Original sentence: In 1985 Adi Da was the target of a lawsuit alleging (among other things) assault and battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distess, and seeking $5 million dollars in damages[].In 1986, Adi Da was again sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress [], and again an out-of-court settlement was reached.The advent of the internet has seen an increase in public and heated debate regarding Adidam and Adi Da [], with such debate welcomed as free speech by critics, and condemned as hate speech by supporters.The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million [], and eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum
Edited sentence: (Mill Valley Record, April 17th, 1985).Because of his often-unconventional behavior, Adi Da has become a very easy target by members who were asked to leave his church, and who felt that they were mistreated.In 1985 Adi Da was the target of a well-organized media smear campaign that was connected to a lawsuit seeking  $5 million dollars.Once the counter-suit was filed, the media campaign immediately stopped.The church counter-sued for $20 million claiming extortion.The church, faced with the anti-cult sentiments following the then recent Jonestown tragedy, settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.The fallout from this lawsuit and smear-campaign continue today with the advent of the online hate-group where anonymous chat-room posters defame Adi-Da daily.There have not been any other charges against Adi Da since the 1985 lawsuit.There is also evidence that a very active, yet small contingent of ex-devotees is engaged in a campaign to bring an end to Adi Da’s church.While the dissident devotees received a monetary reward, Adi Da’s reputation was irreparably harmed