A WILFUL ACT OF DECEPTIONPosted October 15, 2004
Charter of the Iskcon GBC, namely THE DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT created as a
formal document by which the GBC was created in the spring of 1970 in New
Vrindaban has been deliberately kept hidden from the Temple Presidents, what to
speak of the temple membership for THIRTY FOUR YEARS. Without the DIRECTION OF
MANAGEMENT the GBC has neither a legal nor an organizational right to exist. In
fact, the Non Profit Status of Iskcon may well depend on the GBC actually
following the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT.
The DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT clearly states that the GBC is an elected body subject to the control and review by the Temple Presidents. The GBC has used the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT document as EVIDENCE of their "ecclesiastic" authority in the ongoing lawsuit in Long Island. Although they submitted the DOM (DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT) three times to the court, the court KICKED OUT the GBC members from the Long Island temple, and told them that they had no jurisdiction in that temple due to not having been elected.
As this is the case, the DOM may well prove the greatest defense in the Turley Case"\:
IF THE COURT HAS DECIDED THAT THE GBC CANNOT EXERT AUTHORITY OVER THE ISKCON TEMPLES DUE TO NOT FOLLOWING THE BYLAWS OF THE ISKCON ORGANIZATION, NAMELY THEIR FOUNDING CHARTER, THE DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT (1970) THEN HOW CAN THIS FALSE RENEGADE "GBC" ENCUMBER ISKCON WITH A LAWSUIT?
They can certainly encumber themselves, in their own name, in the Turley Lawsuit, but HOW CAN THEY ENCUMBER THE TEMPLE PRESIDENTS OF ISKCON?
In the DOM, Srila Prabhupada clearly states that the GBC has no authority over the internal management of any temple. THIS COULD WELL HOLD UP IN COURT!
If the Temple Presidents have never had an opportunity to vote for the GBC due to the simple fact that their right to vote has been withheld from them by those claiming to be GBC, how can they be held accountable for the economic liabilities of the GBC?
If the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT is NOT the founding and controlling document of the GBC, then WHAT IS?.......Did the "ultimate controlling body" of Iskcon EMERGE OUT OF THIN AIR?
No governing body exists without SOME SORT OF LEGAL OR AT LEAST, ORGANIZATIONAL MANDATE.
Now the GBC has not only accepted the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT, but this most important document is NOW IN THE COURT RECORD OF LONG ISLAND AS BEING THE FOUNDING AND CONTROLLING DOCUMENT OF THE GBC! The GBC put forward the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT to prove that they (the GBC) have ABSOLUTE CONTROL AND ECCLESIASTIC JURISDICTION OVER THE TEMPLE PRESIDENTS. This is truly weird, as the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT actually states the opposite; to the effect that submitting the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT as evidence in a court case IS A 100% GURANTTEE THAT THEY WILL BE FOUND NON-COMPLIANT WITH THEIR OWN FOUNDING DOCUMENT AND THEREFORE NOT QUALIFIED TO REPRESENT ISKCON AS LEGITIMATE GBC!
Although it is true that many of the Temple Presidents are at present mere puppets of the renegade GBC, who are often their "so called" "gurus" as well, their is also a sense of sincerity and even self-preservation that may create a fissure between the unity of the Temples and the renegade GBC. Such fissure would be costless to the Temple Presidents as there is ABSOLUTELY NO RISK on their part for rejecting their current masters; either as "gurus" or as "GBC", as everyone is beginning to see that Srila Prahupada is the ultimate spiritual authority that NO ONE CAN DO WITHOUT, so that the loss on one's own little guru is not equal to the loss of one's SPIRITUAL LIFE. Also, rejecting the current GBC is no loss to the current Temple Presidents, as they can simply come together as a body and elect new ones.....so, where is the loss?
If we want to save the temples and reform them to the actual Desire and Specification established by Srila Prabhupada, then THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT! Setting aside all minor differences of opinion, we can project this possibility into the center of official ISKCON, and GIVE THE PRESIDENTS THE CHOICE TO SAVE THE MOVEMENT BY FILING A MOTION IN THE COURT TO DISMISS THE JUDGMENT OF THE TURLEY CASE DUE TO THE GBC NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS IN A COURT CASE, NOR DO THE GBC HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR ASSETS.
This might force the Turley Attorneys to re-sue each and every temple separately after establishing that the Temple had no knowledge of having been fraudulently deprived of the legally stated voting rights present in the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT.
Your humble and eternal servant,
Nara Narayan Vishwakarma das