by a horse. We wanted to take her to a doctor, but she refused. We saw other things – the way she acted-and I felt something very bad was happening in her life.”

Why was this even included in the report?  It is purely conjecture designed to imply guilt.

Page 49 of the report says:

“We found no inconsistencies when we tested the alignment of allegations of Yogi Bhajan’s propositioning or coaching women for sex between our private interviews and other information made available to us.”

What does this mean? How did they test this?  What other information was made available to them and from whom?

And page 52 says:

“In a media interview conducted in January 1987 with ‘#xx’, when asked if Yogi Bhajan had sex with any of those who worked for him, the interviewee denied that Yogi Bhajan engaged in any sexual behavior with any of his students”

‘#xx’ said: “This is so ridiculous, it’ s almost humorous… It’ s so absurd and so far from the truth and so far from anything that ever went on, that it’s hard for me to comprehend how they [people who have left the community] have the nerve and the gall to create stuff like this that’s based on nothing . However, in the American culture, if a woman spends the night with a man in her room, the only way we have to interpret it is… they’re sleeping together.”

AOB concludes:

“There is reason to question the credibility of this statement, however, since the speaker was being interviewed in 1987 by a media reporter and may not have been truthful in the interest of protecting Yogi Bhajan and others with whom he allegedly had sex.”

Again, AOB discredits the testimony of a Yogi Bhajan supporter by saying she may have been trying to hide the truth.

AOB’s statement shows how sloppy their work is: this was not a “media interview” as they stated. The document they are referring to is an 89-page legal interview, from a former staff member with lawyers involved in the Pamela and Kate lawsuits in 1986.

In many sections of the report, the statement was made:

“We have no specific information that refutes any of the claims made about….  After weighing all of the relevant information available to us, we have sufficient evidence to conclude it is more likely than not that…”

What was the “sufficient evidence”?  Only the statements of the accusers.  Since there was no representative of the accused, no one except the accuser and the interviewee knew what was being claimed.  So how could there be any additional evidence? AOB concludes that since the alleged claims occurred in private, that constitutes proof.

AOB does not provide “verified evidence” that there were any rapes. Only the stories of the women were considered. If the women never told a therapist or anyone else, who confirmed any claim AROUND THE TIME IT HAPPENED, not in 2019-2020, this is not considered verified or corroborated proof.  In a typical “he said/ she said” situation, an investigator asks pertinent questions about dates, locations, who else was around, etc. to verify or dispute a claim being made.

Refer to the Shambala Report to see how this is typically done.

Assessments of Credibility

AOB used the following factors to explain how they determined if the burden of proof was met for a given claim.

  1. Was the witness capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which they speak?
  2. Were they actually present at the transaction and can narrate their recollections?
  3. Were their perceptions of events accurate compared to known facts or the observations of other people?

How did AOB know whether the accusers “perceptions of events were accurate” or not?

Since there was no representative of the accused, and because AOB set up an anonymous process, for which only they knew who the accusations were and by whom, they could not actively pursue information which could confirm or deny the claims.

When an accuser described something that happened at a particular event, or time in history, how did AOB “compare known facts or other person’s observations”, when because the accusers and the claims were anonymous, they could not ask the needed questions.

If there had been a representative of the accused, that person would have known what the claims were and could say who might be able to speak to them.  For example, they might say “here are other people who were living in the house during that time”; or “Yogi Bhajan had medical surgery at the time and was not physically able to do the activities described in a particular claim”, etc.

If the investigator does not receive dates and locations and doesn’t know who can verify information surrounding the allegations, they do not have enough information to make a balanced determination.  To get to the truth, input from both the accuser and the person representing the accused is required.  In the report, there is not one reference to when or where any of the claims took place.

  1. Whether they paid sufficient attention (i.e., can remember the events that were perceived) to qualify themselves to be a reporter of a transaction

How could AOB possibly know if the accuser’s perceptions of events were accurate when no one else knew enough about the claims to say whether they had observed details of the events? Yogi Bhajan’s supporters were unable to provide information which would refute the claims because AOB interviewers would not reveal the who, what, when and where of the claims.  If these facts had been known, it is possible that more witnesses would have been able to refute the allegations of these women.

AOB only seems to have considered accusers for this.  Many supporters fell into this category as well.  Only general supportive comments from supporters were included.  Why was nothing of substance from the hours and hours of interviews with supporters shared in the report?

  1. Whether they are sincere, i.e. whether they honestly relate the affair fully as they know it, without any purpose or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth

These are very subjective criterion.  There is no way AOB could possibly determine from one or two interviews that the accusers are “without any purpose or desire to deceive, suppress or add to the truth.” Judges and juries spend months or years in court, weighing the testimony of witnesses and evidence to make this kind of determination. But with only 40 hours of mediation training, the AOB interviewers want us to believe they can judge that the women accusing Yogi Bhajan are telling the truth and have no ulterior motives?

  1. Whether or not they have a reputation for having a character for truthfulness

Without having a representative of the accused and by keeping the allegations anonymous, how is it possible for AOB to find out whether an accuser has a “character for truthfulness”?  AOB was set up with a process where they could not do that, because they could not ask anyone about any of the accusers, if the claims were anonymous.

Even so, for the allegations which were made public, either via Facebook, at the April Khalsa Council meetings, or through “tell a Sikh” conversations, dozens of people in the community, who can speak intelligently to the “reputation for having a character for truthfulness” of the accusers, contacted AOB.

They reported about accusers who had sex with married men, broke up marriages, made a false claim of having sex with the husband of a friend, and about accusers who have previously lied in court.

Multiple accusers included former UI board members and associates, who were found guilty of trying to steal the assets of our Dharma, including selling the Golden Temple Cereal Company to themselves for $100 – a company which sold for millions of dollars.

At least one accuser was kicked out of multiple respected spiritual entities.

AOB was told that this same accuser, who claimed explicit sexual activity with Yogi Bhajan, once told someone at the ranch that she should be able to move into Yogi Bhajan’s dome (his personal residence).  Then when asked, where she would expect he would go to live, she simply shrugged her shoulders as if to say she didn’t know.  This extraordinary statement, illustrating the accuser’s state of mind, was not included in the report.

NONE of this information, shared by DOZENS of people in our community, was cited in the AOB report as a good cause for questioning the claims of these women.  Why not?

  1. How they present themselves (i.e., their demeanor such as facial expressions, body language, reactivity, emotional expression, etc.)

This is a subjective determination and irrelevant for phone interviews or written statements.

  1. Whether they have made prior inconsistent statements

With no one representing the accused and the allegations themselves being anonymous, how could AOB determine whether the accusers had said something differently in the past or not?  They could not ask anyone questions about whether the person had said something different in the past, since everything was kept anonymous.

Even so, for the stories which were made public, either via Facebook, at the April Khalsa Council meetings, or through “tell a Sikh” conversations, many people in the community, who can speak intelligently to the question of whether the accusers had made “prior inconsistent statements” of the accusers, contacted AOB.

None of this information, shared by DOZENS of people in our community, was cited in the report.  Why?

Multiple accusers, who were staff members, told multiple people early on in this process that they never saw any sexual abusive behavior, nor were they victims of such behavior.  Over time, they changed their stories from not having ever seen anything, to being an accuser themselves.

If this had been a true investigation, and not just a process of taking statements from accusers, AOB may have discovered these inconsistencies.  If AOB was told about these inconsistent statements by anyone who was interviewed by them, there was no mention of it in the report.  Most likely, AOB could not look into it anyway, since the claims were anonymous, and they couldn’t confirm information about them with anybody.

AOB could have had access to this information if there had been a representative of the accused who could tell them who may have been in contact with the accusers previously, who might know what they said in the past.  AOB shut themselves off from that process, by not having a representative of the accused.

In the whole 70+ pages of the AOB report, there were only 2 or 3 times that AOB contacted people, who the accusers said had some knowledge of the claim.  When AOB spoke with those people and they denied it, or said they could not remember, AOB dismissed what they said, because what they said did not fit their intended conclusion.

One way to confirm inconsistencies is to review dates and locations of the claims and confirm those with others who may be aware of who was where when.

There are no dates or locations in the AOB report.  If there was a representative of the accused, they could have told AOB who to speak to, who may have had information about who was where and when.

Click here to see the Shambhala Investigative Report, which was a fair and legal investigation done for another spiritual organization, where sexual abuse of their leader was being investigated.  Dates and locations were indicated in this report.  For example, a claim was made that something sexual happened in Boston, during the 2005 Boston marathon, where 2 other people were supposedly present.  The investigator contacted the witnesses and obtained proof that they were not even in Boston at the time.  The claim was denied.  This demonstrates the importance of being able to use this kind of information to confirm the credibility of claims.

  1. Whether their evidence is supported by other evidence

AOB set up a process where getting any verified or corroborated evidence was very difficult, and indeed was not pursued.  Without the accused being represented and with the claims being anonymous, how could any evidence, other than the stories of the accusers, be discovered? “Other evidence” was severely lacking in this “investigation”.

  1. Whether they have other motives

AOB was provided information, including documentation, by multiple sources which questioned credible motives behind some of the accusations.  NONE of this information was shared in the report.

The report says:

“We used all these criteria in assessing the credibility of both those offering evidence in support of Yogi Bhajan and those reporting claims of misconduct by him. Whenever possible, we sought corroborative evidence from other sources, not in the form of similar opinions, but substantive information about whether specific time frames, locations, and events offered by one person aligned with the information provided by others.”

This statement is completely bogus. It was impossible for AOB to do what they claim in the statement above, and there is no indication in the report of any of this kind of evidence.  The few times when conflicting evidence was brought up, AOB dismissed the comments of the witnesses.

The report also says

Because the alleged behavior typically occurred in private, however, we often had to rely on the statement of a single individual. In these cases, however, credibility was enhanced if a pattern of similar behavior was reported by multiple people.”

As mentioned previously, numerous accusers had a history of lying and making false claims in the past.  So, the “pattern of similar behavior” listed by AOB in the report cannot be assumed to be accurate.  If multiple people have lied, by making false claims against others previously, then the similar behavior is the accusers not being truthful, not that Yogi Bhajan’s behavior was not appropriate.

Credibility of Accusers Called into Question

A big part of determining the credibility of allegations is to hear from all sides; not to keep people from knowing what the accusers reported, so no one can confirm or deny their stories.  How can AOB possibly verify whether a claim is credible, if they are the only ones hearing the stories of the alleged victims?  It’s inconceivable that they could ever discover the truth.

That is why in every legitimate, fair and legal investigation, a representative of the accused is established, so at least that person knows what the accusations are and can determine who may have information as to the credibility of the accuser and the claim being made.

Some of the allegations were made public through Facebook, in “tell a Sikh” conversations, and when the accusers spoke at an April, 2020 Khalsa Council which was open to all.  Numerous people who heard these stories and knew the accusers well contacted AOB to call into question the veracity of the claims.  In our close knit community where it is impossible to keep anything secret, how is it that of the hundreds of people who listened in on these calls, no one had any previous knowledge about any of this alleged sexual misconduct they claim occurred over 20+ years?

Accusers who have a History of Illegal Activity against our Community

Some of the purported accusers are women who were connected to the infamous former UI Board, as soon as Yogi Bhajan left his physical body, worked to systematically steal the assets of the Dharma.

Some of the accusers were connected to our former UI Board. Even before Yogi Bhajan’s passing they worked to systematically steal the assets of the Dharma, and reaped millions in the sale of our Golden Temple company.  One of these women lied on the witness stand during the legal case we brought against them, claiming things about Yogi Bhajan which were not true.  These women signed non-disparagement agreements as part of the settlement.  However, the SSSC Board allowed these NDA agreements to be waived so these women could bring their accusations to light.  How can these women, who received millions in the settlement of this suit, be considered credible?

Misleading Information about Past Claims

The report says:

“Allegations were raised in December 2019, following the publication of  White Bird in a Golden Cage by Pamela Dyson. In response, the Siri Singh Sahib Corporation (SSSC) Board formed the Collaborative Response Team (CRT) to look into the allegations. On March 3, 2020 the SSSC Board commissioned An Olive Branch to perform a third-party independent investigation.”

One has to assume from this statement, and from comments Pamela made publicly on social media, that she was one of the accusers in the report.  People contacted AOB to share 1st hand knowledge of areas of Pamela’s book, for which they claim were a complete rewrite of history.  There was no mention of this information, which refuted what was written in the book, in the report.

Part 2 of the report says:

“various allegations of sexual and other misconduct by Yogi Bhajan were raised over the years, including two lawsuits in 1986 that were eventually settled out of court.”

It is not true that there were any other allegations of sexual misconduct raised over the years aside from the Pamela and Kate lawsuits from the 1980s. The SSSC attorneys have provided misleading information regarding these lawsuits, saying the plaintiffs were paid out of court – the inference being that Yogi Bhajan paid the women off and therefore was guilty.  This is NOT what happened.

Yogi Bhajan admitted no guilt and DID NOT pay anyone off.  In fact, a counter suit was brought against the person who was financially backing the plaintiffs in both those cases. Neither Yogi Bhajan, nor anyone in our Dharma, paid a penny to the plaintiffs. All the lawsuits were eventually dropped. If Pamela and Kate received money from anyone, it was from the people who funded them to file lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan.

AOB conducted multiple interviews with people who gave them information about this; including actual court filings, but NONE of this was mentioned in the report. These are acts of censorship that no legitimate investigator would keep secret from the reader of the report.

As a side note:  When cases like this end, there is almost always a demand for an NDA (a non-disclosure agreement), where the party getting the money agrees to not disclose the embarrassing things that happened. Here, because nothing happened, an NDA was not even requested.

Never Even Knew Yogi Bhajan

It was discovered that one woman contacted AOB and said she was sexually abused by Yogi Bhajan, when in fact, she had come into the Dharma at the end of his life and never even met Yogi Bhajan. She had also had previously falsely accused other men of sexual misconduct.

Someone who came to know that this woman had made a claim with AOB, and who happened to know about her past false claims of abuse by other men, contacted AOB to challenge them as to how they were going to confirm her story and whether she had indeed even met Yogi Bhajan.

AOB told the person they would not do anything to confirm it.  How could they? You know the drill…. Since it’s anonymous, how would anyone know she was making a claim and AOB could not follow up with anyone to confirm or deny it.  Fortunately, in this case, someone who could confirm that she had never met Yogi Bhajan was able to contact AOB.  However, there was no mention of this in the report.

An additional note about this particular situation is that this woman says she received $1200 after providing her statement to AOB.  This was part of the offer made to “victims” to receive money for counseling.  She contacted AOB to make a claim, with the intention to receive money.  At the end of her interview, during which her identity was not confirmed, and her story was not investigated, she was asked if she wished to receive money for counselling. She answered yes, and she was sent a check.

This woman who made a claim, and who had never even met Yogi Bhajan, said she did not have to prove that she was actually going to use the money for counselling.  This was all handled in one process with AOB; no other party was involved; it was one phone call.  No receipts were needed to receive money, but she did receive $1200 to use for “counseling.”

Accuser Wrongly Represented Herself as “Senior Staff”

One woman who claimed to be “senior staff” was mentioned on Facebook as having made a claim with AOB. When actual senior staff were asked if she was a senior staff member who might have spent private time with Yogi Bhajan, they were told that she was not senior staff; she worked in Finances in an office and did not spend much time in Yogi Bhajan’s home, and certainly was never alone with him.

A supporter of Yogi Bhajan let AOB know that this woman’s claim of being senior staff was untrue, but this was never mentioned in AOB’s report. The supporter also gave the names and contact information of three people who could verify that this woman misrepresented her status in order to substantiate her claim. The three people were never contacted by AOB.

The system that was set up for AOB to maintain anonymity made it IMPOSSIBLE for AOB to investigate any claim, because they could not ask any other person about a given accuser.

Post Report Note:  this same person was mis-representing herself as part of Yogi Bhajan’s “senior staff”, also claimed publicly (on Listening Tour zoom calls) that she was part of his staff for 17 years and that “sex was happening”.

Claims which Lack Credibility

As mentioned above, in the “Assessments of Credibility” listed in the report, AOB states that one of the factors they consider for the credibility of a claim is whether or not the accuser has a reputation for having a character for truthfulness.

Many people in support of the allegers accuse anyone who questions the credibility of the accusers of “victim shaming”.  The reality is that if you are going to bring accusations against someone, which has the effect of destroying their reputation, and which their families have to live with for generations, you have to be accountable for your part of the story.  It is a one-sided truth if you simply make your statements and the people who hear them immediately take it as the truth.

Multiple people currently making accusations have been proven to have lied in the past, or at the very least, claims have been made against them of not telling the truth, so their credibility should be called into question now.

One supposedly “credible” accuser had falsely claimed to have sex with the husband of a friend years earlier.  In addition, she had affairs with other married men.   Numerous people said she had lied about a variety of things in the past.  She had also been kicked out of multiple respected spiritual entities.

Although this information was shared with AOB, it was not mentioned in the report and is not seemingly considered when determining whether her claims were “more likely than not”.

Instead, since the report does not mention any of these details, it seems that merely the number of accounts was the most important factor in determining credibility, and so this and other non-credible accusers were included in the AOB assessment that “credibility was enhanced if a pattern of similar behavior was reported by multiple people.”

Page 49 findings – AOB states

“While there were a few generalized refutations regarding the credibility of Reporter #”xx”, these refutations were offset by others speaking in favor of her credibility.  After weighing all of the relevant information available to us, we have sufficient evidence to conclude it is more likely than not…”

AOB was contacted by people who knew the accuser and had grave concerns about the credibility the stories.  In addition, letters written by the accuser at about the time that the claim supposedly took place, were also shared with AOB, which demonstrated a completely different endearing relationship than what was shared in the report.  Why was this information not included in the report?  Apparently, once again AOB only included in the report, information from people who spoke in favor of the credibility of the accusers.

Regarding the findings of noting “similar behavior” by “multiple people”, multiple accusers are former UI member associates.  One of them, is a woman who helped to orchestrate an effort to steal all the assets from the Dharma nearly a decade ago.  She said in her deposition in the court room at the time that she enjoyed daydreaming about concocting elaborate conspiracy theories.  Another accuser lied while giving testimony in the court room.  Others simply did not have access to Yogi Bhajan in any way, which could lead to the type of salacious events they say occurred.

Staff of Yogi Bhajan, who individually, at the beginning of this ordeal, told multiple people that they had never witnessed anything happening, later came forward to say they had been abused also.  Their stories changed over several months. They are strong women; not pushovers; how is it that they were supposedly manipulated for years, and in the last 15+ years, since Yogi Bhajan’s death, NONE of them felt they could speak up? And how, in our “tell a Sikh” culture, would no one have heard about it until now?

The fact that the credibility of accusers who have made false claims and lied in the past has not been seriously looked at and challenged, demonstrates the bogosity of this report.

Post-report note:

One accuser who shared her statement publicly months before the report was completed, recently shared on social media that she did not contact AOB to give her statement, even though portions of the statement she shared publicly are indeed part of the report.  On August 22, 2020, after the report had come out, she posted on Facebook:

“I chose not to include my story in AOB report.  My wounds were too fresh, and I didn’t feel ready to participate.  I regret that now, because I believe my story is an important one to be documented officially, but since I can’t go back in time, I am going to share it here and hope it still has some impact.” 

Why did this accuser lie about not contacting AOB?

A Different Perspective

AOB summarily dismisses Yogi Bhajan as the standard archetype of a powerful man abusing his power.  However, the reality many of students reported to AOB is that he never shied away from challenging you to live in your higher consciousness.

He was very direct and because sex is such a big issue in our society at large, and for people in their personal lives—it is part of life—he did not shy away from addressing these issues with his students.

Here is an example of a situation which happened between him and someone who made an accusation against him.  It all depends on your perspective.  At the time, this young woman was in big trouble.  She was aggressively acting out, as some teenagers do and was on the verge of being kicked out of her school.  After a family member picked her up from, school, she visited Yogi Bhajan, who invited her to sit with him to watch a movie.   As the accuser describes it, he was a dirty old man, asking her to come to his room to watch the movie “The Whore”.

Here is a review of the movie (by Owen Glelberman on October 25, 1991):

“Despite the come-on of its title, Whore isn’t a raw, tabloid exposé of life as a working girl. It is, rather, a garishly antierotic cartoon…”

The understanding of family members, who were aware of this situation, is that Yogi Bhajan was trying to show this young woman what the behavior she was exhibiting could lead to.  He was acting in his role as teacher, with integrity, to encourage her not to go down that road.

And actually, Yogi Bhajan was so hurt by hearing of her behavior, that he effectively shut down the entire Sikh participation in the school, which involved over 30 students.


The section of the report alleging sex with multiple partners, is one of the most obscene and unbelievable claims.  There seems to be a group of 7 women who are making these and the other most salacious sexual claims; some of whom have made been proven to be non-credible or to have changed their stories over time, so there is much to question when considering the veracity of their accusations.

Page 54 of the report says:

“We note it would be difficult for other community members to have the opportunity to observe these events since access to Yogi Bhajan’s bedroom required passing through several doors, access was controlled by a staff person or Secretary, and the internal door could be locked from inside. However, without floor plans and room dimensions (which we requested but only partially received), we could not evaluate claims that there was not space in Yogi Bhajan’s bedroom for many people to participate in group sexual activities.”

The fact is that Yogi Bhajan’s bedroom in Los Angeles was super small and had a thin wall.  Other people slept in another room on the other side of that wall.  You could hear everything between his room and the other room.  AOB was given specific information about this.  They chose not to include this information in the report.  This information would have easily discredited the claim of orgies.

AOB interviewed dozens of supporters who were close to Yogi Bhajan and part of his household on a daily basis for many years, including staff members.  As these supporters started having interviews with AOB, it became apparent that AOB was asking one main question to everyone they interviewed, “What about orgies?  Did you ever see any or hear about any?”

It was shocking and laughable that the interviewer was even asking that question.  Every person who was asked, thought this was completely ridiculous, with maybe the exception of the 7 women accusers who purportedly took part in them, and whoever in the last few months, they told about it.  No one who was part of the community EVER saw or heard about this kind of activity.

Anyone who was ever around Yogi Bhajan, knows how many people were around him 24/7, 365 days a year.  There were kitchen staff, security, house care takers, family, guests and his many staff members. Many of these people called in to share information with AOB.   Even though AOB asked a standard question of all of these people, “whether they had ever seen or heard of orgies”, and they all said they NEVER did.

All the report says is:

“When queried about whether Yogi Bhajan had sex with multiple partners, no Supporters said they had observed or heard of this behavior.”

AOB proceeded to state that the behavior was more likely than not.

On page 68, the report says

“Even though many attended various gatherings to receive his teachings, not everyone was in his immediate, daily environment and so did not experience the proximity that the Reporters experienced. Further, even those who said they were in Yogi Bhajan’ s immediate environment – on guard duty, preparing and serving food, driving him to different locations, etc. – were not present behind closed doors where the most egregious harms allegedly were perpetrated.”

The above statement assumes that there were no supporters who “experienced the proximity that the reporters experienced,” which is simply not true.  Many supporters who had just as close “proximity” to Yogi Bhajan as the accusers did shared valuable information to question the credibility of the claims.

How is it that none of the supporters of Yogi Bhajan heard of any of this behavior, either during Yogi Bhajan’s lifetime, or in the last 16 years since his death?  Sexual orgies are not something which can take place without anyone hearing or seeing anything and if they did happen, could be kept quiet.  In our “Tell a Sikh” community, there’s no way people would not have known what was going on if there was a group sex/ orgy scene happening.

Anyone who knew what his day to day schedule was like, knows Yogi Bhajan had no time for this kind of behavior.  If you speak with anyone in his household staff, security detail and others who were part of daily life, they would tell you how busy he was; how tirelessly he worked day and night.  Between his schedule and his medical issues during the time period of many of these claims, he simply did not have the time, energy or ability for these kinds of activities.

As mentioned before, it does not appear that AOB confirmed that all the people who made the claims were ACTUALLY part of his staff or had the kind of access to him that they claim to have had.  The report also does not indicate that any information was checked as to Yogi Bhajan’s medical condition during the time of the claims, even though they were provided with extensive medical details which indicate he would not have been able to conduct many of the activities he was accused of at the time of the claims.

Since there was no representative of the accused and the claims were anonymous, anyone could say anything and no one could refute what they were saying.  If this was a true investigation, as opposed to simply taking statements from accusers as if they are true, much could have been shared to bring to light that this kind of behavior more than likely DID NOT happen.

Given the information shared above, and the complete lack of corroborated or verified evidence to prove that these claims did occur, the AOB should have concluded that it was more likely than not that these behaviors did not happen, or at the very least, inconclusive.