Women Against Sexual Slavery

THE REDDY SEXUAL SLAVERY CASE IN BERKELEY: UNFINISHED STORY
^©by Diana E. H. Russell, Ph.D., part IV

The Berkeley City Council Takes a Stand

WOMEN AGAINST SEXUAL SLAVERY worked with Berkeley City Councilman Kriss Worthington to draft the following two resolutions:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley supports Women Against Sexual Slavery (WASS) boycott campaign for the Pasand Restaurant; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley supports strong sentencing for cases involving trafficking of women and children due to the serious human rights violations and unethical, inhumane treatment toward women and children.

Members of the Berkeley City Council voted 7 to 2 to endorse these resolutions, which concluded with a long statement about the horrors of the escalating international slave trade in women and girls for mens' sexual gratification, as well as the charges brought against Reddy.

Interpreters Charged with Bias and Undue Influence

George Cotsirilos, the Attorney for the Defense, tried to discredit the validity of the victims' charges against the Lakireddys on the grounds that two, and possibly three, of the Telugu (the language spoken by the female victims) interpreters had shown bias against his clients. He charged Bharat Koner -- the president of the Telugu Society -- with bias for having written a letter to Judge Armstrong urging her to deal harshly with the Lakireddys as well as participating in a demonstration outside the Pasand Restaurant on behalf of the victims. Cotsirilos also accused Nalini Shekhar of participating in the same demonstration as well as having developed a "special relationship" with the victims that was unprofessional and contrary to the objectivity required of interpreters.

Judge Armstrong noted that Cotsirilos charges against these two interpreters did not prove that they had influenced the girls or had done their jobs incorrectly.

Cotsirilos reserved his most serious charges for interpreter Uma Rao. In addition to having participated in a demonstration for the victims and having a "special relationship" with the victims, Cotsirilos charged Rao with getting some of them to lie so as to exaggerate the charges against his clients. In court papers filed on October 16, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Corrigan -- appointed as the prosecutor after John Kennedy was promoted to a Judgeship -- "acknowledged that four of the six victims in the conspiracy were encouraged to 'embellish the facts' by Uma Rao" (Sexton, Daily Cal., Oct. 29, 2001, p. 5). In addition, Corrigan conceded that "Two of those victims admitted to lying to the government." Note that the words "acknowledged" and "admitted" both assume that the girls' retractions of charges against Prasad, Vijay and Jayaprakash and their blaming of Rao were valid rather than exploring whether their fear for their own lives as well as their families in Velvadam may have motivated them to retract some of their earlier statements and blame Rao for pressing them to exaggerate the abuse.

People who are knowledgeable about the dynamics of sexual abuse do not presume that retractions are always valid, even when the victims' fear is not salient to the case. Corrigan endorsed the fact that the young girl witnesses "are unsafe" because of factors such as the death in India of Sivareddy Seelam, a former Berkeley resident and associate of Reddy. "Seelam was doused with acid outside his family's home in Velvadam in April 2000. His grandson also died in the attack" (Sexton, 2001). For reasons unknown, the Indian government has refused to investigate these murders, according to Corrigan. He also referred to "threats directed at other witnesses." However, he didn't draw the obvious conclusion that these threats could be responsible for the girls' retraction of some of their charges against the accused. We in WASS subscribe to this explanation for the victims' allegations against Rao. We deplore what we see as Cotsirilos's strategy to try to use his charges against the interpreters as a means to discredit the validity of the victims' accusations against their perpetrators. We see this as a transparent ploy by the Defense.

Rao's attorney denied that Rao is guilty of influencing some of the girls to "embellish" their testimony. Nevertheless, he "counseled her to assert her 5th Amendment privilege" unless she was given immunity. Rao, who is currently in India to take care of her ailing mother, has been subpoenaed and may be required to return to the U.S. to appear in court.

The Jayaprakash and Annapurna Lakireddy Case

Reddy's rich and powerful younger brother Jayaprakash Lakireddy and his wife, Annapurna Lakireddy, were also charged for their part in the manufacture of false documentation for the importation of illegal aliens from India for sexual and labor exploitation. As with Reddy, the attorneys concluded the plea bargain negotiations by agreeing to absurdly lenient sentences of a maximum of 16 months for Jayaprakash and a maximum of 12 months for Annapurna. Although Jayaprakash was not charged with raping Reddy's sex slaves, he and his wife facilitated the rape and sexual enslavement of young girls by Reddy. This means they are both guilty of pimping for Reddy.

Although Jayaprakash and Annapurna were scheduled to be sentenced on July 24, the Judge postponed this to November 6, 2001. After the revelations about the interpreters, the Lakireddy couple considered withdrawing their guilty plea. However, on November 6 they decided against doing so on condition that Corrigan agree to strike two statements in the Lakireddys' pre-sentence report: a) that after the Lakireddys had been arrested, they had arranged for certain victims to return to India; and b) that one of the victims had reported that Jayaprakash "had sex with" (i.e., raped) two of Reddy's victims.

Although Corrigan maintained that the testimony by one of the victims about Jayaprakash "having sex" with two of the victims was consistent with what she had reported before, he said he would prefer to have them struck from the report because he was not prepared to offer testimony from the victims in support of their testimony -- presumably because of the trauma involved in so doing. Judge Armstrong then postponed sentencing Jayaprakash and Annapurna until January 29, 2002.

Prasad and Vijay Lakireddy

Reddy's two sons -- Prasad and Vijay Lakireddy

"are charged with committing immigration fraud and importing Indian girls for 'immoral purposes,' which include rape and sex with a minor. They are also accused of traveling abroad to seek out the Indian girls for sexual activities. They are further charged with harboring, transporting and employing the illegal immigrants over a 14-year period, beginning October 1986. (Sexton, October 29, 2001, p. 1)

Vijay has also been charged with visa fraud while Prasad has been charged with attempting to intimidate a witness. The Lakireddy brothers are the only members of the family who have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.

Attorney George Cotsirilos, who is representing Vijay, is attempting to argue that the case against the brothers now hinges on the question of the bias and/or lies that the translators employed to communicate the victims' testimony in English. On November 6, Judge Armstrong agreed to require Corrigan to interview the victims about their special relationship with Uma Rao and Nalini Shekhar (another translator employed by the government).

New Judge

On December 12, 2001, Judge Armstrong recused herself from the Reddy cases claiming a conflict of interest. Judge Claudia Wilken was appointed in her place. This resulted in considerable delay in the proceedings.

Sentencing of Jayaprakash and Annapurna Lakireddy

As a result of Jayaprakash and Annapurna Lakireddy's attorney plea bargaining the charges against them down to a single count of immigration fraud, the Prosecutors only recommended a 14-month sentence for Jayaprakash. On April 29, 2002, Judge Wilken sentenced Jayaprakash to one year in a halfway house, probably in Oakland. This would enable him to continue running his businesses. However, "if the Bureau of Prisons can't find room for him at a halfway house, he may be sent to a camp-like institution in Atwater near Merced, where he would not be able to continue his personal business interests." (Fernandez, April 30, 2002, p. 3B). His sentence will begin on June 17, 2002.

Judge Wilken sentenced Annapurna Lakireddy to six months of home detention so that she can continue to take care of her three children. Although she will be monitored electronically, she will be permitted to "go grocery shopping, attend religious events and doctor appointments, as well as attend her 12-year-old daughter's sports and school activities" (Fernandez, April 30, 2002, p. 3B). The Prosecutors agreed to this pitifully lenient sentence.

According to Lisa Fernandez, "authorities allege the Lakireddys knew about the full extent of Reddy's crimes" (April 30, 2002, p. 3B). Needless to say, rather than intervening in an effort to stop Reddy engaging in his many criminal acts, they colluded with him. Judge Wilken treated them both as peers whose interests she sought to accommodate -- rather than as callous, exploitive criminals. Poole, who was present in court on the day of the sentencing, commented as follows on Judge Wilken's demeanor as well as her light sentences:

She seemed to almost be amiable with Jayaprakash and Annapurna. It reminded me that class issues are at the root of the justice system's inequities.... She was more concerned about Annapurna's ability to take her children to games than she was with the fact that their conscious and blatant actions resulted in destroyed lives, death, and servitude. (Personal communication, May 9, 2002).

Similarly, Judge Armstrong accommodated Reddy's request for a luxury prison in a similar fashion. As Poole noted, the profoundly classist character of the judicial system is very conspicuous in this case. Classism is also revealed by the minimal sentences received by the three Reddys who have been sentenced to date.

Civil Suit

On November 27, 2000, immigrant attorneys working together with the ACLU, filed a civil suit charging that "...the causes of [Chanti Prattipati's] death were exposure to fumes from a dangerous, defective, and negligently maintained gas heating system at 2020 Bancroft Way and the failure of defendant Lakireddy Bali Reddy to secure prompt medical attention for her after such exposure" (Berkeley Daily Planet, 11/30/2000, p. 1).

This suit will include a wrongful death charge to be brought by Lalitha who, unlike her older sister, survived the carbon monoxide fumes. A large number of Reddy's other victims will be plaintiffs in this case, some of whom have been brought to the Bay Area from India to testify at the trial. The date of this trial has not been set. It will presumably occur after the remaining criminal trials of Reddy's relatives have been completed.

Vijay and Presad Lakireddy

Judge Wilken set January 6, 2003, for the trial date for Reddy's sons, Vijay and Presad Lakireddy. However, they told her in court on April 29 that they are willing to discuss a plea bargain. It would be very surprising if they don't enjoy the class privilege of their father, manifested in yet another scandalous mere rap on the knuckles for their heinous crimes.

Endnotes

1.	These ages apply to the time of Reddy's arrest in January 2000.
2.	Located on the corner of Shattuck Avenue and Bancroft Way.
3.	This is the false name she was given when she was trafficked into the U.S.. Her real name has been withheld from the public for security reasons.
4.	Laxmi Patati is typically described as being 20 years old, but according to journalist Anita Chabria, she was 18 years old when Reddy tried to abduct her in November 1999. (LA Times, November 26, 2001).
5.	Located at El Camino and Lawrence Expressway.
6.	The origin of the concept of pedophiles comes to us from the extreme patriarchy of ancient Greece where sexual slavery was the rule of the all-powerful patriarchs -- both heterosexual and homosexual. Reflecting this culture, ped means child and philo means friend or lover -- a totally inappropriate euphemism for the widespread practice of rape and sexual tyranny over powerless children by adult males (Schroder, personal communication, November 26, 2001). Sexual slavery scholar Hannelore Schroder suggests the alternative term -- pedosexuals, which she defines as all-powerful male adults who sexually abuse and rape children and adolescents.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Marcia Poole and Tammy Gordon for their editing assistance, and Marcia for correcting a few inaccuracies in this account. Some missing information is noted from time to time in the text. This information will be added when time permits. I apologize for any inaccuracies there may be, and I would welcome corrections.