BETREFFEND: LAUFENDES VERFAHREN - ISKCON Inc. Long Island - vs. - ISCON GBC Westbengal
Kanzlei Chittur & Associates:
Verteidigung des ISKCON, Inc.-Tempels in Freeport, Long Island, und Verfolgung der Gegenklagen in seinem Auftrag gegen die Handlung der ISKCON Governing Body Commission Society [Gesellschaft] von West-Bengalen, Indien, diesen Tempel zu übernehmen. Nach wochenlanger Anhörung zur Beweisaufnahme lehnte das prüfende Gericht den Vorstoß der Gesellschaft für eine einstweilige gerichtliche Verfügung zur sofortigen Übernahme ab, die bei der Anrufung groß hervorgehoben wurde: Kelley v. Garuda. Der ISKCON, Inc.-Tempel in Freeport hat 7 Gegenklagen gegen die West Bengal Society wegen Vergehen, vorsätzlicher betrügerischer Absicht und unrechtmäßigem Eigengebrauch gestellt;
wegen Beihilfe zu Verstößen gegen treuhänderische Verpflichtungen, wegen Behilfe zu unrechtmäßigem Eigengebrauch, wegen gemeinschaftlichen Handelns und wegen Zivilverschwörung. Die Gegenklagen fokussieren sich auf Behauptungen, wonach die West Bengal Society Millionen Dollar umfunktioniert hat, indem sie sich fälschlicherweise als die kirchlich-geistliche Autorität der Bewegung für Krishna-Bewusstsein präsentierte, im Gegensatz zu den Anweisungen des Gründers und seinem Testament. Diese Millionen gehören rechtlich ISKCON, Inc., von Freeport, Long Island, welche die alleinige Anspruchsberechtigte aus der Treuhand [Trust] ist, die vom Gründer ISKCONs, Seiner Heiligkeit Srila Prabhupada, gegründet wurde, und Bhaktivedanta Book Trust genannt wurde. Im Mai 2010 hat der die Nachforschung überwachende Richter die Klägerin GBC wegen aufschiebender Taktiken gemaßregelt: Kelley v. Doaman. Das Verfahren wird voraussichtlich Ende diesen Jahres verhandelt werden.
---------
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New YorkEdward Kelley, Also Known as Adarsi Das, et al., Appellants
vs
Aruna Garuda, Also Known as Aruna Devi Das, et al., Respondents.
January 9, 2007
CITE TITLE AS: Kelley v Garuda
Untersuchung der wirklichen Anspruchsrechte religiöser Gruppierungen und Verbindungen
 |
THEMA
Bei der Feststellung behaupteter Übertretungen und widerrechlicher Aneignungen der körperschaftlichen Autorität, und der Entscheidung zur Erklärung der Rechte und Interessen der Parteien im Tempel des Klägers, hat sich das Gericht gerirrt, als es Ursachen für behauptete Übertretungen und widerrechtliche Aneignungen der körperschaftlichen Autorität als nicht gerichtsfähig verwarf; die Ursachen für das Vorgehen basierten im Wesentlichen auf rechtlichen Prinzipien körperschaftlicher Autorität und Eigentums; der Entschluß zu diesen Dingen fiel durch die Bestimmung, wer nun den Tempel und seine Güter besaß und Autorität hatte, die Governing Body Commission des Klägers oder die Angeklagten; die Angeklagten versäumten es zu begründen, warum das Gericht diese Angelegenheiten über neutrale Grundsätze des Rechts zur Prüfung der Urkunden zum Eigentum, das Gründungszertifikat des Klägers, die Leitsätze der Statuten, durch die Parteien gelieferte Dokumente und die Prüfung der Glaubwürdigkeit der Parteien lösen konnte.
Gerichtliche Verfügungen
Vorläufige Verfügungen
Bei der Feststellung behaupteter Übertretungen und widerrechlicher Aneignungen der körperschaftlichen Autorität, und der Entscheidung zur Erklärung der Rechte und Interessen der Parteien im Tempel des Klägers, hat sich das Gericht gerirrt, als es den Antrag des Klägers zur vorläufigen Verfügung gänzlich ablehnte; Die Feststellung des Gerichts, die Kläger hätten nicht ausreichend die Begründetheit dargelegt, basierte auf seiner fehlerhaften Annahme, dass Übertretung und Aneignung der körperschaftlichen Autorität nicht gerichtsfähig seien; die Kläge würden irreparablen Schaden erleiden, sollten die Beklagten das Eigentum der Klägerin verkaufen, vermieten oder anderweitig belasten, den Tempel eingeschlossen, und die gerichtliche Verfügung einer solchen Handlung wäre nötig, um den derzeitigen status quo zu erhalten.
Steven M. Lester, Garden City, N.Y. (Jean M. Smyth und Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., of counsel), für die Beschwerdeführer. Chittur & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Krishnan S. Chittur of counsel), für die Beklagten Aruna Garuda, a/k/a Aruna Devi Das, und Viswa Garuda.
Mit der Feststellung behaupteter Übertretungen und Aneigung der *594 körperschaftlichen Autorität, and für eine Entscheidung, die Rechte und Interessen der jeweiligen Parteien im Tempel des Klägers, der International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., in Freeport, legen die Kläger Berufung ein gegen (1) eine Anweisung des Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.) vom 25. Oktober 2004, die ihren Schritt für eine vorläufige Verfügung gegen das, neben anderem, Verkaufen, Vermieten oder anderweitige Nutzung des Eigentums des Klägers, der International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., den Tempel eingeschlossen, ablehnte, und (2) insofern gegen eine weitere Anweisung desselben Gerichts auch vom 25. Oktober 2004, die Teilen der Handlungen der Beklagten erlaubte, die den ersten und zweiten Klagegrund ignorieren wollten
Anzuweisen, dass die Anweisung vom 25. Oktober 2004, die den Antrag auf vorläufige Verfügung ablehnte, aufgrund des Rechts geändert wird, indem deren Vorbedingung dass Teile des Antrags, der den Beklagten den Verkauf, das Vermieten, oder eine anderweitige Nutzung des Eigentums, eingeschlossen den Tempel, des Klägers International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., und somit eine Vorkehrung des Gestattens für diese Teile [der Handlungen der Beklagten] ersetzt; nach dieser entsprechenden Änderung wird jene Anweisung bestätigt, und außerdem **2
Anzuweisen, dass die Anweisung vom 25. Oktober 2004, die jenen Teilen der Handlungen der Beklagten erlaubte, die den ersten und zweiten Klagegrund ignorieren wollten, soweit aus dem Gesetz abgeleitet, und jenen Teilen der Handlungen der Beklagten ablehnen; und außerdem
Anzuweisen, dass dem Kläger eine Rechnungsstellung der Kosten zugestanden wird.
Dieses Verfahren beinhaltet einen Eigentumsstreit zwischen zwei Splitterparteien, die mit dem Long Island Hare Krishna Tempel in Freeport verbunden sind (nachfolgend Tempel genannt). Die individuellen Parteien sind Mitglieder der International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (nachfolgend ISKCON), einer in New York im Jahr 1966 registrierten religiösen Vereinigung. Das zur Sprache stehende Eigentum befindet sich in 197 South Ocean Avenue in Freeport und wurde von ISKCON im Jahr 1980.
Das Supreme Court erlaubte jene Teile der Handlungen der Beklagten, die den ersten und zweiten Klagegrund ignorieren wollten, der Behauptung von Übertretung und Aneignung körperschaftlicher Autorität, und speziell der Beobachtung dass in beiden Klagegründen die Kläger “die Angelegenheit[en] verflochtenw” mit Behauptungen von ketzerischen Praktiken auf der Seite der Beklagten. Das Gericht folgerte, dass die Klagegründe nicht gerichtsfähig seien, weil jede Maßnahme gegen sie eine Verletzung der Einrichtung nach sich ziehen würde, und der Klauseln zur freien Ausübung des First Amendment. DasSupreme Court irrte in seiner Schlußfolgerung, und in der Nichtzulassung der beiden Klagegründe *595
Die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten verbietet den Gerichten die Rechtsprechung über “Streitigkeiten über religiöse Lehrmeinung und Ausübung” (Presbyterian Church in U.S. v Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 US 440, 449 [1969]; siehe Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v Congregation B’nai Jacob, 90 NY2d 517, 521 [1997]; First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 116 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1037 [1984]). “Solche Vorgaben verletzen das First Amendment, weil sie gleichzeitig einen religiösen Glauben als korrekt für die Organisation bestätigen und auch der freien Ausübung des gegenseitigen ’Glaubens” entgegenstehen (First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., supra at 116). Nichtsdestotrotz hat das United States Supreme Court erkannt, dass “es neutrale Prinzipien des Rechts gibt, die für alle Eingentumsstreitigkeiten entworfen wurden, die angewandt werden können, ohne Kirchen zu ‘gründen’, denen das Eigentum zugesprochen wird(Presbyterian Church v Hull Church, supra at 449; siehe Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595, 602-603 [1979]; cf. Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 31 AD3d 541 [2006]).
Beide Seiten versuchten hier, das Gericht in eine Auseinandersetzung über Kirchenlehrmeinung und kirchliche Ausübung hereinzuziehen. Jedoch unter Berücksichtigung einr Klage nach CPLR 3211, bei der, so wie hier, beweiskräftige Material durch das Gericht in Erwägung gezogen wurde, “das Kriterium ist, ob der Befürworter des Plädoyers einen Grund für eine Klage hat, nicht ob er eine ausgesprochen hat” (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; siehe Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Trotz mancher Sprache in den Plädoyers und viel Auseinandersetzungen in den Klagepapieren über religiöse Themen basieren die Klagegründe über den Vorwurf von Übertretung und Aneignung grundsätzlich auf rechtlichen Grundsätzen des Betriebs und Eigentums einer Körperschaft. Die Lösung dieser Angelegenheiten steht und fällt mit der Entschlossenheit dessen, der Autorität über den Tempel und seine Liegenschaft beansprucht und hat, der Governing Body Commission des ISKCON oder den Beklagten. Die Beklagten konnten nicht erreichen, dass das Gericht diese Angelegenheiten nicht durch Anwendung neutraler Rechtsprinzipien lösen konnte, mittels Analyse des Anspruch auf das Eigentum über das Gründungsdokument von ISKCON, über den Wortlaut der Satzungen, und über von den Parteien eingereichte Dokumenten, und über Nachürpfung der Glaubwürdigkeit der Parteien, wenn sie zu den umgebenden Umständen überprüft werden, der Satzung, den Wahlen, und den anderen Dokumenten (siehe Presbyterian Church v Hull Church, supra at 449; First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., supra at 122; **3Matter of Venigalla v Alagappan, 307 AD2d 1041, 1042 [2003]; Matter of Kissel v Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Holy Trinity Church of Yonkers, 103 AD2d 830 [1984]). Es gibt keine dafürsprechenden Fakten für die alternativen Grundlagen für die Ablehung der Klagegründe durch die Beklagten. *596
Das Gericht hat seine Machtbefugnis unvorsichtig ausgeübt, indem er den Antrag des Klägers auf vorläufiges Urteil komplett ablehnte. Parteien, die ein vorläufiges Urteil anstreben, müssen “eine Erfolgswahrscheinlichkeit zeigen können, sowie Gefahren irreparabler Verletzung bei Abwesenheit eines Urteils, und einen gerechten Ausgleich ” aufweisen können (Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; siehe Church of God Pentecostal Fountain of Love, MI v Iglesia de Dios Pentecostal, MI, 27 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]). “Der Zweck eines vorläufigen Urteils ist es, den status quo in Vorbereitung des nächsten Schritts aufrechtzuerhalten” (Coinmach Corp. v Alley Pond Owners Corp., 25 AD3d 642, 643 [2006]).
Die Feststellung des Gerichts, dass die Kläger nicht die Erfolgswahrscheintlichkeit darlegen konnten, basierte auf der irrtümlichen Festlegung, dass Übertretung und Aneignung der körperschaftlichen Autorität nicht gerichtsfähig wären. Es ist klar, dass die Kläger irreparablen Schaden davontragen würden, sollten die Beklagten das Eigentum von ISKCON, den Tempel eingeschlossen, verkaufen, vermieten oder anderweitig schmälern,.
und dass ein dahingehendes vorläufiges Urteil nötig ist, um den Status quo aufrechtzuerhalten. (siehe Church of God Pentecostal Fountain of Love, MI v Iglesia de Dios Pentecostal, MI, supra; Coinmach Corp. v Alley Pond Owners Corp., supra).
Die weiteren Auseinandersetzungen des Klägers sind nicht von Belang. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur. Copr. (c) 2007, Secretary of State, State of New York.
Spin Doctor Gupta Spinning Again
BY: NIMAI PANDIT DAS
Jan 09, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK, USA (SUN) — Yesterday's article by Gupta claiming that the BBT lawsuit has been dismissed has yet again exposed how he "spins" the news for the benefit of his paymasters, the ISKCON GBC of West Bengal Society. "Spins" mean he takes part of the truth and gives it a "twist" for his and his masters' benefit as part of their propaganda. But we thank Gupta das for bringing this issue on the forum so that the real issues can be discussed, yet again. As Srila Prabhupada says "Any news is good news".
1st Spin of Spin Doctor Gupta: "a California court judge dismissed the lawsuit"
Truth: The judge on the first hearing "Dismissed without prejudice" ISKCON, Inc.'s petitions. "Without Prejudice" is a standard legal term that means the claims of ISKCON, Inc. were not dismissed, but a technicality in the filing has to be sorted out and then the petitions will be filed again. Soon... No worries.
Question: Why didn't Gupta mention the all-important "without prejudice" part? A vast difference, and a little twist for a master spin. Why? To cause confusion and alarm among the vast number of devotees and supporters looking at this action with hope to restore the BBT and see the BBT printing only Srila Prabhupada's original books.
2nd spin of Spin Doctor Gupta: "filed against the BBT"
Truth ISKCON, Inc.'s petitions are not filed against the BBT. They are filed against the Trustees who have been mismanaging the BBT. A vast difference again. This endeavor is to restore the BBT so that it can again print only Srila Prabhupada's original books, so that the BBT can again own the copyrights Srila Prabhupada put in it, which the BBTI has stolen, and so that the BBT can be made operational as Srila Prabhupada instructed. There is not even a bank account of BBT. Hence, the BBT Trustees have been sued.
Also, BBTI has been sued for stealing the copyrights and trademarks of the BBT. Same with Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing Inc., that diverts all the money sent in the name of the BBT into its own Los Angeles bank account. Also the Archives, for keeping Srila Prabhupada's original paraphernalia, which should legally belong to the BBT.
Question: Why does Gupta not focus on the mismanagement of the BBT BY THE TRUSTEES and BBTI that is the focus of the lawsuit? Why try to portray this endeavor as an attack on the BBT? The BBT is holy, why should one attack the BBT? This kind of spin is a diabolical attempt to rile the masses against the endeavor to establish the Truth for the pleasure of Srila Prabhupada. In debating circles it is called "flag waving".
3rd Spin of Spin Doctor Gupta: "by Nimai Pandit's version of ISKCON Inc., a New York corporation", "The lawsuit was premised on the altogether outrageous legal assertion that the sole beneficiary of the 1972 California trust (BBT) formed by Srila Prabhupada is the ISKCON Inc. controlled by a small band of hopefuls led by Nitai Pandit, rather than ISKCON worldwide. Yet an unmotivated reading of the trust instrument along with a review of Srila Prabhupada's statements and actions on this point overwhelmingly evidence his unequivocal desire for ISKCON worldwide to benefit from his writings and other works. As a trust interpretation issue, I'd have to say that this would not be considered a close call."
Truth: Let us hear from Gupta himself in 1997 what his "unmotivated reading of the trust instrument" portrayed to him then:
"Based upon the language of the Trust Instrument, the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, Inc., a New York corporation, was the intended beneficiary of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust."
(Gupta Das on July 7th, 1997 in Los Angeles)
Now, let us see below if it is Nimai Pandit's version, or Srila Prabhupada's!
Srila Prabhupada writes in the BBT Trust Instrument document dated May 29th, 1972:
"This trust is created and shall be operated exclusively for the benefit of the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, incorporated by me, and qualified as a tax-exempt religious organization under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and specifically for the Book Fund and Building Fund activities hereinafter set forth in particular."
ISKCON, Inc. is designated as the legal entity beneficiary by Srila Prabhupada. The trust is also formed "and specifically for the Book Fund and Building Fund activities hereinafter set forth in particular."
These activities are delineated by Srila Prabhupada further in the Trust Instrument, as well as demonstrated by him in practice.
"The Trustees shall collect all proceeds from the sale of my books, that is One Hundred Percent (100%) of all the proceeds from all of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness Temples and divide these proceeds into two funds, one-half (1/2) for the fund known as the Book Fund, and one-half (1/2) for the fund known as the Building Fund.
The proceeds allocated to the Book Fund shall be used for the following purposes, all in the discretion of the Trustees, in whom I have complete confidence: Printing and reprinting of books;
Directing and managing all publicity and
distribution of my books;
Processing all copyrights and legal rights
to my books;
Allocating funds as they see fit to ISKCON
Press and directing the operation of the
activities of ISKCON Press in the printing
and reprinting of said books.
Those funds allocated to the Building Fund shall be applied in the sole discretion of the Trustees in the following manner:
Purchase of properties for the construction
of new temples or renovation of old temples."
Hence, there is no dichotomy. The legal beneficiary of the Trust is ISKCON, Inc., Srila Prabhupada's society incorporated by himself in New York in 1966, and that includes furthering the activities of the Book Fund and the Building Fund, as delineated by him above.
Question: But where is the BBT now? Where is it functioning? Where is its bank account? Where are its Book Fund and Building Fund? Where are its copyrights? Why not focus on the issues with the way the BBT is being mismanaged now? Why try to find a non-existent technical fault to oppose these all-important issues of the BBT from being resolved so that the BBT can be restored to be managed as Srila Prabhupada desires it?
Why not instead ask the BBT Trustees and the BBTI directors - "Why are Srila Prabhupada's books being changed? Why are the copyrights not in the BBT? Why are they owned by BBTI? Why is there no bank account of BBT? Why is all the money of the BBT put into the BBP? Why is Srila Prabhupada mentioned as "worker for hire" on the copyright records of his own books? Why are changed books being printed by BBTI, under the logo of BBT? Where is the 50% for books and 50% of temples arrangement instructed by Srila Prabhupada? What is happening to the dwindling books sales from the banner of BBT? Why is the BTG not printed as a Sankirtan monthly magazine anymore?"
Shows his loyalty!
4th Spin of Spin Doctor Gupta: "It appears that similar motivated reasoning now also fuels litigation by Nimai Pandit's band of hopefuls in New York. There the claims revolve around similarly twisted assertions, most notably that the present GBC of ISKCON is not the 'real' GBC in spite of almost four decades of continuity, identity, function and authority. It doesn't take much insight to come to the conclusion that the illegitimate GBC theory will soon go the way of the ISKCON Inc. sole beneficiary theory."
Truth: 1. ISKCON, Inc.'s endeavor has worldwide support. It is not "a band of hopefuls" that Gupta hopes it will be limited too. This will be made clear during the trial.
2. The lawsuit in New York was filed by Adarsi and "GBC" almost 5 years back to remove us from the Long Island temple. At that time, we had 10 Sankirtan devotees going out every day in New York distributing books and chanting. Even by attacking physically as a mob several times, expending massive amounts of funds (more than $1 million) on lawyers, the North American "GBC" members of ISCKON West Bengal GBC Society, backed by Gupta and Gopal Bhatta and Romapada Swami, have not been able to remove us from the temple. If it was so straightforward a deal as Gupta tries to make it appear, then why is it taking more than 5 years to remove us? All they have managed to do is to disturb the Sankirtan devotees in the temple so as to STOP the daily Sankirtan in New York. Maybe Gupta should ask Romapada Swami if he has managed to place a replacement daily Sankirtan in the streets of New York... What has been their gain for furthering the mission of Srila Prabhupada and saving the conditioned souls by filing the lawsuits against the devotees at the Long Island temple? What are the motives of Gupta in supporting them?
3. "Illegitimate GBC theory" is rooted in the creation of the GBC mandating it be elected every three years from among the Temple Presidents by the Direction of Management given by Srila Prabhupada on July 28, 1970. Later he decided to appoint and remove GBC's himself while he was present. But after his absence, in 1978, the GBC's should have organized the election from among the Temple Presidents, as directed in their founding document, the Direction of Management. They did not. Instead they declared some of themselves to be Initiator Gurus for respective Zones. And the rest is history.
Moreover, soon the unincorporated GBC body also became defunct. No meetings, nothing. A different entity called the West Bengal ISKCON GBC Society was formed in 1993 that started using the ISKCON GBC name, and it has been controlling the temples since then by misrepresenting itself as Srila Prabhupada's GBC. In the New York case, there are serious flaws and lies by this West Bengal Body -- so much so that the Judge has ruled twice that there is no likelihood of success on their merits while denying their temporary injunctions.
The gradual progressive publication of all their filings will lay bare the fix they are in and the lies they have been giving. Watch the Sampradaya Sun and www.IskconToday.org for updates.
5th Spin of Spin Doctor Gupta: "From my point of view as a practicing attorney, most of these strained claims are based on trying to squeeze broad, idealized spiritual interpretations into a circumscribed and limited legal reality. Courts even recognize this dynamic and refuse to enter into any fray which involves the interpretation of religious doctrine. This may well be why Srila Prabhupada himself avoided the legal wrangling associated with the Gaudiya Math, which entangled so many of his Godbrothers."
Truth: 1. 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.
FROM THE CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL - November 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 settled the matter favorably, winning among other things payment of $350,000 for legal fees.
One can read the whole suspension order here.
This money was gotten by Book Distributors around the world toiling hard for Srila Prabhupada, and since then he has been continuously employed by "GBC" of West Bengal in the child abuse case and for BBTI enforcing of their stolen copyrights.
No wonder!
Question: Why does he not state his past employments and the money received before trying to portray himself as a "neutral legal expert"?
2. Both the BBT and the New York cases are not religious doctrine cases. "Neutral principles of law" will be applied by the judge. That means discussion of "religious ecclesiastical" doctrine will not be entertained. The trial and judgments are to be based on "neutral" documents like the Trust Deed, incorporation documents, Bylaws, titles, copyright records etc. That is the finding of the judge, as Gupta himself says below.
Read his interview below to see that the contentions he was raising in 1998 are the very same that we are raising now -- they were not solved in the 1998 case, as he settled with the BBTI before that could be accomplished and pocketed the $350,000 settlement money. This money was gotten from the sweat of worldwide dedicated Sankirtan devotees distributing Srila Prabhupada's books. And then he turned around and started working for BBTI. Hence we have been forced to raise our voice and our purpose. And now -- he is opposing the same purposes he was propagating back in 1988. Read below. As Srila Prabhupada says "Just see the fun!"
Court Guts BBTI Case
October 29, 1998
VNN has learned that in ruling on cross motions for summary judgment on October 27, 1998, the California Superior Court Judge in the BBT-International, Inc., and ISKCON of California, Inc. vs. Hans Kary case has thrown out the Plaintiffs argument that the Court should defer to the GBC on matters regarding the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, its trustees and ownership to the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books.
In an interview with VNN Joseph Fedorowsky (Gupta das), the lawyer representing Hansadutta, Bhagavan, Veda Guhya Das and Das Das Anu Das Devi Dasi, explained:
VNN: How does the Court ruling affect your clients' effort to validate Srila Prabhupada's original BBT?
Gupta: This ruling now guarantees that the Court will apply "neutral principles of law developed for use in all property disputes" in adjudicating the trust and contract issues being litigated in this case and that the Court will not entertain any of the Plaintiffs' ecclesiastical arguments.
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 the skirts of the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- which, if allowed, would have prevented the Court from questioning decisions made by the GBC and ISKCON as regards the BBT, its trustees and the ownership of Srila Prabhupada's books.
VNN: How does that help validate the BBT?
Gupta: That paves the way for the Court at trial to validate the existence of the original Bhaktivedanta Book Trust formed on May 29, 1972, by applying California trust law as well as to invalidate the bogus assignment of copyrights in Srila Prabhupada's books to the BBT-International, Inc., by applying simple contract principles of law.
VNN: Does the Court's decision directly affect the BBT International Inc's present claim to ownership of the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books ?
Gupta: In my opinion, the Court's ruling effectively guts that claim because the documentary evidence clearly proves the formation and viability of Srila Prabhupada's original irrevocable California charitable trust referred to by devotees throughout the world as the "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust." In addition, the ruling removes the basis for Plaintiffs' smoke and mirrors assertion that the copyrights were legally "assigned" to the BBT International 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 and the BBT Trustees and could therefore authorize or direct the transfer of the copyrights into the BBT International Inc?
Gupta: That argument is now gone -- and for good reason. Srila Prabhupada set up a perfect arrangement as regards the separation between the BBT and the GBC. In the original 1970 Direction of Management, His Divine Grace stated: "I am setting up a different body of management known as the BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST. The trustees of this body are also members of the GBC, but their function is not dependent on the GBC." Then in the May 29, 1972, BBT California trust document, His Divine Grace stated: "This trust shall exist independently of ISKCON and the Trustee's function and duties stated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON." I don't know if anyone could have said it more clearly.
VNN: So where does the case go from here?
Gupta: Unless the Plaintiffs voluntarily accept the legal and spiritual reality of Srila Prabhupada's original BBT, which holds His copyrights, as legally separate and distinct from the publishing activities of ISKCON, a two week court trial will begin on November 30, 1998.
VNN: Last question - Why shouldn't the BBT International Inc and ISKCON of California Inc go to trial on these issues?
Gupta: The number one reason is to follow the clear instructions of Srila Prabhupada as expressed in the BBT Agreement in order to keep his copyrights safe and beyond the manipulation or control of any third party, which specifically included the GBC. The second reason is that going to trial will mean the unnecessary expenditure by the Plaintiffs of some $100,000 or more additional ISKCON dollars to contest the clearly expressed desire of His Divine Grace. And the third reason is that if at all possible, issues dealing with Srila Prabhupada's Vani should take place on a cooperative spiritual basis and not between contentious litigants in the legal arena. Perhaps when we all accept that principle a new Chapter in the history of the Hare Krishna Movement will have officially begun.