©1997-2004 VNN
|
EDITORIAL   Bar Association Dispute Resolution BY DAS DD EDITORIAL, Jul 12 (VNN) — BEFORE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES In the Matter of the Arbitration ) Case No. P-048-99-MB Between: ) ) DIANE MARIE CHAN, CHAN HOE BENG ) Amended and Revised AND HANS JURGEN KARY ) Statement of Decision ) and Award Petitioners, ) ) ) Vs. ) ) JOSEPH FEDOROWSKY, ESQ., ) ) Respondent. ) ) . . . FINDINGS 6. Fedorowsky acted in violation of his duties, the Business and Professions Code and the Canons of Ethics when he misappropriated the $125,000.00 deposited in trust with him by Chan Hoe Beng and Veda Guhya Das. . . . 8. The funds in the corporate bank account in the name KB, Inc. are held in trust by Fedorowsky for his Clients to effectuate the purposes of the retention, the settlement, and this Award. AWARD 1. Fedorowsky shall make or instruct Dennis Potter to make, the following disbursements from the KB, Inc. account: (1) $100,000.00 to Chan Hoe Beng. (2) $25,000.00 to Veda Guhya Das. (3) $92,000.00 to Joseph Fedorowsky, Oxford Law Firm. (4) Any remaining funds in the account belong to the Clients in the Action in equal amounts and it is contemplated they will be used to pursue the license obtained in the Action. So you see, the onus is on Fedorowsky to perform. It is not that Hansadutta or Bhima or I owe Fedorowsky his $92,000.00. He has to pay himself. He has also to pay Bhima $100,000.00, and is obligated to pay out any balance settlement money to the defendants. From the State Bar papers (stipulation and judgment) also, you can see that Fedorowksy has admitted to and has been found guilty of breaching his fiduciary duty to Bhima by taking the $100,000.00. Clearly the State Bar's stipulation does not exonerate Fedorowsky. What more need be said? In fact, we have said a LOT more, and all of it supported by extensive documentation. The State Bar chose to narrow the issues to one. But if anyone is interested and has a head for legal affairs, he is welcome to study the evidence we submitted to the State Bar and draw his own conclusions for the cost of photocopying and mailing. Fedorowsky tries to say that the State Bar found that none of the allegations made in our complaint to the State Bar were true, except for the "one technical slip-up" when he embezzled $100,000.00 belonging to Bhima. In this way, he writes it off as a small thing. "What's the big deal?" As if to say, "So what if he helped himself to the money when he was doing such a big, important service for Prabhupada and his clients? He was a devoted disciple of Srila Prabhupada, sacrificing time, money and talent for Srila Prabhupada's service. Was he not owed that much for his fees? What was wrong? He needed the money, and his client owed him, so he applied the $100,000.00 toward his fees, which after all was said and done amounted to more than $644,000.00 by his calculations. Was that so wrong?" This is the line of reasoning Fedorowsky puts forth. Fedorowksy has taken devotional service to new heights, serving Srila Prabhupada to preserve the integrity of the BBT, for a nominal attorney's fee of a little more than $644,000.00 and all the money he could embezzle from his naive, idealistic clients. All for the love of Prabhupada and Krishna. Hari bol, Prabhu. We don't know of any devotee who has ever billed or received payment of $644,000.00 for any kind of devotional service--not in Srila Prabhupada's time, nor at any time in the history of the disciplic succession. This is something new to us. $644,000.00 for devotional service. Service, devotion with a price tag. Unprecedented. How much did Arjuna receive for fighting the battle of Kurukshetra? We don't know. How much did Hanuman bill for flying to Lanka and setting it ablaze? Who knows? How about Prahlada Maharaja? Surely he demanded a fee or compensation of some kind for his austerities and going through all that torture? Srila Prabhupada didn't mention any fee . . . a mystery? We may never know. But we do know how much Fedorowsky Prabhu demanded. He did not ask. He demanded more than $644,000.00. A lot of money for a humble and sincere prabhu. We wonder how much he gets now from ISKCON for doing the child molestation case. Hmmm. Does anyone know? Devotional service, it's so sweeeet, if you're a lawyer, a spiritual lawyer. "It's all for Krishna." So did the State Bar shake Fedorowsky's hand and tell him, "Good job! NO MISAPPROPRIATION, NO MORAL TURPITUDE, NO RESTITUTION?" We don't know. But we do know that the Arbitrators and the State Bar did not agree with Fedorowsky. The Arbitration Panel determined that his billing for $644,000.00 was unconscionable, and moreover did not allow that he could credit the $100,000.00 he stole from Bhima towards his fees. They called it MISAPPROPRIATION. That is the word they used in their finding of fact. And they ordered Fedorowsky to pay it back. What he did is called breach of contract and misappropriation, embezzlement, conversion, stealing, ripping off, fraud, cheating. If it is not plain to see, then how to make it more obvious? Hansadutta proved himself when he stood up to defend Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta Book Trust against ISKCON's and BBTI's lawsuit. ISKCON and BBTI claimed that the BBT was never a legal trust, that it was invalid, and that indeed Srila Prabhupada never owned the copyrights to his books in the first place, that Srila Prabhupada 's books were "works for hire", tantamount to saying that Srila Prabhupada was no more than a hired worker of ISKCON, who supplied him with pen, paper, room and board and thus everything produced by Srila Prabhupada was the property of ISKCON. Hansadutta rose to the challenge and took on ISKCON/BBTI. He did so without help from anyone save a few. Did IRM help? No. Did others help? No. Why should Hansadutta care now who sympathizes? People can choose to sympathize with the devil if they want. Believe or disbelieve. It is not Hansadutta's integrity that is at question here. It is Fedorowsky's. On the one hand Hansadutta is a senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada, one of the pioneers of the movement. He is a tried, tested and proven pioneer in publishing, translating and selling and distributing Srila Prabhupada's books in many countries of the world. >From the beginning he was involved in opening temples, recruiting and training devotees, translation and publishing of Srila Prabhupada's books, and obtained Srila Prabhupada's blessings with his bold preaching all over the world. Srila Prabhupada personally appointed Hansadutta as lifetime BBT trustee. On the other hand, what can be said of Fedorowsky's devotional career? When it suits him, he refers to the job he did as devotional service for Srila Prabhupada, but either he was a karmi lawyer working for money, or a devotee doing service out of love for Srila Prabhupada. Sue me or "prabhu" me, you can't have it both ways. which is it ? Do you think Srila Prabhupada would pay his disciple $644,000.00 to do anything? Police dogs are sometimes employed by the police department. to help in the tracking and apprehension of dangerous criminals, but when a police dog refuses to obey its handler, or even turns on his handler, the handler then has to severely discipline the dog, or sometimes the dog must be shot. In a similar way, the dog Fedorowsky was hired to do some legal work, but in the course of working he got out of control, ultimately turning on his handlers, so he had to be fired, brought before arbitration who reeled him in, and later he was also disciplined by the Bar Association, who suspended him and put him up for probation, to see his future behavior. If he, the dog, gets out of line, maybe the the next time they (the Bar Association) will find that the dog has to be shot. As you know, Fedorowsky started up the infamous PDI (Prasadam Distribution Inc.) which operated as a front for selling drugs, and when things went wrong, he became party to a conspiracy to murder Steven Bovam. Fedorowsky was indicted, but turned state's evidence and was given FBI protection. This incident caused some problem in obtaining his license to practice law. Fedorowsky's legal career was not distinguished, but he carved a niche for himself in tenant vs. landlord claims, taking insurance companies to the cleaners. What of devotional service to Srila Prabhupada? We do know of one instance in which he took on a lawsuit on behalf of a devotee. Yashodanandan and wife hired him to sue a gas station, where the wife was bitten by fire ants when she sat on the curbside. Maybe that could be construed as devotional service? But then the judge threw the case out of court. Along came Hansadutta, BBT trustee, with a request for help in the Singapore courtcase, BBTI vs. Prabhupada Yoga Meditation Centre (Bhima). Fedorowsky took an interest and studied the case. By some luck and cunning he obtained testimony from Svavasa and Sura that evidenced fraud on the part of BBTI in their claim to own the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada's books. Bhima paid $14,000.00 for Fedorowsky's affidavit. Bhima paid for Fedorowsky's airfare, expenses and hourly rate. In the end, BBTI withdrew the lawsuit in Singapore, because they could not get around Hansadutta's affidavit. Hansadutta stood as legitimate BBT trustee and pointed out that the BBTI was not the same legal entity as the original Bhaktivedanta Book Trust created by Srila Prabhupada. Hansadutta challenged BBTI to prove their claim to own the copyrights, to show the paper trail how the copyrights were moved from BBT to BBTI, and BBTI was unable to do so. Therefore BBTI abandoned the Singapore action. And then ISKCON and BBTI sued Hansadutta in USA, and attempted to invalidate Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Fedorowsky found himself in a unique position to take up Hansadutta's defence. He talked about the opportunity of a lifetime, how this was the Big One, this is the one he went to law school for. Hansadutta hired Fedorowsky, and Fedorowsky went to work. Yes, he got a wondrous result--at the expense of Hansadutta. When it was over, and the devotees were still congratulating Hansadutta and each other, and after Bhima had presented Fedorowsky with a gemstone as a gift, Fedorowsky suddenly turned on Bhima and launched into a scathing tirade about how Bhima did not appreciate that everything was by Fedorowsky's doing, that we were all indebted to his genius and dedication, and in the same breath revealed that he had embezzled Bhima's $100,000.00, and dared Bhima to sue him. On the same day, he at once laid claim to the $350,000.00 settlement money for his fees, and announced that he had created a trust in the Bahamas, funded it with the publishing licence and settlement money, and made himself trustee, together with a karmi named Dennis Sutton. None of the rest of us had been made trustees or named as directors or officers. Hansadutta, Bhima and myself were stunned at these revelations. When we took steps to check Fedorowsky from taking over the publishing license, he sued us for more than $644,000.00, claiming that the settlement money had triggered a clause in his fee contract with Hansadutta that allowed him to charge full rate. He then turned around and formed the California corporation named Krishna Books, Inc., and declared that the trust in the Bahamas was invalid and did not own the publishing license. Is this the conduct of a devotee to betray another devotee? Is this the conduct of a truthful person to deceive and steal? Is this the right conduct of a lawyer to serve his own self interests and cheat his client? In case you still do not know whose integrity is at question . . . The Arbitration and State Bar rulings speak for themselves. All Fedorowsky's slick talk does not erase what the Arbitration and State Bar have put down on paper, a matter of public record. These legal authorities all cast strong doubt on Fedorowsky's character, words and deeds. All documentation is there in Fedorowsky's file, which he refuses to hand over to his client. Ask Fedorowsky to show you whatever you need to see to document his claims. It is Fedorowsky who has to prove what he says is true. Here we have a proven cheater and embezzler making accusations against the very person whom he victimized. BUT WHY THIS FOCUS ON THE MONEY? You said to me over the phone that you wanted to focus on the money. That was Fedorowsky who focused on the money. Yes, he stole the money, BUT WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON WHAT FEDOROWSKY DID WITH THE PUBLISHING LICENCE. So far, no one -- not the Arbitration, not the LA Superior Court, not the State Bar, and not even the devotees -- has understood what happened and condemned his actions. What the heck? Even Madhudvisa was appreciating Fedorowsky's and Niscintya's and the "sincere" Veda Guhya's nice service. Actually, in our eyes, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER was what Fedorowsky did with the publishing licence. Ripping off $100,000.00 belonging to Bhima and $300,000.00 settlement money was the lesser betrayal. Don't think that we spent 6 years of litigation in Singapore and 18 months litigation in USA and a huge amount of money over all that time--well over the $300,000.00 settlement award--just for the sake of money, even $300,000.00. Do you really think Hansadutta was ready to hand over his BBT trusteeship (Srila Prabhupada personally appointed him for life) to BBTI just for $300,000.00? As far as we are concerned, IT WAS NEVER ABOUT MONEY! It was about defending our right to print and distribute Srila Prabhupada's books--THE ORIGINAL, UNREVISED BOOKS OF SRILA PRABHUPADA, and ultimately about standing up for Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, the authentic trust created by Srila Prabhupada himself for holding the copyrights to his works. In fact we were surprised when ISKCON offered a monetary settlement of $350,000.00 without our ever asking. We were astonished. Now we see it was a maneuver on the part of Fedorowsky to exploit the situation for his own enrichment. Getting money from ISKCON was never a consideration; it was somehow or other maneuvered by the crafty Fedorowsky. Fedorowsky persuaded us to sign the settlement with ISKCON and BBTI, leading us to believe that in return for Hansadutta's resignation from the BBT, Hansadutta would gain the rights to publish Srila Prabhupada's original works, and once and for all make an amicable resolution to the conflict in the interests of all the devotees both inside and outside ISKCON, for the pleasure of Srila Prabhupada. But immediately Fedorowsky set out to take control of the licensee. Without informing us, he secretly and hastily formed a corporation, stacked the board against us, and eventually voted us off, as he threatened he would do. If in the devotees' eyes this is not the crux of the matter, but only what happened to the money is the crux of the matter, then they have missed the point. It so happens that by Fedorowsky's actions the settlement agreement actually has been nullified, because neither Hansadutta nor I nor Bhima have received any of the consideration that we were supposed to have received under the agreement. We were not permitted any participation in the licensee, nor did we receive any of the settlement money. Therefore Hansadutta has announced his intentions to resume his duties as BBT trustee. As for Fedorowsky, we intend to pursue him vigorously for the more than $102,500.00 he owes Bhima and the settlement money. Trying to check Fedorowsky cost us heavily, but it is a sacrifice done in service to Srila Prabhupada. Now, five years later, finally the State Bar matter has come to a conclusion. In the meantime, we have gathered financial strength and very powerful financial backing and obtained the cooperation of persons whom Fedorowsky has similarly defrauded, and we mean to go after him in court. We will collect from him the money and print books with it, and he will have to pay costs also. He will rue the day that he cheated and betrayed his clients and anyone at all. More importantly, he will be exposed for what he is: a cheater and liar, a menace to the devotees, a Putana who lines up Srila Prabhupada and the devotees for the kill. Well, Prabhu, I'm not sure why you called, what you expected to learn, or what you will make of it. We know that you have had some kind of working relationship with Fedorowsky. You mentioned concern that Fedorowsky was compromising the investigation into the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada, and asked whether we knew if he was still under FBI protection. You agreed with me that he should be exposed. But what are you prepared to do? And why are you coming now and asking for documentation? It's nice that you're concerned, but after all that has been published and said, if you have not figured out already that Fedorowsky is the devil, and still need to see further proof--I will be frank--I wonder about your allegiance to Srila Prabhupada. Anyone with common sense figured it out from day one. If after all this you cannot understand the difference between Srila Prabhupada putting Hansadutta as lifelong trustee of his Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and Fedorowsky usurping everything, making himself Guardian of the License (so he calls himself), then where is your faith in Srila Prabhupada? Hansadutta was designated by Srila Prabhupada as lifelong trustee. He was not trying to take what he was not entitled to. He was trying to establish and defend what Srila Prabhupada established. What right had Fedorowsky to claim anything? He was just a hired hand, yet suddenly he put himself in the pivotal position for his own entrepreneurship and that of Niscintya, Veda Guhya and friends. Suppose you hire a bricklayer to build your house, and when he has finished, he moves in and claims it as his. Where is the question of Fedorowsky being entitled to take anything? He did a fabulous job, but it was not his place to insert himself as the proprietor of the result. We spent our time, money and energy--everything--for defending Srila Prabhupada's BBT and BBT trustee. Where were you then, when we needed help from you and others? When Srila Prabhupada's BBT and the integrity of his books was under siege? We didn't hear from you then. Devotees watched from the sidelines, as though it was a circus show, but offered no sacrifice, no penance, no austerity. You are known to be intelligent and business-minded. Please tell me why I or Bhima or Hansadutta should feel obligated to have to prove to you or anyone else our sincerity and honesty? Who are you to come casting aspersions of doubt? Are you on Fedorowsky's side? Really, Prabhu, we don't care what you think. If you like Fedorowsky and want to believe him, go with him. If you like Hansadutta, then go with Hansadutta. But we're talking about putting up $50,000.00 or $100,000.00 for printing books. It's not a free ride. You come asking us to give you something, so we are asking back, What are you willing to give? --Your servant, Das dd Related VNN Stories Contact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
