please note mistaken identity

[Guest guest]

At 1:08 +0100 8/11/2000, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote:

>Just as a matter of interest, since I've been reading this thread,

>Madhusudani Radhi, what is the source of your facts?

 

I did not present the facts below. Please don't spread the rumor

that they came from me. They were submitted to these conferences by

Madhusudana dasa GKG. However, I found them interesting and would

also like to know their source.

 

 

>Looking forward to your reply.

 

Please direct your inquiry to: <Madhusudana.GKG (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

 

Ys,

Madhusudani Radha dasi

(please note the spelling of my name)

 

 

>

>

> > For someone who claims that he doesn't know much he is happy to say

> > quite a lot. Unfortunately all of the above is UNTRUE.

> >

> > Fact 1: Only one case was filed by the IRM in Calcutta. The GBC did an

> > official reply. The only name on that document is Satyadhanya's.

> >

> > Fact 2: The reply submitted by the GBC contained a falsified document.

> > Thus the Ritviks filed another connected case due to the perjury committed

> > within the GBC reply.

> >

> > Fact 3: Thus Satyadhanya's name remains as the only name on a very live

> > and active case. There is NO legal impediment to withdrawing his name and

> > submitting it again in someone else's name. It WILL cause some legal

> > disadvantage to the GBC case but there is nothing to stop it happening.

> >

> > Fact 4: No cases have been lost. On the contrary it is the GBC whose

> > case now looks very weak having been exposed as having submitted a

> > falsified document. The GBC have missed the deadline set by the court in

> > terms of replying to the perjury charge.

> >

> > This is where things stand at the moment.

> >

> > Hari Sauri should at least issue an apology for deliberately misleading

> > the conference.

> >

> > Thus Satyadhanya is still very much on the scene.