WHO IS JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY aka GUPTA DAS
(aka Gupta das)
578 Washington Blvd Ste 808
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Joseph Fedorowsky (aka Gupta das), from Oxford Law Firm, is a practising lawyer in Marina Del Rey, California, 90292 area.
Gupta is also a practicing attorney paid for by "GBC" of West Bengal and BBTI at least the last 10 years. Hence, his "opinions" are naturally skewed. He got the $350,000 settlement money from the Hansadutta case in 1998 from the BBTI, as per the California Bar Association's records, while they suspended him in 2004.
Mr. Fedorowsky is also a lawyer who is helping Jayadvaita Swami and other defendants to fight against molested children in ISKCON’s Child Abuse case. Please, read carefully his ‘technical’ language below. Determine for your self which side he is on. Is he really helping the Abused Children of Krishna or is he helping those who abused and helped cover up all the atrocities inacted on the children? Considering the fact that the ‘Tort’ fund is less than 3% of the original claimant amount and that there are about only 600 Krishna’s children that signed up for the claim, then individually each Gurukuli kid gets about $15,833. Peanuts.
And how much did the lawyer Gupta get after the ‘private’ negotiations with the defendants? Even better. How much money did the defendants save up with their ‘scapegoat’ idea devised by their intelligent lawyer, the benevolent ‘tort’ fund? The intelligent way of distracting attention from the real issue.
California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
- JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY
Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
June 18, 2004
JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY [#133200], 53, of Marina del Rey was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 18, 2004.
Fedorowsky stipulated that he breached his fiduciary duty to an associate of his client by using some of the associate’s money for legal fees owed by the client.
He represented a defendant in a charitable trust matter that involved ownership and publication rights to the Hare Krishna movement’s spiritual texts. The texts originally were placed in a California charitable trust – the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Inc. (BBTI) – by the founder of the movement. Fedorowsky represented an individual who claimed to be a trustee of the original trust.
To help with legal fees, the client’s associate and disciple entered into an investment contract with Fedorowsky providing him $100,000 to manage and invest. Under the investment contract, a specified portion of any profit earned by the investment would be used as partial payment of Fedorowsky’s legal fees.
Fedorowsky managed the money properly, with one exception, and he pursued the litigation diligently. However, the investment did not generate as much income as Fedorowsky and the investor had hoped, and the litigation became increasingly expensive.
As the case progressed, Fedorowsky understood both the client and the discipline/investor wanted him to continue his representation and he says they assured him additional funds would be made available. Based on those assurances, the client’s understanding the Fedorowsky needed at least partial payment of his fee, Fedorowsky came to understand that the investor had, in essence, altered their agreement in a way that allowed him to apply the $100,000 toward his fee. According to the stipulation, he had “a good faith, but unreasonable, belief that he was entitled to apply [the] $100,000 to the payment of his legal fees without written or express authorization.”
He settled the matter favorably, winning among other things payment of $350,000 for legal fees. $300,000 of that was received and transferred to a trust managed by Fedorowsky, the disciple who provided the $100,000 and others. Fedorowsky contends he was owed $600,000 in fees, but offered to take less because he considered his clients to be friends.
Over time, acrimony arose among the parties and Fedorowsky received nothing. The disciple demanded the return of the $100,000 which Fedorowsky refused, believing that reimbursement should have been obtained from the settlement trust. Fedorowsky sued his former client, the disciple and several others for his fees and was awarded more than $300,000 by an arbitration panel. At the time of the stipulation, he was still owed $92,000.
He stipulated that by taking the $100,000 and applying it to his client’s legal bill without the investor’s express authorization, he breached his fiduciary duty.
In mitigation, Fedorowsky had no record of discipline and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
A complaint to the Bar association
against Mr. Fedorowsky has been filed by Hansadutta das.
Summary: Mr. Fedorowsky breached his duty by:
1) Disclosing confidential client information
2) Converting $100,000.00 in investment funds
3) Unilaterally taking $60,000.00 out of the settlement money
4) Adding a person to the action without full disclosure
5) Failing to advise his five clients of potential conflicts
6) Taking a position contrary to the interest of his client
7) Double billing(five clients) and charging an unconscionable fee ($644,051.28)
8) Breaching the terms of the fee agreement
9) Breaching his fiduciary duty as a trustee
10) Failing to give notices before entering into business relationship with clients.
Hansadutta writes in his letter to rescind the BBT settlement agreement the following:
"Gupta is a practicing attorney paid for by "GBC" of West Bengal and BBTI at least the last 10 years. Hence, his "opinions" are naturally skewed. He got the $350,000 settlement money from the Hansadutta case in 1998 from the BBTI, as per the California Bar Association's records, while they suspended him in 2004."
There was never any question of Fedorowsky being a trustee, or of being given a license to print Srila Prabhupada's books.. That was purely an ambition on his part and later on the part of his fellow conspirators.
A client hires a brick layer to build a house--after completion, the house does not belong to Mr. brick layer no matter how nicely he might have done the work. A client hires a real estate agent to negotiate the purchase of a house for him. When completed, the house belongs to the client, not to the real estate agent, no matter how good a deal he may have secured for his client. Here we have the brick layer (Fedorowsky) moving into the house and claiming it for himself, or the real estate agent claiming the negotiated settlement of a property as his own. This is essentially the position that has been taken by Fedorowsky.
A lawyer (Fedorowsky) is more or less as clerk who is hired by a client to do the legal rituals and procedures necessary to satisfy the bureaucracy of the legal world, in order for the client to establish his legal position. It is a job of filling out legal forms, writing legal briefs, filling and shuffling legal papers according to the rules and regulations of the legal world. It is the job of a glorified clerk or secretary.
Under my direction, Joseph Fedorowsky was engaged as a karmi lawyer (retained for an hourly a fee, not devotional service to Prabhupada or Krsna) to write, shuffle and file the appropriate papers at the appropriate times and places to obtain the appropriate legal result. That result was to show, that Srila Prabhupada did in fact legally establish the BBT, holder of his copyrighted works, and that Hansadutta was the legally appointed life long trustee of this BBT trust and furthermore that the "BBT International" was in fact a fraudulently conceived corporation that had illegally converted the copyrights of the legal BBT of Srila Prabhupada without legal authority.
Normally as disciples of Srila Prabhupada this exercise in mundane (karmi) law would not have been necessary because as disciples of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada we are supposed to live by the order of the spiritual master, and resolve everything between ourselves on the basis of "Love and Trust." However it was ISKCON and BBTI who choose to descend to the material platform and place the conflict amongst devotees before a karmi court authority for resolution, instead of resolving the conflict on the platform of love and trust, under the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada--which would have been cheaper, more effective and ultimately pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. Fedorowsky managed to come up with a legal fee of more than $ 644,000.00 as compensation for what he claimed was his "devotional service.” ISKCON and BBTI had to pay out untold amounts (suspected to have come to a million dollars or more) to Amarendra Prabhu and Akruranath das aka. Bernstein, of the prestigious law firm "Coudert Bros." Not to mention the loss of sleep and time taken away from factual, positive devotional service over a period of years.
In spite of past failure and mistakes on my part, the record of my devotional service speaks for itself. From the day I came to Srila Prabhupada I have been printing books in one way or another, opening centers, recruiting devotees, and teaching various techniques of book distribution. I regret that at times I was off the mark. Nevertheless, when the matter of my BBT trusteeship was taken before the karmi authorities, rather than settled amongst the devotees, I had no choice but to deal with the situation accordingly "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." But after everything is said and done, we are not Romans, we are Krishna's or better, we are Prabhupada's, we are BHAKTIVEDANTAS, and no amount of legal wrangling or word jugglery can ever supercede this fact.
Therefore, since you insist on maintaining support for the cunning, deceptive and ambitious behavior of Fedorowsky, who claims to be the legitimate holder of the KBI publishing license, and who has forsaken the shelter of Srila Prabhupada, and dismissed my spiritually legitimate claim as the bona fide BBT trustee of the BBT trust set up by Srila Prabhupada, I have no alternative than to reject the settlement we entered into at the conclusion of our legal dispute in 1998. I have already sent the attached letter to Svavas Prabhu, BBT director and President of ISKCON Los Angeles temple.
I consider all agreements entered into at that time under the advice of my attorney Joseph Fedorowsky to be null and void and thus resume my office and claim as the legal BBT representative.
Iskcon's Attorney (Gupta) Suspended
BY: Hansadutta das
USA June 20, 2004 - VNN8647 - In 1997, Hansadutta das hired Joseph Fedorowsky, aka Gupta dasa, to defend him and Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in a court case brought by ISKCON/BBTI, seeking a court declaration that Srila Prabhupada's BBT was never a valid trust, never a legal entity, and never owned the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books.ISKCON and BBTI's claim wa that:
Srila Prabhupada was "works for hire" meaning, Iskcon hired Srila Prabhupada, giving him office space, pen, paper and pencil, therefore whatever, he produced was the property of Iskcon, and Srila Prabhupada had no legal rights over his translation and commentaries ( bhagavad gita, srimad bhagavatam etc...) because they actually belonged to Iskcon, since they (Iskcon) hire him (Srila Prabhupada), supplied him the paper, pencils, prasadam and office space for his work. Therefore Iskcon, not Srila Prabhupada were the legal owners of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books. Unbeleivable but true, legal affidavits to support this are available, from Amarendra Prabhu (ISKCON's attorney) in this case.
This position being impossible to maintain by any stech of the immagination the court case was settled in November, 1998. at that time ISKCON/BBTI granted to Hansadutta and co-defendants a publishing license to print Srila Prabhupada's original, unrevised works, and also agreed to pay out a settlement money of $350,000.00 for start up money to begin publishing Srila Prabhupada's original, unedited books.
However,Immediately after the conclusion of the court case, Joseph Fedorowsky (Gupta dasa) bagged the settlement money, claiming it as fees for his legal work, and by means of crafty legal maneuvers took control of the publishing license, and eventually altogether removed Hansadutta and co-defendants from the licensee Board. In this way, Gupta dasa effectively deprived his clients of any and all benefits from the court case settlement, for his own personal gain.
Shortly after the settlement, Hansadutta and co-defendants ( das anu das, and Bhima Das ) also learnt that sometime in 1997 or 1998, Gupta dasa had embezzled - misappropriated - $125,000 of clients' funds, $100,000 of which belonged to Bhima dasa. This he did secretly, all the while leading his clients to believe that he was acting in their interests, and persuading them that the settlement was in their favor. Thus by deception and fraud, Gupta das piggybacked himself into a position of legal power to benefit himself at the expense of his clients, Hansadutta, Bhima and Das Das anu das devi dasi.
Hansadutta, Bhima and das anudas immediately brought the matter before the California arbitration board, who, amongst other things stated in their final ruling and finding of fact, "Fedorowsky misappropriated $125,000.00 of his clients money" they also ordered him to pay out the settlement money ( $ 350,000.00 )to his clients, which to this day he has not done.
Unbelievably, after this shamelss deception on the part of Fedorowsky, ISKCON favored Fedforowsky (Gupta) by hiring him as their legal counsel to represent them in the matter of the Children of ISKCON v. ISKCON. One has to ask, was there some collusion between ISKCON lawyers and Fedorowsky to defraud his clients in the all-important BBT case, in which Hansadutta sought to re establish the BBT and re-print the original books of Srila Prabhupada?
In 1999, The California State Bar initiated an investigation into Fedorowsky for fraudulent conversion of clients' funds, conflict of interest, malpractice and breach of professional ethics. After 5 years of investigation and prosecution, the State Bar suspended Gupta dasa from active law practice for one month and placed him on a two year bond. The California State Bar regards discipline as a serious measure, and does not recommend suspension without solid evidence. Moreover, Gupta das risks losing his license altogether unless he fulfils certain conditions. The State Bar's discipline attests to his violation of client-attorney ethics.
Anyone else who has been exploited or cheated by Gupta das in the past, is invited to correspond in confidence. this kind of unethical lawyering must be eliminated. You can help stop this kind of menacing pretencious lawyer in the guise of a devotee from further damaging the ISKCON movement.
In the Supreme Court of California En Banc
In Re JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY on Discipline
It is ordered that JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY, State Bar No. 133200, be suspended from the practice of law for six months, that execution of suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for two years on condition that he be actually suspended for 30 days. Respondent is also ordered to comply with the other conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its order approving stipulation filed January 15, 2004. It is further ordered that he take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within one year after the effective date of this order. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d878,891,fn.8.)
Costs are awarded to the State Bar and one-half of said costs must be added to and become part of the membership fees for years 2005 and 2006. (Bus. & Prof. Code section 6086.10.)
Dear Ms. Chan
The Supreme Court has approved the State Bar Court's recommendation for discipline in the Fedorowsky matter. The discipline order, a copy of which is attached, suspends Mr. Fedorowsky from the practice of law for 30 days. Mr. Fedodrowsky will have to comply with various terms of a two year probation, bu will not have to pay restitution.
Court Guts BBTI Case -
Based upon our previous conversations, I understand that the ultimate discipline in this matter does not resolve your civil dispute with Mr. Fedorowsky. I also understand that the discipline is less severe than what you believe is necessary. However, the Court recommended what it believed to be appropriate given the facts and law as it interpreted same.
This brings the above-referenced case to a close. I thank you for your cooperation throughout the investigation and prosecution of this case.
Very truly yours,
Kevin B. Taylor
Deputy Trial Counsel
Interview with VNN and Joseph Fedorowsky (Gupta das)
Court Guts BBTI Case
VNN Los Angeles, CA 10/29/1998 /2427 - VNN has learned that in ruling on cross motions forsummary judgment on October 27, 1998, the California Superior Court Judge inthe BBT-International, Inc., and ISKCON of California, Inc. vs. Hans Karycase has thrown out the Plaintiffs argument that the Court should defer tothe GBC on matters regarding the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, its trustees andownership to the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books.
In an interview with VNN Joseph Fedorowsky (Gupta das), the lawyer representingHansadutta, Bhagavan, Veda Guhya Das and Das Das Anu Das Devi Dasi, explained:
VNN: How does the Court ruling affect your clients' effort to validateSrila Prabhupada's original BBT?
Gupta: This ruling now guarantees that the Court will apply "neutralprinciples of law developed for use in all property disputes" inadjudicating the trust and contract issues being litigated in this case andthat the Court will not entertain any of the Plaintiffs' ecclesiasticalarguments.
VNN: Can you elaborate?
Gupta: The court formally rejected the attempt by the Plaintiffs'BBT-International Inc and ISKCON of California Inc, to hide behind theskirts of the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- which, if allowed, wouldhave prevented the Court from questioning decisions made by the GBC andISKCON as regards the BBT, its trustees and the ownership of SrilaPrabhupada's books.
VNN: How does that help validate the BBT?
Gupta: That paves the way for the Court at trial to validate the existenceof the original Bhaktivedanta Book Trust formed on May 29, 1972, by applyingCalifornia trust law as well as to invalidate the bogus assignment ofcopyrights in Srila Prabhupada's books to the BBT-International, Inc., byapplying simple contract principles of law.
VNN: Does the Court's decision directly affect the BBT International Inc'spresent claim to ownership of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books ?
Gupta: In my opinion, the Court's ruling effectively guts that claimbecause the documentary evidence clearly proves the formation and viabilityof Srila Prabhupada's original irrevocable California charitable trustreferred to by devotees throughout the world as the "Bhaktivedanta BookTrust." In addition, the ruling removes the basis for Plaintiffs' smoke andmirrors assertion that the copyrights were legally "assigned" to the BBTInternational Inc., which is actually just a private holding corporation --not a trust.
VNN: But what about the argument that the GBC has authority over the BBT andthe BBT Trustees and could therefore authorize or direct the transfer of thecopyrights into the BBT International Inc?
Gupta: That argument is now gone -- and for good reason. Srila Prabhupadaset up a perfect arrangement as regards the separation between the BBT andthe GBC. In the original 1970 Direction of Management, His Divine Gracestated: "I am setting up a different body of management known as theBHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST. The trustees of this body are also members of theGBC, but their function is not dependent on the GBC." Then in the May 29,1972, BBT California trust document, His Divine Grace stated: "This trustshall exist independently of ISKCON and the Trustee's function and dutiesstated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing BodyCommission of ISKCON." I don't know if anyone could have said it moreclearly.
VNN: So where does the case go from here?
Gupta: Unless the Plaintiffs voluntarily accept the legal and spiritualreality of Srila Prabhupada's original BBT, which holds His copyrights, aslegally separate and distinct from the publishing activities of ISKCON, atwo week court trial will begin on November 30, 1998.
VNN: Last question - Why shouldn't the BBT International Inc and ISKCON ofCalifornia Inc go to trial on these issues?
Gupta: The number one reason is to follow the clear instructions of SrilaPrabhupada as expressed in the BBT Agreement in order to keep his copyrightssafe and beyond the manipulation or control of any third party, whichspecifically included the GBC. The second reason is that going to trialwill mean the unnecessary expenditure by the Plaintiffs of some $100,000 ormore additional ISKCON dollars to contest the clearly expressed desire ofHis Divine Grace. And the third reason is that if at all possible, issuesdealing with Srila Prabhupada's Vani should take place on a cooperativespiritual basis and not between contentious litigants in the legal arena.Perhaps when we all accept that principle a new Chapter in the history ofthe Hare Krishna Movement will have officially begun.
Comments and Questions :
So, why is the lawyer (the winner), Mr. Fedorowsky, stressing the importance of following 'the clear instructions of Srila Prabhupada as expressed in the BBT Agreement' but instead, in reality, he is conjointly negotiating the settlement with Swami J (for his own personal gain) who does everything in his capacity to not follow Srila Prabhupada's BBT Agreement?
So, what was the need for negotiations if Mr. Fedorowsky already 'won' the case? The reason being Mr. Fedorowsky got minimum half a million in US currency form the 'private' negotiations with the plaintiffs .
"Fedorowsky sued his former client, the disciple and several others for his fees and was awarded more than $300,000 by an arbitration panel. At the time of the stipulation, he was still owed $92,000. He stipulated that by taking the $100,000 and applying it to his client's legal bill without the investor's express authorization, he breached his fiduciary duty."
Iskcon Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan Filed
BY GUPTA DAS (JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY)
VNN USA, Mar 17, 2004 /VNN8584 - Letter by Gupta das:
"...The decision to reach out and compensate every child was made in spite of the fact that the dominant legal view two years ago was that ISKCON could prevail in the Texas state litigation on technical grounds at a cost which would have been substantially less than creating a tort fund for all Gurukulis."
"...The second feature is that a substantial portion of the tort fund will be made up of voluntarily contributions by non debtor individuals, organizations and temples. The fund would have been much smaller had it been based solely on the liquidation value of the ISKCON debtors who filed for bankruptcy protection."
NOTE: Here JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY is saying that it is due to the mercy of ISKCON debtor Gurus that Abused Children got any compensation whatsoever. This is yet another good solid kick in the face of the abused children. And this one was broadcasted via TV news agencies. Mafia Gurus and their lawyers; in human society there is no law, justice or 'protection' that their money can't buy.