Questions re. the ritvik law suit and Satadhanya's involvement

[Guest guest]

Dear Gopal Krsna Maharaja, Dayaram Prabhu, Adri Prabhu, and Madhu

Pandit Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

The details of the Calcutta law suit(s) and Satadhanya's involvement

are currently being discussed on several COM conferences. There

seems to be disagreement re. some of the facts involved, so I was

wondering if the four of you could fill in the blanks for the rest of

us. The texts below reflect the different pieces of information that

have been posted so far. Could you shed any light on the

inconsistencies and/or supply the missing information?

 

I'm sorry to take up your time with this, but unless we hear directly

from those who have been involved in the process, this is likely to

turn into something like the "operator game" we played as children,

where lies and half truths keep getting repeated and changed until

they have no relationship to the truth at all. And such rumors travel

very quickly in cyberspace and have the power to hurt.

 

If either of you is not the right person to provide this information,

maybe you could be so kind as to inform us whom we should contact

instead?

 

Thank you.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani Radha dasi

 

----

This particular sub-thread started with a series of questions by me

to Hari Sauri prabhu re. Satadhanya:

 

>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 (das) ACBSP replied:

>"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."

 

 

Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA) commented:

>

>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.

 

 

Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP replied:

> I have stated at the outset that I wasn't clear on all the details.

>Having thus made it clear that what I do know may not be completely accurate

>I see no need to issue an apology for 'deliberatly misleading' this

>conference. If you want all the techinical details you can write to one of

>the members of the legal committee that is dealing with this case. Your

>gurumaharaja, Gopal Krishna Goswami can probably give you all the techinical

>details.

>

> I would appreciate it if you didn't jump down people's throats when

>they are trying to be helpful. It really makes a terrible atmosphere in our

>Society and personally it makes me not want to communciate at all if as soon

>as I say something someone comes in and puts the boot in. There are polite

>and respectful ways to frame your questions, suspicions and statements and I

>would humbly like to request you to adopt a more reasonable tone in your

>communications.

 

 

Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA) wrote:

>Because I keep myself informed by studying the statements of ALL

>parties with an open mind. The information I have given is public

>information, and has been posted on the net by various parties along with

>supporting court documents. One simply needs to read - that's all.

>Reagrdless of how 'off' the ritviks maybe, facts are facts. They have NOT

>lost any cases in Calcutta, and Satyadhanya's name remains as the only name

>on an ACTIVE and very live case. This is just a fact.

>

>If you do not believe me, then please ask anyone to substantiate the

>statements that Hari Sauri made - it can not be done. Ask them to state

>WHICH cases involving Satyadhanya the Ritviks have 'lost' etc. etc.