Newsletter Apr. 10, 2000
SUSPECT IN THE MURDER OF SULOCANA
The main reason was that he had a lot to hide. For example, he was dating a young, actually minor-aged girl named Rukmini. He would go to the Santa Monica high school and pick her up after school for "dates." He was alleged to be taking her to the cinema, Italian restaurants, the mall, and so on, for these "dates."
A devotee named Vadiraja also noted that while he was waiting for three hours to talk to Ramesvara, all of the temple's young girls were going in and out of his office to speak with "their guru." He said that Ramesvara had a .45 caliber gun right next to his seat, hidden from view, but that Vadiraja had seen it once when Ramesvara was off guard. Why would a guru keep a gun right next to him in his office? Ramesvara was also allegedly participating in the local gym club's "aerobic dance class" in the morning, mostly filled with young ladies dressed in skin-hugging exercise tights. Some devotees joked that this was his morning "jiggling meditation."
For his "dating a young girl" Ramesvara had apparently become a de facto pedophile, and he was compared to Kirtanananda. Ramesvara had also allegedly been taking money from the sales of drugs and drug related items, which he did not want to have investigated as Sulochana wanted to. Ramesvara was living like a millionaire business executive which means he was actually siphoning off the society's funds for himself. In other word, Ramesvara had a lot to hide and he was not pleased with the expose style of Sulochana. If Kirtanananda was exposed, there might be a domino effect, more gurus could be investigated. Even Hansadutta's siphoning the society's funds for his extravaganzas could be investigated, and that is why he backed Kirtanananda. So, they all had something to hide, and therefore Sulochana was their common enemy.
Exactly like Hansadutta, Kirtanananda, Jayapataka, Harikesha and others, Ramesvara also had a crew of mean looking, violent "enforcers." His "enforcers" would "patrol" the Los Angeles temple neighborhood where they were brow-beating, harassing, intimidating, threatening, if not beating dissenters. He simply could not let one of these dissenters "get away with" as much as Sulochana was. Perhaps the other dissenters would get more bold if Sulochana was not checked?
Ramesvara's thugs would do things like --go to a "dissenter's" door in the middle of the night to pound on it with aluminum baseball bats, to scare dissenters into "absolute submission to the guru." Even teeny babies and small children were terrorized by this tactic. Yet, who cared as long as the guru was able to continue dating his young female student? "The purity must be preserved at all costs"! There were a host of other diabolical tactics that Ramesvara's violent thugs used to keep dissenters in line such as slashing the tires on their cars, placing sugar in their gas tanks, breaking the windows on their cars, and just creating a violent, malevolent, malefic, death threatening atmosphere around the temples to keep the "doubters" in check.
A couple of Ramesvara's men had huge muscles and tattoos, and they looked like they had just got out of San Quentin prison. I recall that later, in 1998, one of these same muscle bound tattoo thugs came up and yelled at me for playing a harmonium in the temple, but by this time their spell had been more or less broken. One little devotee came up and chased away the muscle man with a broom. Being so much exasperated at the humiliation, he left the community. So their powers are dwindling now, but in 1986, they were at their peak.
Of course, by encouraging these criminal moods and actions, this naturally attracted a class of violent, perverse, if not demented criminals who enjoyed indulging in these odious behaviors. To sum, good people were being scared away and bad people were being welcomed and then given "posts of authority" such as "temple commander, temple enforcer" and so on. Therefore, in addition to criminal thug types, a wave of homosexuals; child molesters; women beaters and abusers; psychotic, mentally disturbed types; and similar other low-life characters began to emerge as a more prominent class amongst "Ramesvara's loyal devotees" and ISKCON members in general.
Even in 1998 the remnants of Ramesvara's temple thugs slashed all of the tires and broke out the windows of a "dissenter's" car as I personally witnessed. In sum, there is still, to this day (the year 2000) a constant patrol of violent looking, angry, sneering, scowling, vulture staring "enforcers" in the front of the Los Angeles temple, since Ramesvara's trained-up remnant clones are still in charge there today. When I would come out on the street they would do "the coyote walk" around me. That means three or four of them would start to circle me in a menacing way. Even the Los Angeles police picked up on this. They saw me on my bike one day and said, "Hey you, get around the corner. Get out of here! Can't you see that these people want to clobber you? We are going to watch until you are around the corner."
Anyway, in 1986 Ramesvara had a vested interest in keeping dissenters under control. Another reason he had to help check Sulochana is that he had to be loyal to the other violent thugs, perverts and molesters posing as gurus. If he did not help them curb Sulochana, they might not help him cover up his "dating of Rukmini" problem. The deviant "gurus" had to stick together. They were under attack, and thus even bringing Hansadutta back in some capacity, reinstating the pedophile Bhavananda, and whatever else it took, was acceptable. The crooks had to show solidarity now. The homosexual pedophile guru brotherhood had to show the world that they were still in charge.
Subject: Ramesvara dasa
RAMESVARA PEDOPHILE AFTER LITTLE GIRLS
Concerning Ramesvara: I recall one day speaking with Ramesvar and I think Janaka Rishi was the one Ramesvar was speaking with. They were talking about a brahmacari - a disciple of Ramesvar - who was having difficulty and had been begging and pleading with Janaka and others to please let him speak with Ramesvar - his guru. He was having difficulty and wanted his help. Ramesvar remarked to Janaka - He doesn't even make enough on "sankirtan" to pay for his room and board. I don't have time for such useless disciples. I am not his mommy, if he has problems and can't stay, let him go back to his mommy and let her take care of him". Even Janaka was taken back by that attitude.
I heard that Ramesvara was told by the FBI that if he didn’t give up his leadership position in ISKCON, he would be prosecuted as a co-conspirator in the murder of Sulocana Prabhu. Ask him whether or not this is true, if you dare. Look him right in the eye. Then you might be able to tell whether or not he is lying.
I recall that was the first time in my life that I actually got, physically, a bad taste in my mouth. We were being told to throw Honesty out the door. That our personal realizations no longer had any validity. That my realization that these men were not qualified, even if my conclusion was based on the realization and application of the teachings of Guru Sadhu Shastra, that my realizations now meant nothing, Worthless as dirt. I no longer had any right to speak out honestly based on my realizations. I had to suppress my own conclusions, and worse even, i had to perpetuate something that in my own heart i knew was wrong. I was being told to now tell new comers that these men were pure devotees, even though my own personal realizations told me they were not. Personally, based on my own realizations, I knew Ramesvar was not qualified, but I was told that I had to become dishonest, dis-genuine, and LIE to the newer members, and tell them things i knew were untrue. And, if I didn't, then there was no longer a place for me in ISKCON. It was a very dark time. Everything that was going down was WRONG. Those who stood up and complained were unceremoniously shown the exit door. I stayed because I had my services to do for SP. It was not easy to stay.
As far as this idea that SP's god brothers did not see him as pure, a few could see. While most were envious, that is true, when they spoke out, it was obvious to someone with some degree of realization that they were envious and were not speaking based on shastra. Most of them would say, in words or actions, that SP was just the foot soldier, he went to the West and taught us the basics, but, now they will teach us the Higher levels of KC. Their motive was not to protect us from accepting someone they felt was a neophyte and unqualified, but their motive was to trick us in leaving SP and accepting them as our guru. Their motive was self-serving. In our case, we had no desire to take any one as our own follower, we had no self-serving motive, our concern was that these men were not qualified and thus no one should accept them as such. To glorify someone who is not worthy is also an offense. It misleads those who then accept that person as being able to deliver them Back Home BTG, when in fact, they were not at all qualified to do so. In the case of SP's God brothers, they were Envious and self-serving in our case, we simply wanted to be able to openly express our honest realizations in order to help others. But, our honest views and realization were suppressed and declared as worthless as dirt.
And if we dared to speak out and tell others our honest views, then we were labeled envious, deviants, fallen rascals and worse... The problem since 1978 has been that Honesty and Truthfulness have been thrown out and suppressed. Those Prabhupad disciples who tried to express their honest realizations were caste out and suppressed. That is the real cause of all the problems since.... In ISKCON truthfulness in this regard is not allowed. If we told new comers in 1978 NOT to accept those 11 men as guru, we would be kicked out on our ears. If we speak out today and say that these 80-120 men are not qualified to give diksha, we will also be told to leave the temples. In the case of SP's godbrothers, out of enviousness they said SP was not as elevated as they were, and that by following him we could only go so far, but to go become a Gopi and directly serve Radha and Krsna, we needed their Higher guidance, that is enviousness and self-serving. We are not telling people don't accept Vaisaseka (sp?), accept me because I am more qualified then him, we are saying, don't accept him because he and the other 120 rubber stamped men are not qualified, period. But, our honest realizations are worth less then dirt. Honest opinions by many of SP's disciples are considered less then dirt, because the GBC have rubber stamped these men, they are now qualified and any one who says they are not, he is dirt and should be treated as dirt. Honesty and Truthfullness has been kicked out.
Ramesvara was NEVER a BBT Trustee
In response to “A Reply to Rupanuga’s Article” by RAMESVARA DASA, published on Mar 23, 2013 — NEW YORK, USA by Sampradaya Sun —
If Rameswara was ever a BBT Trustee, then when I was in litigation with ISKCON / BBT International, Inc. (the bogus BBT that illegally converted the assets of Prabhupasda’s trust into their “For profit” corporation BBT International, Inc.), why when they attempted to bring Rameswara for testimony as an expert witness, claiming he had credentials as a legally appointed BBT for-life Trustee by Srila Prabhupada, he (Rameswara) could produce no legally acceptable BBT document supporting his claim as a legal BBT Trustee? And none have been produced since that time, about 15 years to date.
The court found that he had no standing, no position as a BBT Trustee legally appointed by the trust, filed by Srila Prabhupada, or added since the original filing. Rameswara was subsequently DISMISSED BY THE COURT and excluded from testifying in that case.
Comment by Das:
Comment by Ramesvara das:
Just what was Ramesvara’s Role?
The following is a repost from harekrishnamalaysia.com/KRSNAinsight: How ISKCON bypassed the BBT
Over at Rochan das’s Sampradaya Sun, Ramesvara has retorted to Brhatasloka’s statement that Ramesvara was instrumental in bypassing the BBT, operating a shell. Ramesvara claims that Srila Prabhupada made him trustee at Mayapur in 1976 after the marathon production of 17 volumes of Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita. He also suggests that Hansadutta had nothing to do with BBT after 1975, that he himself was running the entire BBT operations in North America, and that Hansadutta had no part in the conversations that Ramesvara had with Srila Prabhupada pertaining to the BBT structure and accounts. Read Ramesvara’s article.
A little history…
In 1972, Srila Prabhupada formulated the California trust named “Bhaktivedanta Book Trust”, with himself as Settlor and Karandhar das and Bali Mardana das named as trustees. The trust agreement allows for no more than 5 trustees at any time, and furthermore states:
In 1974, Srila Prabhupada named Hansadutta das as BBT trustee with the following resolution:
Ramesvara claims his appointment as BBT trustee was handed to him publicly at Mayapur festival, 1976. If so, there should be witnesses who can back him up. There is no mention of Srila Prabhupada addressing him as BBT trustee in the letters from Srila Prabhupada on microfiche or VedaBase, but Ramesvara did sign letters between himself and Srila Prabhupada’s secretaries or GBCs as BBT trustee from 1976 on, so perhaps Prabhupada might have called him trustee, like an honorary title. Certainly he was pleased with Ramesvara’s management of the BBT operations in North America. Ramesvara also claims that Hrdayananda, Bhagavan, and Harikesa were appointed BBT trustees by letter. Again, there is no record of any such letter of appointment or BBT resolution in the VedaBase. There does seem to have been confusion between the Indian BBT (a publishing trust) and the California BBT and what was referred to as the “international BBT”, with any number of devotees being called trustees. A letter from Srila Prabhupada dated 26 May, 1976, addressed to Ramesvara alludes to Ramesvara, Jayatirtha and Bhagavan as all being BBT trustees. By 1977, Tamal Krsna Gosvami is also calling himself a BBT trustee. However, Srila Prabhupada was meticulous in his dealings, particularly when it came to legal matters, and the fact that the trust agreement limited the number of trustees to just five (5) at any one time meant that not all these persons who were called trustees could have been trustees of the California BBT. There is no record of any BBT resolution noticing the resignation or removal of any trustees except for Karandhar das. That means up until Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the legal trustees of the California BBT were Srila Prabhupada, Bali Mardana das, Hansadutta das and possibly two others at most. So was Ramesvara BBT trustee? Was Bhagavan trustee? Was Jayatirtha trustee? Was Harikesa trustee? Was Tamal Krsna Gosvami trustee? Not possible that all these persons were trustees of the California BBT.
The confusion carried forward even after the incorporation of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. in 1988, when the GBC appointed “trustees”, who were in fact not trustees, because the BBTI, Inc. was not a trust at all, but a corporation, and they were not even the directors of the corporation. So evidently a number of persons were loosely called trustees, and given some kind of portfolio, but in fact had no legal status as trustees.
If Ramesvara’s claim is true, why did the court say he had no legal standing in the courtcase brought by ISKCON and BBTI against Hansadutta back in 1998? ISKCON and BBTI claimed that the BBT was not a valid trust, that the trustees were not legal trustees of the BBT, that the BBT did not own the copyrights to Prabhupada’s books, and that Prabhupada himself never owned the copyrights to his books because he was only a hired worker of ISKCON? Where was Ramesvara the BBT trustee when all that happened? He could not produce any documentation showing his appointment as trustee, and so the court excluded his testimony. This means that as far as the law is concerned, Ramesvara was never a legal trustee.
Then we get to the part where Ramesvara asserts that he alone was running the BBT. Ramesvara refers to a letter from Srila Prabhupada to Hansadutta, dated 8 December, 1974, wherein Srila Prabhupada rejects the proposal of organizing an umbrella corporation with BBT as satellite of ISKCON. Ramesvara suggests that after this letter, Hansadutta was no longer consulted on BBT matters, and that he became redundant. However, letters from Srila Prabhupada to Hansadutta since that date point to Hansadutta’s continuing role as BBT trustee.
This particular letter from Prabhupada does raise a question, though: Was this perhaps the origin of the ISKCON dba BBT? Srila Prabhupada instructs that ISKCON LA should act as agent of BBT India, with monies going in and out of the ISKCON LA account instead of creating a separate BBT account, and so as to keep BBT legally separate and safe in case ISKCON should go into liquidation. At some point Ramesvara operated BBT under the fictitious business name BBT, but in fact it was just another name for ISKCON of America or ISKCON of Los Angeles. We would like to hear explanation from Ramesvara how he did operate the BBT accounts and how it came to be that BBT was registered as a dba, or fictitious business name.
In a letter dated 29 July 1975, Srila Prabhupada wrote to Hansadutta das:
Ramesvara says that Hansadutta did not have a hand in management of North American BBT at any time from 1975 onwards. That doesn’t mean he was not acting BBT trustee; he took his orders from Srila Prabhupada, and wherever he was located, continued to act as GBC and BBT trustee.
After Srila Prabhupada departed from this world, GBC assigned Hansadutta to the zone covering Northern California, Oregon and Washington, and so in 1978, Hansadutta found himself in Berkeley, California, just up the road from Ramesvara in LA.
At once, Hansadutta cleaned house, and put an end to the prostitution of the Berkeley women’s party (Jiva’s girls). He got most of the Berkeley brahmacharinis married off. The women’s party was practically disbanded, which resulted in sudden considerable loss of revenue flowing into Ramesvara’s hands. I personally witnessed Ramesvara’s tirade to these sankirtan women in a tent at the LA Rathyatra in 1979. He was furious, and made strong objection, saying “What right does Hansadutta have?”, and referred to a BBT debt that Berkeley must pay nevertheless. Ramesvara tried to direct the women to continue to go out on sankirtan because the BBT depended upon their collections, and said that they should answer to him and not Hansadutta, because he (Ramesvara) was the BBT. King of the hill.
Was perhaps Ramesvara just a little threatened by the proximity and influence of Hansadutta, the BBT trustee? One might have expected Ramesvara to cooperate with Hansadutta, acknowledging that he was a senior BBT trustee and senior devotee. Instead, Ramesvara took steps to thwart Hansadutta’s involvement with BBT.
1980 – 1981. Meanwhile, behavior inconsistent with that expected of pure devotees was cropping up amongst some of the new gurus, and lent credence to Hansadutta’s open acknowledgement that he was not an infallible and perfect pure devotee, adding to the dissonent voices already questioning the appointments and qualifications of the elite 11 – a crack in the dam that the new gurus had to fix.
The movement also encountered legal challenges on the preaching front, and the media had picked up on shifty tactics employed by some sankirtan devotees, cheating people of their money. Hansadutta went on TV and called for the cessation of the change-up trickery and prostitution of the women devotees, and introduced a plan for “contract sales” of Srila Prabhupada’s books, in which Srila Prabhupada’s books could be sold to families in affordable library collections or sets, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, under similar terms, accepting a deposit and payment by installments. But Ramesvara became incensed at Hansadutta’s public denouncement of the methods of his leading collectors.
Sometime before August, 1980, the GBC held court in LA to discipline Jayatirtha, Tamal and Hansadutta. Hansadutta was sent off to Vrindavan and prohibited from making contact with his disciples and initiating, and Ramesvara and Hrdayananda came to Berkeley in turns to manage. During their brief stint they bankrupted the Berkeley center. They emptied the coffers, sold one of the properties, and finished the stocks of books with a “free distribution” program (Ramesvara’s brainchild), and ran the place into debt. Many devotees left. The older Prabhupada disciples were first to go, then the new disciples. In Berkeley, where there had been 70 devotees under Hansadutta, there remained fewer than 25 under Ramesvara and Hrdayananda.
From Vrindaban, Hansadutta wrote in a letter, dated 25 August, 1980 to Yudhamanyu, Radha Govinda, Rahugana and Devananda:
A handful of Hansadutta’s men rallied to call him back from India, and reinstated him in Berkeley. By that time, Berkeley was in serious financial trouble. Hansadutta regrouped his men and fired them up to go out on sankirtan to save the situation.
In December, 1980, at the Pyramid House in Topanga Canyon, Tamal Krsna Gosvami confessed:
Hansadutta reported all of this to his disciples in Berkeley and admitted his own inadequacy, how he was not qualified, and directed everyone to worship Prabhupada, to regard Prabhupada as their guru. Ramesvara also gave up sitting on his vyasasan for a time. Afterwards, Tamal retracted his words, and Ramesvara resumed sitting on the vyasasan. But Hansadutta pushed the devotees in his zone to help him print Srila Prabhupada’s books and get the contract sales program off the ground.
At this time he initiated the publication of three editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is: vinyl cover & Bible paper, paper cover and hard cover. It deserves mention here that this printing of Bhagavad-gita As It Is was the first printing of the original MacMillan’s edition (1972) by BBT upon the termination of the copyright license agreement with MacMillan’s.
In the meantime, Hansadutta had simultaneously launched an ambitious undertaking to publish the 30-volume sets of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Along with the 30-volume Bhagavatam, he also printed Golden Avatar (Teachings of Lord Chaitanya), and the one-volume Srimad-Bhagavatam and one-volume Chaitanya-charitamrita. Besides these major books, also he printed a Chinese Gita and a number of other books in Chinese, Tamil and English for distribution mainly in Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Philippines.
The Berkeley sankirtan collection was divided between paying off Berkeley temple’s debts and the printing of the books under Hansadutta’s direction. Money for the publication came exclusively from sankirtan collections in Hansadutta’s zone. Although Ramesvara had promised that all the money remitted to BBT from Hansadutta’s zone would go towards printing for the contract sales program, he did not follow through, and ultimately blocked the program. Moreover, Ramesvara adamantly insisted that the Berkeley Temple still owed a debt to the BBT. Hansadutta disputed the amount owed to BBT, and getting no cooperation from Ramesvara, channeled the money to his own BBT printing.
In a letter dated June 6, 1981, Ramesvara requests Jayatirtha’s help to come up with a definition of a BBT Trustee:
He goes on to cite passages from the Direction of Management and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Agreement. Then he says:
Moreover, with butter and honey:
What does Ramesvara mean here, when he refers to a “Trustee’s Board” and some trustees being appointed by the Trustee’s Board, and furthermore when he says “when [Prabhupada] originally created only one BBT”? Is he alluding to the existence of more than one BBT? We want to ask Ramesvara just how many BBTs were there. He is the one who created the first smokescreen, which led to the creation of the corporation that would serve to bypass Srila Prabhupada’s trust.
1982. Hansadutta’s three editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is came off the press in time to be presented at the Mayapur festival in 1982. Bhima das had set up a table in Mayapur at the Gaura Purnima festival to exhibit the books, but then word came that the GBC had banned them. They were not allowed to distribute a single book there, and had to pack up the table, everything.
The 30-volume Bhagavatam, one-volume Bhagavatam and Golden Avatar came out later in 1982. The one-volume Chaitanya-charitamrita came out in 1984. But Ramesvara denounced the black covers as “demonic”, and refused to order them for temple distribution. The rest of ISKCON followed suit and boycotted the books.
Hansadutta’s vision of revolutionising book distribution bore fruit as the contract sales program got underway and reaped success through the efforts of the Berkeley sankirtan devotees, and devotees in Singapore and Malaysia. People were eagerly buying the sets – complete with Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 30-volume Srimad-Bhagavatam and Golden Avatara.
1983. Ramesvara published what was billed as BBT’s first printing of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is since the MacMillan edition, but it was the revised edition. Thus it was under Ramesvara’s watch that the BBT started printing the changed books.
The GBC cited Hansadutta for numerous transgressions, and named a special privilege committee to investigate the charges against him.
I have a copy of “Resolutions from the Special Meeting of the GBC Privilege Committee” dated May 31 – June 1, 1983 at New Vrindaban. Those who attended were Tamal, Harikesa, Kirtanananda, Satsvarupa, Jagadisha and Rupanuga.
Please permit me to make some observations here. First of all, it is plain to see that they were confused about the legal identity of the BBT and the copyright ownership. The GBC Privilege Committee members believed BBT was operating as ISKCON of America, Inc., and that the copyrights were held in the custody of ISKCON of California, Inc. Secondly, they clearly were mistaken as to the identity of the BBT Trustees and the separation between the BBT Trustees and ISKCON as stipulated in the Trust Agreement. BBT matters do not come under the jurisdiction of ISKCON GBC at all. Thirdly, they recommended that the BBT be incorporated as a non-profit corporation, contradicting Srila Prabhupada’s own legal arrangement and ultimately his authority. Fourthly, Ramesvara’s status as legal BBT trustee is at question. Even if Srila Prabhupada called him a trustee, in legal fact he was not. And so, when in 1976 he represented himself as a BBT trustee in a letter assigning the BBT trademark to ISKCON of California, Inc, he did not have the legal authority to do so. Moreover, although Ramesvara was overseeing the jumbo operations of BBT in America, it was not his call to challenge Hansadutta’s authority to act as trustee in publishing books, nor was it his call to initiate a boycott of the publications, and in fact he should have been accountable to Hansadutta the BBT Trustee, not the other way around.
As for the disputed BBT debt, accounting submitted by Hanumat Presaka das (ACBSP) showed that whereas the Berkeley temple had funds amounting to some $200,000 at the time when Hansadutta was exiled to Vrindaban in 1980, by the time he returned the temple was IN DEBT to the amount of -$50,000. Ramesvara took the bank funds, and additionally took proceeds from the sale of a house belonging to the temple, helped himself to various temple equipments, took away and sold farm equipment, horses – all these things worth thousands and thousands of dollars – and diverted all sankirtan collection at the time to BBT, took a vehicle belonging to the temple, took from Hansadutta $150,000 dakshina monies and even at the airport took from Hansadutta the few dollars he had in his pocket! And yet Ramesvara still claimed that Berkeley temple had not satisfied its debt to the BBT.
Furthermore, Ramesvara and Hrdayananda deliberately set out to destroy the morale of the devotees, drove out Prabhupada’s men, and a large number of the new devotees as well, did not send any replacements, abandoned the farm project. Basically, they dismantled everything. So it is curious why the Privilege Committee did not instead direct Ramesvara to compensate the Berkeley temple and Hansadutta, but all that is beside the point here.
In a letter dated June 13, 1983, Hansadutta replied to the GBC Privilege Committee the following:
1984. Hansadutta was expelled from ISKCON. GBC resolutions as follows: –
Again, ISKCON GBC had no jurisdiction over BBT, and thus no legal authority to remove Hansadutta from the BBT trusteeship. Their pronouncement had as much bite as a raving lunatic shouting, “Let the Queen of England be deposed.”
1986. Ramesvara was caught out on a date with a 15-year-old disciple, and left the Society in disgrace.
1987. Incorporation of Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, Inc. in the State of California.
1988. GBC Resolutions of February, 1988 that refer to BBT, as follows:
And with the GBC stamp of approval, BBT International, Inc. was born:
October 12, 1988. Incorporation of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. in the State of California.
1989. Resolutions of the GBC AGM, March 1 – 16, 1989, Mayapur mention:
As you can see, there was a great mixup over the identity of the BBT, the BBT Trustees, the copyright ownership, and the few persons who knew anything cleverly took advantage of the others’ ignorance. But much came to light in the course of the court cases instigated by BBT International, Inc. and ISKCON against Bhima das in Singapore and later against Hansadutta das in California, in 1998.
ISKCON’s and BBT International, Inc. tried their best to perpetuate the illusions, going so far as to argue that Srila Prabhupada’s California trust had never been legally valid, and so there were no legitimate trustees, and certainly Hansadutta was not one of them, and moreover, the trust never owned the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada’s books, nor did Srila Prabhupada himself ever own the copyrights, because the books were “works for hire”, a legal term which translates to: Srila Prabhupada was the hired worker of ISKCON, who owned the books that Srila Prabhupada produced in exchange for giving him room and board, pen and pencil, etc. By that argument, Ramesvara certainly also was never a trustee.
So how does Ramesvara identify himself now? He says that Brhatasloka’s statement is an attack on his eternal relationship with Srila Prabhupada. But how did he serve Srila Prabhupada when he obstructed Hansadutta from acting as BBT trustee, when he boycotted the books Hansadutta printed, when he gutted the Berkeley temple, taking advantage of Hansadutta’s absence, and when he failed to administer to the devotees as a caretaker? How did he serve Srila Prabhupada when he printed the revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, unlocking pandora’s box to allow Jayadvaita’s endless changes? How did he serve Srila Prabhupada when he was cavorting with a 15-year-old girl? We would rather remember Ramesvara for his extraordinary management of BBT North America, and not recall him for his machinations and pedophilia, but he is not humbled at all, and to this day would put down others, in particular Hansadutta, as if he alone was running the whole show. What a disgrace.
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!