Irrevocable California Charitable Trust

[Guest guest]

October 31, 1998

Hare Krishna Mrigendra:

 

Thank you for your e-mail inquiry this date regarding the BBT.

 

In the original 1970 Direction of Management, His Divine Grace stated: "I am setting up a different body of management known as the BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST. The trustees of this body are also members of the GBC, but their function is not dependent on the GBC." Then in the May 29, 1972, BBT California trust document, His Divine Grace stated: "This trust shall exist independently of ISKCON and the Trustee's function and duties stated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON."

 

NOTHING ever written or signed by His Divine Grace ever changed his documented intention to keep the BBT separate and distinct from ISKCON and the GBC. Even in His final DECLARATION OF WILL, His Divine Grace states he is "Settlor of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust." Why bother to reiterate his position as Settlor of the trust if the trust did not exist as claimed by the BBT International Inc (BBTI) and ISKCON of California Inc?

 

Keeping the BBT (i.e., the May 29, 1972, irrevocable California charitable trust into which His Divine Grace transferred his copyrights) separate, however, does not mean that the BBT carried on or will carry on the publishing activities which have historically been carried on by ISKCON and as directed by the GBC, the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON. This is the key to understanding and reconciling the various discussions in which Srila Prabhupada speaks of the BBT being separate from ISKCON for legal purposes and yet also indicates that ISKCON and the GBC are directly linked to the publishing of His books.

 

Note this point, for example, in relation to a March 1975 conversation:

 

TKG: I would like to ask a question .... The moving of ISKCON Press. Is that ....

SPPD: That you decide amongst the GBC.

TKG: Is that a GBC matter or a BBT matter?

SPPD: No. It is GBC, er, yeah, GBC.

TKG: The GBC.

SPPD: Yes. I want to see, as the chairman of the BBT, that fifty percent is spent on printing and fifty percent is for constructing temples. That's all.

TKG: And who sees to that? The GBC?

SPPD: Yes.

TKG: The GBC.

SPPD: Yes.

TKG: That means, practically speaking .... The BBT is separate from ISKCON for legal purposes, but the management of it is done by the GBC.

SPPD: Yes. That's nice.

 

In this conversation the position of the BBT's relationship as separate from ISKCON and the GBC is again confirmed. Yet, the actual printing of books and construction of temples is managed by the GBC -- not by the BBT. The BBT Trustees (in this conversation His Divine Grace speaks as chairman of the BBT), "see" that it happens -- meaning that the trustees assure that 50% goes to books and 50% goes to construction. But the management of that publication and construction is done by the GBC. It is this separation of power that His Divine Grace wanted and legally instituted in the form of the BBT.

 

It was at this time, in 1975, ISKCON Press had been a name associated with the publishing activities of ISKCON. That is why ISKCON Press is sometimes referred to as a "division" of ISKCON. But the BBT -- as a trust -- had already been created, formed and funded as a separate and distinct legal entity in 1972, and, by that date, held the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books. That ISKCON engaged in the actual publishing activities is not in any way inconsistent with the purposes for which the BBT was formed. And since the BBT never did engage directly in publishing activities it never actually incurred any tax liability. There were no tax consequence to merely holding the intellectual property rights and then, in effect, licensing ISKCON to publish His books.

 

Of course, the posture of the BBTI case right now is that the Judge has already ruled on October 27, 1998, that this case is not an ecclesiastical dispute and he intends to make his ruling at trial based on neutral principles of trust, property and contract law. That means, at the minimum, that the Court will not entertain evidence as to the internal goings on and beliefs of either ISKCON or the GBC as those entities related to the "BBT" over the years. Moreover, the Court has effectively ruled that the Court will not "defer" to the GBC's decisions regarding the trust and its trustees -- which is consistent with Srila Prabhupada's legalized instructions as stated in the May 29, 1972, BBT trust instrument.

 

The Judge also indicated that the parol evidence rule will be strictly applied -- meaning that verbal communications will not be admissible to vary or modify the terms of the trust document. Thus, no matter how interpreted, none of these conversations can vary or modify the terms of the written instrument called the BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST AGREEMENT dated May 29, 1972.

 

And, without question, all of the documentary evidence supports the legal and spiritual reality that the BBT was legally formed and separate from ISKCON and holds the copyrights in trust for the benefit of ISKCON. Even the US Copyright Office, Trademark Registry, lists the trademarks in the name of "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (California Trust)." Karandhar's letters to the USCO were written (by Ramesvara) under the title of "Trustee, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust." And how can one argue that the trust did not exist when Srila Prabhupada and Bali Mardan signed a document on September 15, 1975, entitled BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST RESOLUTION which appointed Hans Kary (Hansadutta) in place and stead of Kelly Gifford Smith (Karandhar) who had left the Movement and resigned as a trustee of the BBT? And then there are all of the USCO registrations of the books of His Divine Grace which were transferred into the "BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST." Even William Berke's (Bali Mardan) declaration in this case which was, amazingly, submitted by the BBTI, confirmed that the BBT was formed as a trust and that Bali Mardan was a trustee of that trust called the BBT.

 

These uncontroverted documents are definitive, conclusive and controlling. And without doubt, Srila Prabhupada's legalized written instructions in this form legally control over conversations which one may interpret in one way or another depending on one's particular paradigm or level of understanding.

 

So the duty of BBT Trustees, then, is to encourage the publishing, printing, sales and distribution of Srila Prabhupada's books in a way that assures the Accuracy & Availability of His Vani as well as to see that funds generated are used based on the 50/50 principle set out in the trust document. That is NOT being done now by the BBTI which is a private holding corporation, not a trust, because the BBTI believes it is under no legal duty and has no legal obligation to follow the terms of Srila Prabhupada's trust. Hence, havoc now reigns since there is no public accountability or fiduciary duty or any of the other safeguards which are an integral part of the duties of a trustee of a charitable trust, i.e., the BBT. And that is essentially why the Accuracy & Availability of His books has been severely eclipsed.

 

It is also important to note that the BBT itself does not necessarily print and publish nor does it or should it restrict the distribution of His Vani. Moreover, should the BBT Trustees engage in any conduct inimical to ISKCON, the latter can challenge such conduct by filing the appropriate Petition in court. Every trustee of the original May 29, 1972, BBT must, therefore, strictly follow the terms of the BBT trust instrument at the risk of being removed by the Court. In this way, Srila Prabhupada set up a natural and perfect system that includes the necessary separation of power, checks and balances and provides for legal remedies to remove any trustee who does not follow Srila Prabhupada's legalized instructions as set out in the trust instrument itself.

 

So the question then becomes, why shouldn't Hansadutta and Bhagavan be confirmed as BBT Trustees ? Srila Prabhupada believed they were right for the job -- and gave each a lifetime appointment. And if that is not convincing enough, we should all note that if it wasn't for their proactive posture in fighting to validate the original BBT trust, none of us today would have the luxury of even discussing these issues. And that, in essence, is the ultimate duty and litmus test of being a "BBT trustee" -- to do whatever it takes to uphold the BBT as a trust, separate from ISKCON. It is now only for all of us to recognize it as they have and comply with the clearly expressed intentions and will of His Divine Grace.

 

Obstinacy, misplaced righteousness, the desire to retain powerful positions within the BBTI, fear that the BBT trustees will act with a similar modus operandi as the BBTI, and a blind eye to accepting Srila Prabhupada's legalized instructions now finds the BBTI and ISKCON of California in a position of spending over half a million ISKCON dollars for a colossal smoke and mirrors legal presentation of wholly irrelevant minutia, all in a desperate attempt to block and thwart the clear written directives of His Divine Grace to keep the BBT separate from ISKCON and out of the direct control of the GBC.

 

What were Srila Prabhupada's legalized instructions as regards the BBT ? Why was the BBT established as a charitable trust separate from ISKCON and the GBC ? How does the BBT assure the Accuracy & Availability of His Vani ? What is the relationship of the BBT to ISKCON and the GBC ? How can we all now best cooperate to institute the written directives of His Divine Grace ? We should all be cooperatively seeking the answers to those kinds of questions rather than litigating our way into a posture in which the consequences of not following Srila Prabhupada's written instructions will only serve to strike another destructive blow to the Spiritual Family we call Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON.

 

Please do not hesitate to call or write if you have any other questions.

 

With regards,

 

Gupta das

Joseph Fedorowsky Esq

OXFORD LAW FIRM

5757 W Century Blvd.

Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90045

lawyer@oxfordlaw.com