Akruranath's Challenge to Hansadutta

(response to Akruranath's Challenge to Hansadutta) Even in the material world, if you tamper with the works of an author, musician, artist or kitchen chef you will find yourself the target of intense verbal, physical or legal reaction. How anyone could think himself qualified, or entitiled to tamper with the works of Srila Prabhupada is incomprehesible to me. Hansadutta dasa (05-29-03)

Dear Prabhus

Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Even in the material world, if you tamper with the works of an author, musician, artist or kitchen chef you will find yourself the target of intense verbal, physical or legal reaction. How anyone could think himself qualified, or entitiled to tamper with the works of Srila Prabhupada is incomprehesible to me. Therefore let the world wide Vaishnava community give their opinion, and supporting Vedic evidences in this highly contraversial issue.

Simply respond with a yes in favor of editing Srila Prabhupada's books, or a No , opposed to editing Srila Prabhupada's books, PREFERABLY backed with reference to vedic authority. No opinions, or speculations, everything based on quotations from shastras.

From my side I have already referred to what Srila prabhupada said to me when I , As a BBT trustee, suggested that we revert back to his original Indian publication of Srimad Bhagavatam " No, whatever Hayagriva has done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books " This is all I need to Know, who is a greater authority than Srila Prabhupada, about the books of Srila Prabhupoada ? Jayadvaita?, Akruranath?, or anyone else ?

Instead of an insignificant like myself taking up the challenge of Akruranath, I will defer to the Vaishnava community for a interactive world wide decision.

Your Humble servant,
Hansadutta das

Original Story URL: http://books.krishna.org/Articles/2003/06/005.html


Why Perpetuate the Grief?

Srila Prabhupada said that a fool is exposed as soon as he opens his mouth. You were in a debate (very expensive debate), and you lost it. Or else why did BBTI spend so much money for lawyers, give away so much money in settlement, and give away a publishing license? Because they realised what a nice guy Hansadutta really is? Bhima das, in response to Akruranath (05-29-03)

Now you come back and say, "We should have, could have, would have won the case", BUT YOU DID NOT win the case, so what is the use of saying "in my opinion" and "undoubtedly" or "I imagine"? SHOULD'VE, COULD'VE, WOULD'VE. DIDDA, DADDA, DUTTA.

You were sent to the sidelines when it became clear to ISKCON and BBTI that the case was lost, and that it was costing them too much money. If the card was in your hand to win the case, why didn't you? But you led BBTI on a costly fishing expedition. You deposed Hansadutta for 6 days (video-taped) at a cost of at least $20,000-$30,000to BBTI, and one of your very expensive questions was: "Is it not true, Mr. Kary, that your favorite color is black?" His reply? "Well, Krishna is black, and so I guess it is my favorite color." It was good for a laugh, but not law. BBTI woke up to the absurdity and the enormity of the cost. One BBTI resolution dated sometime shortly after the settlement notes a decision to contest your over-the-top fees through legal arbitration.

Why, Akruranath, do you perpetuate your fantasy? Why are you so bent on sticking to a story, even when documented facts contradict you?

In 1974, Srila Prabhupada named Hansadutta as trustee for The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in a legally binding resolution dated and worded thus:

---QUOTE---
BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST RESOLUTION

The written resignation of Kelly Gifford Smith (Karandhara das Adhikari) is hereby accepted by the trustees of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Hans Kary (Hamsaduta das Adhikari) is hereby appointed as a Bhaktivedanta Book Trust trustee to replace Kelly Smith.

Resolved this 15th day of
September, 1974;
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami [signature appears on original]
William Berke (Bali Mardan das Adhikari)
---END QUOTE---

So now, Akruranath, PLEASE PRODUCE A COPY OF THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST RESOLUTION THAT LEGALLY REMOVED HANSADUTTA FROM HIS TRUSTEE POSITION. Or, alternatively, produce a copy of the judicial order that legally removed him. Or produce a copy of Hansadutta's resignation. NOTE: ISKCON GBC resolution, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. resolution not acceptable, as these are separate legal entities that had no legal authority or control over the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

You say that he was long ago removed. But he was only ever removed from ISKCON GBC, not from BBT, not until his resignation in November 1998 upon signing the settlement agreement with ISKCON/BBTI. ISKCON GBC had no legal authority over Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Srila Prabhupada made certain of that in his written declaration of trust, a legal document named "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Agreement", dated May 29, 1972: --

---QUOTE [cited, III. Purpose of Trust, Paragraph 1]---
This trust shall exist independently of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Trustees' functions an duties stated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
---END QUOTE---

You deny crafting the legal ploy of declaring that Srila Prabhupada never owned the copyrights to his books and that they were "works for hire", but your name and that of your law firm appear on the legal documents that testify to it. Too bad those documents are 'under seal' so we are not at liberty to produce them here, but the declaration was widely publicised on the internet prior to settlement in discussions that took place on ISKCON.com and VNN.

You further say that you see nothing wrong in saying that Srila Prabhupada's books, including all artwork, glossaries and elaborate purports, were "'works for hire' created by ISKCON, Inc" and that Srila Prabhupada never owned them. Moreover, that "ISKCON, Inc. supplied the employees who worked on the books with their materials and equipment. ISKCON, Inc. also supplied each of them with room and board and with a stipend for personal or family expenses." This argument directly contradicts Srila Prabhupada's own words in the trust deed re funding of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. How is it not demeaning Srila Prabhupada, to suggest that he, ISKCON's Founder-Acharya and supreme authority, pure devotee and spiritual master, was the hired worker of ISKCON, subordinate to ISKCON?

Do you also see nothing wrong with your plea for a court declaration that Srila Prabhupada's BBT NEVER EXISTED, WAS LEGALLY INVALID AND NEVER THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHTS to Srila Prabhupada's books? WAS NOT THIS COURTCASE A DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST THE VERY BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST CREATED BY SRILA PRABHUPADA HIMSELF? How can this not be regarded as offensive? At the very least, a grave mistake on the part of lead counsel, Adam R. Bernstein, yourself.

Ultimately, BBT International, Inc. and ISKCON abandoned the argument and admitted that Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta Book Trust created May 29, 1972, DID EXIST, AND DID HOLD THE LEGAL COPYRIGHTS to Srila Prabhupada's books even up to the time of the joint statement "BBT Legal Case Ends" http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9811/WD30-2583.html issued by Gupta and Jayadvaita following the settlement in November 1998: --

---QUOTE---
The agreement reaffirms the validity of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust formed by Srila Prabhupada on May 29, 1972. This was a legal California trust into which Srila Prabhupada conveyed the copyrights to his books. All sides agree that this trust is still legal and alive, and that it is the true owner of Srila Prabhupada's copyrights, as Srila Prabhupada desired.
---END QUOTE---

You have never spoken to the devotees who distributed Srila Prabhupada's books in Malaysia and Singapore under the auspices of Prabhupada Yoga Meditation Centre (PYMC), so you can HONESTLY say that you DON'T KNOW what precipitated their publication of the Chinese Bhagavad-gita. If you are unwilling to accept our explanation for it, that is your fault, not ours. It is widely known and since acknowledged by BBTI and ISKCON, that BBTI and ISKCON did set a policy to deliberately refuse to sell BBT books to devotees outside ISKCON. This policy was reversed almost immediately after the settlement of the BBT courtcase in 1998, and Jayadvaita's announcement appeared here on VNN. If BBTI had not taken such drastic measures to prevent us from buying books, perhaps none of this would have happened. But to their shame, BBT Malaysia refused to sell to us, BBT Australia also refused to sell to us, BBT India also refused to sell to us. Niscintya did sell to us, under the table, bless his little heart, but he had no Chinese books. Moreover, ISKCON Malaysia and Singapore engaged in a vigorous campaign to shut us down. Now, it's over and done.

So why are you beating a dead donkey?? Is anyone going to pay you to resurrect the dead? Why do you obscure the facts with your fallible suppositions? Why do you perpetuate the grief by calling us liars? Why do you mislead devotees to believe that we started it all, and that BBTI was merely responding? Au contraire, Monsieur. It was Hansadutta who upheld the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust against attack by BBTI and ISKCON, who had long since deserted and by-passed the actual BBT by illegally converting the trust assets, Srila Prabhupada's copyrights, into a business corporation.

Your response to Hansadutta's article "Just What Is Jayadvaita's Point?" has missed the point altogether. Perhaps you could not come up with legitimate arguments, and so resorted to this feeble attempt to discredit Hansadutta and ourselves.

Right or wrong, there is a large contingent of devotees who want only Srila Prabhupada's unrevised books, and who are very unhappy with the changes and will not in good conscience distribute them. ALL JAYADVAITA'S JUSTIFICATIONS DO NOT AMOUNT TO AUTHORISATION FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA TO CHANGE EDITIONS TO WHICH SRILA PRABHUPADA HAD GIVEN HIS EXPRESS APPROVAL. BBTI's failure to respond by making the original pre-1978 books available has resulted in piracy. We see that it has happened already and going on. Closing the eyes doesn't make the trouble go away. Are court cases the answer? We don't believe so. Undoubtedly, BBTI should take action, but will it be the right action this time? WHAT WOULD SRILA PRABHUPADA DO? --

Bhima das

Original Story URL: http://books.krishna.org/Articles/2003/06/006.html

 


A History that Could Have Been Avoided

(response to Akruranath's article Hansadutta Distorts History) Sometime in 1990, we published a Chinese Gita in Singapore when BBT refused to sell us books. In 1992, BBTI launched a copyright infringement suit against Bhima in Singapore. From the outset, Bhima responded, First show proof that you own the copyrights. Hansadutta dasa (05-22-03)

After several years of due legal process and much expenditure, at last came the moment when affidavits of "evidence in chief" were exchanged, and when BBTI learned that Bhima's defence relied on having received permission to publish from Hansadutta, a BBT trustee appointed for life by Srila Prabhupada, they withdrew the Singapore courtcase at once, and immediately filed a new complaint in Los Angeles against Hansadutta.

BBTI retained Akruranath, an attorney with a high-power law firm, and Akruranath led BBTI into a legal strategy that could only be described as suicidal. Akruranath based the BBTI case on a claim that Srila Prabhupada's BBT was never a legally valid trust, and never owned the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books.

Akruranath came up with the ingenious device that Srila Prabhupada never at any time owned the copyrights to his books, that the books were "WORKS FOR HIRE", meaning that Srila Prabhupada was ISKCON's hired worker. Paper, pencils and office space were supplied by ISKCON, and whatever was produced by Srila Prabhupada belonged to ISKCON. By this reasoning, Srila Prabhupada had no right to claim copyright to his works and invest them in the BBT, and moreover, the BBT did not exist, and therefore Hansadutta's claim to be a BBT trustee was meaningless.

ISKCON GBC and BBTI directors accepted Akruranath's legal counsel and submitted declarations that it was so. But the Judge did not see it that way, and thus BBTI made a hasty retreat to settle the case by awarding a license, and a substantial monetary award.

This lawsuit SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED in the first place. It could have been avoided had ISKCON and BBTI simply sold some books to the devotees, which is after all the whole purpose Srila Prabhupada intended when forming ISKCON and the BBT: Selling books--HIS books, Srila Prabhupada's books.

Where this law suit did not succeed, it did succeed on the other hand to uncover and highlight illegal practices that ISKCON and BBTI had been doing for so many years, namely converting the assets (Srila Prabhupada's copyrighted works) of a legally registered and funded trust, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, into a for-profit buisness corporation (BBTI), editing the works without legal authority, and distributing them as originals--all of which were illegal activities. Because of this and other illegal practices that came to light in connection with the misuse of the BBT and its copyrighted properties, along with legal documents filed in the course of litigating this case, I feel it is next to impossible for BBTI to prevail in any attempt to enforce copyright protection on anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Really, they have shot themselves in the foot. As this response is being written, there are numerous entities engaged in publishing Srila Prabhupada's books and audio material. Why does the BBTI not file a copyright infringement case against them and stop them as they attempted to do with me? In Singapore we printed a small run of Chinese Bhagavad-gitas. Today there are individuals openly printing and advetising on the internet, "Macmillan" Bhagavad-gitas, CD's, and art works. Why does the BBTI not chase after them and prosecute them for copyright infringement? BBT's business should be selling books, not changing books.

At any rate, Akruranath has not set the record straight, but fudged the record more than it was before. By the way, Akruranath was dismissed from the case when ISKCON finally woke up to the fiasco into which he led them, at which point Amarendra das had to pick up the pieces and make a settlement.

Contrary to Akruranath's assertion that "This case was not about book changes", those involved know that one of the most subbornly contended points for reaching a settlement agreement was complete freedom to publish all of Srila Prabhupada's pre-1977 editions of his books, art work and music. The other directors finally overuled Jayadvaita Swami's vehement opposition, and this controversial point became the cornerstone of what we are seeing today in the way of a renaissance in the publication of Srila Prabhupada's original books.

What seems clear, after all is said and done, is that if BBT does not publish Srila Prabhupada's original Books, someone out there will, and there is nothing to stop them.

What follows are Jayadvaita's own words of apology for the lawsuit in different postings after the settlement. They were much appreciated then, and I think the readers will appreciate them today, and understand the situation more clearly. At the time of settlement, there was a very amiable and spiritually surcharged atmosphere amongst the previously warring parties. I think Jayadvaita's own words make that clear. It was nothing like Akruranath's version.

"From its very inception, this unfortunate case against Hansadutta was an anomaly and a travesty. Were not such court battles which pitted one devotee against another utterly an anathema to Srila Prabhupada? And especially when it would come at the cost of precious BBT funds? Can anyone doubt for a moment that Prabhupada would be extremely displeased by this manner of infighting?"

To Bhima he wrote:

"We feel that we owe apologies not only to you but also to Srila Prabhupada himself, and to his society of devotees. What ought to have been settled carefully and smartly when it was still a small dispute we allowed to turn instead into a long, acrimonious, and expensive battle, disturbing to all. We should have done whatever required to avoid this. The fault was ours."

An afterthought: What I cannot understand to this day is why BBTI still insists on publishing the unnecessarily edited writings of Srila Prabhupada. Why Jayadvaita doesn't get the point? Why ISKCON/BBTI, after so much money (at least a million dollars, give or take ), time and grief, they still only begrudgingly squeeze out some original unedited publications? What's wrong with Srila Prabhupada's books as they are? I really do not understand the logic behind this policy of tampering with the writings of Srila Prabhupada. Please enlighten me. I still haven't got the point. --

Hansadutta das-

Original Story URL: http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/04/031.html


May 26, 2003 VNN8091 Related VNN Stories

Sour Grapes Or Rotten Grapes
BY HANSADUTTA DAS

EDITORIAL, May 26 (VNN) — Sour Grapes Or Rotten Grapes - There's a Difference

We were all so taken aback by your deep concern for Srila Prabhupada's original vani publications and your anxious anticipation of "Hansadutta not lifting a finger" to get them printed right after we learned that you embezzled $125,000 entrusted to you to invest in an arrangement for payment of your legal fees and yet another $60,000 from the 1998 settlement award.

What happened to the money? What happened to the books? No money, no books...

In hindsight, we are glad that early on in our client-attorney relationship we placed our disappointments and complaints about your professional mischief before an impartial third party, namely the California State Bar, for their investigation and final judgment. You and the readers will be happy to know that after 4 years the State Bar has concluded their long and drawn-out investigation of all the legal facts, and has fixed September 2nd, 3rd and 4th as the dates for prosecuting Joseph Fedorowsky aka Gupta das at trial. (September 3rd happens to be Srimati Radharani's appearance day, an occasion of great auspiciousness.) We will be sure to bring your "Sour Grapes" article for their review and entertainment--they'll love it.

Instead of throwing mud back at you, let's see what they make of your story as opposed to the facts. Readers stay tuned.

The following is an overview submitted as part of our complaint filed with the California State Bar, enumerating facts that we believe to be irrefutable. This is not simply a matter of disgruntled clients who are unhappy over their lawyer's bill. The joint complaint & supplementary documentation lay out a number of transgressions by Gupta, ranging from representing multiple clients without providing necessary disclosures and obtaining waivers to misappropriation of money belonging to clients not just on one occasion, but twice, and by fraud leading clients to agree to a settlement that allowed him to piggyback himself and his collaborators onto a position which ultimately gave him full control over the licensing board, and was a great financial boon to him, but to us a crushing financial loss.

------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (submitted to the California State Bar on July 3, 2001)
------------------------------------------------------------
Overview of Complaint
Case No. 99-0-11217
Respondent: Joseph Fedorowsky

This is intended to be a concise, brief overview of Mr. Fedorowsky's misconduct, which has been extensively documented in the original joint complaint, amended complaint and further in Kary's & Chan's correspondence addressed to Mr. VonFreymann dated on or about 21 January 2001, with over 98 exhibits and a Summation of Points by Mr. Lawrence E. Ornell, Atty for Mr. Kary and the Chans.

In May-June, 1997, Mr. Fedorowsky was engaged by Mr. Kary as defence counsel in the underlying litigation, to uphold the validity of a trust, of which Mr. Kary was trustee, and over the course of litigation, Mr. Fedorowsky advised Mr. Kary that it was in his interests to add cross-complainants. The action was concluded in November, 1998 with a settlement that included a copyright license agreement and settlement money.

1. As found to be true by an arbitration panel, Mr. Fedorowsky converted $125,000.00 in clients' funds belonging to Mr. Chan and Mr. Veda Guhya without their knowledge and authorisation. Although Mr. Chan was not a party to the underlying action, he had agreed to invest $100,000.00 in a trading scheme operated by Mr. Fedorowsky, so as to finance Mr. Kary's defence strictly on a voluntary basis. To date, Mr. Fedorowsky has failed to produce accounting for the investment, in spite of repeated requests.

Mr. Fedorowsky failed to disclose to the investor and clients his conversion of the investment principle, thus depriving them of information critical to the course of the legal action.

2. There was no attorney-client contract between Mr. Chan and Mr. Fedorowsky. Mr. Chan was never a party to the underlying action, and did not engage Mr. Fedorowsky to represent him. Nor did Mr. Fedorowsky ever advise Mr. Chan that he was representing him and discuss with Mr. Chan his rights and obligations. Even so, Mr. Fedorowsky afterwards issued a demand to Mr. Chan for $644,051.28 in legal fees.

3. Mr. Fedorowsky represented multiple clients without advising them of their rights and obligations, and without obtaining the necessary waivers.

4. Without providing the necessary disclosure, Mr. Fedorowsky left the role of attorney and became a business partner with clients. Mr. Fedorowsky had himself added into the Settlement Agreement as a member of the Licensee Board, and thus entered into a business relationship with clients. He did not provide any notice of conflict or advisement. After a conflict arose, and despite repeated requests, Mr. Fedorowsky has refused to end the conflict of interest by resigning from the Licensee Board.

5.*(See below) Mr. Fedorowsky's position that the settlement money was intended for attorney's fees was unfair to clients. He did not advise clients prior to settlement that agreement to accept cash as part of the settlement would trigger an increase in his fee rate from $50.00/hr to $200.00/hr, and that they would thus incur $84,601.25 in attorney's fees over and above what they would have been billed had there not been a cash component to the settlement.

The following math is based on 4327.55 total billable hours, per Mr. Fedorowsky's billing statement. Fedorowsky ("JF") total hours: 2,611.30, Wynton ("JW") total hours: 1,716.25.

Fees & Costs as at Settlement
Without Settlement Money Upon acceptance of Settlement Money
JF @ $50/hour = $130,565.00 @ $200/hour = $522,260.00
JW @ $25/hour = $ 42,906.25 @ $50/hour = $ 85,812.50
Plus Costs $ 35,978.78 Plus Costs $ 35,978.78
TOTAL $209,450.03 TOTAL $644,051.28

Mr. Fedorowsky afterwards claimed that the settlement fund constituted his attorney's fees and invoked a clause in the Attorney's Fees Contract that provided for his fees to be increased to $200 per hour, i.e.: --
$200 per hour for attorney Fedorowsky, $50 per hour for paralegal Wynton, plus costs, equals $644,051.28
Less settlement "attorney's fees" ($350,000.00)
Balance $294,051.28

This figure represents $84,601.25 more than the $209,450.503 fees and costs that Mr. Fedorowsky's bill would have amounted to at the rate of $50.00 per hour.

If there had been no cash settlement, clients should have got a refund (Mr. Fedorowsky's fees & costs @ $50.00 per hour amounted to $209,450.03, less $211,250.00 already credited to Mr. Fedorowsky = $-1799.97). Instead, Mr. Fedorowsky issued a demand for $644,051.28.

6. Mr. Fedorowsky charged an unconscionable fee. Whereas Mr. Fedorowsky issued a demand for $644,051.28, the arbitration panel found that he was entitled to only $300,000.00. Mr. Fedorowsky had in effect overcharged by more than 200%, amounting to more than 1/3 of a million dollars.

7. To date, Mr. Fedorowsky has not paid his half of the arbitration fee, so ordered by the arbitration panel and California Superior Court.

8. Mr. Fedorowsky represented falsely to the arbitration panel that the settlement money was sitting in a regular corporate account in the Bahamas, and that it did not belong to any trust; that the trust he had purportedly created had not been funded and was therefore never perfected. The trust was upheld by the Bahamas Supreme Court, which found that the trust had been funded with the settlement money, and ordered Mr. Fedorowsky's removal from his position as trustee and as signatory on the K.B., Inc. account.

9. Without his clients' knowledge and authorisation, Respondent Mr. Fedorowsky had taken $60,000.00 for his legal fees from the settlement funds that had already been designated as the trust fund. Mr. Fedorowsky's co-trustee informed the Bahamas Supreme Court of the misappropriation of trust funds, and Mr. Fedorowsky was removed from the trust for "problems with [Mr. Fedorowsky] over his charges as trustee in this trust (where he has refused to repay a second mistaken payment of 30,000 dollars)."

10. Mr. Fedorowsky has refused to release a copy of the file to his clients without first receiving fees.

-----------------End Quote---------------

*What all the numbers add up to is that Gupta led us unawares to a settlement in which he positioned himself to gain at our expense. No sooner did he get his name in on the board of directors of Krishna Books, then he turned about-face in blatant conflict of interest with his clients, and took steps to block our participation in Krishna Books, and when we protested and tried to stop him, he came up with a claim that the monetary award triggered a clause in the attorney fee contract that allowed him to charge $200 per hour instead of $50 per hour. At $50 per hour, his fees should have come to $209, 450.03, but instead he slammed us with a demand for $644,051.28, even though he had made certain that we had derived no material benefit. Shortly after this, Gupta went to work for ISKCON.

Gupta represented to a panel of arbitration lawyers that he had deposited the BBT International Inc. settlement money in an attorney-client account.

To date he has not complied with the arbitration panel's order and California Superior Court order to pay back the $100,000 he misappropriated from Bhima and $25,000 misappropriated from Veda Guhya. The arbitration award further directed him to pay himself $92,000 for his fees, and the balance settlement money he was to pay out to his clients. Gupta was also ordered to instruct ISKCON/BBTI to pay out from an additional $50,000 of the settlement money ISKCON had held back, but so far Gupta has not paid out anything, nor has ISKCON paid out the $50,000. Effectively, Gupta swept away all the money. He has not even paid his share of the arbitration fees.

On top of that, 4 years later, Gupta & Krishna Books have not printed any books in spite of all the bravado. What happened to the money? What happened to the books? No money, no books--what kind of grapes did Gupta sell us?