Hrdayananda Bails from Child Protection Discussion

SRD: Hridayananda Maharaj's reply and my comments.

---------------------------------

Hare Krishna Hridayananda Maharaj,

As you've raised some important points I will try to address them as best as I can. I hope you will forgive me for insisting and disregarding your request that I do not reply to you. I will quote from your letter in bold characters, I have copied your entire letter at the bottom of this letter.

The reason why I do not take your words seriously is because I find them lacking in authenticity, usually by omission of important details. I agree with the importance that ISKCON and the CPO follow due process.

“Regarding #1, at least two senior devotees directly heard the CPO director state that he would rather convict and punish any number of innocent persons, rather than let a guilty person walk free”.

Here you left out a number of important details. This instance that you describe is alleged to have occurred at a CPO Workshop, attended by over 30 devotees and conducted by Kamlesh Krishna das (KKD), the CPO director.

You left out that KKD has repeatedly stated, both privately to yourself and to many others, that he has never said these words and that he does not support the ludicrous notion they convey!
You also left out that none of the other 30 participants in the workshop heard him say this...

[PADA: Hokey smokes. This happens to me all the time. PADA said this and that, which I never actually said. Making up statements to discredit opponents is very low class.]

And you forgot to mention that the two devotees that claim to have heard KKD make this statement happen to be loyal friends of Laxmimoni dasi (LM), who, just like you, have been so upset by the CPO adjudication against LM, that they have campaigned vigorously to petition the GBC to afford her a preferential treatment and allow a review of her case. These devotees are Malati Prabhu and Radha dasi.

[PADA: Malati has unfortunately become a party hack. She was probably told she has to defend a vicious child abuser like Laxmi moni -- as a means of testing her loyalty to the regime.]  

Just so we are clear, you are disregarding the fact that KKD denies saying these words. You overlook the fact that out of some 30 + participants the vast majority did not hear KKD say this, you also disregard the fact that the only two people who supposedly heard KKD make this statement are clearly biased friends of LM!

You also overlook the fact that you have not seen the evidence presented by LM's victims.

[PADA: Yep, someone else told me the same thing, Hrdayananda is not even familiar with the victim's testimony and he misrepresents it.]

Essentially you have based your entire #Justice-for-Laxmimoni campaign on hearsay! You accuse KKD of bias, but you appear blind to you own bias! 

“This notion violates and offends the basic principle of justice as practiced in civilized countries”.

It sure does!!!

“To my knowledge, the CPO director does not have formal training in jurisprudence. Those devotees involved in the case, who do possess professional training in jurisprudence, agreed that this principle of due process was seriously violated in the LM case”.

Aside his service as the Director of the Child Protection Office, KKD also works as a Magistrate of King Charles the III in London. He has been doing this job for a number of years. It is safe to say that your concern about his lack of understanding of jurisprudence is baseless.

He also got a Masters Degree in Advanced Child Protection from the University of Kent in England.
I am convinced that you will struggle to find an equally or better qualified person to serve as the Director of the ISKCON CPO without a wage!

Myself and many others have personally pointed out these important details to you on several occasions, but for some unexplained reason, you continue professing your inaccurate narrative.
The CPO works on the standard of evidence called 'preponderance of evidence' this is the standard used by civil courts of justice around the world.

Criminal courts apply a much higher standard of evidence, known as 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
This is necessary because the penalties that a criminal court can impose are very severe. Given that the sanctions that the CPO can impose are very limited, it is only appropriate for the CPO to work with this lower standard of evidence. This was approved and ratified by the GBC.

To the best of my knowledge Radha dasi is the only devotee with a legal background that was involved in the LM case. I explained to you already in our past correspondence on this issue, that she attempted to apply the higher standard of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, to the LM case to 'prove' shortcomings in due process. This was both inaccurate and dishonest!

She also attempted to discourage LM's victims from coming forward with their testimonies and failed to recuse herself from having any involvement in the case, on account of the bias that her close friendship with LM implied. Thankfully she was eventually removed from the case.

I hope you can see why her claim that she heard KKD make such an absurd statement does not carry a very high degree of credibility.

“I will repeat: I advocate, and have always advocated, that every accused person be given a fair trial according to universal principles of due process”.

Let me get this straight.

You are convinced that the CPO judicial system is lacking in fair due process. You ask the devotee community to believe your claim that your advocacy for LM is not motivated by a sentimental attachment to defend your old friend, but rather by a genuine desire to ensure fair justice for all.
However, only a few short days ago you publicly applauded and rejoiced at the work of this very CPO judicial system when it found your critic (Anirdhesh Vapu) guilty.

Just so I understand, when the 'flawed' CPO judicial system finds your enemy guilty = very good!
When the same 'flawed' CPO judicial system finds your friend guilty = It is a travesty of justice!

Where was this burning desire for justice of yours when the GBC recently set up a rigged ad-hock panel, that defied any notion of due process? Somehow the panel found Lokanath guilty of sexually abusing a child, but decided to allow him to continue serving as a guru.

Is there any hope that we will see you start campaigning against this travesty of justice in the near future, hopefully with the same zest and enthusiasm you have showed in defending LM? I want it to go on record that you have not answered my question as to why it is that we have never witnessed this noble desire to campaign for justice of yours applied in defense of the victims of LM, Lokanath and every other child abuser in ISKCON!

“Despite my consistent statements, your public accusation, for years, that I advocate for LM DD, presumably for her innocence or exoneration, is itself a clear example of callous injustice and calumny”.

I trust you can understand why your claim that your campaign to defend LM is exclusively motivated by a desire for justice is not credible, and how my pointing this out does not constitute a callous injustice or a calumny, but is simply an observation of the facts.

Aspiring to serve Sri Guru and the vaishnavas,

SR das

---------------------------

Hrdayananda swami: SRD,

I will not continue this “conversation” since you are absolutely unwilling to take seriously what I actually say if it does not absolutely agree with your view. I will give only one example of this, and then AGAIN request to be taken off this list. I have never stated, publicly or privately, that LM DD is innocent. What I do insist is that civilized societies must follow the international standards of due process, i.e. a fair trial. I will explain my consistent demand for judicial due process in the LM case and all other cases.

The Cornell School of Law cites a most influential list of principles of due judicial process:

1. An unbiased tribunal.

2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.

4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

5. The right to know opposing evidence.

6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.

10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Regarding #1, at least two senior devotees directly heard the CPO director state that he would rather convict and punish any number of innocent persons, rather than let a guilty person walk free. This notion violates and offends the basic principle of justice as practiced in civilized countries. To my knowledge, the CPO director does not have formal training in jurisprudence. Those devotees involved in the case, who do possess professional training in jurisprudence, agreed that this principle of due process was seriously violated in the LM case.

There were also serious violations of points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Again, impartial legal experts agreed on this.

I will repeat: I advocate, and have always advocated, that every accused person be given a fair trial according to universal principles of due process. I have stated many, many times, publicly and privately, that I will accept the verdict of a fair trail, whatever that verdict is. I have never, publicly or privately, “advocated" that LM DD was innocent, since I have no way of knowing with certainty that she is innocent of all the accusations. I cannot with integrity or honesty claim that she is innocent. I have repeatedly stated this both publicly and privately, and I have never stated, public or privately, any other view on this matter.

Despite my consistent statements, your public accusation, for years, that I advocate for LM DD, presumably for her innocence or exoneration, is itself a clear example of callous injustice and calumny.

hdg

[PADA: OK we have discussed the abuse problem with many ex-kulis and they think the numbers of abused ISKCON victims is well over a thousand, perhaps over two thousand. And since many victims are from poor rural India areas, we may never know how many of them are victims. Therefore, the so-called in house CPO system, which was only launched after we had ISKCON sued, is not sufficient to reign in the molesting problem in itself. It has no legal forces. It is useful to examine cases, but ultimately if it decides a crime has taken place, it has to report the case to law enforcement for their adjudication. 

That means even way before there was a CPO, the leaders of ISKCON should simply have -- called the police -- each and every time an abuse or molesting case was discovered. The leaders are supposed to be the original Child Protection Officers themselves, that is their job.

And then, the other perps would have realized they are going to be in severe legal problems and they would have left ISKCON voluntarily. 

Instead, a CBS newslady told me ISKCON is worshiping a pedophile like Kirtanananda because it has become "a pedophile heaven." That means the leaders failed to reign this problem in on all levels. Someone else wrote to tell me "no one had to power to do anything." No one had enough power to dial the police on the phone? 

Sorry, you leader guys have failed to do even basic moral justice for children, never mind all the other problems your regime has caused. And your regime convinced the parents of the Lokanath abuse case to not call the cops. Now he has been catapulted to "Krishna's successor" status, causing all sorts of mayhem for all parties and causing irreparable harm for ISKCON. 

I am being interviewed by another mass media show now, and they want to know, how could there be so many abuse cases -- and no one called the cops? And why didn't the main responsible parties, namely the leaders, lead the devotees, indeed drive the devotees in their own personal vehicles, over to the police? And if you don't answer, then we'll have to assume our own answer.

ys pd] angel108b@yahoo.com