ISKCON Tapah Punja / Terry Sheldon / Court Statement 10 08 26

TD: When asked if he had been “involved with the killing of Sulochan,” Tapahpunja Swami boasted, “I engineered it. It was completely Vedic. He offended Bhaktipada.”— His Holiness Tapahpunja Swami (Terry Sheldon), the president of Cleveland ISKCON, at New Vrindaban.

NEW VRNDAVANA LAWSUIT

998 F.2d 1247 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 360

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Keith Gordon HAM, a/k/a Number One, a/k/a K Swami, a/k/a

Kirtanananda, a/k/a Srila Bhaktipada, a/k/a/

Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Steven FITZPATRICK, a/k/a Sundarakara, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Terry SHELDON, a/k/a Mr. Scam, a/k/a Tapahpunja, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 91-5350, 91-5430 and 91-5870.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 18, 1992.
 
Decided July 1, 1993.

Amended by Order Filed July 21, 1993.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Cambridge, MA, argued (Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Victoria B. Eiger, Amy Adelson, Dershowitz & Eiger, P.C., New York City, on brief), for defendant-appellant Ham.

PADA: Oh swell, Epstein's lawyer. Yep, ISKCON spares no expense on defending their cew.

Greta Conway Van Susteren, Coale, Allen & Van Susteren, Washington, DC, argued (Claudia Callaway, on brief), for defendant-appellant Sheldon.

Richard Allan Dezio, Alexandria, VA, argued, for defendant-appellant Fitzpatrick.

Michael D. Stein, Asst. U.S. Atty., Wheeling, WV, argued (William A. Kolibash, U.S. Atty., Wheeling WV, Nina Goodman, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:

1 Appellants Keith Gordon Ham, Steven Fitzpatrick and Terry Sheldon were convicted below for RICO and mail fraud violations. The three are members of the Hare Krishna religion and allegedly engaged in criminal activity in order to promote and preserve the New Vrindaban Krishna community in which they lived. 

On appeal, Appellants contend inter alia that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury verdict and that evidence admitted at trial of homosexuality, child molestation and abuse, and subordination of women within the community unduly prejudiced the jury. We agree that certain evidence admitted at trial was unduly prejudicial and vacate the convictions of Ham and Sheldon. 

PADA: Yep, homosexuals, pedophiles, child molesting, misogyny etc, could prejudice the jury. Jeepers, wonder how that happens? Hee hee.

We reverse the conviction of Fitzpatrick because the evidence against him was insufficient. 

I.2. We briefly summarize the facts relevant to our disposition of this appeal. In 1968 Ham founded, along with Howard Wheeler, a Hare Krishna community in West Virginia called New Vrindaban. Ham changed his name to Kirtanananda Swami (hereinafter referred to as Swami) and became the ruler of the community. 

Members of the community testified that Swami had control over all aspects of community life, including financial decisions. Over the years the community increased its membership such that in the 1980's it counted over 500 devotees, owned more than 3,000 acres of land and brought in approximate profits from charitable solicitations of $10 to $12 million during a five year period.

PADA: Yeah, New Vrndavana bragged that they had 300 original Prabhupada devotees there. That means many Prabhupada devotees were promoting the illusion that Kirtanananda is a pure devotee. 

3. New Vrindaban received most of its support from contributions solicited by its members. In the Krishna religion, soliciting donations, or "sankirtan," is a ritual. Traditionally, devotees distributed religious publications and then solicited donations. However, due to public disapprobation of the religion, in 1973 devotees of New Vrindaban began dressing in street clothes and distributing bumper stickers or other non-religious items. Many of these items contained counterfeit copyrighted images, such as popular cartoon characters or sports team logos. Devotees would also sometimes wear false identification tags indicating that they were soliciting on behalf of a particular charity.

PADA: Well yup, it was not called "scamkirtana" for no reason.

4 Appellant Sheldon, along with Dennis Gorrick, directed the sankirtan efforts of the New Vrindaban community from 1973 until around 1977 or 1978. Sheldon was credited with the ideas of selling counterfeit bumper stickers and wearing false identification tags. 

Sheldon then left New Vrindaban to become president of a Krishna temple in Cleveland, Ohio, and Gorrick took charge of sankirtan at New Vrindaban. Gorrick occasionally mailed fund-raising materials to devotees remaining on the road and also received sankirtan money from them by mail. Swami apparently acted as general manager of sankirtan, encouraging (and allegedly coercing) devotees to bring in money and then accounting for the profits as reported to him by Gorrick.

PADA: Yep, there were many rumors / complaints that Dharamatma (Gorrick) was abusing the samkirtana females. 


5 New Vrindaban owned a print shop in which it printed bumper stickers and other items used in sankirtan. Appellant Fitzpatrick supervised the print shop from 1981 through 1986. Although Fitzpatrick did not decide what was to be printed, he did supervise all job orders from Gorrick. 

During Fitzpatrick's tenure, the shop printed counterfeit bumper stickers containing copyrighted images. The shop also printed false identification tags used by the devotees in solicitations. 

Arthur Villa, president of New Vrindaban, and Howard Fawley, comptroller, warned Swami of the illegality of selling counterfeit copyrighted paraphernalia at several board meetings. Although there was evidence that Fitzpatrick occasionally attended board meetings, no evidence linked him to the particular meetings at which the counterfeit goods were discussed.

6 Several other incidents concerning members or former members of the New Vrindaban community are related to this case. First, in 1979, Swami concealed a nine year old boy named Devin Wheeler from the County Sheriff when the Sheriff attempted to take custody of the boy under a court order. 

Devin's mother had left the New Vrindaban community and, fearing sexual abuse of the child, obtained a court order to have the child temporarily removed from the community to undergo a medical examination. Devin's father, who still lived in the community, had permanent custody.

PADA: Well there you have it, a mother was fearing sexual abuse of her child. But she was suppressed by New Vrndavana hiring lawyers to take away her custody. Notice, child abuse is a theme here. That means a lot of people must have knew about it.


7 Next, in the early 1980's, community comptroller Howard Fawley devised a scheme to obtain lower insurance rates on the community's vehicles. Due to a high accident rate, community vehicles could only be insured through Lloyd's of London at very high premiums. Fawley arranged to transfer apparent ownership of the vehicles from the community to individual devotees and then insure the vehicles under less expensive personal policies. The devotees did not actually own the vehicles; the vehicles remained under the control of the community pursuant to a power of attorney executed by each devotee.

8 The next incident involved the murder of devotee and community member Charles St. Denis on June 10, 1983. When community member Daniel Reid learned that St. Denis had raped Reid's wife, Reid decided to kill St. Denis. Before attempting to murder St. Denis, Reid consulted Swami. Swami instructed Reid that the killing was acceptable under Krishna scriptures, but that such action violated secular laws and that Reid might be caught and punished. 

Swami then directed Reid to talk to Thomas A. Drescher, a fellow devotee. When Reid approached Drescher and told him what Swami had said, Drescher testified he felt duty bound to help Reid kill St. Denis. The two then enticed St. Denis to Reid's house one night, shot and stabbed him several times, and then buried him in a pre-dug grave before he was dead.1

PADA: But we heard that the rape claim was fake and the real issue is that St. Denis had raised the issue of Kirtanananda making sexual advances on boys at an instagosthi meeting. And that was the real cause of his being a target. At least that is what Sulochana believed. 


9 The last incident likewise involved the murder of a devotee. In 1985, Steven Bryant, a former New Vrindaban devotee, began publishing statements accusing Swami of engaging in homosexual activity and permitting sexual molestation of children in the community. 

PADA: OK exposing the child molesting issue was one of the real reasons Sulochana was taken out. Sulochana said we have to have them sued. Oddly, the self proclaimed Sulochana lovers like Sanat, Mukunda, HKC Jaipur ilk were infuriated when we exposed their molester pals. 

Around April of 1986, members of the Krishna community in Los Angeles notified Drescher that Bryant was in Los Angeles. Drescher received $2,500 from the New Vrindaban community, authorized by Swami, and flew to Los Angeles. He located Bryant and shot him twice in the head. 

Drescher immediately returned to Columbus, Ohio. Sheldon then picked up $6,000 for Drescher from the Swami, and Sheldon and Drescher made plans to leave the country. Both were arrested before they could leave, but police later released Sheldon.2 Sheldon then left the country for Ireland where he joined a Krishna temple under a false name. There he confessed to temple president Peter Brinkman that he had engineered the Bryant murder.

PADA: OK so money came from the swami, was it Kirtanananda or Radhanath, or both? Kirtanananda was involved one way or other, because his claim to being a pure devotee was what made us targets for opposing him.  

10 In May 1990 a federal grand jury handed down an eleven count indictment against Swami, Sheldon and Fitzpatrick.3 The indictment charged Swami and Sheldon with conspiracy to violate RICO and a substantive RICO violation based on the predicate acts described above (Counts I, II and III). It further charged Swami and Sheldon with conspiracy to murder Bryant for money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count IV). Swami, Sheldon and Fitzpatrick were charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and substantive mail fraud in connection with the sankirtan (Counts VI and VII). Finally, Swami was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and substantive mail fraud in connection with the automobile insurance scheme (Counts VIII-XI).

11 At the end of a several day trial, the jury convicted Appellants of the following Counts:

12 SWAMI: Count I (conspiracy to violate RICO); Count II (engaging in pattern of racketeering activity); Count III (investing racketeering proceeds in an enterprise); Count VI (conspiracy to commit mail fraud by trafficking in counterfeit goods and infringing copyrights); Count VII (mail fraud--charity scheme); Count VIII (conspiracy to commit mail fraud--insurance); Counts IX-XI (mail fraud--insurance).

13 SHELDON: Count I (conspiracy to violate RICO); Count IV (conspiracy to murder Bryant); Count VI (conspiracy to commit mail fraud by trafficking in counterfeit goods and infringing copyrights).

PADA: Conspiracy to murder Bryant, and I was next on the list.

14 FITZPATRICK: Count VI (conspiracy to commit mail fraud by trafficking in counterfeit goods and infringing copyrights).

15 The court sentenced Appellants under the guidelines.

16 Swami, Sheldon and Fitzpatrick now appeal their convictions on numerous grounds. Swami and Fitzpatrick also appeal their sentences. Because we vacate or reverse the convictions in this case, we need not decide all the issues raised by Appellants,4 and specifically do not decide any of the sentencing issues.

II. 17 Both Swami and Sheldon challenge the admission of inflammatory, prejudicial evidence that they contend was improperly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and, moreover, should have been excluded as prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403. They raise several incidents in this regard. We agree with Appellants that this evidence was unduly prejudicial and warrants a new trial. Therefore, we discuss only Appellants' Rule 403 challenge, assuming arguendo that the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).

18 Ham and Sheldon first challenge the admission of evidence of child molestation and homosexual conduct. Several witnesses testified over two days that principals, teachers and monitors in the community's school had sexually molested some of the children. They testified that Swami was aware of the incidents, but ignored the problem. 

Two other witnesses mentioned that Swami had a homosexual relationship with Howard Wheeler prior to starting the New Vrindaban community. The government offered this evidence to show Swami's motive in the Steven Bryant murder, which it contended was to silence Bryant's accusations of child molestation and homosexuality. The government reasoned that by proving these accusations true through witness testimony, it showed that Bryant was truly a threat to Swami and not just an annoyance that Swami could ignore.

PADA: Correct, exposing child molesting can be a threat to the molesters, and their supporters. Notice, it was widely known there was a homosexual and pedophile problem of one type or other. 

19 Swami and Sheldon also challenge the district court's admission of a videotape segment from the television program West 57th Street (a "news" expose program). The videotape showed a child of the New Vrindaban community stating that he prayed "to" Swami, a statement generally offensive to the religious sensitivities of typical jurors. 

More inflammatory was a statement by Swami comparing women to dogs and condoning lightly slapping one's wife for disciplinary reasons. The government introduced this tape as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach Swami's trial testimony concerning the community's treatment of women.5

21 Rule 403 provides that evidence otherwise admissible may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Fed.R.Evid. 403. The rule calls for weighing the need for admission against the potential harms. When the harmful component of relevant evidence becomes unduly prejudicial, a court should exclude it from consideration by the jury. We have defined undue prejudice as " 'a genuine risk that the emotions of the jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and that this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the offered evidence.' " Masters, 622 F.2d at 87 (citations omitted); accord Simpson, 910 F.2d at 158; Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 853 F.2d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1988).

22 We accept without need of extensive argument that implications of child molestation, homosexuality, (6) and abuse of women unfairly prejudice a defendant. Indeed, no evidence could be more inflammatory or more prejudicial than allegations of child molestation. When evidence of a defendant's involvement in several of these activities is presented to the jury, the risk of unfair prejudice is compounded. In such a case, we fear that jurors will convict a defendant based on the jurors' disdain or their belief that the defendant's prior bad acts make guilt more likely. Furthermore, we are especially sensitive to prejudice in a trial where defendants are members of an unpopular religion.

23 Even though Swami and Sheldon were not directly implicated in all the conduct presented at trial, we still find it prejudicial to them as defendants. The jury heard testimony of child molestation seemingly rampant in the New Vrindaban community, a community over which Swami had complete authority and responsibility. 

Several witnesses also stated that Swami knew of the activity. They alleged that they had approached Swami with their concerns of child molestation, but he failed to take any action and simply shrugged off the complaints. This evidence was especially prejudicial in connection with the Devin Wheeler kidnapping charge, where the government proffered that Swami kidnapped the boy because he had been molesting him.

24 Sheldon, like Swami, was a leader in the Hare Krishna religion. He had been a director of sankirtan in the New Vrindaban community and left to become president of a Krishna temple in Cleveland, Ohio. After his departure, he remained in contact with Swami and others at New Vrindaban. Thus, any evidence that prejudiced New Vrindaban and the Hare Krishna religion would likewise prejudice Sheldon as a leader in that community and religion. We find that especially likely here, where the evidence is highly inflammatory.

25 Our inquiry does not end here. We must weigh the probative value of the evidence against the danger of harm and determine if the district court could have, within its discretion, permitted the introduction of such evidence before the jury. Evidence of child molestation and homosexuality were brought in for the limited purpose of proving Steven Bryant's accusations. 

This was relevant to the government's theory of motive for the Bryant murder. It is not, however, direct proof of motive; neither is it essential proof. If believed by the jury, it would only make the motive slightly more likely. The jury could still have inferred, without this evidence, that Swami ordered Bryant shot in order to stop the negative publicity. Thus, the incremental probative value of this evidence is slight. In the face of almost certain and considerable prejudice, we do not believe this evidence should have been admitted.

26 Likewise, the West 57th Street videotape was more prejudicial than probative. That tape was allegedly introduced to rebut Swami's trial testimony. The highly inflammatory statement concerning the treatment of women had no relevance except possibly as impeachment evidence. Yet the risk that the jury would consider the substance of this evidence, as opposed to its rebuttal value, was great. Again, this evidence should not have been admitted.

27 The district court expressed concern and even regret over these admissions. It issued a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of sexual conduct:

28 And let me remind you, and I think counsel have, there isn't any defendant on trial here for sexual acts.... It has all gotten-- I don't know whether -- whether those things are permitted, any evidence on it, and whether you accept them or not is entirely up to you, was only, as I understand the government's theory, to show motive for doing--allegedly doing certain things. (Joint App. Vol. I-A at 190.)

29 . . . . .

30 Bear in mind nobody is charged with sexual crimes. The sexual, alleged molestation is asserted in the indictment, but only in as [sic] an effort to show motive, not anything else. We are not here to make any moral judgments, we make legal judgments in courts. (Joint App. Vol. I-A at 194.)

31 The court also issued a curative instruction regarding the videotape:

32 [T]he contents of the videotape display, which I believe was the last day that we heard any evidence, that ... may not be considered as evidence. I want you to put it out of your mind. Except to the extent that the videotape may have contained statements made by the defendant Swami. And any such statements are to be considered only in the context of credibility as to whether what effect if any. Put the other stuff--I shouldn't have let it go in, but it got in, and I want you to put it out of your mind. Just forget all about it. (Tr. 2015-16.)

33 Prejudicial evidence could be cured with limiting or cautionary instructions. See Virgin Islands v. Pinney, 967 F.2d 912, 918 (3d Cir.1992) (holding that limiting instruction on testimony of child molestation would not reduce risk of jury considering such evidence for improper purpose); United States v. Bland, 908 F.2d 471, 473 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that curative instruction could not obviate prejudice from evidence that defendant had outstanding warrant for molestation and torture and murder of a young girl).

34 Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence and that this inflammatory evidence so infected the trial of Swami and Sheldon, we vacate their convictions on all counts and remand for retrial.

III. 35 Fitzpatrick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his mail fraud conspiracy conviction.7 He contends that the evidence merely shows that he was a foreman of the community print shop, working according to Gorrick's instructions. He further contends that the evidence does not show that he had a specific intent to defraud, as is required for conviction for mail fraud conspiracy.

36 To convict on mail fraud conspiracy, the jury must find that a defendant acted with specific intent to defraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1988); United States v. Scott, 730 F.2d 143, 147 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1075, 105 S.Ct. 572, 83 L.Ed.2d 512 (1984). Fraudulent intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence. United States v. Saxton, 691 F.2d 712, 714 (5th Cir.1982); United States v. Rhoads, 617 F.2d 1313, 1316 (8th Cir.1980); United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1979).

37 The government did not present sufficient evidence in this case to permit a jury to find that Fitzpatrick conspired with others with an intent to defraud. Fitzpatrick appears nothing more than a religious devotee serving the New Vrindaban community as foreman of the print shop. He took orders from Dennis Gorrick, who exercised complete control over sankirtan activities. 

Gorrick decided on the design and quantity of bumper stickers printed at the shop. Fitzpatrick determined if the shop was capable of performing such jobs, ordered the supplies, and carried out the work. None of these activities evidence a specific intent to defraud.

38 Furthermore, it is not clear that Fitzpatrick even knew that his work violated copyright laws. The government supports its inference with evidence that the New Vrindaban print shop acquired a printing press when outside printers refused to print some of its copyrighted stickers; that Fitzpatrick oversaw the redrawing of copyrighted images; that Fitzpatrick learned that a devotee had been warned by an employee of the Charles Schultz company that the counterfeit Snoopy stickers violated copyright laws; and that Fitzpatrick sometimes attended community board meetings, where the illegality of distributing counterfeit material was occasionally discussed. 

None of this evidence specifically shows knowledge by Fitzpatrick. There is no evidence that he participated in the decision to buy a printing press; or that he was present for any of the board discussions. Fitzpatrick testified that Gorrick told him and others that the redrawn images were sufficiently altered so that they did not violate copyright laws. Because we can find no evidence to support the jury's finding that Fitzpatrick conspired to perpetrate mail fraud, we reverse Fitzpatrick's conviction.

IV. 39 We find that the government's introduction of evidence of child molestation, homosexuality, and mistreatment of women was highly prejudicial to the Appellants. The risk of harm to Swami and Sheldon from this evidence substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence. Thus, the evidence should have been excluded pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 403. Accordingly, we vacate the convictions of Swami and Sheldon and remand for retrial. We further find that the government's evidence was insufficient to support Fitzpatrick's conviction for mail fraud conspiracy, and we reverse his conviction.

40 VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RETRIAL; REVERSED IN PART.

41 K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part;

42 I concur in the reversal of Fitzpatrick's conviction for the reasons contained in Section IV of the majority opinion. However, I do not agree that the introduction of certain evidence warrants a new trial for Ham and Sheldon. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.*

I. 43 The majority correctly outlines the government's theory advanced in support of introducing the evidence concerning child molestation and homosexuality--Bryant was publishing accusations that Ham had engaged in homosexual activity and had permitted child molestation in the New Vrindabin community, and Ham decided to have him murdered to silence him. The government hoped to show that Bryant's accusations had a basis in fact and, as such, constituted a real threat to Ham.

44 The majority assumes arguendo that this evidence was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to prove motive. The decision to vacate the convictions is grounded in Rule 403: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." (emphasis added). 

The majority "accept[s] without need of extensive argument that implications of child molestation, homosexuality, and abuse of women unfairly prejudice a defendant. Indeed, no evidence could be more inflammatory or more prejudicial than allegations of child molestation." Op. at 1252. I agree that such evidence prejudices defendants. My disagreement with the majority boils down to a differing view of the relative weights of the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence.

45 If Bryant were merely making wild allegations characteristic of a disgruntled former group member, I believe that a jury would be unlikely to infer a motive to murder from the allegations. If the allegations were true, however, a motive to silence the accuser becomes appreciably stronger, and not, as the majority states, merely "slightly more likely." 

Op. at 1253. A lone, cranky voice is merely an annoyance. When the voice has the ring of truth, however, it becomes a threat. Inasmuch as "we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect," I would assign a great deal more weight to the probative value side of the Rule 403 balance beam. United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir.1990) (internal quotation omitted).

47 The admission of the West 57th Street tape, on which Ham compared women to dogs and advocated mild physical discipline of wives by their husbands, presents a somewhat closer case. Ham's statements were relevant for impeachment purposes. After the tape had been viewed by the jury, the trial court had second thoughts about its introduction and instructed the jury to consider only the statements made by Ham for the purposes of assessing his credibility. With regard to the remainder of the tape, the court told the jury "to put it out of your mind. Just forget all about it." I do not take issue with the majority's statement that the tape was "more prejudicial than probative." Again, however, the question is whether the trial court acted "arbitrarily or irrationally" in admitting this piece of evidence. I do not believe the lower court's decision can be so characterized.

48 Only the "most extraordinary of circumstances" justify overturning a conviction on the basis of improperly admitted evidence. United States v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297, 301 n. 2 (4th Cir.1984) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1105, 105 S.Ct. 776, 83 L.Ed.2d 772 (1985). The mixed verdict--Ham was found not guilty of Count IV, conspiracy to murder Bryant--indicates that the jury was not "excited to irrational behavior" in its deliberations. Masters, 622 F.2d at 87; see, also, United States v. Richman, 600 F.2d 286, 299-300 (1st Cir.1979) (mixed verdict "demonstrates the jury's ability to segregate the evidence and carefully weigh against which defendant it was applicable").

II. 49 Sheldon left New Vrindaban in 1977 or 1978 to become president of a Krishna temple in Ohio. Although he was not implicated in child molestation or homosexuality and was not the subject of the West 57th Street tape, the majority concludes that "[a]ny evidence that prejudiced New Vrindaban and the Hare Krishna religion would likewise prejudice Sheldon as a leader in that community and religion." Op. at 1253. This represents an unprecedented extension of Rule 403. The connection between Sheldon and the purportedly prejudicial evidence is simply too attenuated for any appreciable prejudice to flow to him.

50 I would affirm the convictions and sentences of Ham and Sheldon.

1 Reid and Drescher were convicted for the St. Denis murder

2 Drescher was subsequently tried and convicted in West Virginia for the St. Denis murder and tried and convicted in California for the Bryant murder

3 Others involved in these incidents have been tried separately or granted immunity for their cooperation with the government

4 Our decision to vacate the convictions of Ham and Sheldon moot their other claims concerning erroneous or prejudicial trial rulings. It does not, however, moot their sufficiency of the evidence claims, since a decision for either of them on this issue would reverse rather than vacate the conviction. The government's evidence for many of the RICO predicate acts was not overwhelming in this case--for example the evidence concerning Swami's involvement in the St. Denis murder or the Devin Wheeler kidnapping and the evidence concerning Sheldon's participation in mail fraud

5 Swami contests the admissibility of this evidence. He contends that he never testified on direct or cross examination about the treatment of women in the community. The West 57th Street tape was introduced after he testified. He asserts that it was only after the tape was played that he testified about the position women occupied in the community. We do not make a ruling on the admissibility of the videotape as impeachment evidence since, in any event, we rule that the tape should not have been admitted under Rule 403

6 The Ninth Circuit recently stated in the context of an evidentiary appeal that "[e]vidence of homosexuality is extremely prejudicial." United States v. Gillespie, 852 F.2d 475, 479 (9th Cir.1988)

7 Some dispute exists as to what Count VI actually charged and, therefore, of what Fitzpatrick was convicted. We rely on the jury charge given by the district court and rule that Fitzpatrick was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. (See J.A. I-A at 224-26.) The district court's jury charge, although different from the indictment charge, did not constitute an impermissible constructive amendment of the indictment. See United States v. Morrow, 925 F.2d 779, 781 (4th Cir.1991)

* The majority does not reach the other issues raised by Ham and Sheldon in their respective appeals. While I only discuss the evidentiary issues upon which the majority bases its judgment, I would not vacate or reverse the convictions on any of the other grounds raised by the defendants

PADA: Tapah punja evidently wanted me and Sulochana dead, that is about the sum of all this. Why? Because we were exposing homosexuals, pedophiles, child molesting and women being beaten in the empire they were administering and ruling. Worse, a homosexual pedophile was the guru and children were praying to this man for a path back to God. Lawyers can get one out of trouble in this life, but according to the Sri Isopanisad, no such luck next life. 

None of the people involved in this like Tapah punja, Radhanath, Tirtha and others have ever apologized to us personally for their program of making us targets, evidently, to defend homosexuals and pedophiles posing as messiahs. 

ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com

Hindu Nurse / Christians / Kailasa / Lost Generation / Poison Issue 10 07 26

THE HINDU NURSE

PADA: Yeah prabhu, different devotees are not happy I am citing my Hindu nurse friend from Ukraine, whose apartment was attacked by Russian missiles. They don't like her for the same reason -- they don't like me. She is an eye witness to the atrocities the Russians are conducting on civilians, and I am an eye witness to the atrocities the GBC conducts on ISKCON devotees, includes children. 

There are many thousands and thousands of photos of the bombed out apartment buildings in Ukraine, and it is evident they target civilians -- and target civilian hospitals, churches, schools shopping malls etc. Clearly she did not make up her story, it is factual.   

She says, the Russians are not trying to save Ukraine, they are trying to make Ukraine into an apocalypse dead zone landscape of burnt out buildings, with dogs eating the dead bodies, which is what they do all over the place in Ukraine. They do not want to save these people, they want them dead and their houses burnt to the ground. Once they empty out a town, Ukraine can spot the Russians with thermal imaging and take them out, because no one else is there. They wanted to kill all the people and destroy all the buildings and that is self evident. And that is one reason they are easy targets, they made themselves easy targets, no one else lives there. 

Anyway! That is her first hand eye witness observation, she was there. And I was there for the ISKCON apocalypse, hence there are people who do not like either of us, because we expose what they are trying to hide. But every day more people are realizing, PADA is correct -- and so is she.

ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com

=======     

CHRISTIANS vs VEDAS

PAUL HOWARD

I was told my points below are not all correct, but not what is wrong, so feel free to point out any mistakes you can reasonably substantiate. My writing was in response to claims that the Abrahamic religions are authentic based on sympathetic remarks about them by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Regarding an ācārya like a prophet misses the point. The Abrahamic religions come from prophets making proclamations about spiritual topics that require acceptance regardless of whether they can be understood, whereas an ācārya teaches the Vedas to convey understanding. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's practical situation was under Christian colonialism, and Śrīla Prabhupāda preached all over the world as a guest in countries where the Abrahamic religions were dominant, giving both of them a similar reason to avoid discrediting the Abrahamic religions. It leaves us with the responsibility of taking only the milk when it is mixed with water.

If Śrīla Prabhupāda had come to America and only said Kṛṣṇa consciousness is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, materialistic science, etc., nobody would have stuck around to start learning Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and he would have been too unwelcome. If those religions were true, there would have been no need for Śrīla Prabhupāda to go around the world teaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. 

The knowledge in the Vedas is too refined to be correctly understood through other religions or belief systems. The Vedas describe a cosmic order that requires no laws. For example, Śrīla Prabhupāda was correct when he said gravity is not why the planets orbit, but understanding how it actually works, controlled by interactions of meanings, qualities, will, etc., depends on a complete rejection of the monotheistic paradigm.

The second verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam emphasizes the importance of "completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated," and distinguishing reality from illusion, so this can't be a form of nāma-aparādha. We try to avoid insulting the preachers, but we can't unnecessarily compromise to accept falsehoods as the truth or lesser truths as greater. I begin with the assumption that everyone wants to approach the greatest truth, because in my view the that's more respectable than the alternative.

PADA: Yes, Srila Prabhupada says mleccha dharma (meat eating religions) are temporary. That is true, but they do have their temporary function and Srila Prabhupada says without the teachings of Jesus we would still be living like uncivilized tribal people. 

So there is some benefit and sometimes, not so much benefit -- to these religions that are not fully modes of goodness or transcendental. The Christian culture has kept me alive in many ways, and I thank Jesus for making this arrangement to sustain me, or I'd be dead a long time ago. That is not a full on endorsement, but a blind uncle is better than none. ys pd

=================

KAILASA CHANDRA

PADA: Kailasa does not want our unlimited books sites getting millions of views per month, so people can associate with a pure devotee's words. He says he wants a limited six people guru who has no web sites and no mass preaching. He is envious that millions of people now have access to the books of a pure devotee. Why is Kailasa envious that the mass of people -- unlimited -- can access the words of a pure devotee?

And that is also why he never spends $100 a year to make a free books site himself, he wants to hide the Vedas and make it a limited guru program, just like the babajis. Why is Kailasa making the same idea as the babajis? A limited guru, with no mass preaching, and his limited guru cannot take many disciples or he will be overcome with karma, which is what the GBC is now saying, and he is their parrot.

Yes, the Chaitya guru is sending people to our sites, millions of views per month, and Kailasa is unhappy that Krishna is helping them come to our sites. He is envious of the Vedas, and has been preaching babaji limited guru the whole time. Why is Kailasa envious that unlimited people can access the Vedas? Krishna is guiding people to our sites, and Kailasa is very unhappy with Krishna. Why is Kailasa unhappy with Chaitya guru guiding people to our sites?

He should be happy people are finding Krishna, instead he is angry they are, and he wants to make the Vedas limited to six people, he is abother Radha Kunda babaji imitation. They also say we should not make the Vedas access to the masses. Why is Kailasa always preaching the GBC idea, the babaji idea, and never Srila Prabhupada's? Srila Prabhupada wants unlimited readers, not six people babaji gurus. You cannot even come up with $100 a year, because your program is limited. ys pd

======

THE LOST GENERATION

Nila Morril (Son of Badrinarayan Swami)

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be part of a Vaiṣṇava community in 2026. Not really in terms of rules or institutional policy or who is doing things right or wrong. I mean something deeper than that. What do we actually value?

What do we remember? Who do we see? And what do we feel responsible for carrying forward? My dad leaving this world has made me think about this much more deeply than I have before.

He gave almost sixty years of his life to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s movement. There are many devotees of his generation who did the same thing in different ways. They built temples, preached, raised communities, took enormous responsibility, lived through incredibly difficult periods in ISKCON’s history, made mistakes, learned things, sacrificed things, and somehow carried this movement from something very young into something that now is prominent all over the world.

And that generation is leaving. That’s just the reality. ISKCON is getting older.
More and more of the devotees who personally knew Śrīla Prabhupāda and spent their adult lives carrying his mission forward won’t physically be here much longer.
And I keep wondering what happens then. Obviously the institution continues.

The buildings continue. The festivals continue. The management continues. The projects, meetings, fundraising and preaching continue. But what about the less obvious things? Do we preserve memory? Do we preserve gratitude? Do we preserve relationships? Do we actually remember who carried all of this before it ended up in our hands?

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī describes the exchanges between devotees, dadāti pratigṛhṇāti guhyam ākhyāti pṛcchati bhuṅkte bhojayate caiva ṣaḍ-vidhaṁ prīti-lakṣaṇam 

Giving and receiving, revealing one’s mind and hearing another’s, accepting prasāda and offering prasāda … the symptoms of love between devotees.
There’s something about that verse that feels more important to me as I get older.

It’s incredibly simple. Vaiṣṇava culture is relational. It means paying attention to each other. Making time. Reciprocating. Remembering people. Knowing where we came from. And I think there’s another part of this that gurukulis understand in a very particular way. And I say this on behalf of all of us, but especially with deep affection for my generation from the 70s and 80s, who I know have all experienced similar versions of this feeling and who have personally shared with me these thoughts and experiences.

I was born into ISKCON. I went to gurukula until I was fifteen years old. This wasn’t a movement I discovered later in life and decided to join. It was the world I grew up in. And I think sometimes people forget what that means. There are gurukulis now in their forties, fifties and beyond who have been part of this movement longer than many devotees who are considered established members of their communities.

And yet I think a lot of gurukulis know what it feels like to be strangely invisible.
You can grow up in this movement, spend your whole life around the temples, Deities, festivals, philosophy, devotees and service, watch your parents give everything they have to it, and make very real sacrifices yourself because of the choices your parents made in service to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mission, and then still sometimes feel like nobody really understands that you have a history here too.
A younger devotee can meet you and have no idea what you’ve already lived through in this movement.

They may not know what your parents gave up. They may not know what their children gave up with them. And I don’t say that because gurukulis deserve some special status. I don’t think we do. But I do think being seen matters. There is something painful about watching the sacrifices of your parents slowly disappear from the memory of a community while knowing that your own childhood was part of that sacrifice too.

A lot of us didn’t simply watch our parents build ISKCON. We were part of what they gave. Our childhoods were tied to their service. Sometimes that gave us extraordinary experiences, friendships, spiritual impressions and a sense of belonging that I wouldn’t trade for anything. 

And sometimes it cost us something. Sometimes children carried things they didn’t choose and couldn’t really understand because their parents believed deeply in what they were trying to build. That history is complicated. But it is our history.
And now something strange is happening. We aren’t the kids anymore.
A lot of us are approaching fifty or sixty. Some are parents and grandparents ourselves. 

We have careers, families, communities, decades of life experience and our own relationship with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s movement. But sometimes I think ISKCON still doesn’t really know what to do with the gurukula generation. Are we still the kids? Are we senior devotees? Are we an uncomfortable reminder of parts of our history people would rather not think about?

Or are we actually understood as part of ISKCON’s history and its future?
Maybe all of those things are true. But I do think we have something worth listening to because we’ve seen this movement from both sides. We watched our parents try to build it. We lived inside what they built.

We experienced its beauty and its failures. And now we are old enough to ask what should be carried forward and what should be done differently. That doesn’t make us more important than younger devotees. But our experience matters.
And I think this comes back to the bigger question I’ve been meditating on.
Do we really see each other? 

Do we know each other’s histories? Do we know who sacrificed to make the communities we inherited possible? Do younger devotees know the elders standing next to them? Do they know the gurukulis standing next to them?
Do we make room for people who may not have a title or an institutional position but have quietly been part of this movement for all of their lives?

Sometimes I wonder if we can become very good at keeping an institution running while slowly losing some of the culture that made it worth preserving in the first place. I’m not saying that as an accusation. I’m genuinely asking.

My dad doesn’t need another title or another speech. His life already says what it says. But losing him has made some things feel a lot clearer to me. History matters. Gratitude matters. Reciprocation matters. Relationships matter.
Being seen matters. 

And maybe part of spiritual culture is revealed by the people we decide are worth remembering, listening to and making room for. So I’m genuinely curious how other Vaiṣṇavas think about this. As ISKCON moves further from its founding generation, and those of us who were once its children increasingly become its elders, what does it mean to preserve not only Śrīla Prabhupāda’s institution, but the heart of the culture he was trying to give us?

PADA: Very heartfelt and sincere line of questions. What is the legacy of ISKCON? Well lets start with me in 1978, when I said we cannot worship 11 conditioned souls as acharyas. And I got into all sorts of trouble with Jayatirtha and his minions for "challenging Krishna's appointed successor." 

OK some of his followers wanted to beat me up. I moved off the temple property -- feeling somewhat unwelcomed in ISKCON. Then it became evident that Jayatirtha was having an affair with a female disciple, and he was taking LSD, ecstacy and other designer drugs. And yet all that happened was, the GBC made him a sannyasa and they came to the Manor to tell us he is now "rectified and reformed." But he wasn't and they knew it. 

My point at the time is, we cannot have the children of ISKCON worshiping intoxicated womanizers as their messiahs, this is corrupting the morals of minors, never mind some of their messiahs were homosexuals and pedophiles. On the well known principle of "you become what you worship" some of the gurukula kids became homosexuals, and predators of the younger kids. Then BR Sridhar Maharaja was consulted about my complaints, and he said "none should protest," which the GBC slammed at me repeatedly. But yeah, the gurukulis are sometimes called "the lost generation" because -- they are. ys pd   

====

THE POISON ISSUE

BMD: All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I don’t know, Prabhu.

I wouldn’t have thought they’d be looking into this matter either. But they’re certainly doing a good job of dragging it out for 50 years, and not much has happened in the case during that time. 

It’s also good that, based on the available evidence, neither the case nor the suspicion stands up. I suppose a lot has changed in the legal provisions or sections of the law over the past 50 years, as nowadays they can examine or analyse everything in much greater detail than was possible back then, given the level of technological advancement at the time.

And so, given that the data and so on are not detailed or accurate enough, and given that a great deal of time has passed since then, it is understandable to a certain extent that this so-called trial is unlikely to amount to much.

In any case, the suspects who are still alive will soon pass away. They won’t end up in prison, nor can they be killed, because, let’s say, they’ll die of natural causes. 

It would be rather amusing, though, if, fifty years on, these people were locked up in prison, so to speak, in the twilight of their lives. I reckon they’d even present it as some sort of world-changing feat. "Even from prison, the spiritual masters preach Krishna consciousness", as the headline says. 

If disgraced gurus or paedophiles were reinstated to their positions, they wouldn’t act any differently this time either. They’d find a way to make them look good, that’s for sure. 

Keshava Bharati Imbroglio Worsens 10 06 26

KESHAVA BHARATI IMBROGLIO

PADA: Yeah prabhu, where are Urmila's sabha group, the Karuna Care people, the GBC emeritus group -- like Hrdayananda, Mahatma's Therapy Group, Pranada's love and peace movement, the SAC, ICC, India Bureau, and all the other "leaders" -- when a known predator is reinstated as the messiah of the Jagat for ISKCON? 

I forgot! These are mainly among the same people who fell asleep when Jayatirtha, Hansadutta, Bhavananda and others were re-constituted as -- back in the saddle again -- Jesus-like messiahs. And it looks like Jayadvaita bullied the whole GBC empire into reinstating Keshava Bharati, despite knowing this would not be popular with the rank and file. 

But when have they ever worried about the feelings of the rank and file? In any case this shows that the corruption has NOT BEEN CURED, and it is just as corrupt as ever.  

Sulochana dasa: Satsvarupa Das Goswami is

the Joe Goebbels of ISKCON.

He writes all their documents. 

Meanwhile some of the children people like Mula Prakriti had initiated by Satsvarupa are now saying "he has rectified because he has admitted he made mistakes." OK wait a minute, he said me and Sulochana are poison pens to get us killed. And Sulochana was killed and I almost was killed. 

I have never heard him apologize to us about these things, including that thousands of kids were molested in his pedophile messiah's project -- ever? He has never communicated with people like me, ever? He says "we goofed." 

No you did not goof, you orchestrated a violent pedophile cult to come after us and kill us, while that cult was starving, beating, raping and abusing children "industrial scale." This was not a minor league goof up, this was a criminal level homosexual and pedophile cult that bans, beats, molests, sues and kills people! 

Not a minor goof up! Sheesh, well I guess those SDG initiated children cannot come to grips with the fact that people like Mula Prakriti endorsed the homosexual pedophile messiah's and / or Auschwitz for kids club's Joe Goebbels writer as a messiah. But if you apologized, you have to make a personal apology to each and every victim, including us, and that never seems to happen. 

We goofed -- is making a small time joke and small potatoes of everything! PEOPLE were banned, beat, molested, sued and KILLED. Not just goofed up! And why were there a number of kids living in their cars, or many teamed up into crowded apartments, and some were homeless living on the beach -- when I was in LA, because they GOT NO SUPPORT, but SDG has a lifetime retirement fund?  

And then Mula went and became the cheer leader of Narayan Maharaja, Tamal's BFF defender. Tamal was a ring leader of the pedophile messiah's project and a likely suspect in the poison complaint from Srila Prabhupada. NOT a good person to be promoting, and I told her that, and she argued with me! We cannot defend Judas and Joe Goebbels and have a happy ending for anyone, including not only the victim kids, but also ourselves. That is why Srila Prabhupada says false gurus go to the lowest regions, and so does their support team!

ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com

SRD

When "Fairness" Only Applies to the Powerful - Jayadvaita Swami's Advocacy for Kesava Bharati

How a Concern for Fairness Becomes a Shield for the Accused

Jayadvaita Swami was not a neutral petitioner. From the outset, he had been presented with substantial evidence supporting the allegation that the abuse occurred. By March 2024 he was aware of the CPO Review Panel's unanimous finding and, as I understand it, he was also aware of Kesava Bharati's written admission of guilt.

His response follows a pattern. In July 2006, asked about devotees guilty of rape and the abuse of children, Jayadvaita Swami began his reply by warning that accounts of such deeds are often seriously unreliable, verifiably exaggerated or false. He then went on to say that even a devotee who has acted abominably must be regarded as saintly if he remains fixed in devotional service.

In March 2024 he took the same approach to Kesava Bharati's case. He asked whether the victim's testimony had been corroborated and whether she had undergone a psychological review, and he warned of "zero tolerance" toward those who offend Vaishnavas. Yet that concern did not lead him to show comparable concern about the offense of the sexual abuse of a Vaishnava child.

In June of 2024 the Spanish National Council asked the Sannyasa Ministry to take action against Kesava Bharati. Kesava Bharati was never made to step down, and the rationale for that decision remains unclear.

Later that year, and likely as a consequence of their letter, Jayadvaita Swami requested a call with Spain's National Council. Senior leaders who knew the case first-hand told him unanimously that they believed the abuse was real.

In March he had asked whether the victim's account was corroborated. Now, upon receiving confirmation from senior devotees who had been in Spain at the time of the incident, he did not reconsider. Instead he tried to persuade them that their position was extreme. During the call Jayadvaita Swami himself acknowledged that his friendship with Kesava Bharati could have biased his judgment. Whatever his private motivation, the question is what his actions demonstrate.

In April 2026 he successfully co-petitioned CPOC to set aside the CPO decisions against Kesava Bharati.

Ironically, in that same 2006 exchange, written while he was defending Dhanurdhara, he also wrote that adults who try to satisfy their lust by sexually using children are at "the most abominable depths of degradation and offense."

Given the body of evidence that Kesava Bharati sexually abused a ten-year-old child, it is difficult to reconcile that statement with his sustained advocacy for a man who wrote an apology expressing his guilt, later recanted it, and was found responsible by a unanimous panel.

Throughout, Jayadvaita Swami framed his challenge as a demand for fairness. He accused the case manager of seeming to filter evidence, called the original decision "pseudo-judicial," and co-signed a petition arguing that the proceedings had been "grossly unfair" to Kesava Bharati. Yet he showed no such concern for fairness to the victim.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that a CPO finding should be immune from scrutiny. If there were genuine procedural defects, they should be identified and addressed. Fair process matters precisely because child-protection decisions can have serious consequences for everyone involved. There is nothing inherently wrong with defending due process for someone accused of abuse. Indeed, a credible child-protection system should provide fair procedures to everyone involved.

I accept that the original decision could be scrutinized. What I object to is a system that scrutinized it entirely from the perspective of the accused while giving the victim no comparable procedural voice.
Where was the equivalent concern for procedural fairness when CPOC reviewed the victim's case?

CPOC's review should trouble anyone who was genuinely concerned about fair process. It had every defect Jayadvaita Swami alleged against the original proceedings, and more. CPOC worked without the full case file, relying on material assembled by the petitioners. It never contacted the victim, the case manager or the panel members. And it gave the victim no notice, no hearing and no voice in the review of her own case.

As far as I am aware, Jayadvaita Swami has raised no objection. If fairness was the principle he was seeking to defend, I would have expected him to use the full weight of his influence to ensure the victim was afforded the same procedural protections he demanded for the accused. A commitment to fairness that is voiced only when the outcome goes against a friend, and falls silent when it goes in his favor, is not a commitment to fairness. It is favoritism dressed as principle.

I cannot know Jayadvaita Swami's private motives, and I don't claim to. What can be examined is what he did, what concerns he raised, whose interests he advocated for, and whose procedural rights he did not advocate for.
He wrote a character reference before the CPO decision was issued. When the CPO ruled against his friend, he did not address the substance of the allegations or Kesava Bharati's own written apology.

Kesava Bharati's case was adjudicated under the 2018 Guidelines, and his appeal was denied in June 2024. Under those Guidelines, the Appeal Review Panel's decision was final, with no further process of appeal. The only way to revisit the finding was to present overwhelming evidence of innocence, so that the CPO Director could reconvene the original Review Panel. No such evidence was put forward.

Instead, Jayadvaita Swami co-petitioned CPOC for a procedural review under a provision that exists only in the 2023 Guidelines. Although ratified in December 2023, those Guidelines were not published, implemented or used until August 2025, more than a year after Kesava Bharati's appeal was decided under the 2018 rules. By their own terms, such a review is limited to procedural matters and cannot determine whether the allegations are true.

What provision authorized that mechanism to be applied to a case that had already reached finality under the 2018 Guidelines?

In other words, the mechanism employed sought to invalidate the CPO adjudication on procedural grounds without reconsidering the underlying facts and, as far as I can determine, without a basis for doing so under the Guidelines governing the original adjudication.

Jayadvaita Swami himself acknowledged to the Spanish National Council that his friendship with Kesava Bharati could have biased his judgment. Whatever the explanation, the weight of that admission is difficult to ignore when evaluating the pattern of his subsequent actions.

If Jayadvaita Swami's priority had been both truth and the welfare of his friend, his first priority should have been to establish the facts. Had he concluded that the allegations were credible, he should have helped Kesava Bharati understand the gravity of his conduct and encouraged him to make amends.

Instead, he appears to have mistaken sentimentality for compassion. By shielding his friend from accountability, he deprived him of the opportunity to sincerely rectify. His intervention harmed not only the victim but Kesava Bharati himself, and with them ISKCON as a whole.

What happened in Kesava Bharati's case is not an isolated example. The same asymmetry between fairness for the accused and the victims can be seen in other interventions by senior ISKCON leaders.

In 2018, when the CPO found Laxmimoni dasi responsible for the abuse of children in her care, several senior leaders intervened on her behalf.
Hridayananda das Goswami wrote publicly that his "only concern was fair process." He had not taken a public interest in the CPO's procedures before his friend was found responsible. Laxmimoni ultimately did not appeal, but the pattern was clear.

In 2018 he also wrote that he would equally have protested an unfair exoneration.
By his own account, he pressed his case against the ICPO director with the GBC on more than one occasion. Given his seniority and influence, his input likely contributed to bringing about the very system that later reviewed Sapna's case.
That case was a clear test of Hridayananda Maharaj's stated position. Sapna was also excluded from the review of her own case, never notified, and left to learn the outcome by seeing her abuser at the temple. Yet when she reached out to Maharaj for help, he said he could not be expected to give every case equal attention.

Radhanath Swami took a similar position in the case of Vakresvara Pandit dasa, whom the CPO found to have had a sexual relationship with a thirteen-year-old girl when he was about forty.

In a telephone conversation with me in 2008, he said he had told the CPO that, "even if he's guilty," a "consensual relationship with a minor" should not be treated like other abuse. He later intervened when the North American GBC made the restrictions lifelong because he felt the penalty was excessive.

Yet the CPO had already taken the absence of force into account. It imposed a lighter rectification plan, with most restrictions open to review after five years, and noted that under the California law it consulted, sex with a child under fourteen is molestation "regardless of whether or not there was consent."

Whatever terminology was used, describing the sexual relationship as ‘consensual’ minimizes the gravity of what happened to a thirteen-year-old child.

Speaking of his friendship with Dhanurdhara Swami, Radhanath was candid: "it's hard even if a person's done something wrong to just reject them from a long standing friendship." He also described the pattern himself: leaders rarely opposed CPO decisions, but "in a few cases there may have been some opposition to procedures or to the extremity of the punishment.”

Across these cases, the interventions I have examined show the same troubling asymmetry: senior leaders demanded procedural fairness when the accused was someone they were personally close to, while none of these leaders expressed comparable concern for the fairness owed to the victims.

Even among hardened convicts in the secular world, there is a clear understanding that the abuse of children is unconscionable. That many of our most senior spiritual leaders can affirm this in principle and set it aside when the accused is a friend should trouble every devotee.

The original Review Panel in Kesava Bharati's case had named this culture directly.
In its recommendations, it observed that the character references written for Kesava Bharati by many of his godbrothers and other senior devotees showed that "the culture of defending and protecting one's friend still exists in our society," and it called for mandatory child protection training for all GBCs and leaders.

Jayadvaita Swami was one of those senior devotees. In March 2024 he wrote to the ICPO that he was personally offended by this remark and demanded an apology. Two years later he co-petitioned CPOC to review the case. CPOC ruled that very remark to be procedurally improper and counted it among the grounds for setting aside the entire decision.

In other words, a rare institutional acknowledgment of the culture of defending and protecting one's friends was struck down by CPOC at the urging of one of the very senior devotees whose intervention illustrates the dynamic the panel had described.

This is not a technicality. The ruling could have a chilling effect on future CPO panels, which may hesitate to comment on the influence senior devotees bring to bear in support of an accused friend, however obvious that influence is.

Panelists will now hesitate to name and evaluate the very dynamic that has shielded abusers in ISKCON for decades. And the original CPO panel's recommendation that all GBCs and leaders receive mandatory child protection training was swept aside with the decision that contained it.

A child protection system that refuses to acknowledge the pressure exerted by powerful friends of the accused cannot protect children from it.
The CPO Guidelines open by declaring that, for ISKCON, the protection of children is paramount. The same Guidelines also list "prevent[ing] legal risk to the institution" among the purposes of the CPO. In principle these aims can coexist. Whether they do in practice depends on who is making the decisions.

Since the 2025 restructuring, ISKCON's child protection office has effectively lost its independence. The CPO and CPOC are now run by lawyers appointed by the GBC, and they report to the GBC Executive Committee. That is the same body that in 2023 asked the CPO to soften Kesava Bharati's sanctions and allow him to reside at his palace in Govardhan.

When protecting children conflicts with minimizing legal exposure, which interest does the system prioritize?

In Sapna's case, CPOC warned that procedural failures expose ISKCON to legal and reputational risk. It recommended that the accused's costs be reimbursed from GBC funds, because this would be minimal compared to the liability the GBC could face if he sued. CPOC has now reviewed three cases that I am aware of, and in each case its decision resulted in relief for the accused.

Judged by its decisions rather than its stated principles, CPOC appears to treat the institution's legal exposure as its first priority, and the protection of children, and of those who were abused as children, as acceptable collateral damage. CPOC members confirmed in their recent meeting with the Spanish National Council that legal cases and complaints were among their concerns.

The current system no longer has eventhe appearance of independence, and the three cases CPOC has reviewed so far reinforce these concerns. Given the GBC's history of intervening in child-protection matters, having placed the child-protection system within a structure fully controlled by the GBC creates a serious credibility problem.

CPOC states that its decision is without prejudice to a properly conducted re-adjudication of Kesava Bharati's case, yet it has made no provisions to conduct one.

That position assumes the community will trust the new child protection system to handle such a review fairly, though its conduct so far gives little reason for that confidence. In the meantime, CPOC has lifted most restrictions on a man found responsible for sexually abusing a child and left the victim with no indication of whether her case will ever be heard again.

Victims have been silenced, not by any decree, but by a bureaucratic process that decided their cases without them. However personalist our philosophy may be in principle, treating a Vaishnava child as an adversary, a procedural matter or a legal liability, rather than as a precious jiva dear to Krsna, is impersonalism at its most destructive.

This approach is not only wrong; it is shortsighted. Institutions that put their legal exposure ahead of the victims they failed have ultimately paid far more than honest accountability would have cost. ISKCON should know this better than most: the Turley lawsuit and the bankruptcy that followed came after years of protecting the institution instead of its children.

What could compel ISKCON's leadership to keep repeating a course of action that comes with such a consistent record of catastrophic failures? I can only point to the consequences of their actions. When senior and influential leaders intervene only on behalf of their friends, complainants learn that coming forward means facing not only their abuser but the abuser's powerful allies. 

Future victims learn the same lesson. Until this culture of protecting one's own is identified, acknowledged and adequately addressed, it will remain an obstacle to the protection of children, and child protection in ISKCON cannot become credible or effective.

Jayadvaita Swami, Hridayananda Maharaj and Radhanath Swami are by no means the only senior leaders to have taken this stance. Sivarama Swami and Bhakti Vikasa Swami, among many others, have also publicly supported devotees found responsible for abusing children. The question is not whether any of them, or the members of CPOC, believe themselves to be acting fairly. The question is whether their conception of fairness has been applied consistently. When an accused friend is found responsible, they demand due process, procedural safeguards and a review. Where is the equivalent concern and protection when the person seeking fairness is the victim?

Whatever the intentions behind it, the real-life consequences of this kind of advocacy are an environment in which children are less safe in the Hare Krsna Movement.

When findings of abuse can be set aside on procedural grounds without the facts being carefully re-examined, when victims are excluded from reviews of their own cases, and when the observation that powerful friends shield the accused is itself ruled improper, we have a society where those found responsible for abusing children receive more protection than their victims.

This is the price ISKCON's children must pay when protecting an influential friend takes precedence over child protection.

THREE BLIND MICE

Kirtanananda Samadhi / Should we criticize? / Ukraine Update 10 05 26

KIRTANANANDA SAMADHI

Anon Dasa: Here is the Samadhi for Kirtananda that Radhanath Swami helped build. He also let Dhunadar Swami sit and give lectures at the Bhakti Center, because he loves child abusers so much. 

Dhunadar was accused of very violent abuse towards more than 400 children and is banned in ISKCON, but Bhakti Center is not ISKCON, it is a haven for pedophiles. When the abused children have gone to RNS for help, he challenges "But, you have no proof". 

Yes, these former children had no cameras, recorders or cell phones back then, but they do have their memories. (They recall MK Ultra activities that Tramatized them into forgetting, but some remember anyway Krishna's mercy) He was also involved in getting and paying for an assassin (his fingerprints were on the money) to kill Sulochan Prabhu. 

This is a very evil person and any psychic person can see his real face if they care to, it is demoniac as some have attested to. He has helped dozens of children become victims, some have suicided themselves because of the violent, Satanic nature of the abuse. We have witnesses (grown devotees who remember).

=======

SHOULD WE CRITICIZE DEVIATIONS?

ASD: Yasoda nandana das on the GBC's accusations of ‘disturbance’, ‘unwanted’ pro-Prabhupada uprising: “This is the same nonsense political argument which the GBC and the original 11 used in 1978. Call it what it is. It is a political cheapshot. It is argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks when we were trying ascertain the main issue= what did Srila Prabhupada say in 1977 and how was it meant to practically apply? 

They had the control of the major conversations with Srila Prabhupada and full complete transcripts were not available for 10 years. They suppressed release of these documents while they were scheming and planning their takeover of the movement’s assets and properties.” (5 March, 2024)

2. Should Supreme Lord Sri Krishna clean all the mess by Himself?

Some people claim that ultimately Krishna controls everything, so we should just depend on Him, and He Himself will correct everything in ISKCON. It’s not our business to try and refute anyone or correct anything in ISKCON. But Srila Prabhupada gives another advice:

“Regarding Krishna’s being very kind upon us, should be on the principle as Arjuna followed: the principle is, that Krishna was Arjuna’s most intimate friend. He could have brought victory to Arjuna, without any endeavor by Arjuna; neither was that principle advised by Krishna, neither Arjuna followed it. As a military man, Arjuna fought to his best, but the victory was brought him by Krishna. Similarly, we should try our best to our best capacity, and victory will come from Krishna. We should never sit idly and ask Krishna to do everything. That is the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita. It is clearly said in the Gita: “Yuddhasya ca mam anusmara [Bg 8.7].”

[Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Krsna and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty of fighting. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.]

So ordinarily, we have to try our best to our best capacity to achieve something, and by Krishna’s Grace, all of a sudden we shall see everything is there. This sort of help from Krishna is transcendental happiness.” (SP Letter to: Brahmananda — Los Angeles 20 February, 1968)

Puranjana das told how one supporter of maya-ISKCON was putting forward the same argument that it’s not our business to try and correct anything in ISKCON, Krishna will do it in due course of time. At this point his little kid came to the house. The child didn’t notice that his boot was making stool footprints all over the room, and the father immediately told him to stop it. So why then make these efforts to stop it? Maybe, it was proper to wait until Krishna will come personally and clean the mess by Himself? Acarya’s disciples should try to relieve the disordered situation, acting as instruments in the hands of Srila Prabhupada and Lord Caitanya:

“Unfortunately, when the ācārya disappears, rogues and nondevotees take advantage and immediately begin to introduce unauthorized principles in the name of so-called svāmīs, yogīs, philanthropists, welfare workers and so on. […] The ācārya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles, but when he disappears, things once again become disordered. The perfect disciples of the ācārya try to relieve the situation by sincerely following the instructions of the spiritual master.” (SBhag. 4.28.48, purport)

From a S Bhag. class by Srila Prabhupada’s disciple Yasoda nandana das who was in Vrindavana in 1977: “So in this way we have to be very careful not to change anything that Prabhupada has given: the method of offering prasadam, the method of offering aratik, the method of initiation, the method of the books, the method of everything that he has given. This is very important. […] Prabhupada, before he departed, requested his secretary, “Please do not turn my institution like the Gaudiya Math or the Catholic Church”. What did they do? They went to consult the very individuals that created the hodge-podge in the Gaudiya Math and started all kinds of institutional concoctions.” (SBhag. 2.1.33 class, 2018)

That is, we should resist any attempt to turn ISKCON into a version of the deviated (after 1936) Gaudiya Matha or of emasculated Catholic Church, even if we have to fight against pseudo-gurus and pseudo-swamis (whose robes and false titles should not mislead us):

Girirāja: (reading) “Kṛṣṇa, who advented Himself just to kill all undesirable elements in the world…”

Prabhupāda: Yes. Similarly, this movement is advented to kill all the so-called yogis, swamis, avatāras, rascals, philosophers, commentators. We have to kill. Kill means… Where is your tilaka? You did not have tilaka in the morning?

Devotee: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Ah. So this is our one of the items, to vanquish all these rascals, so-called swamis. They say that “Why you criticize others also?” Because we have to vanquish them. Now these people cannot rise. When there is sunrise, there is no use of these glowworms. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is Kṛṣṇa Himself. Therefore they must be finished, all over the world. So-called religionists, so-called philosophers, so-called avatāras, swamis, yogis—finished. Our program should be like that. [break] …all these rascals, anymore to flourish. That is one of our program. (Hindi) [break] (Morning Walk Excerpts — May 2, 1974, Bombay)

“I am very glad that you are challenging all of these so-called swamis and gurus. My Guru Maharaja appreciated devotees who boldly present our Vaisnava philosophy. We must take advantage of every opportunity to defeat these rascals and drive them away, so please continue this strong attitude.” (SP Letter to: Bahulasva — Vrindaban 30 November, 1971)

3. We shouldn’t criticize anyone and anything, even deviations? Any criticism is offensive?

So what Srila Prabhupada warned against has already happened within ISKCON itself. We must not overlook and neglect this crisis. Every follower of Srila Prabhupada should counteract it. But Srila Prabhupada’s poisoners, defectors to the dark side, concealers and distorters of his instructions, false gurus and their accomplices have the cheek to claim that pro-Prabhupada revolution in ISKCON is supposedly unnecessary. Thereby they try (some consciously, and some not) to strangle it. Just like a junta that has seized power in a country and starts claiming: “There is no need for any coup! 

There is need to adopt a law banning any coups! Off course, except ours one.” Sincere devotees should support and actively participate in all-out UPRISING AGAINST THE FALSE GURUS and their regime. The example of Prabhupadanuga Anandamoya dasa: “France is famous for revolution and challenging the established order. 

It is ironic, however, that the real revolution will actually be re-instate the original established order – and rebuild ISKCON with Srila Prabhupada at the helm, with devotees all over the world co-operating under this one spiritual master. I am determined to make my insignificant contribution, to allow these “glory days” to return to France and the whole world!” (Coming to Prabhupada – The new French revolution, Back to Prabhupada, No. 9, Autumn 2005, pg. 9)

Otherwise, if we actively support the hijacked and extremely deviated maya-ISKCON, or even simply remain silent in this critical situation, then we directly or indirectly support the renegades and we are their accomplices.

Srila Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura taught:

Patrikara Uddesya, Sajjana Tosani:

“In the name of bhakti in many places people are engaged in illicit or anti-bhakti activities in the name of practicing bhakti. If one does not expose those issues (cases) very clearly, then pure-bhakti will never be victorious or be established.”
Bheka-dharana, Sajjana Tosani:

“One should compulsorily engage in endeavouring to trying to uplift the Vaisnava-dharma from the mud of contamination and trying to free it from all kinds of dauratmya (wrong ideas and practices).”
Vaisnava-ninda, Sajjana Tosani 5/5:

“Actually, we should seriously consider the fact that without proper motivation, it is improper to reflect upon the faults of any jiva. To blaspheme a Vaisnava is an offence. Blaspheming other jivas is a sin. A Vaisnava has no desire to perform such sinful activities.

Yet if one has proper intentions in pointing out another’s faults, then sastra dos not consider that as an offence. There are three types of proper intention – if we expose someone’s sins in order that they ultimately attain auspiciousness, then such discussions are favorable. If we deliberate on a sinner’s vices in order to benefit the whole world, then this should be counted as an auspicious action. If such deliberations are for one’s own spiritual benefit, then such an aspect carries no fault.

When one reflects upon the histories concerning the previous life of Valmiki or the previous activities of Jagai and Madhai etc. then such deliberations are actually free of sin. When a disciple prays to the guru to identify a true Vaisnava, the guru, desiring auspiciousness for the disciple and the whole world, may draw attention to a non-Vaisnava whose behavior is actually unholy as well as those who are saintly Vaisnavas. With the intention to guide others to accept shelter at the feet of real Vaisnavas, it is not sadhu-ninda or vaisnava-aparadha to reject the company of such deceitful dharma-dhvajis (religious pretenders). 

Even if criticism arises towards a specific person, it is still free from any fault. These are all examples of criticizing with a proper motivation.

O readers! You must think carefully upon this serious subject matter. According to proper devotional conclusions, you must show honor to true Vaisnavas and without any hesitation whatsoever, abandon the company of non-devotees.
[…]

Even if unconsciously you come into bad association, you will still become an offender to bhakti. Thus the Bhagavata says:

sango yah sammrter hetur asatsu vihito’dhiya
sa eva sadhusu krto ni˙sangatvaya kalpate

“If, due to faulty intelligence, one unwittingly comes into bad company, this will still lead to one falling into material bondage. However, in the same way, if one accepts the association of sadhus, such association will easily lead one away from bad company.” (Bhag. 3.23.55)

The glories of the great devotees (uttama-bhaktas), who see everyone as saintly, is declared in such devotional literatures as Bhakta-mala, Prapannamrta etc. – however, madhyama Vaisnavas should not imitate this. Such behavior leads to the fault known as anadhikara-carca (not acting according to one’s proper qualification) and they will fall down in no time.” (End of excerpt from Vaisnava-ninda)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati continued Srila Bhaktivinoda’s fight for the purification of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and for its protection from harmful influence of kali-celas and the deviations they introduce. He stressed that these efforts should not be considered as blasphemy:

“To attribute on someone faults that are not present is called blasphemy. […] To criticize the behavior of nondevotees is called sad-upadesha, or good instruction. Other than devotional service to Vishnu, all activities of the living entities are condemnable. Sinful people often engage in abominable activities on the pretext of devotional service to Vishnu. Instructions to give up these activities should not be called ninda, or blasphemy.” (Sri Caitanya-bhagavata, Madhya-khanda, 13.312, purport)

Srila Prabhupada states in his purport to Cc Madhya 1.220:

“A jealous person in the dress of a Vaisnava is not at all happy to see the success of another Vaisnava in receiving the Lord’s mercy. Unfortunately, in this Age of Kali there are many mundane persons in the dress of Vaisnavas, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has described them as disciples of Kali.

He says, kali-cela. He indicates that there is another Vaisnava, a pseudo Vaisnava with tilaka on his nose and kanthi beads around his neck. Such a pseudo Vaisnava associates with money and women and is jealous of successful Vaisnavas. Although passing for a Vaisnava, his only business is earning money in the dress of a Vaisnava. Bhaktivinoda Thakura therefore says that such a pseudo Vaisnava is not a Vaisnava at all but a disciple of Kali-yuga.

A disciple of Kali cannot become an acarya by the decision of some high court. Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self-effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment. A false acarya may try to override a Vaisnava by a high-court decision, but Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga.”

Harikesa: They are being quiet. They are too afraid to say.

Prabhupada: That means they are accepting. When they are quiet… Quiet means… Maunam sammati laksanam. If there is some argument and you remain quiet, that means indirectly you accept. (Room Conversation after Press Conference — July 9, 1975, Chicago)

“A wise person should not enter an assembly if he knows the participants there are committing acts of impropriety. And if, having entered such an assembly, he fails to speak the truth, speaks falsely or pleads ignorance, he will certainly incur sin.” (SBhag. 10.44.10)

Prabhupāda: So we have to challenge, protest, defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of Kṛṣṇa, that is our internal affair. The external affair—we need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society…, misleading. They are misleading. Not leading; misleading. So we have to stop this misleading. Make program how to do it. Because it is truth, you will come triumphant. There is no doubt about it. It is truth.

Now you have to know how to present the truth. That is your business. We are not presenting something theories, concocted by my brain. No. This is the fact. Rudimentarily we have got evidences, but it has to be presented by the modern ways. They are presenting some wrong principle by propaganda, and we cannot establish real principle by factual presentation? What is the difficulty?

Brahmānanda: Well, when we ask them, they say, “I do not know.”

Prabhupāda: That is their position. They do not know. So immediately you have to challenge that rascal, “If you do not know, why you teach? What is the value of your teaching? If your position is ‘do not,’ then why you stand for teaching fact, or truth?”

Svarupa Dāmodara: At the present time there are no people to protest.

Prabhupāda: So we have to protest. Why we are? We have to protest and kick them on their face. That should be our position. If others are not protesting, why we shall sit down?

Svarupa Dāmodara: That is why… Others are not protesting. That is why people are accepting about these…

Prabhupāda: So you protest, write in book. You are scientist. Write in book. Prove scientifically. That will be your laurel of taking the doctorate degree. If you also become one of these rascal doctors, then what is the use of your Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that whatever they say you silently accept? No. Just become Babhruvāhana, Manipur Babhruvāhana, that the fighting is faced. Take assistance. You have got.

Ask Dr. Rao to come, join. Make plan. Go from town to town, all over the world. This has to be done. There was a poetry by Rabindranath Tagore. The purport of the poetry, that one who is mischievous, he is culprit, but one who tolerates mischievous activity, he is also culprit. If you are mischievous, you are criminal. But if you tolerate mischievous activities that is also criminal. Challenge these rascals. Stop their rascal theories. (Morning Walk — May 3, 1973, Los Angeles)

Prabhupāda: So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is a challenge to all the rascals and fools. That’s all. So those who have taken this movement seriously, they should be very sober and understand. At least you must expose all these rascals. That will be very much appreciated by Kṛṣṇa. (SBhag. 1.15.31 — December 9, 1973, Los Angeles)

“Apaiśunam means that one should not find fault with others or correct them unnecessarily. Of course to call a thief a thief is not faultfinding, but to call an honest person a thief is very much offensive for one who is making advancement in spiritual life.” (Bg. 16.1-3 purport)

Prabhupāda: No, no, we have respect. But a thief should be called a thief. That is truth. (Morning Walk — April 5, 1974, Bombay)

There are many similar quotes. This is what Srila Prabhupada called for. Off course, any necessary criticism should be according to Bg. 17.15 rules of speech, etc. so that not to be harmful. But to claim, like many anti-ritviks do, that nothing should be criticized, no wrong should be noticed and protested in their maya-ISKCON and other deviated groups, etc. otherwise it’s blasphemy, is a very dangerous manipulation and distortion of Vaisnava philosophy. 

Why Lord Caitanya advised Sanatana Gosvami to include in his book the description of pariksa (testing guru and prospective disciple)? Because it’s not fault-finding, but necessary element of proper discretion. Moreover, sometimes anti-ritviks come to make a single comment: “Do not criticize!” But this very remark of theirs is also criticizing, disapproval. Isn’t it double standards?
Prabhupāda: Therefore they have to point out, “Here is a jealous man, envious man.” But people do not want it. They say, “Why you are pointing out? Why you are pointing out?” But this is business of the preacher. Otherwise how he will preach?

Girirāja: They want to be artificially the uttama adhikārī, to see everyone as nice.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes, everyone as nice, except himself. Uttama adhikārī vision, that everyone is nice. Then the preacher is also nice. Why you find out fault with the preacher? So imitation uttama adhikārī will not help. (Morning Walk — April 7, 1974, Bombay)

Sometimes one can see references to the following verse:

“The King [Parīkṣit] said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.” (SBhag. 1.17.22)

On the basis of this verse, they try to prove that no one should be criticized, exposed, punished, etc. However, this interpretation does not take into account the context of the events described there in SBhag. and other instructions of acaryas and sastras. The attitude described in this verse towards someone who commits godless acts is primarily applicable to the cases where such actions concern US PERSONALLY. In such a case a Vaisnava should apply the principle of “humbler than a blade of grass and more tolerate than a tree.” 

In the same chapter of the Bhagavatam, it is said that although the BULL HIMSELF (the personification of dharma, religion) did not point out who caused HIM suffering, ANOTHER PERSON acted differently: Maharaja Pariksit raised his sword to kill Kali for mutilating the bull and the cow.

SBhag., 1.17.28: “Mahārāja Parīkṣit, who could fight one thousand enemies single-handedly, thus pacified the personality of religion and the earth. Then he took up his sharp sword to kill the personality of Kali, who is the cause of all irreligion.” From Srila Prabhupada’s purport: “As described above, the personality of Kali is he who deliberately commits all kinds of sinful acts which are forbidden in the revealed scriptures. 

This age of Kali will certainly be full of all activities of Kali, but this does not mean that the leaders of society, the executive heads, the learned and intelligent men, or above all the devotees of the Lord should sit down tightly and become callous to the reactions of the age of Kali. In the rainy season certainly there will be profuse rainfalls, but that does not mean that men should not take means to protect themselves from the rains. 

It is the duty of the executive heads of state and others to take all necessary actions against the activities of Kali or the persons influenced by the age of Kali; and Mahārāja Parīkṣit is the ideal executive head of the state, for at once he was ready to kill the personality of Kali with his sharp sword.”

Unfortunately, this verse is not always quoted by those who appeal to SBhag., 1.17.22 and thus they make incomplete impression. See also important purport in this regard to the verse of Cc. Adi 10.85.

Off course, unnecessary criticizing should be avoided, and on the whole the movement and dealings among Prabhupadanugas should develop in positive spirit. There are many nuances in this topic, but the bottom line is that one should not give up fighting against offences and even against the offenders — when it is actually necessary. 

At the same time one should not feel hatred towards the souls, persons of those who commit sin. As Srila Prabhupada quoted from the Bible, one should hate sin, not the sinner. It is especially necessary to react when suffering is inflicted not on ourselves, but on others. Criticism is permissible and even inevitable for preaching. It’s wrong to equate absolutely any criticism with offences, blasphemy. An insult is an inadequate criticism. 

And the lack of adequate, constructive criticism can turn into “criminal failure to act”, which in fact will be offensive. In addition, inadequate, excessive glorification and worship is also offensive if the honors and praises do not correspond to the real situation of the one who is being improperly glorified.

It should also be noted that conspiracies are widespread in the material world. It was the conspirators themselves who introduced terms like “conspiracy theory”, although any adult understands that this world is full of not only theories, but also real conspiracy practices. If we look at VedaBase, we will see that Srila Prabhupada talked about conspiracies a number of times. E.g.:

Buddhists conspired against Lord Chaitanya (Cc. Madhya 9.52-63). The same maya, the same conspiracy as in the history of the Mahabharata after the death of King Pandu to seize his kingdom, occurred in Gaudiya Matha in 1937. It was “unlawful usurpation” of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s Society. Before that, there was a plot by sahajiyas to murder Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati by bribing the police. 

The conspiracy against Srila Prabhupada in 1970 in Los Angeles (the combined influence of deviant Godbrothers and some of Srila Prabhupada’s misguided disciples), the conspiracy of his Godbrothers in Mayapur to prevent Srila Prabhupada from obtaining land for the ISKCON temple in early 1970s, etc.
In conclusion: Prabhupadanuga devotees are trying to serve up a revolution, but more accurately, beneficial counter-revolution, with the aim to return ISKCON organization and/or movement back to Srila Prabhupada, since it was stolen as a result of the criminal takeover. So it’s not us who shouldn’t try this counter-revolution, it’s anti-ritviks who shouldn’t have staged their treacherous coup/revolution in the first place.

There was a similar goal at the battle of Kuruksetra: Lord Krishna returned government power (having previously tried to resolve the issue by means of peaceful negotiations with Kauravas, but they refused to correct the situation) to Pandavas, divine kings, by taking it away from the Kaurava conspirators who represented the dark side. 

The whole plot of the Bhagavad-gita is that Arjuna initially also refused to participate in this counter-revolution, the battle to return royal power to divine forces, but after receiving instructions from Lord Krishna, he realized that this battle was necessary and beneficial, and he told Krishna: kariṣye vacanaṁ tava – “I am prepared to act according to Your instructions.” (Bg. 18.73)

Therefore, everyone should support the counter-revolution against fake gurus of maya-ISKCON and their deviations, by becoming Prabhupadanugas. Claims by anti-ritvik apa-sampradaya that such a counter-revolution should not be effected, that everything is generally fine, that stubborn anti-ritviks/offenders of Srila Prabhupada, who flatly refuse to correct the crisis, should not be overthrown or rejected, that Srila Prabhupada should not be returned to the center of ISKCON — all this is just another their empty words, a trick or a terrible misunderstanding of the situation, and extremely offensive and destructive one. 

Of course, revolutions should not be organized for an insignificant reason, but in today’s maya-ISKCON, which is hijacked by demoniac forces, a revolution is actually needed.

By following Vaisnava etiquette, we have already tried to explain to maya-ISKCON leaders what’s the problem and asked them to correct the situation “from the top” by evolution. But they refuse, and by doing so they create a revolutionary situation themselves. 

A revolutionary situation is when the higher-ups cannot make adequate decisions, and the rank and file don’t want (and should not) obey inadequate decisions. So what’s the conclusion? That’s right: long live the great pro-Prabhupada/pro-ritvik counter-revolution! Down with the rebellious junta of false gurus and their deviations! All glories and all power to Srila Prabhupada and his instructions!

(by Alexander Stegantsev) 

======

CIVILIANS ALWAYS TARGETTED

UKRAINE UPDATE

PADA: There are also people telling me, why are you not mentioning any current news? So I mention sometimes. 

*** You are biased, well wishing but most likely naive, because Russian kids are dying as well, and you repeat for innumerable number of times about Indian nurse etc!

But there is no verified evidence Ukraine was targeting civilians and children before the war? This was claimed repeatedly by Russia and was investigated:

"Russia has frequently claimed that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian speakers in Donbas. The UN, OSCE, and the International Court of Justice did not find any evidence supporting an intentional genocide claim before the 2022 invasion. The International Court of Justice noted Russia's genocide justification was unsubstantiated in proceedings related to the war.

The most accurate summary is: Yes, some limited numbers of civilians were being killed in eastern Ukraine before 2022. Yes, some civilian deaths occurred in areas hit by Ukrainian military fire, while others occurred due to separatist or Russian-backed forces, mines, and crossfire. 

No major international monitoring body concluded that Ukraine was systematically or intentionally killing civilians as a policy before the 2022 invasion. And no international body has found evidence of this subsequently, nor has Russia submitted conclusive evidence ever since. (AI analysis).

PADA: Right, Ukraine is not targeting apartments then, today and now either? So the Russians wanted to stamp out the Nazis. And the Russians thought my Hindu Nurse's apartment, full of women, pregnant women, old people, and children, babies, and cats, birds, dogs etc. was a massive hideout for the Nazis. So the whole thing should be blown to pieces, to kill everyone there. How do they know anyone or everyone there is a Nazi? Includes all the fish tanks, birds, cats, dogs also living there. Nope, everyone has to die.  

And even if some or all of them are Nazis, we cannot target the women, children, babies and civilians of the enemy. Then again my Hindu nurse does not know if any of her neighbors are Nazis? She says she never met ANY Nazis living over there? Where are all these Nazis? She could not find ANY of them, and she was living right there.   

Sorry, this civilian targeting [genocide] is what the actual Nazis do in WW II. They were sending V2 rockets to hit London -- and sometimes apartments were being hit. The difference is, the Nazis were sending rockets over there randomly and they did not have specific targets of apartments, while the Russians have well guided missiles and they intend to hit apartments full of people and kill the civilian residents. So in order to fight the genocidal WW II Nazis, we have to become another genocide 2026 Nazis, and behave like them? That makes no sense? The Nazis are genocidal psychopaths, and we are going to fix that, by becoming like them? 

But that is also what happens in ISKCON. We need to fix the guru problem, and Trivrikrama, Ravindra Swarupa and others -- became one of the gurus themselves. And then they behaved just as badly or more badly, and made me and Sulochana targets. We cannot fix a problem by being another version of the same problem? 

Lets face it, Russia targets civilians and civilian water, power, sewer etc. so they can freeze babies to death in the winter etc. My Hindu nurse friend says that, these Russians want to kill us, but before they kill us, they want to make us suffer badly, no water, starving or freezing us to death etc. first of all. So they want to torture people to death, including babies. Why are they any better than the WW II Nazis?

In any case, there is no certified evidence that Ukraine is even targeting civilians now today either? But we see Russians doing that all the time since this started. So the Russians are the newly created Nazis, killing civilians, and Ukraine is not. 

But here below we find that some mother has her kids in the baby seat driving on the bridge and the Russians are bombing the bridge. That means a dog knows a mother driving her kids on the bridge is not a threat, the new Nazis do not know. They also don't know if that woman is a Nazi or not, and they don't care that she is carrying babies or not, it is all about mass genocide of civilians, which includes women and children.  

Sending the V2s in 1943 was considered a war crime at that time, and it still is now. The new Nazis are doing exactly what the old Nazis were doing, to get rid of the Nazis = become one? 

But don't worry, most people don't give me any good counter points. The Russian devotees support all this? OK they are supporting blowing up the Nazis -- i.e. the women, children, babies, cows, dogs, and nurses. That means they do not understand that it is not our position to kill ... a spider. 

They have not understood the siddhanta of the religion. As for me not knowing history, I know who targets civilians from history, and I know who is now. Recently Russia lost 2,000 men in a day, as some Russian women said on a video, Putin is making us women a nation of crying mothers, wives and children. 

Yup. He does not care about his own people suffering, never mind others. But yeah, I am a representative of my nurse friend. She has no voice in this, so I represent her case and no one can defeat her with any sensible counter. 

They wanted to slice her, and hundreds of thousands of others, into pieces, and -- that is wrong, period. I know this is Kali Yuga and we should expect such things, and that is true. But we should not allow Kali Yuga deviants to mistreat others, including ISKCON people, without protesting. Killing non-combatants is very sinful, that is the Vedic maxim and even karmi war rules.  

ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com