Guest guest Posted August 11, 2000 Report Share Posted August 11, 2000 At 11:43 +0100 8/11/2000, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote: >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? Dear Ajamila Prabhu, I'm confused. I did not post those "facts", neither did I "blast" anyone with them. I did not comment on Madhusudana's posting until you accused me of being the author. Why do you keep dragging me into this? I want to know where that information came from as much as you do, but why should it be up to me to check on their source? All I did was ask Hari Sauri some questions about Satadhanya, which he answered. i.e.: I wrote: >I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know >when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property? Also, >when was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta >(re. the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on >behalf of the gurus? Also, have the papers he previously signed on >behalf of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he >is no longer the gurus' representative on record? > >Thanks for any information you can provide. > >Ys, >Madhusudani dasi Hari Sauri answered (repposted at the bottom of this e-mail) and then Madhusudana accused him of providing incorrect information. Please don't re-write history. Ajamila Prabhu, I don't know what your motive is here. Are you *trying* to make me look bad? If so, I wonder who owes whom an apology...... Madhusudani dasi >Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:29 +0630 >"Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> >"CAP (Child Abuse Prevention)" <CAP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, > "India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum)" <India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, > "Varnasrama development" <Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, > "Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)" ><Bhadra.Balaram.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> >Re: GBC authority and responsibility > > > > > > > > I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know > > when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property? > > On the last day before the ban was invoked in March. > > > Also, when > > was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta (re. > > the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on behalf > > of the gurus? > > I don't know much about the details on what is happening with the >court case except he is still allowed to do some legal backup work but >without being allowed to sign any documents or represent ISKCON or the GBC >in any official capacity. This is all within the CPO ruling. > > > Also, have the papers he previously signed on behalf > > of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he is no > > longer the gurus' representative on record? > > Again I have no clear idea about this. There was some legal >techincality that made it very difficult to withdraw the papers he >originally signed but as far as I know its a mute point now because since >then, the particular cases that were filed have all since gone through court >proceedings and are now over and done with. The ritviks are not pursuing >those cases anymore because they lost most of them. They are now pursuing >some new ones and I am quite sure that Satadhanya isn't signing on any of >them. > > Your humble servant, > Hari-sauri dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.