Doyaram offers NO evidence

[Guest guest]

Dayarama's latest offering regarding the financing of the property at 22

Gurusaday Road is noticeable in that:

 

1) He offers no evidence to back up his claims.

2) Neither does he even attempt to dispute the 5 different sources of

evidence I originally gave.[ For reference please note that these were:

 

The person who sold the property - Mr Vijay Thakkar and his wife.

The person who bought the property - Myself

Many prominent industrialists - the donors themselves

The GBC - Hari Vilasa - who conducted a whole investigation into the affair

And the actions of Radhapada Dasa and his family. ]

 

3) On the Contrary he simply offers as the source for his claims - myself !

-

thus simply validating me as a bona fide source of evidence.

4) In desperation he also offers the testimony of a convicted child abuser -

Satadhanya Dasa.

5) Finally he attempts to change the subject having been clearly exposed on

the issue at hand - who financed the purchase of 22, Gurusaday Road.

We will now demonstrate all this below. Dayarama's comments will be enclosed

in speech marks, with my comments following beneath.

 

" Absolutely correct - I am repeating what was fed to me by Adri himself.

[ ...] And I have simply repeated what Adri himself fed to me."

 

So here we have the basis for Dayarama's claims - Adridharana Das!! Not

papers, documents or any other verifiable evidence, but the words of a man

he is now trying to convince the world is a shamefaced liar. And what is the

proof for this? The supposed words of the same shamefaced liar! Leaving

aside the fact that I did not tell him what he claims, the very fact that he

attributes me as the source of his allegations, proves that he has no

substance to support his position except his false claims about a source he

himself admits is not to be trusted. If I am supposed to be lying, and yet

if I am the sole basis for the substance of Dayarama's claims, then that

makes Dayarama's position absurd, and self-defeating.

 

"And the incident of GP Goenka giving up the flat without taking a paisa,

due to his wife falling sick on Janmastami day was narrated to me by

Satadhanya, who at that time was the Regional Secretary of Calcutta-Mayapur,

and a very close friend of Adri - closely involved in the property

transactions."

 

1. So having so far quoted me as the proof for his claims, he now offers an

even more 'impeccable' source - the child abuser Satyadhanya Dasa. He must

be getting really desperate if this is all he has!

 

2. Also Satyadhanya Das was my regional secretary, but definitely not my

'close' friend. Indeed the only person he is a close friend of is Dayarama

Das and his Guru Jayapataka Swami, who have hired him to defend them in the

Calcutta High Court - that is when he is not busy making pizzas for them and

rendering other PAID services in Mayapura.

 

"Vijay had approached me at least two-three times to buy some property near

Mayapur to be given to one of his friends, [...] which clearly indicates

that he was not only developer but also a broker."

 

1. Dayarama himself states that Vijay was going to BUY the property in

question for a friend. A broker simply takes commission for showing a

property to someone else - he does not have the money himself to buy.

 

2. In any case his wife can testfiy that he was not a broker, but one of the

biggest developers in Calcutta, and any favours he did for friends can not

change this basic fact.

 

"Mrs. Vijay Thakkar is a close acquaintance of Adri, she has been very

instrumental in employing the law-firm that has been fighting these court

cases against the GBC."

 

1. I used this law firm 2.5 years ago in a land deal - that is why I used

them.

2. Mrs Thakkar will confirm that she was not 'instrumental' in hiring them.

 

Please note, how unlike Dayarama's empty claims, all my points can be

independently verified - whether it be from GBC's or other life members -

wheras Dayarama's claims can only be verifed by asking me - who has rejected

them!

 

> There were *4* tenants, not 2, and one of them is still there! They were:>

> Duncan Tea Company> ITC> A Pan Shop> Shanghai Laundry

 

"Here is another true but misleading statement. There is a big building at

the center of the property. The property came up for selling at a much lower

price than it is worth, since this building was tenanted. These two tenants

were two big companies and to get them out was not an easy thing for

developers etc. These were two tenants were - Duncan and ITC. Other two

tenants were at the periphery. Therefore, when the two tenants left, the

property became quite fully usable."

 

1. Dayarama's original claims related to the whole property - not only the

building at the center:

"There were two tenants on the property and both of them were requested many

times to vacate the building but refused and asked for big money."

[Dayarama Dasa, 27/9/99]

 

Indeed his whole article was about the 22, Gurusadaya Road Property - not

just a building in the center:

 

"Radhapada paid all the laksmi for the property at Gurusaday Road.

[...] In this sense Adri calls all of them donors, but the fact remains that

all the money to buy that property was given by Radhapada. [Dayarama Dasa,

27/9/99]

 

2. I never denied that the property was not usable after we had got the

first two tenants out. On the contrary I stated that one of them is still

there today - implying that we have been using the building even with that

tenant.

 

"How would this be possible if there were tenants occupying the building?"

 

I never stated that tenants were occupying the building. As already shown

above, the discussion was about the property at 22, Gurusadaya Road.

 

"What I have stated, is what Adri told me. He very definitely did not tell

me at that time that many more people paid for it."

 

1. This a lie - I never told him this.

2. Even if I HAD told him this, it still does not change the actual FACTS -

that others DID donate for the property - as listed on the board - and as

can be verified by all these donors and other witnesses - and this is the

issue at hand - who actually paid for the property - not the accuracy of

Dayarama's recollections of what he claims I told him many years ago.

 

"But Radhapada paid ALL the money for purchasing the property at the

discounted price that it was obtained."

 

I gave 5 sources of evidence that proved that this was not the case. So far

Dayarama has neither been able to dispute this evidence, nor offer counter

evidence himself. So all he can do is repeat the original lie, hoping that

simply by repeating it, people will believe it.

 

"So, if this is what Adri did, then in this instance, it is true that from

Radhapada's perspective he was the only donor, but from Adri's perspective,

applying the logic of Adri-ology, Radhapada WAS NOT THE ONLY DONOR!"

 

Radhapada came to offer the full money a whole 18 months after the property

had been purchased - a purchase he had even contributed to at the time. So

how could he possibly have got the idea that he was the sole donor? That he

was not the sole donor for the purchase of the property was a fact he also

accepted at the meeting with the GBC appointed to mediate on this issue -

Hari Vilasa - as Hari Vilasa prabhu himself has testified.

 

"Was all this money donated to ISKCON by donors (in whatever capacity) to

run a marriage-business in which he can just make unaccounted money?"

 

1. Now Dayarama is even beginning to admit that he has no case by trying to

completely change subject - proof if ever there was - that he has been wrong

all along. The fact that there were other donors who directly purchased the

property, is what this whole issue is about - the very topic which Dayarama

himself raised. Let him first concede this point THEN we will happily

discuss whatever else he wishes to discuss.

2. He never makes a single mention in his last article about how the issue

was what the donors thought they were giving the money for. On the contrary

he even called the article:

"More recollections on the financing of the Calcutta pandal property"

 

Only now that he has been exposed as stating a bunch of false claims, is he

raising this new issue.

 

Conclusion

 

Trying to change the topic when you have been defeated is the oldest trick

in the book. However Dayarama will not escape that easily. I showed through

5 different sources of evidence that Radhapada was not the sole donor for

the purchase of 22 Gurusadaya Road. Very tellingly Dayarama in his response

has not challenged this evidence, nor has he offered any evidence of his

own. On the contrary he has completely destroyed his case by admitting that

the only basis he has for his claims is myself!

 

Thus these omissions by Dayarama have only further confirmed that Radhapada

dasa was not the sole donor for the purchase of 22 Gurusadaya Road.

 

Ys, Adri