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

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhusudhani Radha mataji,

 

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

 

I am not very happy with your bouncing only part of my comments

about Satadhanya to others. If you want to quote me I don't mind, but please

quote ALL of what I said and not just parts that suit you. I made it quite

clear in my replies that I wasn't aware of all the details and I said twice

that I had no clear idea of them. Your selective quoting has removed that

important qualifier from my text and frankly I don't much appreciate that.

 

Here is what I replied to your questions about Satadhanya in full:

 

> > 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

[Guest guest]

At 7:12 +0630 8/12/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote:

> I am not very happy with your bouncing only part of my comments

>about Satadhanya to others. If you want to quote me I don't mind, but please

>quote ALL of what I said and not just parts that suit you.

 

 

Dear Hari Sauri Prabhu, I'm sorry that I didn't re-paste your entire

letter, since that's what you wanted. Please know that the reason had

nothing to do with "what suited me". I just wanted to ask those

involved what was going on and present whatever facts or suggestions

that had been made to date. I could have forwarded the entire 4

letters, I suppose, but I thought this was the relevant information,

and didn't want to make the letter to the four new receivers too

long. That's the only reason some paragraphs were removed.

 

Please note that I did keep your qualifier in one of the re-posts

(i.e. where you wrote to Madhusudana GKG: "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"), but you

are right that I removed that, and other paragraphs, from your letter

to me.

 

It was not my intention to remove your qualifier from anywhere where

it applied. I assumed that since you made the comment about the legal

technicality (and by the way, it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" one)

that was something that you *did* know about. Are you now saying

that 1) you don't know if it was difficult to withdraw the papers

signed by Satadhanya, 2) that you don't know whether those cases have

gone through the courts, 3) that you don't know whether the ritviks

lost those cases, and 4) that you don't know whether Satadhanya is

signing any more papers?

 

If you are unclear about the above facts, I sincerely apologize for

obscuring that reality by my removal of your qualifier. However, if

you are certain of those 4 points, I don't understand why any

qualifier would be needed?

 

Hoping that we will soon get some facts from those actually involved

with this issue.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

 

 

>I made it quite

>clear in my replies that I wasn't aware of all the details and I said twice

>that I had no clear idea of them. Your selective quoting has removed that

>important qualifier from my text and frankly I don't much appreciate that.

>

> Here is what I replied to your questions about Satadhanya in full:

>

> > > 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

[Guest guest]

>

> If you are unclear about the above facts, I sincerely apologize for

> obscuring that reality by my removal of your qualifier. However, if

> you are certain of those 4 points, I don't understand why any

> qualifier would be needed?

 

Ok, I really didn't want this all to blow up into an endless back

and forth. Thanks for your apology, its appreciated. And I also apologise

because I gave information in a casual way, rather than getting all the

technical details before I wrote. This has obviously created confusion and

that wasn't my intention. When I replied your original inquiries about

Satadhanya it was a quick, off the top of my head response and therefore I

put in the qualifier thinking that you'd understand that. In other words it

wasn't a carefully considered reply but a quick 'email' reply -- I am sure

you understand what that means.

 

As far as what I did write, its what I generally understand to be

the case; however as I have said several times, I am not in possession of

all the technical facts. I have sent an email to Dayaram prabhu who is

working on the case, giving him your specific questions and hopefully he

will find the time to reply them.

 

Sorry for the confusion and I hope this settles this particular

thread.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

[Guest guest]

At 18:20 +0630 8/12/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

> Ok, I really didn't want this all to blow up into an endless back

>and forth. Thanks for your apology, its appreciated. And I also apologise

>because I gave information in a casual way, rather than getting all the

>technical details before I wrote. This has obviously created confusion and

>that wasn't my intention. When I replied your original inquiries about

>Satadhanya it was a quick, off the top of my head response and therefore I

>put in the qualifier thinking that you'd understand that. In other words it

>wasn't a carefully considered reply but a quick 'email' reply -- I am sure

>you understand what that means.

 

Thank you for clarifying. I've certainly written enough "off the top

of my head" responses myself to know how that goes.

 

> As far as what I did write, its what I generally understand to be

>the case; however as I have said several times, I am not in possession of

>all the technical facts. I have sent an email to Dayaram prabhu who is

>working on the case, giving him your specific questions and hopefully he

>will find the time to reply them.

 

I hope so too. This case has caused a lot of concern and pain, both

among gurukula alumni and the general devotee population, so it would

be immensly helpful to hear the facts from those who are working on

the case. Let's hope you have better luck than me in getting a

response.

 

> Sorry for the confusion and I hope this settles this particular

>thread.

 

Thank you. Yes, it does as far as I'm concerned - at least until we

find out what the facts are from those directly involved.

 

Thanks for trying to be helpful. That can be a thankless task.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi