PADA: Srila Prabhupada is the basic neophyte level shiksha devotee, and illicit sex with men, women and children are his superiors, the diksha devotees. That is what they said all along? That means nothing has changed since 1978.
PADA: Yep, what unites ISKCON is: worshiping illicit sex with men, women and children as acharyas, and the people 2/3 show of hands voted in by the illicit sex parampara etc. And promoting guys like Gonorrhea Pada as messiahs. And changing the books and banning, beating, suing and killing people for the crime of worshiping Srila Prabhupada. That is unity? Yeah we are united in making debauchees into acharyas and creating mass child abuse as a result. We know what unites them!
Oh great, one of them is a disciple of Gopal Krishna, help mate assistant to Radhanath's homosexual pedophile's samadhi program in Vrndavana. Educating children to worship a homosexual and pedophile guru process is corrupting the morals of minors, it is mis-educating them.
ys pd
==============
Urmila + Groupies Peak Spiritual Progress Explained
V Dasi: I was reading a book about "peak spiritual growth." Some people stop spiritual growth when they are 10 - 13 years old, some develop more as they age. Most are at peak at 24.
Others grow to some extent, then regress. Some priests are very pious ... then regress ... and become full blown criminals and even m*rderers and it ends there. Full regression.
It looks to me? Some people like the GBC and Urmila gang have come to a dead stop, probably long time ago. They peaked at giving us Gonorrhea Pada. They came all the way up to the max degree of their spiritual awareness, and that is where they are now peaked.
That means? Once a person has reached the peak level of their entire life, we cannot expect them to grow out of it. They have come to their max level of spiritual realization. And trying to force them to progress ... will be met with nasty resisting. They are stuck at that peak level.
Our best option? Expose them and stop others from getting sucked into worshiping their Gonorrhea Pada idea of a pure person. They don't know what a pure person is, and likely, never did.
They peaked long ago and no one noticed until now. That they are serving a pure devotee was all an illusion the whole time, they never knew what one was, they peaked at the lowest levels ... long ago, and they are just getting caught now.
It looks like they regressed, it could also be, or Gonorrhea Pada was always their peak idea of a pure person the whole time they were in ISKCON. It is just now coming clear. The idea of the book is, once a person peaks out, they are generally not willing to change. They are already at the end of their spiritual road.
V Dasi: I was reading a book about "peak spiritual growth." Some people stop spiritual growth when they are 10 - 13 years old, some develop more as they age. Most are at peak at 24.
Others grow to some extent, then regress. Some priests are very pious ... then regress ... and become full blown criminals and even m*rderers and it ends there. Full regression.
It looks to me? Some people like the GBC and Urmila gang have come to a dead stop, probably long time ago. They peaked at giving us Gonorrhea Pada. They came all the way up to the max degree of their spiritual awareness, and that is where they are now peaked.
That means? Once a person has reached the peak level of their entire life, we cannot expect them to grow out of it. They have come to their max level of spiritual realization. And trying to force them to progress ... will be met with nasty resisting. They are stuck at that peak level.
Our best option? Expose them and stop others from getting sucked into worshiping their Gonorrhea Pada idea of a pure person. They don't know what a pure person is, and likely, never did.
They peaked long ago and no one noticed until now. That they are serving a pure devotee was all an illusion the whole time, they never knew what one was, they peaked at the lowest levels ... long ago, and they are just getting caught now.
It looks like they regressed, it could also be, or Gonorrhea Pada was always their peak idea of a pure person the whole time they were in ISKCON. It is just now coming clear. The idea of the book is, once a person peaks out, they are generally not willing to change. They are already at the end of their spiritual road.
PADA: Yup. That is what it looks like, perhaps these GBC cheer leader folks never knew someone like Gonorrhea Pada was not fit to be a messiah in their entire ISKCON existence. It is just finally being made apparent. They just fooled people they had a higher status all this time. Makes sense to me! I cannot think of a better explanation -- this begs the question -- their acharyas just keep getting worse -- or are we finally seeing their ultimate "peak" idea of God's successors that they had the whole time?
ys pd
angel108b@yahoo.com
========
Late last night I had a conversation with a youth member of the devotee community. We spoke till after 2.00 am. I learned a lot. The youth are more open about sharing their life experiences than adults with spiritual reputations to keep.
The youth know who is “dabbling,” or has “dabbled.”
I've been in meetings where youth reps say they are neglected. While news propaganda likes to highlight positive stories involving the youth, we can’t ignore what really goes on. I recommend spending time with former gurukulis and the youth to hear another side of life devotee authorities rather not share. I’m with the dabblers on this one.
========
YOUTH DEVOTEES LACK OF SUPPORT AND TRAINING
Late last night I had a conversation with a youth member of the devotee community. We spoke till after 2.00 am. I learned a lot. The youth are more open about sharing their life experiences than adults with spiritual reputations to keep.
The youth know who is “dabbling,” or has “dabbled.”
That is clubbing, drinking, marijuana and so on. Some of these youth members have devotee parents in high places. GBC, leaders, and preachers. Is it something for those parents to be embarrassed or ashamed of?
Not all of Srila Prabhupada’s kids were sterling emblems of Krishna consciousness. Perhaps this gives hope to modern-day parents who may feel let down by their kids. Kids are easier to showcase to fellow devotees in how ‘Krishna conscious’ they appear to be. When they get to their teens, we tend to see them less often at temple programs.
They want their own life now. Is it a problem? Not at all. Yet it depends on how kids were ‘forced’ into complying with parental demands or not. Didn't we all rebel as teenagers? Why should devotee kids be any different? The claim that kids born to devotee parents are automatic pure devotee material is overrated, I think. The youth may be tempted to sample things they’ve been told are evil. They might not be given a balanced exposure to everyday life and want to find out for themselves.
I've been in meetings where youth reps say they are neglected. While news propaganda likes to highlight positive stories involving the youth, we can’t ignore what really goes on. I recommend spending time with former gurukulis and the youth to hear another side of life devotee authorities rather not share. I’m with the dabblers on this one.
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.
====
KESHAVA BHARATI MESS UPDATE
The following letter was written by a disciple of Keshava Bharati (KB) and appears to be addressed both to the North American leadership and to KB's disciples. The author is likely Mayapur Shashi das.
Several points stand out.
1. A one-sided consultation. The author says that he and his associates were invited to share their experience of how KB's case was handled, as input into the redesign of ISKCON's child protection framework. To the best of my knowledge devotees who valued the work of the former CPO were not given the same opportunity.
KESHAVA BHARATI MESS UPDATE
The following letter was written by a disciple of Keshava Bharati (KB) and appears to be addressed both to the North American leadership and to KB's disciples. The author is likely Mayapur Shashi das.
Several points stand out.
1. A one-sided consultation. The author says that he and his associates were invited to share their experience of how KB's case was handled, as input into the redesign of ISKCON's child protection framework. To the best of my knowledge devotees who valued the work of the former CPO were not given the same opportunity.
This raises the question of whether the recent changes were driven by a genuine desire to improve child protection or by internal politics.
2. Jayadvaita Swami's role. Jayadvaita Swami wrote to the Sannyasa Ministry, the Guru Services Committee, and the Leadership Conduct Office to have all restrictions lifted on a man who had previously written a letter confessing to child abuse.
As a respected and influential leader in ISKCON and personal friend of KB, Jayadvaita Swami's intercession in his favor looks a lot like nepotism; an regrettable abuse of power.
3. The praise for the CPOC. The author lavishes praise on the CPOC, yet the review itself is highly controversial. A body that overturns a decision without examining the underlying allegations invites serious questions about its standards of justice.
4. KB has not been cleared.
The author says KB's name has been cleared. But the CPOC found only that the prior adjudication suffered from "substantial procedural deficiencies" and could not stand. By its own account, it did not consider the merits of the allegations. KB has not been found innocent; the allegations have never been re-examined. The author himself acknowledges this limit, yet still presents the outcome as a vindication.
The deeper problem is what followed. Even if we want to grant that the original process was flawed, the just remedy for a flawed process is a fair re-hearing, not restoration to full service.
The logical response is the very thing the new framework promises: an independent external investigation, but CPOC has no such plans.
Restrictions in a child protection context are also protective measures, not just penalties. Whether to lift them should turn on an assessment of risk, not on whether the paperwork behind them was clean. Here, no body appears to have made that assessment. By the author's account, the three committees agreed to lift the restrictions because they had not imposed them, which is a statement about jurisdiction, not safety.
Restrictions in a child protection context are also protective measures, not just penalties. Whether to lift them should turn on an assessment of risk, not on whether the paperwork behind them was clean. Here, no body appears to have made that assessment. By the author's account, the three committees agreed to lift the restrictions because they had not imposed them, which is a statement about jurisdiction, not safety.
Finally, the precedent matters. If a flawed process can wipe the slate clean for someone who once wrote a confession, every accused person now has an incentive to attack the procedure rather than answer the allegation. And survivors learn that outcomes can be undone by technicalities, while the question of what happened is left unanswered.
5. Petitioning the BBT. The author shares his intention to petition the BBT to reinstate KB's books and audios on their website. I truly hope the BBT does not give into the upcoming political pressures.
In the picture Keshava Bharati and Mayapur Shashi das
----------------------------------------------------
This was shared on a NA Leadership WhatsApp chat yesterday.
“This is a long but important email from a KB disciple shared with me by a senior NA leader.
Before reading its important to know that KB originally admitted to grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old in Spain in 1985. Later he recanted and was reinstated in ISKCON. The case returned when there was an actual CPO to adjudicate it.
Please accept my humble obeisances,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada and our dear Gurudeva,
Hare Krishna!
I have some wonderful news to share with you.
Background Information.
In my last email to everyone (13 August) I mentioned that the GBC had issued a censure of Kamalesh Krishna dasa (the former ICPO Director), and Daksina devi dasi (also formerly of the ICPO).
……..The GBC established a Child Protection Oversight Committee. At the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) in 2024, the Governing Body Commission (“GBC”) engaged in discussions about improving child protection services for the global ISKCON Community. The GBC Executive Support Office (“ESO”) was then tasked to propose changes, if any, that would better serve the purpose of global child protection. Consequently, after a year of deliberations and multiple presentations to the GBC body, the Enhanced Approach to Child Protection Framework was adopted, with a formal review to take place in six months, to assess effectiveness and areas for improvement.
The Enhanced Approach retains ISKCON’s existing child protection policies as prescribed by the CPO Guidelines. It introduces three new pillars of child protection i.e., a global Oversight Committee of five members, a collaborative partnership with Regional Governing Bodies, and External case investigations.
The Child Protection Oversight Committee (CPOC) is a GBC-nominated body responsible for upholding policies, structures, and processes for effective child protection across ISKCON.
Operating independently, its role is to provide governance, oversight, and strategic guidance for ISKCON’s global child protection efforts. It comprises five members; three from a mixed legal and CPO background, an independent member (not a member of ISKCON) and another child protection expert.
5. Petitioning the BBT. The author shares his intention to petition the BBT to reinstate KB's books and audios on their website. I truly hope the BBT does not give into the upcoming political pressures.
In the picture Keshava Bharati and Mayapur Shashi das
----------------------------------------------------
This was shared on a NA Leadership WhatsApp chat yesterday.
“This is a long but important email from a KB disciple shared with me by a senior NA leader.
Before reading its important to know that KB originally admitted to grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old in Spain in 1985. Later he recanted and was reinstated in ISKCON. The case returned when there was an actual CPO to adjudicate it.
Please accept my humble obeisances,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada and our dear Gurudeva,
Hare Krishna!
I have some wonderful news to share with you.
Background Information.
In my last email to everyone (13 August) I mentioned that the GBC had issued a censure of Kamalesh Krishna dasa (the former ICPO Director), and Daksina devi dasi (also formerly of the ICPO).
……..The GBC established a Child Protection Oversight Committee. At the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) in 2024, the Governing Body Commission (“GBC”) engaged in discussions about improving child protection services for the global ISKCON Community. The GBC Executive Support Office (“ESO”) was then tasked to propose changes, if any, that would better serve the purpose of global child protection. Consequently, after a year of deliberations and multiple presentations to the GBC body, the Enhanced Approach to Child Protection Framework was adopted, with a formal review to take place in six months, to assess effectiveness and areas for improvement.
The Enhanced Approach retains ISKCON’s existing child protection policies as prescribed by the CPO Guidelines. It introduces three new pillars of child protection i.e., a global Oversight Committee of five members, a collaborative partnership with Regional Governing Bodies, and External case investigations.
The Child Protection Oversight Committee (CPOC) is a GBC-nominated body responsible for upholding policies, structures, and processes for effective child protection across ISKCON.
Operating independently, its role is to provide governance, oversight, and strategic guidance for ISKCON’s global child protection efforts. It comprises five members; three from a mixed legal and CPO background, an independent member (not a member of ISKCON) and another child protection expert.
The Committee includes three highly qualified legal professionals, each holding the highest degrees in their respective fields, including doctoral qualifications from prestigious institutions. They each bring decades of practical experience, and they have been recognized as experts both in scholarship through peer-reviewed publications, and practice.
They have extensive experience in child protection – bringing secular court room experience in litigating and adjudicating child abuse and neglect cases. Their experience includes direct involvement in litigation and adjudication of complex child protection matters employing trauma-informed practices. They further have extensive experience in operational management, project design (for child protection initiatives) and interdisciplinary collaborations with social workers and medical practitioners in child protection cases. Their collective expertise ensures a nuanced understanding of both the legal and practical aspects of safeguarding children.
The extensive experience of its members, combined with their dedicated service to ISKCON, ensures that the Committee operates with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity.
Historically, child abuse cases were investigated internally by ISKCON devotees. Despite their best efforts, the fairness of the investigation process was often contested. In keeping with good governance and to guarantee a professional, impartial and authoritative investigation, the new model proposes that all future cases be investigated by professionals outside of ISKCON.
The extensive experience of its members, combined with their dedicated service to ISKCON, ensures that the Committee operates with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity.
Historically, child abuse cases were investigated internally by ISKCON devotees. Despite their best efforts, the fairness of the investigation process was often contested. In keeping with good governance and to guarantee a professional, impartial and authoritative investigation, the new model proposes that all future cases be investigated by professionals outside of ISKCON.
Thus, external highly trained, independent, professional investigators, who carry indemnity and are certified by secular and government authorities, are free of any ISKCON influence.
That said, the hiring of outside investigators does not mean that secular legal standards will be employed. To the contrary, as prescribed by the CPO Guidelines, the standard applied will be that of preponderance of evidence – in lieu of proof beyond reasonable doubt. At the conclusion of the investigation, the final adjudication as to a finding of abuse will still vest with the CPO panel, as it has thus far, and the process as to the selection of panellists remains intact. This enhancement will allow for a fair and thorough investigation, where the truth is uncovered, and justice is served.
Advanced training will be provided to CPO case review panellists, inter alia, in the assessment of testimonies which will include analysing the admissibility of evidence, weight to be placed on evidence, understanding the concept of preponderance of evidence, aggravating and mitigating factors, decision writing, identifying biases, and more.
This is an excellent change and will professionalise the way we can safeguard our precious children, whilst also ensuring that any allegations are correctly investigated. Needless to say, I am sure that all sincere ISKCON devotees place the protection of our children as the highest priority and the GBC are to be applauded at grasping this extremely sensitive issue.
What we have been up to.
I apologise to you all that there have been some things going on in the background over the last two years which I couldn’t share with you. I hope you will understand why. One such piece of work was during the deliberations as to how we, ISKCON, could develop fairer and more professional Child Protection policies. We were invited, and of course complied, to offer our experience of how our dear Gurudeva’s case was handled. Needless to say, I had plenty to say! Our input fed into those addressing this extremely difficult issue.
If I can very briefly remind you of the old system: the ICPO held complete power to consider allegations, form panels, reach a judgement, and issue restrictions if the accused was found to be “more likely than not”, culpable. The only right of appeal was on procedural grounds – i.e., saying the ICPO had not done its job properly – but the appeal could only be made to…..the ICPO(!) …with no recourse to the GBC or any higher body! Unsurprisingly with such a system, almost no (if any) appeals succeeded. One might find the grossest mishandling of matters, but no one to turn to but the very same office who was responsible for the mishandling!
Advanced training will be provided to CPO case review panellists, inter alia, in the assessment of testimonies which will include analysing the admissibility of evidence, weight to be placed on evidence, understanding the concept of preponderance of evidence, aggravating and mitigating factors, decision writing, identifying biases, and more.
This is an excellent change and will professionalise the way we can safeguard our precious children, whilst also ensuring that any allegations are correctly investigated. Needless to say, I am sure that all sincere ISKCON devotees place the protection of our children as the highest priority and the GBC are to be applauded at grasping this extremely sensitive issue.
What we have been up to.
I apologise to you all that there have been some things going on in the background over the last two years which I couldn’t share with you. I hope you will understand why. One such piece of work was during the deliberations as to how we, ISKCON, could develop fairer and more professional Child Protection policies. We were invited, and of course complied, to offer our experience of how our dear Gurudeva’s case was handled. Needless to say, I had plenty to say! Our input fed into those addressing this extremely difficult issue.
If I can very briefly remind you of the old system: the ICPO held complete power to consider allegations, form panels, reach a judgement, and issue restrictions if the accused was found to be “more likely than not”, culpable. The only right of appeal was on procedural grounds – i.e., saying the ICPO had not done its job properly – but the appeal could only be made to…..the ICPO(!) …with no recourse to the GBC or any higher body! Unsurprisingly with such a system, almost no (if any) appeals succeeded. One might find the grossest mishandling of matters, but no one to turn to but the very same office who was responsible for the mishandling!
To cite but one example from our case: we discovered (only through a direct question) that the ICPO Case Manager submitted libelous accusations, not directly connected to the case, direct to the Panel, despite the regulations clearly stating that any such statements must be shown to both parties, and the accused must have the right to defend. When we immediately appealed direct to the then ICPO Director, Kamalesh Krishna prabhu, we were told that all regulations had been adhered to.
Clearly, they had not, but under the extant regulations we were not permitted to appeal to any higher committee! At that time, we were discussing whether to take civil legal action. Although we had no right to appeal to the GBC, after we clearly witnessed the ineptitude of the handling of the case, we started to copy our correspondence to the GBC Executive Committee, knowing they were not permitted to take action, but we wished them to be aware of what was going on. If you read the original appeal you will have seen many other examples of the gross mishandling of the case.
We were aware that ours was just one of a number of cases that were being very badly handled. This clearly was not serving our children well at all, and nor was it serving Srila Prabhupada’s caring Society either.
We were therefore delighted to hear of the changes the GBC had agreed to.
Anyhow, with the new procedures being implemented, we became aware that one of Sivarama Swami’s disciples, Gita Govinda Devi Dasi, had successfully appealed to the new CPOC on the grounds of gross mishandling of a case. She was aware of our case and had heard about the abominable “investigation” (actually, there had been no “investigation”, and that had been one of my strongest complaints during the initial appeal process), and offered to help.
We therefore also decided to appeal to the new CPOC on similar grounds. I fed information to Gita Govinda mataji and she helped us considerably with the first draft appeal. Jayadvaita Maharaja then graciously and generously spent considerable time applying his wonderful expertise and writing skills to the draft, which we then submitted under the names of the three of us.
Again, I can only apologise to you all for not being able to keep you informed that all this was going on, but I am sure you will understand how delicate the situation was.
We should all be extremely grateful to Jayadvaita Swami and to Gita Govinda Devi Dasi.
The News.
The CPOC agreed to look at how our case had been handled. We have now received their verdict, written extremely well and in somewhat legal terms. We should note that the CPOC’s mandate is strictly limited to procedural review; its determinations do not extend to the underlying factual allegations. However, they concluded that there were “substantial procedural deficiencies in the prior adjudication”, identifying and agreeing with many of the issues we had put in our original appeal, and therefore the “CPOC has determined that the prior Decision and Appeal Decision cannot stand as a matter of procedural integrity.” In very simple terms – the handling of the case was so unprofessional that the result cannot be considered reliable, and is therefore over-turned on procedural grounds. Wonderful news!
In the original verdict by the CPOC, however, they felt that they were not responsible to lift the restrictions placed on Maharaja because these responsibilities rested with the Sannyasa Ministry, the Guru Services Committee, and the Leadership Conduct Office. We were truly grateful for the CPOCs truly excellent and highly professional and neutral-stance work, but we felt this extra step must be taken, and ratified by the CPOC, as it was the old ICPO who had unilaterally imposed the restrictions, not these other committees.
However, understanding the sensitivities, and the pressure that the CPOC is under (and they are truly working extremely hard, and deserve our full support), Jayadvaita Swami wrote to each of these committees in turn, explaining the situation.
Again, good news – all three committees agreed that as they had not been responsible for imposing any restrictions, and as the case verdict had now been over-turned, they had no objections whatsoever in any and all restrictions being lifted.
On 21 September the CPOC sent us an addendum to the earlier decision confirming the removal of all restrictions. Maharaja’s name has been cleared and he can now resume any and all of his previous wonderful service, as he wishes.
Now, brothers and sisters, I have to beg you all: rejoice, be grateful and joyous at this news, but please, please, please let us do so modestly and quietly as true Vaishnavas. We must not show any signs of being boastful or gloating on the final decision, and please let us avoid saying anything on social media. If things appear on FB, please simply ignore it. Please read this carefully: Clearly there will be some who will make all sorts of adverse comments and possibly attempt to stir up more trouble.
We were aware that ours was just one of a number of cases that were being very badly handled. This clearly was not serving our children well at all, and nor was it serving Srila Prabhupada’s caring Society either.
We were therefore delighted to hear of the changes the GBC had agreed to.
Anyhow, with the new procedures being implemented, we became aware that one of Sivarama Swami’s disciples, Gita Govinda Devi Dasi, had successfully appealed to the new CPOC on the grounds of gross mishandling of a case. She was aware of our case and had heard about the abominable “investigation” (actually, there had been no “investigation”, and that had been one of my strongest complaints during the initial appeal process), and offered to help.
We therefore also decided to appeal to the new CPOC on similar grounds. I fed information to Gita Govinda mataji and she helped us considerably with the first draft appeal. Jayadvaita Maharaja then graciously and generously spent considerable time applying his wonderful expertise and writing skills to the draft, which we then submitted under the names of the three of us.
Again, I can only apologise to you all for not being able to keep you informed that all this was going on, but I am sure you will understand how delicate the situation was.
We should all be extremely grateful to Jayadvaita Swami and to Gita Govinda Devi Dasi.
The News.
The CPOC agreed to look at how our case had been handled. We have now received their verdict, written extremely well and in somewhat legal terms. We should note that the CPOC’s mandate is strictly limited to procedural review; its determinations do not extend to the underlying factual allegations. However, they concluded that there were “substantial procedural deficiencies in the prior adjudication”, identifying and agreeing with many of the issues we had put in our original appeal, and therefore the “CPOC has determined that the prior Decision and Appeal Decision cannot stand as a matter of procedural integrity.” In very simple terms – the handling of the case was so unprofessional that the result cannot be considered reliable, and is therefore over-turned on procedural grounds. Wonderful news!
In the original verdict by the CPOC, however, they felt that they were not responsible to lift the restrictions placed on Maharaja because these responsibilities rested with the Sannyasa Ministry, the Guru Services Committee, and the Leadership Conduct Office. We were truly grateful for the CPOCs truly excellent and highly professional and neutral-stance work, but we felt this extra step must be taken, and ratified by the CPOC, as it was the old ICPO who had unilaterally imposed the restrictions, not these other committees.
However, understanding the sensitivities, and the pressure that the CPOC is under (and they are truly working extremely hard, and deserve our full support), Jayadvaita Swami wrote to each of these committees in turn, explaining the situation.
Again, good news – all three committees agreed that as they had not been responsible for imposing any restrictions, and as the case verdict had now been over-turned, they had no objections whatsoever in any and all restrictions being lifted.
On 21 September the CPOC sent us an addendum to the earlier decision confirming the removal of all restrictions. Maharaja’s name has been cleared and he can now resume any and all of his previous wonderful service, as he wishes.
Now, brothers and sisters, I have to beg you all: rejoice, be grateful and joyous at this news, but please, please, please let us do so modestly and quietly as true Vaishnavas. We must not show any signs of being boastful or gloating on the final decision, and please let us avoid saying anything on social media. If things appear on FB, please simply ignore it. Please read this carefully: Clearly there will be some who will make all sorts of adverse comments and possibly attempt to stir up more trouble.
Throughout these three years we have kept to the moral high-ground and not descended to their level. Even at the very worst of times when one certain woman was making the vilest and most libelous attacks against Maharaja on FB, Maharaja’s reaction was not one of anger, but “we should pray for her.” So, I beg you, please do and say nothing that could possibly incite more attacks. Having fought for this result now for three years, the last thing we want is to provide the mal-intentioned ones with any reason to stir things up again, and start all over again.
I am sorry that I have written at such length, but I wanted to summarise the whole situation for you, and what we have been doing, about which we could not share with you earlier. At last a fair and just conclusion has been reached.
One remaining issue for us to tackle is to hopefully get the BBT to re-list Gurudeva’s amazing audio recording of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, but this again will be a sensitive issue. We will keep you informed. If any of you, or your friends want to download a copy you can do so from Jayadvaita Swami’s website (https://www.jswami.info/listen-to-the-caitanya-caritamṛta-audiobook/) free of charge.
Hare Krishna,
Your servant,
I am sorry that I have written at such length, but I wanted to summarise the whole situation for you, and what we have been doing, about which we could not share with you earlier. At last a fair and just conclusion has been reached.
One remaining issue for us to tackle is to hopefully get the BBT to re-list Gurudeva’s amazing audio recording of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, but this again will be a sensitive issue. We will keep you informed. If any of you, or your friends want to download a copy you can do so from Jayadvaita Swami’s website (https://www.jswami.info/listen-to-the-caitanya-caritamṛta-audiobook/) free of charge.
Hare Krishna,
Your servant,
==========
LOOKING VERY SILLY
PADA: Unfortunately, this made the USA leaders look a little uninformed, or maybe, just wholesale making up false claims to sort of create a contrived witch hunt on this Jack Smith guy. So they made a false claim that Jack Smith was in Atlanta watching a Hawks game, when he was 270 miles away watching a Hawkeyes game. Of course, even if he was in Atlanta, why is being in Atlanta a crime now for USA citizens?
OK they made it all up and hoped it would stick. They did not count on Any Klobucher figuring it all out, because her dad was a sports writer, so she knew the names of sports teams -- and she knew they were making this all up. Then! This whole circus was exposed and broadcast all over the world and makes American leaders look a little bit like angry, ill informed, circus clown doofus, to say the least.
If these guys have an actual criminal charge to make on Jack Smith, why have they never made one in all this time? Rather amazing also, they said that Jack Smith may have been consulting with another prosecutor, which prosecutors do hundreds of times every day.
They don't even know how the USA judicial system operates! Yeah, big surprise, prosecutors collaborate with other ones. Duh-oh. So the real problem is, these are the guys in charge, and we wonder why the USA is in a constant state of one turmoil / topsy turvy / contrived crisis after the next in its politics, and not much gets done to help the actual citizens. Umm, because these amateur hour folks cannot operate a maturely organized system. But even after being caught, committing testimony perjury (?) themselves -- they double down that they were right anyway. But yeah, it looks like they are trying to divert attention from all the other crises they have generated.
Ooops, like ISKCON? Hee hee!
ys pd
