हरे कृष्ण हरे कृष्ण - कृष्ण कृष्ण हरे हरे - हरे राम हरे राम - राम राम हरे हरे - हरे कृष्ण हरे कृष्ण - कृष्ण कृष्ण हरे हरे - हरे राम हरे राम - राम राम हरे हरे             Please always chant     <--     Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa  -  Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare  -  Hare Rāma Hare Rāma  -  Rāma Rāma Hare Hare
- Courting the BBT -


"The BBT is already entitled to carry out its intended purpose, and although the BBTI and KBI have passed themselves off as the real guardians of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books with the aid of legal device (and have even produced bastard books), this does not detract from the legitimacy of Srila Prabhupada's original, explicit arrangement and the validity and urgency of the BBT's mission."

Prabhupada's intentions and arrangement bypassed

Say a father creates a trust, vests it with money and property and names his children as the beneficiaries, and appoints a trustee. The father dies. The children bypass the trustee and seize the trust money and property. What's wrong? The trust was created for their benefit, so why is what they did illegal? Because they violated the terms of the trust, which was indeed set up to benefit them, but does not belong to them; it belongs to the person who created it, even after he has passed away. It represents his will and intentions, which are safeguarded by law for the term of the trust. So to defy his arrangement and steal from the trust is a criminal act. This is what ISKCON did with the BBT. They bypassed the trustee, set up a non-profit corporation (BBTI), and began to help themselves to the trust property.

Then when BBT asserted its copyright ownership in the Singapore court case, BBTI and ISKCON applied to the court in USA and among other pleadings submitted that ISKCON was the beneficiary and wanted the court to ratify the persons they named as trustees and remove Hansadutta. But while the court will take into consideration the wishes of the beneficiary, it is more concerned with the wishes of the Settlor or person who created the trust and whether the trust fulfills his wishes. To take the "back door" approach is not at all a sure bet. When Hansadutta met with Svavas, Mats Olaussen, Amarendra and I don't know who else (maybe Jayadvaita was there?), Amarendra asked, "What's the difference? What does it matter to you who's in charge or what's the legal setup as long as the job gets done? BBTI prints the books, the books get distributed, everybody's happy. BBTI is doing the same thing that BBT was supposed to do. What's wrong with that?" Hansadutta asked by way of reply, "Suppose I go to your wife, I seduce her, I do with her all those same things that you do with her, she's happy, everything's just as her life was with you, maybe even better... what's wrong with that?" Amarendra's mouth dropped open. This is the crux of the matter.

 

Courting the BBT
BY: Das devi dasi

"...The BBT is there right now. The BBT trustee is there right now. What are you willing to do?"


To: Patrick Hedemark <pdhedemark@yahoo.com>,
Nathan Zakheim <zakheim@earthlink.net>,
Nimai Pandit Das <nimaipandit@yahoo.com>
From: Diane Marie Chan <daschan@pop.jaring.my>
Subject: Re: Prabhupadanugas Press

Dear Prabhus, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I don't want to give offence, but having spent more than seven years of my life to uphold the BBT in courtcases in Singapore and USA and another two years afterwards trying to rescue the situation, I feel compelled to cross the line and speak. Bhima Prabhu and I spent enough money, time and blood that I feel entitled to have my say. :-!

Permit me, Praghosa Prabhu, to restate your perfectly rational argument [BBT Doesn't Need to Prove Anything] in terms of a real-life situation: it doesn't make sense that a legally wedded wife would drag "the other woman" or women who would seduce her husband to court to prove her rightful status; she is already entitled to devote herself to her husband and have children with him. Even if "the other women" go to bed with her husband, they do not enjoy equal rights and standing in family and society, and it was not so long ago that bastard offspring also did not inherit legal rights, title and property. Why, then, should a wife seek redress in the courts against women who want and will never own what she lawfully already possesses? Is this not the same scenario? The BBT is already entitled to carry out its intended purpose, and although the BBTI and KBI have passed themselves off as the real guardians of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books with the aid of legal device (and have even produced bastard books), this does not detract from the legitimacy of Srila Prabhupada's original, explicit arrangement and the validity and urgency of the BBT's mission.

Praghosa Prabhu calls for the devotees to spend their energy and money to back Srila Prabhupada's authorized BBT and raise funds to immediately print books, rather than waste it on unnecessary legal maneuver. Do the BBTI and KBI have the resources and the will to check the BBT from carrying out its lawful business? Praghosa Prabhu is confident that they do not. So why are NNV and Nimai Pandit Prabhus trying to persuade us to give money to lawyers to take away from the BBTI what they do not possess? Like chasing a bull to cut off its teats so that it will not produce milk. Leave the bull alone and go milk the cow. Rally to help the BBT serve its purpose. Serve the BBT, and it will serve Prabhupada, Krishna and the whole planet. Praghosa proposes that if everyone just goes ahead to print, BBTI could not possibly fight them all at once in so many parts of the world.

So I ask, Prabhus, what is your objection to this proposal?

NNV and Nimai Pandit Prabhus, you do not like this proposal and are still determined to go to court? So what is your objective? Is it to revive the BBT? Exactly how would that translate in terms of people and operation? I'd like NNV and Nimai Pandit Prabhus to state their objectives and plans out in the open so that we are not any of us going along on the basis of false assumptions.

It is one thing to defend the BBT in the event of legal attack; but what NNV and Nimai Pandit Prabhus propose to do is to take over the BBT from the back door, so to speak, taking the position that the "renegade ISKCON" outpost in Long Island is the sole legal beneficiary of the BBT, and thus the beneficiary seeks to petition the court to appoint new trustees, and of course they must hope that the court will hand over the trust to themselves or to persons who will operate the trust for their benefit more or less according to their dictation. At least, this is the angle that was presented to me by NNV. (Have I understood correctly?) Given the number of "iffy" factors, it's a crap shoot what might come out of the court at the end of the day.

Matter of fact, this is exactly the same tactic that BBTI and ISKCON took. Say a father creates a trust, vests it with money and property and names his children as the beneficiaries, and appoints a trustee. The father dies. The children bypass the trustee and seize the trust money and property. What's wrong? The trust was created for their benefit, so why is what they did illegal? Because they violated the terms of the trust, which was indeed set up to benefit them, but does not belong to them; it belongs to the person who created it, even after he has passed away. It represents his will and intentions, which are safeguarded by law for the term of the trust. So to defy his arrangement and steal from the trust is a criminal act. This is what ISKCON did with the BBT. They bypassed the trustee, set up a non-profit corporation (BBTI), and began to help themselves to the trust property. Then when BBT asserted its copyright ownership in the Singapore court case, BBTI and ISKCON applied to the court in USA and among other pleadings submitted that ISKCON was the beneficiary and wanted the court to ratify the persons they named as trustees and remove Hansadutta. But while the court will take into consideration the wishes of the beneficiary, it is more concerned with the wishes of the Settlor or person who created the trust and whether the trust fulfills his wishes. To take the "back door" approach is not at all a sure bet. When Hansadutta met with Svavas, Mats Olaussen, Amarendra and I don't know who else (maybe Jayadvaita was there?), Amarendra asked, "What's the difference? What does it matter to you who's in charge or what's the legal setup as long as the job gets done? BBTI prints the books, the books get distributed, everybody's happy. BBTI is doing the same thing that BBT was supposed to do. What's wrong with that?" Hansadutta asked by way of reply, "Suppose I go to your wife, I seduce her, I do with her all those same things that you do with her, she's happy, everything's just as her life was with you, maybe even better... what's wrong with that?" Amarendra's mouth dropped open. This is the crux of the matter. Prabhus, the BBT is authorized, the BBT trustee is authorized. Will you also now, like ISKCON, attempt to bypass the trustee and take it over?

And let us suppose Nimai Pandit prevails, what then? Will there be money after all the legal costs and fees to print books?

What assurance do we have that the BBT would not be turned into a "family affair" like the Bangalore temple or Sundar Gopal's center in Singapore for the benefit of a handful of ambitious men? We are asked to trust you, Nimai Pandit Prabhu, a relative newcomer, the subject of rumours alluding to your prior association with Sundar Gopal and expulsion from Bangalore when Madhu Pandit allegedly out-maneuvered your bid to take over the leadership. Have you, Nimai Pandit Prabhu, ever printed books? Have you distributed books? To whom do you look as mentor? Or are you an independent operator? How can the devotees be satisfied that you are not carving out a role for yourself, riding piggyback on the DOM and BBT?

NNV Prabhu, you are asking much from the devotees. We like you very much and do not doubt your jolly good intentions, but how reliable is your judgment? When the BBT was fighting for its life in the court nine years ago, what was your contribution towards financing the defence? Yes, you gave your hospitality to Hansadutta on numerous occasions, and at one point gave up your rented premises to Fedorowsky (involuntarily, as it happened), but you have waxed bitter over your alienation from the confidences of Hansadutta's legal team almost from the outset of that case, and I sometimes wonder if that isn't your way of justifying having not spent any of your hard-earned money for the BBT defence. Fedorowsky took advantage of your quarrel with him to exclude you from any and all discussion pertaining to the case, but Hansadutta hoped he could count on your good will and support nevertheless. Then, when we were desperately in need of raising funds to go to trial, what was your response to our call for help? It has since been reported that around that same time you gave away to your ex-wife a condominium unit worth a few hundred thousand dollars. You many times gave your 2 cents worth to Hansadutta, but right now you are seeing firsthand how far 2 cents stretches. In 1999, when the settlement blew up, you ranted loudly, wailing that Hansadutta had betrayed everyone, including Prabhupada, and that it should have been you who was appointed BBT Trustee, and that you would never have let it happen as it did. But it was for lack of funding that things went the way they did; because we received no response, Prabhu, not from IRM, not from Prabhupadanugas, not even from you, we could not afford to go to trial and were persuaded to go for settlement. Fedorowsky painted a "win-win" picture, and we believed it was the best outcome under the circumstances, but it was not for lack of trying but for lack of money. Where were you then with your millions and trillions that you are so sure you can raise? Could the BBT count on you then? Not. And then when Fedorowsky betrayed us, you turned your back on Hansadutta and blamed him. Do you not see any contradiction?

And Prabhu, until today, you do not get your facts straight as to what the court case was about and what constituted the defence. In the California law suit, ISKCON and BBTI challenged the validity of Srila Prabhupada's BBT. In Singapore, BBTI filed action against us for alleged copyright infringement, and our defence rested on the argument that it was up to the BBTI to prove copyright ownership. At the same time, Hansadutta presented evidence that he was the legal BBT Trustee and that the BBT held the copyrights. It was this stroke that caused BBTI to withdraw the Singapore lawsuit and then attack the BBT in California.

At this time, Hansadutta takes the position that he is even now trustee of the BBT, because the terms of the settlement were not fulfilled, thus rendering it void. No one from BBTI nor Amarendra nor Fedorowsky has challenged his official notice to that effect.

Nara Narayana and Nimai Pandit Prabhus, you are aware of this—I have spoken of it to NNV Prabhu, yet you have not consulted Hansadutta and taken him into confidence with regard to your impending litigation over the trust, except that NNV Prabhu, you did contact him and myself to request support for your litigation, even going so far as to dangle the carrot "the court might appoint Hansadutta to serve as trustee" or "we might recommend to the court that they name Hansadutta as one of the new trustees". Might. Maybe. Implying that Hansadutta's trusteeship depends on your recommendation and the pleasure of the court? Lately Nimai Pandit writes that Hansadutta is not trustee any more. I say it is a matter of opinion. Lawyers give opinions, and judges weigh them and then give their own opinions and hand out orders based on them.

But I'm asking whose opinion weighs the most? Apart from the legal vortex that was the BBT courtcase and its disputed settlement and now the new contenders, there is something else: the spiritual reality. It is spirit that has substance, and if we discount the order of His Divine Grace in favor of the opinion or ruling or declaration of mundane men in a mundane courtroom, then what right do we have to claim the legacy of Srila Prabhupada and to represent him? Locanananda Prabhu put it nicely:

"I believe this fight can be won by preaching Krishna consciousness. It might take more time than litigation, but there is greater glory in establishing the Absolute Truth by a show of spiritual strength than by resorting to legal action through the court system and appealing to the authority of a judge and jury who are all non-believers."

What is that spiritual strength if not the order and blessings of the spiritual master? Srila Prabhupada's construction of the BBT is an order incumbent on all disciples to respect and obey in a spirit of cooperation and surrender. The BBT is the vital nerve of his movement. It so happens that Srila Prabhupada appointed Hansadutta BBT trustee for life. What prompted Srila Prabhupada to name the persons he did as trustees of the BBT? Is it within our domain to question his choices and criteria? Does the order of the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON and BBT fall within the jurisdiction of mundane courts? Does his order fall within the jurisdiction of Hansadutta's peers and juniors? We can fritter away the few days, weeks, months and years that remain to us trying to circumvent and reinvent Srila Prabhupada's order and arrangement, or we can jump in and be a part of it.

The BBT is there right now. The BBT trustee is there right now. What are you willing to do? Are you ready to raise money to print books? Are you ready to do the work? Are you ready to accept direction and cooperate with a person who is a proven Prabhupada man, who has expertise in printing Prabhupada's books and in distributing them as well and who is more than eager to be useful to Prabhupada and to the devotees and to revive the heart of the movement with the pulse of the devotees who accept Srila Prabhupada's books and teachings as their life and soul? This is a person who was at the vanguard of the movement from the earliest days, who started temples, recruited devotees, trained them, personally went out to distribute books and lead harinam sankirtan all over the world, who had much close, personal association with Srila Prabhupada, and whom Prabhupada gave much responsibility and blessings also.

You know it well that the time is coming when Prabhupada's men will disappear from our view, and even now in the larger ISKCON community there is scarcely a trace of Prabhupada and his direct disciples, except in a few bigger temples. Those who are there within ISKCON are very much entrenched. They are salaried and keep to the party line. How can we look to them for honest direction? And from those who are sincere men, how many are capable of rising to the task of heading up the BBT? NNV Prabhu, you believe yourself to be, but have you ever printed books? Have you ever distributed them? Nimai Pandit Prabhu, you may be sincere, yet you are very much a junior without experience. Prabhupada used to wait to see who stepped forward to do the work, on seeing a man take responsibility and take charge, then he was made president, or GBC or whatever. Is it too forward of me to suggest that you should first prove yourself, then we will see what you are? NNV Prabhu, you know it well that Hansadutta has proven himself competent and lives only on the hope that he will be able to serve Srila Prabhupada; why not work with him in the spirit in which you used to work when you were in Berkeley temple all those years ago instead of lining yourself up as an adversary?

There is an element of risk either way. Risk to print books and breathe new life into the existing BBT—will BBTI come out swinging a big bat? Or risk to support a legal action whose objective has not been clearly delineated and which may be inconclusive after all. Or risk to sit it out and lose altogether.

Praghosa Prabhu says it well: contemplate what you will have to answer for yourself when you find yourself face to face with Prabhupada again.

Your fallen servant,
das dd