11/01/1998 - 2442 (See Related VNN Stories)

Irrevocable California Charitable Trust

USA (VNN) - By Gupta Das

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: "Iam setting up a different body of management known as the BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOKTRUST. The trustees of this body are also members of the GBC, but theirfunction is not dependent on the GBC." Then in the May 29, 1972, BBTCalifornia trust document, His Divine Grace stated: "This trust shall existindependently of ISKCON and the Trustee's function and duties stated hereinshall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission ofISKCON."

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

 Keeping the BBT (i.e., the May 29, 1972, irrevocable California charitabletrust into which His Divine Grace transferred his copyrights) separate,however, does not mean that the BBT carried on or will carry on thepublishing activities which have historically been carried on by ISKCON andas directed by the GBC, the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON. This isthe key to understanding and reconciling the various discussions in whichSrila Prabhupada speaks of the BBT being separate from ISKCON for legalpurposes and yet also indicates that ISKCON and the GBC are directly linkedto 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. Isthat ....
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 isspent on printing and fifty percent is for constructing temples. That'sall.
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 ISKCONfor 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 separatefrom ISKCON and the GBC is again confirmed. Yet, the actual printing ofbooks and construction of temples is managed by the GBC -- not by the BBT.The BBT Trustees (in this conversation His Divine Grace speaks as chairmanof the BBT), "see" that it happens -- meaning that the trustees assure that50% goes to books and 50% goes to construction. But the management of thatpublication and construction is done by the GBC. It is this separation ofpower that His Divine Grace wanted and legally instituted in the form of theBBT.

 It was at this time, in 1975, ISKCON Press had been a name associated withthe publishing activities of ISKCON. That is why ISKCON Press is sometimesreferred to as a "division" of ISKCON. But the BBT -- as a trust -- hadalready been created, formed and funded as a separate and distinct legalentity in 1972, and, by that date, held the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada'sbooks. That ISKCON engaged in the actual publishing activities is not inany way inconsistent with the purposes for which the BBT was formed. Andsince the BBT never did engage directly in publishing activities it neveractually incurred any tax liability. There were no tax consequence tomerely 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 hasalready ruled on October 27, 1998, that this case is not an ecclesiastical dispute and he intends to make his ruling at trial based on neutralprinciples of trust, property and contract law. That means, at the minimum,that the Court will not entertain evidence as to the internal goings on andbeliefs of either ISKCON or the GBC as those entities related to the "BBT"over the years. Moreover, the Court has effectively ruled that the Courtwill not "defer" to the GBC's decisions regarding the trust and itstrustees -- which is consistent with Srila Prabhupada's legalizedinstructions as stated in the May 29, 1972, BBT trust instrument.

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

 And, without question, all of the documentary evidence supports the legaland spiritual reality that the BBT was legally formed and separate fromISKCON and holds the copyrights in trust for the benefit of ISKCON. Eventhe US Copyright Office, Trademark Registry, lists the trademarks in thename of "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (California Trust)." Karandhar's lettersto the USCO were written (by Ramesvara) under the title of "Trustee,Bhaktivedanta Book Trust." And how can one argue that the trust did notexist when Srila Prabhupada and Bali Mardan signed a document on September15, 1975, entitled BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST RESOLUTION which appointed HansKary (Hansadutta) in place and stead of Kelly Gifford Smith (Karandhar) whohad left the Movement and resigned as a trustee of the BBT? And then thereare all of the USCO registrations of the books of His Divine Grace whichwere transferred into the "BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST." Even William Berke's(Bali Mardan) declaration in this case which was, amazingly, submitted bythe BBTI, confirmed that the BBT was formed as a trust and that Bali Mardanwas 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 thisform legally control over conversations which one may interpret in one wayor 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 thatassures the Accuracy & Availability of His Vani as well as to see that fundsgenerated are used based on the 50/50 principle set out in the trustdocument. That is NOT being done now by the BBTI which is a private holdingcorporation, not a trust, because the BBTI believes it is under no legalduty and has no legal obligation to follow the terms of Srila Prabhupada'strust. Hence, havoc now reigns since there is no public accountability orfiduciary duty or any of the other safeguards which are an integral part ofthe duties of a trustee of a charitable trust, i.e., the BBT. And that isessentially why the Accuracy & Availability of His books has been severelyeclipsed.

 It is also important to note that the BBT itself does not necessarily printand 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 incourt. Every trustee of the original May 29, 1972, BBT must, therefore,strictly follow the terms of the BBT trust instrument at the risk of beingremoved by the Court. In this way, Srila Prabhupada set up a natural andperfect system that includes the necessary separation of power, checks andbalances and provides for legal remedies to remove any trustee who does notfollow Srila Prabhupada's legalized instructions as set out in the trustinstrument itself.

 So the question then becomes, why shouldn't Hansadutta and Bhagavan beconfirmed as BBT Trustees ? Srila Prabhupada believed they were right forthe job -- and gave each a lifetime appointment. And if that is notconvincing enough, we should all note that if it wasn't for their proactiveposture in fighting to validate the original BBT trust, none of us todaywould have the luxury of even discussing these issues. And that, inessence, 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 withthe clearly expressed intentions and will of His Divine Grace.

 Obstinacy, misplaced righteousness, the desire to retain powerful positionswithin the BBTI, fear that the BBT trustees will act with a similar modusoperandi as the BBTI, and a blind eye to accepting Srila Prabhupada'slegalized instructions now finds the BBTI and ISKCON of California in aposition of spending over half a million ISKCON dollars for a colossal smokeand mirrors legal presentation of wholly irrelevant minutia, all in adesperate attempt to block and thwart the clear written directives of HisDivine Grace to keep the BBT separate from ISKCON and out of the directcontrol 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 andthe 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 allnow best cooperate to institute the written directives of His Divine Grace ?We should all be cooperatively seeking the answers to those kinds ofquestions rather than litigating our way into a posture in which theconsequences of not following Srila Prabhupada's written instructions willonly serve to strike another destructive blow to the Spiritual Family wecall 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

(See Related VNN Stories)