[Posted June 27, 2008]

Broken Trust: BBTI vs BBT

Praghosa das

Prabhupada's trust broken in more ways than one

email dated 24 June 2008

After reading the recent comments of Jayadwaita Swami on Sampradaya Sun—

"The BBTI is a corporation. But to say that such a 501(c)(3) corporation is "private" is perhaps misleading, or at least ungenerous, since those words are likely to give a layman the impression that such a corporation is hardly different from a corporation privately run for the benefit of its owners. That impression, as I'm sure you know, would be wrong." (Go to original article)—

I am given to ask a couple of questions:

Prabhupada's intentions and arrangement bypassed

Courting the BBT Das devi dasi
Say a father creates a trust, vests it with money and property and names his children as the beneficiaries, and appoints a trustee. The father dies. The children bypass the trustee and seize the trust money and property. What's wrong? The trust was created for their benefit, so why is what they did illegal? Because they violated the terms of the trust, which was indeed set up to benefit them, but does not belong to them; it belongs to the person who created it, even after he has passed away. It represents his will and intentions, which are safeguarded by law for the term of the trust. So to defy his arrangement and steal from the trust is a criminal act. This is what ISKCON did with the BBT. They bypassed the trustee, set up a non-profit corporation (BBTI), and began to help themselves to the trust property. Then when BBT asserted its copyright ownership in the Singapore court case, BBTI and ISKCON applied to the court in USA and among other pleadings submitted that ISKCON was the beneficiary and wanted the court to ratify the persons they named as trustees and remove Hansadutta. But while the court will take into consideration the wishes of the beneficiary, it is more concerned with the wishes of the Settlor or person who created the trust and whether the trust fulfills his wishes. To take the "back door" approach is not at all a sure bet. When Hansadutta met with Svavas, Mats Olaussen, Amarendra and I don't know who else (maybe Jayadvaita was there?), Amarendra asked, "What's the difference? What does it matter to you who's in charge or what's the legal setup as long as the job gets done? BBTI prints the books, the books get distributed, everybody's happy. BBTI is doing the same thing that BBT was supposed to do. What's wrong with that?" Hansadutta asked by way of reply, "Suppose I go to your wife, I seduce her, I do with her all those same things that you do with her, she's happy, everything's just as her life was with you, maybe even better... what's wrong with that?" Amarendra's mouth dropped open. This is the crux of the matter. more

His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada established the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust as an "Irrevocable Trust". This was HIS arrangement – for HIS books.

The definition of an IRREVOCABLE TRUST is given here:

An irrevocable trust is a trust that once established, cannot be revoked, terminated, or changed in any way. This means that upon transferring assets into an irrevocable trust, the grantor can reserve no right to amend or abolish irrevocable trust proceeds. Furthermore, the grantor of an irrevocable trust is not permitted to make withdrawals from the trust principal. However, in some cases changes can be made to an irrevocable trust accountupon the consent of a beneficiary. By this virtue, a living trust would not be an instance of an irrevocable trust. Examples of irrevocable trust accounts may include child trusts, as well as 2503 trusts. Irrevocable trust accounts may be set up for the purpose of saving on estate taxes, as well as protecting against creditor claims. An irrevocable trust may also be used to facilitate one or more life insurance plans.

Now the meaning should be clear to everyone.

IRREVOCABLE literally means "the grantor – in this case HDG Srila Prabhupada – can reserve no right to amend or abolish irrevocable trust proceeds."

So my first question is this:

1. Now – if EVEN THE GRANTOR SRILA PRABHUPADA could not amend or abolish the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust – HOW COULD THE BBT gradually come to represent itself as THE BBTI, a CALIFORNIA 501C3 NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION?

HOW did an Irrevocable Trust – THAT EVEN ITS GRANTOR SRILA PRABHUPADA could NOT amend orabolish – get abolished and its "assets" illegally "converted" into the property of a California 501C3 corporation?

Second Jayadwaita Swami chirps:

"...since those words are likely to give a layman the impression that such a corporation is hardly different from a corporation privately run for the benefit of its owners. That impression, as I'm sure you know, would be wrong."

2. Legally speaking, howwould such a conclusion "that such a corporation is hardly different from a corporation privately run for the benefit of its owners" bewrong?

Is this not EXACTLY WHAT HAS IN FACT HAPPENED to the original BBT?

Legal arrangements do not rely upon the generosity of the law or those who might consider attempting to ignore or circumvent them.

Legal arrangements are established under the principle that "good fences make good neighbors". In otherwords – when the "Rule of Law" is not backed with the enforcement of consequences upon them that ignore or break them - the "rule" is generally found to be that the "arrangements" will eventually be challenged and/or ignored or broken – all generosity aside.

We need look no further for proof of this in the present BBTI vs BBT case.

The "Grantor" of the original "Trust" established the Trust with a particular purpose – and a particular arrangement. Clearly, for JS to so casually announce to the public that in fact– the intent and the arrangements of Srila Prabhupada – were at some point NO LONGER ASSIGNED THE ABSOLUTE CONSIDERATION they demanded AND what has followed since is A SPECIFIC SERIES OF BREACH OF CONTRACT between ISKCON and its self-assigned managers and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust – he has to be either incredibly foolish, utterly ill informed as to what he and the BBTI managers are soon to be held account for, or just evil enough to imagine that their actions will not see the light of day and yield decidedly unpleasant consequences.

The rule of Law was circumvented in any way possible to essentially STEAL THE COPYRIGHTS of Srila Prabhupada – ILLEGALLY CLAIM LEGAL CONVERSION OF THE ASSETS of the ORIGINAL TRUST – and NOW TODAY pass the BBTI off as THE ACTUAL BBT.

GENEROSITY HAS AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT – AND NEVER DOES.

Srila Prabhuapda KNEW that his primary asset – his books – would, like his buildings and centers, be subjected to the larceny of "less than adorable" or misguided men. For this reason he did not rely upon anyone's "generosity", as JS so casually suggests. He relied upon THE LAW.

Whether we accept it or not – this is what he did. In the aftermath of his departure, we need only study the UNGENEROUS BEHAVIOUR OF SO MANY to understand the simple genius of his foresight.

Praghosa