BBT Doesn't Need to Prove Anything
BY:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007
From: Patrick Hedemark <pdhedemark@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Prabhupadanugas Press
To: Nathan Zakheim <zakheim@earthlink.net>, Mahesh Raja <mahesh_agtsp@yahoo.co.uk>
Hello Naranarayana Prabhu,
I will overlook your tone and get straight to the point.
Prove to me - that the BBT has to "attack" the claims of the BBTI.
I say that the BBTI MUST ATTACK THE CLAIM OF THE SRILA PRABHUPADA AND THE BBT. PROVE ME WRONG.
THE "SETTLEMENT" OF THE LAST CASE WILL NOT WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY OF THE COURT. IT IS BOGUS.
YOU CLAIM THAT THE BBT IS LEGITIMATE. I ASSERT THE SAME.
This FACT - stands alone.
You now wish to pay attorneys to go into court to make this claim and have it established by the court.
My claim is that it WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1972 BY HDG SRILA PRABHUPADA IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT ALREADY! IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE RE-ASSERTED OR RE-ESTABLISHED.
THE BBTI NOW CLAIMS TO HOLD THE COPYRIGHTS. THEY DO NOT - AND WHAT IS MORE - THEY KNOW THAT THEY DO NOT.
THAT YOU ARE CONFIDENT MEANS MERELY THAT YOU ARE JUST AS SURE OF THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION AS ANYONE - INCLUDING THE MEMBERS OF THE BBTI!
NOW MY POINT IS: THEY WILL - IF PRESSED - NOT WISH TO FACE THIS IN COURT. IN THE LAST CASE THE JUDGE TOOK THEM ASIDE AND KINDLY TOLD THEM - IF I ADJUDICATE THIS, YOU WILL LOSE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
NOW YOU WISH TO SPEND MONEY TO DEFEND A CASE THAT WOULD AGAIN NOT BE ADJUDICATED BECAUSE THE BBTI WOULD AGAIN ATTEMPT TO "SETTLE".
THEY BROKE THE LAW, PRABHU. NOT HANSADUTTA OR SRILA PRABHUPADA. WHICH IS WHAT THEY CLAIMED TO THE RANK AND FILE. BUT THEY DID NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM IN COURT. THEY COULD NOT. THEY COULD NOT SHOW LEGAL CONVERSION OF THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST, AND THEY NEVER WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO.
DESPITE YOUR DRAMATICS IN ADDRESSING THIS TO ME, YOU MUST SHOW ME THE LOGIC OF YOUR ACTIONS.
AS I EXPLAINED: SOMEONE MUST SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE INJURED IN PERSON OR PROPERTY TO BRING THIS TO COURT.
WE PRINT - IN MASS - AND PUBLISH THE TRUE DETAILS OF THE FIRST CASE TO THE WHOLE WORLD, THE BBTI IS THEN FORCED TO ACT. THEY WILL HAVE ONLY ONE OPTION: SUBMIT TO REALITY OR GO TO COURT - WHERE ALLLLLLL THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIONS WILL BE FORCED UNDER THE MICROSCOPE OF THE PRESENT LEGAL SYSTEM.
AT THAT TIME - MAYBE - WE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEYS - HONEST MEN - TO DO THE NEEDFUL, BUT IT IS THE BBTI THAT WOULD NEED TO SHOW INJURY.
HOW COULD I STEAL YOUR STORE - YOUR WIFE - YOUR CAR - WHILE YOU ARE ON VACATION - THEN WHEN YOU COME BACK - SUE YOU FOR DAMAGES WHEN YOU SET UP ANOTHER STORE NEXT TO MINE? THIS IS THEIR POSTION, AND WHAT'S MORE, THEY KNOW IT.
Kindly show me - sans the insults - WHY IT MUST BE ADDRESSED AS YOU SAY.
I WOULD - AND I AM SURE OTHERS WOULD AS WELL - NEED MORE THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A TEAM OF ATTORNEYS "WHO MET PRABHUPADA AND CONSIDERED HIM SAINTLY" AS JUST CAUSE. THE ESSENCE OF SALES IS RAPPORT. WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT - THEY ARE SELLING YOU THEIR GOOD INTENTIONS BLAH BLAH... I AM NOT IMPRESSED BY THAT.
WHAT IS NEEDED TO CONVINCE ME IS SIMPLE ENOUGH. THEY MUST EXPLAIN - IN THE KINGS ENGLISH - WHY EVEN THOUGH THE BBTI BROKE VARIOUS LAWS AND ILLEGALLY LAID CLAIM TO THE ASSETS OF AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DULY AND LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IN THE CALIFORNIA LAW - THE "VICTIM" OF THE THEFT NEEDS TO ASSERT ITS CLAIM IN COURT WHEN ALL THE LEGAL PAPERWORK AND RECORDS ARE THERE AND ARE IMPREGNABLE.
I do not find such logical explanation in your words—only passion, and though passion is good, it needs to be led by the head. So kindly offer me justification for this "tactic" in the overall strategy to increase book distribution!
Respecfully,
Praghosa
Prabhupada's trust broken in more ways than one
Broken Trust: BBTI vs BBT
BY: Praghosa, 24 June 2008
After reading the recent comments of Jayadwaita Swami on Sampradaya Sun:
"The BBTI is a corporation. But to say that such a 501(c)(3) corporation is "private" is perhaps misleading, or at least ungenerous, since those words are likely to give a layman the impression that such a corporation is hardly different from a corporation privately run for the benefit of its owners. That impression, as I'm sure you know, would be wrong."
I am given to ask a couple of questions:
His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada established the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust as an "Irrevocable Trust". This was HIS arrangement – for HIS books.
The definition of an IRREVOCABLE TRUST is given here:
An irrevocable trust is a trust that once established, cannot be revoked, terminated, or changed in any way. This means that upon transferring assets into an irrevocable trust, the grantor can reserve no right to amend or abolish irrevocable trust proceeds. Furthermore, the grantor of an irrevocable trust is not permitted to make withdrawals from the trust principal. However, in some cases changes can be made to an irrevocable trust account upon the consent of a beneficiary. By this virtue, a living trust would not be an instance of an irrevocable trust. Examples of irrevocable trust accounts may include child trusts, as well as 2503 trusts. Irrevocable trust accounts may be set up for the purpose of saving on estate taxes, as well as protecting against creditor claims. An irrevocable trust may also be used to facilitate one or more life insurance plans.
Now the meaning should be clear to everyone.
IRREVOCABLE literally means "the grantor – in this case HDG Srila Prabhupada – can reserve no right to amend or abolish irrevocable trust proceeds."
So my first question is this:
1. Now – if EVEN THE GRANTOR SRILA PRABHUPADA could not amend or abolish the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust – HOW COULD THE BBT gradually come to represent itself as THE BBTI, a CALIFORNIA 501C3 NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION?
HOW did an Irrevocable Trust – THAT EVEN ITS GRANTOR SRILA PRABHUPADA could NOT amend orabolish – get abolished and its "assets" illegally "converted" into the property of a California 501C3 corporation?
Second Jayadwaita Swami chirps:
"...since those words are likely to give a layman the impression that such a corporation is hardly different from a corporation privately run for the benefit of its owners. That impression, as I'm sure you know, would be wrong."
2. Legally speaking, howwould such a conclusion "that such a corporation is hardly different from a corporation privately run for the benefit of its owners" bewrong?
Is this not EXACTLY WHAT HAS IN FACT HAPPENED to the original BBT?
Legal arrangements do not rely upon the generosity of the law or those who might consider attempting to ignore or circumvent them.
Legal arrangements are established under the principle that "good fences make good neighbors". In otherwords – when the "Rule of Law" is not backed with the enforcement of consequences upon them that ignore or break them - the "rule" is generally found to bethat the "arrangements" will eventually be challenged and/or ignored or broken – all generosity aside.
We need look no further for proof of this in the present BBTI vs BBT case.
The "Grantor" of the original "Trust" established the Trust with a particular purpose – and a particular arrangement. Clearly, for JS to so casually announce to the public that in fact– the intent and the arrangements of Srila Prabhupada – were at some point NO LONGER ASSIGNED THE ABSOLUTE CONSIDERATION they demanded AND what has followed since is A SPECIFIC SERIES OF BREACH OF CONTRACT between ISKCON and its self-assigned managers and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust – he has to be either incredibly foolish, utterly ill informed as to what he and the BBTI managers are soon to be held account for, or just evil enough to imagine that their actions will not see the light of day and yield decidedly unpleasant consequences.
The rule of Law was circumvented in any way possible to essentially STEAL THE COPYRIGHTS of Srila Prabhupada – ILLEGALLY CLAIM LEGAL CONVERSION OF THE ASSETS of the ORIGINAL TRUST – and NOW TODAY pass the BBTI off as THE ACTUAL BBT.
GENEROSITY HAS AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT – AND NEVER DOES.
Srila Prabhuapda KNEW that his primary asset – his books – would, like his buildings and centers, be subjected to the larceny of "less than adorable" or misguided men. For this reason he did not rely upon anyone's "generosity", as JS so casually suggests. He relied upon THE LAW.
Whether we accept it or not – this is what he did. In the aftermath of his departure, we need only study the UNGENEROUS BEHAVIOUR OF SO MANY to understand the simple genius of his foresight.
Praghosa
ISKCON Long Island the Beneficiary
BY: Nimai Pandit
To: "Patrick Hedemark" <pdhedemark@yahoo.com>,
"Nara Narayana Das" <zakheim@earthlink.net>,
"Mahesh Raja" <mahesh_agtsp@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Reply to ques to NNVP
From: nimaipandit@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007
Settlement most probably will not stand the scrutiny of the court. Very truly said, Prabhu.
BUT, by that time we would be goggle eyed scrutinizing a bill close to $250,000. Maybe we can find a better way around. We cannot disclose now, but maybe we have. Let us see if Jayadvaita and Gopal Bhatta are told that plan by Krishna in the heart, of course to make the whole fight very interesting and nail biting SO that we can all depend on Krishna, or they get tied in shoelaces as they are habituated to. Time, Kala will tell.
Till that happens, the CA court recognizes that there is a BBT trust holding copyrights of all of Srila Prabhupada's books. That there are currently 4 trustees of that trust Jayadvaita, Svavasa, Naresvara and Brahma Muhurta. This is from a stipulated order signed in 1998 by Judge Shook. Neither Hansaduttan nor any of us can wish it away.
Till now no one WITH STANDING has brought in a claim to the contrary. So the order stands.
Only ISKCON, Inc. as the exclusive beneficiary of BBT can step in. The first step is to ask for accounts and reports. That we did. Next step is to request CA Superior court to order the trustees to show accounts and reports to the officers of ISKCON, Inc. That is what we need to do now.
And this is what they are trying to prevent tooth and nail. Get us out somehow. Whole of last month some goons sent by the "GBC" were trying to barge into the Freeport temple. They were finally trespassed out and shown the door by the local cops.
The next step after the accounts show will solve the whole problem. Now how do we go about doing that, only a handful and our lawyer team knows it. Let us leave it at that for now. Suffice to say that the trust is made for the beneficiary, trustees are kind of employees, or caretakers. They need to be working FOR the beneficiaries benefit! Otherwise....
Please join this effort by distributing each book praying for success from Lord Krishna in the heart. By hearing the sincere prayers of His Sankirtan devotees, Krishna will surely oblige. Yada yada hi dharmasya....
Your servant,
Nimai Pandit Das