©1997-2003 VNN
|
EDITORIAL   The 644,000 Dollar Question BY BHIMA DAS AND HANSADUTTA DAS EDITORIAL, Jun 12 (VNN) — Got books? Got money? Got anything? After ripping off $100,000 from me personally, and sweeping away the settlement money and kicking us off the licensee board, you sneer at Hansadutta and us, calling us poor losers, "Sour Grapes Sampradaya." I suppose we should be grateful to have met you, and to have been cheated by you. There are certain professional ethics governing attorney conduct, particularly in relationship to a client, and even in the case of an ex-client. It does not become an attorney to heap public scorn on a client or ex-client. But then, it also does not become an attorney to defraud his clients, as you have done. You have made a joke of your profession. Will anyone with any sense hire an attorney who has shown himself to be so unscrupulous? In December, 1998, when we met in Sacramento to discuss the formation of the licensee Krishna Books, Hansadutta insisted that the directors should take up their work in the spirit of pure devotional service, without accepting salary or any other remuneration, but you protested, "We've got million-dollar investors lined up. We'll be making millions, so what is wrong if we make something?" To me you said, "If KBI makes 10 million [dollars], I don't see anything wrong with the directors making a few million. There'll be more than enough." You also said, "It's out of the question that the directors will not get salary." Now you say that Hansadutta "unreasonably demanded overarching control of everything", but from the get-go, you were in high-gear takeover mode. You are the one who directed BBTI to pay the settlement money into an account offshore in the Bahamas. You are the one who went there and registered KB, Inc. and a trust. You advised us that the best arrangement was to register the licensee as a corporation registered in the Bahamas, held by a trust. Then you turned around and incorporated your own Krishna Books, Inc. in California and claimed in court that it was the legal licensee, and that there was no other, that the Bahamas trust was not valid, that it could never qualify. In the meantime, you helped yourself to the settlement money in the Bahamas. You did so without our knowledge, not even a week after the first board meeting in Sacramento, where it was agreed that the settlement money would be used as start-up funds for Krishna Books. You failed in your first application to the court to ratify that the settlement money was for your fees. Judge Shook ruled that there was nothing in the settlement agreement that specifically indicated that the settlement money was for your fees. Then you went and got an affidavit from ISKCON and BBTI (something funny going on there?) to say that the settlement money was to pay your fees. Even then, the court DID NOT allow that you were entitled to the settlement money for your fees; the court directed that it should be left to arbitration to decide that matter. And what did the arbitration panel determine? The Findings and Reward found that you were NOT ENTITLED to the $644,000 you claimed in legal fees from me, and further directed you to pay me personally $100,000 from the settlement money you told them was held in a regular corporate account in the Bahamas. They decided that you could pay yourself $92,000 from the settlement money also, and the balance settlement money in that account was to be paid out to your clients who had signed the Settlement Agreement--NOT YOU. The Arbitration Panel's Decision and Award is legally binding. I understand there is a court order to that effect. (Public record, not under seal.) You have not paid me back my $100,000, nor have you paid out any of the settlement money as directed, nor have you co-operated to direct BBTI-ISKCON to pay out the balance $50,000 they withheld from the settlement money (which was to pay PYMC's legal fees for the Singapore court case), nor have you paid your share of the arbitration fees ($2,500.00), which you owe me personally, in spite of repeated requests. But I digress. If Hansadutta was so ambitious to take full control of the license, how did you come onboard as a director of the licensee? You insisted to be brought onboard, and he reluctantly agreed. When you returned from the Bahamas, we saw you had put yourself as sole bank signator, director of KB Inc, and as a trustee of the Publishing trust. When we became suspicious and asked you to remove yourself, you refused. You even tried to keep from handing over a copy of the trust document. The BBT court case was settled in November, 1998, you grabbed all the money, grabbed complete control of the license, calling yourself "guardian of the license" and took deliberate steps to block Hansadutta's and our participation by "stacking the board" (your own words), and ultimately kicked us out. Hansadutta was your primary client, and having entered into a legally binding agreement to act in your professional capacity for Hansadutta as his lawyer, you should have advocated and safeguarded his interests, but you positioned yourself in direct conflict of interest with your client, first of all keeping from him and us the fact that you had eaten up the $125,000 investment principle, secondly leading him unawares to accept a monetary settlement from which you stood to gain at our expense, and finally, you took deliberate steps to ensure that he did not derive any benefit at all from the settlement agreement. Piggy-backing your way into position on the merits of his case, you took everything away from him. Now, in one breath you twist around and call him "covetous" and "in rage over lost control and stature". In the next, you try to assume the posture of a devotee, and call for co-operation. But on the pretext of championing a spiritual cause you have broken all agreements and violated our legal rights. If anything is "at odds with right and reason", this certainly is. Your actions are totally incongruous with the ethics of your profession which define the attorney-client relationship. You allege that Hansadutta had to be prevented from having sole control, but in fact it was you who repeatedly took unilateral actions in defiance of board resolutions, not to mention your conflict of interest, breach of agreements, bad legal advice, embezzlement of funds, refusal to give accounting and lies. It was as a lawyer that you were engaged to act for Hansadutta, and by misuse of legal process, you have deprived him and ourselves of any benefit from the settlement, and then tried to stick me with a demand for $644,000. What kind of lawyering is that? And who is the control freak? You boasted repeatedly of "million-dollar investors" waiting in the wings. It has been nearly five years. Where are the books? What happened to the money? Where are the million-dollar investors? Got books? Got money? Got million-dollar investors? Got Krishna? Got Prabhupada? Got anything-- besides hot air? What do you have? A bad reputation, and maybe less than that after everything will be said said and done. The conclusion is that you never did anything as a service for Srila Prabhupada in this matter, and what you did in the capacity of an attorney was self serving from beginning to end. The facts have been presented to the State Bar in our complaint. They obviously have taken the matter very seriously. Trial date has been set for September 2nd, 3rd and 4th, 2003. The 3rd of September is the appearance day of Radharani. It's going to be an auspicious day for someone. Related VNN Stories Contact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
