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.

 

Madhusudani Radha, if you also would like to know their source would it not

be more prudent and courteous to first check the source of the facts before

blasting Hari Sauri Prabhu with them in a public forum?

 

There is plenty of room in our Society for debate and discussion but

publicly jumping to unqualified conclusions creates a needless discomforting

atmosphere.

 

I added Madhusudana.GKG the third party source of your facts as a receiver

to this text with the hope that he may identify the source of what he stated

earlier were the FACTS.

 

If he remains silent, or can't confirm a direct source himself for the

FACTS, we can only conclude that the below mentioned FACTS are unreliable,

and indeed an apology would be in order from both Madhus.

 

ys

 

ada

 

> > > 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.