Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

Srila Prabhupada's Poison Complaints
POISON TAPE TRANSCRIPT AND ANALYSIS BY PURANJANA DASA



Note Srila Prabhupada's swollen hands and
sun glasses, the effects of arsenic poisoning.
The eyes become sensitive to light due to arsenic's chemically reactive effect on the
tissues and nerves of the eyes. The victim therefore may prefer a nearly darkened
room because of Sensitivity of the eyes to sunlight or bright artificial light



[This tape was originally narrated in 1997, some additional "updates" will be made at the present time, 2003. Thanks Puranjana dasa]

Note Srila Prabhupada's swollen hands and
sun glasses, the effects of arsenic poisoning.
The eyes become sensitive to light due to arsenic's chemically reactive effect on the
tissues and nerves of the eyes. The victim therefore may prefer a nearly darkened
room because of Sensitivity of the eyes to sunlight or bright artificial light




Hello, Hare Krishna, my name is Puranjana dasa. I'm going to be narrating a tape which was originally made on November 8, 1977, and it contains the words of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna Movement. The tape where Prabhupada complains about being poisoned has in recent times become quite a controversy mainly because he made this complaint 20 years ago. It is now 1997, and for 20 years the tape where he complained about his being poisoned has not been available to the devotees of his movement and has not been available for sure to the general public.

So it has been, you could say, a hidden piece of information. In fact, at this point in time, I myself am the only person who is publicly distributing copies of this tape in the whole world. No one else is distributing this tape, especially not the official ISKCON organization, which is supposed to be Srila Prabhupada's official organization. So this in itself has led many people to think something very suspicious happened in November of 1977 just from the simple fact this information has been hidden and suppressed as much as it has been. But it should be noted herein that some people did know that Prabhupada had complained he was being poisoned in 1977 - and that was a small group of devotees in Vrndavana (India) at the time who had heard his poison complaint, or some of them heard about the complaint.

For different reasons, some of these people did not come forward with the story. There was a lot of mood of suppressing this information, and some of the leaders who it was revealed to by persons in the vicinity, that Prabhupada had complained he was being poisoned, they just said, "Well, it's not important because he doesn't know what he's talking about," or "He's an old man," and so on and so forth. There was this mood that Prabhupada was not in a clear state of mind to make an analysis of his own condition. We do not think that that is the case, though, because he was translating a very complicated Vedic literature, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, a Sanskrit literature, and he was narrating the story of the brahma-vimohana-lila, which is a very actually intricate, complicated, philosophically complex story; he was narrating this story in November just very shortly before he departed. So how could he be narrating this very complicated literature and not be aware of his faculties? So we think he was very aware and that there was just some attempt to make it sound like Prabhupada was making some extreme off-the-wall comment which was not realistic and, therefore, it was covered up.

* [2003 Update: At this point it has been discovered that one of the main reasons "the innocent" people who were aware of the poison complaint in 1977 did not speak up was, they were afraid of retaliation by some of the ISKCON leaders who were apparently connected to the complaint. Fear. Others were in the room when the poison complaint was made, "the less innocent" so to speak, like Adridharana, Hansadutta and similar folks. They were aware of "the poison complaint" and they simply ignored it as meaningless and of no real consequence. They were in sum compromised with the hijacking conspirators.

They more or less tried to say that Srila Prabhupada was confused when he complained of being poisoned, to protect the poison sabha of hijackers. They certainly took no steps to investigate the complaint or help Srila Prabhupada get away from the situation. This made "the innocent" even more hesitant and fearful since they saw that others, like Adridharana, Hansadutta and similar other leaders, they were compromised with the persons generating the poison complaint, the core cadre conspirators who were feared.

These compromised leaders like Adridharana and Hansadutta and similar others have held this deviant view to the present day, that the poison complaint is not a very important matter. The crucifixion of Jesus is of no real consequence, it is a minor detail best to be ignored. They simply do not think that when a pure devotee or a guru says, "I have only one request, do not torture me and put me to death," as Srila Prabhupada said in November of 1977, that this is something they should show any meaningful concern over. These severe statements have no meaning to these types of leaders but many "innocent" devotees told me subsequently, that when they later on heard these statements as presented by us pada folks, after we began circulating these tapes in 1997, "it cracked their hearts." The innocent are mortified by such statements and the hijackers and their getaway car drivers don't seem to care.

Similarly, self - advertisied "Srila Prabhupada's successor," Narayana Maharaja vociferously fought against us and opposed our exposing the poison case, and he defended the hijackers as his idea of "gurus," although he has been worn down subsequently into submitting that we are correct. So many local people in Vrindavana agreed with us and he was looking rather foolish to be still defending the GBC. More telling is that when we launched the case, Adridharana and Hansadutta types said, let pada struggle with this alone, we will not help. So there is suppression, sometimes with violence added, and when the truth starts to come out, some of the people who know some of the facts prevaricate, drag their feet, make obstacles, do not cooperate, obfuscate, deny, outright lie, and so on. And this has helped the hijackers. This is also how the same Adridharana and Hansadutta types indirectly helped the mass molesting of children in ISKCON, the same policy was there, of assisting the policy of prevarication, obfuscation, harassing the exposers, and so on.

Thus, some of the other leaders who knew of the complaint in 1977 were already compromised with the GBC hijacker cadre. And thus they accepted the idea that the apparent poison conspirators were not wrong or evil, but they were pure and holy "Srila Prabhupada's trusted appointed successors." In short, some people trusted the words of the ISKCON hijacking conspirators, people like Tamal Krishna, a big GBC leader. And as a result they did not trust the words of Srila Prabhupada.

And after 1977 folks who were in the room when the poison complaint was uttered, like Adridharana and Hansadutta, they then supported the GBC's "homosexual guru regime" which has violently suppressed any expose of the truth whether it is over the molestation issue, or the poison issue, or any other crimes. So, there was fear by the innocent class, and suppression by the GBC class, and that suppression included violence and murders. This is how these issues were and are covered up. For example, the first thing that Adridharana and Hansadutta should have said in November of 1977 is, Srila Prabhupada said he is being poisoned, let us get a legal forensic investigation of his food remnants, his clothing, his utensils, all the items in his room, his medicines and so on, let them be studied for forensic evidence of poison. They simply did not believe Srila Prabhupada and they instead believed -- the hijackers.

For that matter, Adridharana still says that Srila Prabhuada's poison complaint is not important and he is still compromised with the poison party and he is still trying to suppress the poison case as he has all along. And he still harasses, insults and attacks people who try to expose the poison complaint. In fact, the GBC has said all along that us exposers are "demons," in order to get us beaten and killed, and Adridharana's spokesman has recently said that pada is a heinous "barking gargoyle," so in this way they try to paint anyone who sympathizes with the molested children, or Srila Prabhupada's poison complaint, as essentially "a demon." That way, they can get us banned, beaten, and in sum suppressed, or even killed -- as has occured. So this mood was already there in 1977, and the issue was suppressed despite that some innocent people knew about it and they wanted to speak, but they were afraid. And they had good reason to be afraid.

Actually in my own case I have been shunned, kicked out of ISKCON, banned, have received numerous death threats, have been chased down the street with aluminum baseball bats, have been assaulted, glared at, sweared at, cursed by hired voodoo witch doctors, have seen my friends beaten and killed, and so on and so forth. So we can speak from first hand experience of how the GBC suppresses people by fear. Of course it now appears that the poison plot was specifically done to get rid of the master, and make some of the "servant" leaders appear to be the "appointed" successors, since there is evidence that the 1978 "guru appointment" project was a total fraud. There never was any appointment of gurus, and so now it seems like the butler poisoned the master to take over the estate. And thus, some people did not speak up because they were already compromised with the poisoning butler's party. Even Judas had some advocates and supporters it seems. Meanwhile, some who suspected the butler, they were afraid he would kill them too if they spoke up.

Several important locals in Vrindavana later on said that they were suspicious of some malefic intent on the part of the ISKCON leaders towards Srila Prabhupada in 1977, but they too were afraid to speak up or demand any further investigation. As one of the local Vrindavana residents said, "if they would dare to poison someone like Srila Prabhupada, they would not hesitate to kill us." In short, "fear" was perhaps the main reason some of the people who knew of the complaint did not speak up early on. It is for this same reason that people are often afraid to "speak up" against other criminals and fearful political tyrants, and so on.

One of the Western devotee eyewitnesses in Vrindavana at the time told me he too was fearful, and this caused him to be silent. Yet at the present time, the year 2003, many people have subsequently come forward with testimony regarding the poison complaint since "the mood of fear" created by the deviant leaders has subsided dramatically. And more and more people are coming forward with helpful testimony all the time. Since the most "fear inducing leader" of the ISKCON GBC has died in a car crash, namely Tamal Krishna, this has encouraged more people to come forward with testimony regarding the poison case and other deviations of the ISKCON GBC including their orchestrating mass child molesting.]

- The other interesting thing is that Prabhupada narrated the main portion of the poison complaint in the Hindi language, although most of his followers at the time were Americans who only spoke English. So the message was sort of hidden, so to speak, within a different language; and I think it's for this reason that this tape is still existing and it was not destroyed, because there are many other tapes that we are trying to gather together at this point in time and we're finding that some of these important tapes, important conversations that were made, are now missing, they are not available from the official Archives and so on. So we believe that some of these tapes were hidden, lost, or destroyed by some of the so-called leaders of the Movement who had a motive to chop and change some of the information that Prabhupada had given.

* [2003 Update: As of this writing, confirming testimony has emerged that some of the (especially 1977) audio tape recordings were in fact intentionally hidden, permanently lost or destroyed. There are, for example, mysterious "gaps" in the audio tape archives.]

- Of course, we've written many different papers about how "the letters" and "the conversations" and many personal testimonies of devotees were hidden and suppressed by the deviant leaders, and in fact there were some murders of people who were trying to bring forward some information about what Prabhupada had wanted and intended. But we're not going to get into that too much at this point. We're going to just deal primarily now with the November 8th tape itself, some of the statements that are made there. Some of them are in Hindi, some of them are in Bengali, and some are in English. So we're going to do our best. We're not native speakers of Hindi or Bengali, or we're not even speakers of these languages. However, we have had people listen to these tapes and give us what seems to be an approximation of what Prabhupada is saying in these languages. Plus we have played these tapes on the radio to thousands of people who have heard them and they have not challenged the assessment that we have made, which is that Prabhupada is saying that he is being poisoned. So it seems to be the consensus of people, especially Hindi native speakers, that Prabhupada is in fact complaining that he is being poisoned by someone, not poisoned because his kidneys are bad or something like that. He's making a direct statement that an individual is responsible for his being poisoned. So without further ado, we'll start with the first statement from November 8th, the first complaint about the poisoning.

Srila Prabhupada: Keu bole je poison kore diyeche.....hoy to tai. [Someone says that someone has poisoned me. Maybe it's true.]
Balaram Mishra(?): Hmm?
Kaviraja: Kya farma rahe hain? [What, may I ask, is your holiness saying?]
Srila Prabhupada: Koi bolta hai je mujhko koi poison diya hai. [Someone says that someone has given poison.]
Kaviraja: Kisko? [To whom?]
Srila Prabhupada: Mujhko. [To me.]

So this has been translated as "Someone is being given poison here," and the man asks "To whom?" and Prabhupada says "mujhko," which means "to me."

Kaviraja: Kaun bolta hai? [Who is saying this?]
Srila Prabhupada: Ye sab friends. [All these friends.]

So the next little section is "Who says that you are being poisoned?", and Prabhupada answers that "they are friends." So "who" is this friend or friends who informed him that he is being poisoned? It could be anyone, of course. It could be Krishna Himself because Prabhupada is, according to our philosophy, in direct communion with the Supreme Lord. So why couldn't his friend, his best friend, Krishna, have told him that "someone is poisoning you"? This is a possibility. The other thing is that we do not find any other discussion prior to this on record where Prabhupada was talking to anyone about someone poisoning him. So all of a sudden out of the blue Prabhupada says, "A friend or some friends has said that I am being poisoned."

[2003 Update: Subsequent digital forensic audio analysis of "the poison tapes" shows that there were in fact "friends" (some GBC leaders) speaking "background conversations" (some of the leaders were whispering) at least on some of these tapes. Professional forensic analysis confirms that some of these leaders were in fact discussing how they were poisoning Srila Prabhupada. So the "friends" whom Srila Prabhupada refers to above, discussing his being poisoned, they are apparently his own leaders. Indeed these leaders were in fact discussing poisoning him as audio forensics confirms, and he was apparently aware of their talking about poisoning him.

Some folks like GBC members or for example Yaduraja dasa of the "ISKCON Reform Movement" (IRM) have criticized Srila Prabhupada for his not speaking "more directly" about his poisoning. They are now very upset and angry that Srila Prabhupada's complaint has been confirmed by audio forensics experts, arsenic forensics experts, more and more testimony and so on. They complain that he was making "indirect" comments about his poisoning, so they can be discounted. Yet we think that there are good reasons for this. Perhaps his statements were intentionally "indirect" to see how some of his leaders would respond to the word "poison"; or so that the poisoners would not become too suspicious and simply kill him faster. This is what could easily have been the outcome. If there was a conspiracy of "friends" who were giving him poison, and if they thought he might expose them, then they might "finish off the job sooner." In other words, the GBC and Yaduraja types think that Srila Prabhupada should be forbidden from using: common sense? Even in ordinary criminal activity, when for example a person is hijacked or kidnapped, he may not always reveal his mind to the kidnappers? Yet some of the GBC and IRM leaders say that unless Srila Prabhupada reveals his mind to the people who may be poisoning him, he is guilty of the crime of speaking poorly, in their estimation? "Unless Jesus says, right now I am being crucified, he was not crucified"? This is how they attack the poison complaint of the pure devotee.

Some say that Srila Prabhupada's being "killed sooner" is what actually happened anyway for his exposing the poison issue. As soon as he complained he was being given poison, the poison was apparently increased, and so he departed from his body shortly thereafter. In other words, some of the critics of the method Srila Prabhupada handled this poison crisis are not to aware of how people who are being poisoned might respond to that situation. They may not come out and say directly, "I am being poisoned, by my leaders, the "yeh sab friends," and they want to kill me." If the victim is physically weakened, and isolated, and surrounded by apparent conspirators, the victim may speak in a more oblique manner. So we would argue that the fact that "the poison complaints" are a little oblique, and this fits with the idea that he could not trust the people around him, so he was being a little discrete and indirect. The GBC and IRM assume that Srila Prabhupada trusted Tamal and his coterie so he could speak "directly" to them -- and we do not.

Also, perhaps this complaint was "indirect" since there are other indications that he was trying to get out of the leader's grips and he did not want to alert them so they would halt his plan to escape. Srila Prabhupada kept saying over and over and over, get me out of this room, take me to Mayapura, take me on parikrama, get me out of here. So he wanted to escape, and yet the leaders were holding him back and keeping him in a small room. So he may have wanted to be more careful how he complained about his apparent poison since he was in a confined space and he was surrounded by a cadre of the conspirator "friends." Perhaps he was "indirect" since he knew he was going to leave his body soon anyway and so he wanted this conversation to be a little covered so that it would not cause too much alarm within his circle of attackers. If he had been "more direct" the conspirators may have destroyed these tapes and killed a few eye witnesses. Instead, by Srila Prabhupada's "indirect" method, the audio tape, and the story of his poison complaint, would eventually emerge, as has apparently occurred in fact.]

- Tamal Krishna: Who said that, Srila Prabhupada? (15-second pause)

[2003 Update: This shows that Tamal Krishna swami, one of the main suspects in the poison case, was aware that Srila Prabhupada was complaining of his being poisoned and Tamal later confirmed this in his diary, that Srila Prabhupada had complained he was being poisoned. Yet at the time, notice, all that Tamal really wanted to know was, "who" was telling him that he was being poisoned? Was one of the inner circle of poisoners betraying the others and telling Srila Prabhupada of their plot? Notice that Tamal is not very alarmed at the idea that Srila Prabhupada was in fact being poisoned and maybe killed by his saying, "Oh, Srila Prabhupada is thinking someone is giving him poison, so we have to analyze all of his food and medicines immediately. He should be tested for poison content in his body." There is just this rather casual comment, "Who is saying that"?

No such alarm was thus raised, no such alarm apparently even existed amongst the other leaders. Thus no suggestion was made by anyone to see if the complaint had merit. And if the complaint was valid, then it perhaps could be corrected, and perhaps the poison effect could be reversed. Notice that no such alarm bells were being rung by those who heard the complaint. Rather, all that Tamal wanted to know was: how did you come to understand that you were being poisoned? Thus the "alarm bells" seemed to be, not that Srila Prabhupada is being poisoned but: Is there a leak in our conspiracy? "Who" is saying that you are being poisoned? The crisis seems to be: How can we contain the leak that you are being poisoned? Adridharana dasa of Calcutta also originally told me (in 1997) he too was alarmed at the poison complaint in 1977, but he too did nothing to correct it or investigate it either. Later on Adridharana even tried to oppose Srila Prabhupada's statements by de facto saying: there never even was any poison complaint? So, there has been a mood of suppressing Srila Prabhupada and his complaint by those in posts of leadership, and in sum protecting the poison conspirators, but this is rapidly changing as the evidence piles up that there is a poison complaint and it is valid.]

- Srila Prabhupada: I do not know, but it is said. Mmmmm. (?) jyoti jnana. [The astrologer knows.]

So this little section is interesting because Prabhupada is being asked "who said that" and he says, "I do not know, but it is said." So in other words, it's a fact, it's a fact. So "who" has said it, Prabhupada is somewhat reluctant to say perhaps here, but "It is said, it's a fact, I am being poisoned."

[2003 Update: If Tamal was one of those suspected by Srila Prabhupada in the poison plot, Prabhupada is not going to say, "I do know there is a conspiracy to poison me, and you Mr. Tamal, are part of it." So he rather diverts the issue by saying, "I do not know who is saying that 'I am being poisoned,' but it is being said by someone." He is being intentionally vague apparently to throw off the persons whom he suspects. Srila Prabhupada is just mildly pushing out the issue indirectly to see if there is some way to either get out of the situation or at least, to expose it. So "I do not know who says I am being poisoned, but it is said." This is also going to put Tamal on the defensive, "who" is saying this? He does not know? So that means Tamal has to maybe be careful, the story is perhaps getting out. So this was also a means for Srila Prabhupada to perhaps protect himself, "watch out, someone is talking about my being poisoned, maybe your party will be found out." This also could have been a defensive tactic on Srila Prabhupada's part.

Again this is also perhaps to test how Tamal and others will respond. Another thing is that the critics of Srila Prabhupada's poison case, such as the GBC, Adridharana, Yaduraja of the IRM et al., they have failed to identify who these "friends" are, those who are speaking of his poisoning, in all these years? Nor have they even tried to get their own forensics done, nor have they studied the whispers we have had analyzed according to their spokesman? They seem to want to make the impression that Srila Prabhupada was getting old, maybe his mind was slipping, maybe he was hearing voices? They simply say more or less that "no one" was talking about his poisoning, he was making it up, maybe he was mentally unsound, that is their sort of complaint against Srila Prabhupada. No, there are solid forensic evidences that the people in the room in Srila Prabhupada's presence were in fact discussing poisoning him, his so-called "friends." Again, as of this point, no counter audio forensics has been forwarded by the GBC or their IRM counterparts. Meanwhile several more audio labs have confirmed that the whispers of the conspirator "friends" do in fact exist. "It is said that I am being poisoned," and this was in fact being said. And this has been verified by audio forensics labs: it is being said that he is being poisoned by his leaders, his "friends."

Worse, the GBC and the IRM forwarded a false audio forensics "expert" to counteract us, but their "expert" has subsequently admitted in public that he has no audio forensic credentials. In sum the GBC and the IRM tried to bluff their way out of the poison complaint and they tried to paint Srila Prabhupada as incoherent, incompetent, and they tried make a huge joke and circus out of the poison complaint of Srila Prabhupada with their bogus counter forensics and other falsity. This has backfired on them badly. Worse, the GBC tried to start a web site to counteract the poison complaint and this was also subsequently endorsed by the IRM, and now that web site has disappeared, being discredited, and in addition the main leaders of that site's GBC are being sued for starting a mass homosexual pedophile molesting regime.]

- Then he says jyoti jnana. "The jyoti knows," this is I think the way this would be translated. So in Prabhupada's chart, his astrological chart or jyotish, it says "you will live for six more years." This was read in August of 1977, his jyotish, just a few months before he left his body. In his chart it said, "You will live for six more years if you can live for the next six months. But watch out over the next six months, you will have some danger from juniors and subordinates, meaning the leaders, the people around you, they could be very dangerous." So Prabhupada makes a reference here to the jyotish, and in the jyotish there's a warning about his leaders being a potential cause of his death over the next six months.

[2003 Update: The Astrology chart of Srila Prabhupada indeed confirms that there is a warning about his life being cut short due to some dangerous activities from some of his "juniors and subordinates," his leaders. The chart says that he will live, but only essentially if "the subordinates" do not kill him. Many people have studied this statement in his chart, by today, and the consensus is that Srila Prabhupada is making a reference above to his astrology chart predicting "danger from juniors and subordinates," i.e. that he could essentially be murdered by his "juniors and subordinates." And so he says, "the chart knows" -- who is talking about poisoning me, since the chart says there will be danger -- of being murdered -- from your juniors and subordinates. So now we have the idea that some "friends" are talking about poisoning him, and his chart has a warning about a plot to end his life, something like poison being used by his juniors against him, by the same party of "friends."]

- Kaviraja: Yeh maharaj ji, ye kotha ap kaise bola aap ki... koi bola hai ki poison diya hai. Ye ap ko kuch abhas hua hai kya? [So, Maharaj, what is this that you said about someone telling you that you had been poisoned? Did you feel something?]

[2003 Update: The kaviraja was aware that Srila Prabhupada was saying that "someone" was saying he was being poisoned, so this means that the eyewitnesses understood that he was saying "someone says I am being poisoned." Again the GBC and IRM types have tried to say that he was complaining about his liver or something like that, but no, there was the idea that by malefic intent poison was being given.]

Srila Prabhupada: Nahin, aise koi bola je...debe-sa hi ja hota hai. Shayad koi kitab men likha hai. [No, some people say like this, that ...it is like that when it (poison) is given. Perhaps it is written in some book.]

[2003 Update: Srila Prabhupada says, (a) Some friends say I am being poisoned, (b) My chart say beware that my juniors may use something to kill me, and now he says (c) That he has the symptoms of a person who is being given poison. A number of Indian doctors (kavirajas) confirm that he appeared like a person who had the symptoms of being poisoned. So this is further confirmation, someone says I am being poisoned, my chart says beware of juniors may be plotting to kill me, and now, moreover, I have the symptoms of poisoning. Many experts subsequently agreed, he did have the symptoms of a person who was being given poison.]

- Kaviraja: Kai karanon se ho jata hai, kacce mercury se ho jata hai, ya aur koi bhi ciz aisha hai vaisha ho jata, lekin apke liye kaun karega ham to yahi samajhata hai. Aise devpurush ke liye koi manasi vicar karega, vo bhi rakshas hai.
[It could be for a number of reasons, because of raw mercury and there are other things which can have a similar effect. Who would do such a thing to you, I cannot understand. Anyone who could even consider doing such a thing to a divine personality like yourself is a rakshasa (demon).]

So this section is very significant. The word mercury is introduced. It is a poison, severe poison that is used or could be used to kill somebody. So mercury and also the word rakshasa, which means a demoniac individual. So if we connect these ideas together, the speaker, who I think is the kaviraja, the doctor, is saying that someone is giving him some poison like mercury and whoever is doing that is a demon, a rakshasa. So some people have said that this tape or this conversation means that Prabhupada was saying "my liver is bad" and "my liver is poisoning me" and so on. That is not at all what's being said here. What is being said is that there are some demoniac forces here, some evil force at work. It is not some physiological thing, it is not an accidental thing. It is the work of a rakshasa or an individual who has made a design to try to eliminate the pure devotee of the Lord, Srila Prabhupada. And this demoniac person is maybe administering some metallic poison like mercury.

[2003 Update: So now we have, (a) Some friends say I am being poisoned (b) My astrology chart says beware that my juniors may use something to kill me (c) I have the symptoms of a person who is being given poison (d) The doctor says some "demon" may be giving him mercury. The metallic poison has turned out to be arsenic, which was found in excessive amounts in Srila Prabhupada's hair sample.]

- Tamal Krishna: Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you ...that it is said that you were poisoned?
Srila Prabhupada: No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned, he said like that. Not that I am poisoned.

[2003 Update: This phrase, "not that I am poisoned," has been used by the GBC and their defenders like Adridharana, Yaduraja and the IRM to make it seem like this is all a contradiction: (1) He is saying he is being poisoned -- but (2) He is -- not -- saying that? They try to establish that Srila Prabhupada is crazy or confused? No, he is saying that he is being poisoned, and the doctor understands this and says a (rakshasa) demon is giving the poison, but again while speaking to Tamal, Srila Prabhupada back pedals because he does not want Tamal to know that he is aware that their party is giving him poison. The GBC and IRM cannot understand that one may not always talk openly to one's kidnapper or hijackers, so they rather try to say that Srila Prabhupada is speaking gibberish -- apparently to defend the poison plotters. They also say that you have to reveal your mind to your kidnappers or hijackers, so you will not be able to escape and you will be killed faster? They are the ones not making sense?

Notice that Srila Prabhupada already totally deflected Tamal's first question, "who is saying this," and now he is again deflecting Tamal's next question. Of course this begs the bigger question, if he has "the symptoms of a person being poisoned," why didn't Tamal try to have the situation analyzed and try to identify where the source of the poison was? Why does Srila Prabhupada have "the symptoms" of a person who is being poisoned anyway? Why was this not investigated? And since the doctor said that a demon was maybe administering the poison, this shows that "a person or persons" were being blamed for the poisoning. This was not investigated either? Notice that Srila Prabhupada did not correct the doctor and say, "no, you are wrong, no one is giving me poison," rather he lets that statement stand, and maybe there is a demon who is giving me poison, and maybe it is something like mercury. Only when the conversation flips back to Tamal does Srila Prabhupada try to downplay it, and that is because we think: he suspects Tamal.]

- Tamal Krishna: Did anyone tell you that, or you just know it from before?
Srila Prabhupada: I read something.
Tamal Krishna: Ah.

So this conversation is very significant. Srila Prabhupada is saying that he had the physiological characteristics of a person who is being given poison, and we have had an 82-year-old doctor, an expert in Ayurvedic physician medicine, a practicing doctor, who has given an analysis by looking at Prabhupada's videos, seeing how he looked physiologically, and he said that Prabhupada had the physiological characteristics of a person who is being given poison from this doctor's viewpoint. This doctor also pointed out that in India poison is a little more commonly used than in the West. In the West, of course, we use guns and knives and dispatch people as quickly as possible; but poison is also used in the West sometimes, especially when you're trying to kill someone by subtle background means or you don't want to make it conspicuous that you're trying to get rid of someone. So poison is a more insidious form of trying to eliminate someone. So anyway, Prabhupada said, "I look like someone who is being poisoned." And he says, "I read it somewhere also. Someone said that." He doesn't say who that someone is, but also he read it. In other words, Prabhupada was an expert in medicine and pharmaceutical products, he was a salesman for pharmaceutical products. So he read somewhere perhaps that if a person is being poisoned, this is how he would look or this is how his body would react. So either way, he read it himself or someone told him or he had an intuition or Krishna told him. Somehow or other he had the understanding that he looks like at least a person who had been given poison, and he had the physiological characteristics of a person who had been given poison.

- Tamal Krishna: I see. That's why actually we cannot allow anyone else to cook for you.
Srila Prabhupada: That is good.

[2003 Update: So it is clear, "someone" may be giving him poison, and therefore they have to make sure no one suspicious is allowed to cook for him. It was thus clearly understood that "someone" was near or in his presence who could be giving him poison, and therefore precautions had to be made to try to halt that person or persons from having access to his food and medicine. The problem here is that the people who had access to his food and medicine are: the leaders. Notice also that Srila Prabhupada agrees, yes someone may be giving me poison, so we have to make sure no one else has access to the food that I am ingesting. Of interest, recent testimony is that one of Tamal's associates was seen pouring a liquid over Srila Prabhupada's food just before giving it to him.]

- Tamal Krishna: Jayapataka Maharaj was telling that one acharya, Sankaracharya, of the Sankaracharya line - this is a while ago - he was poisoned to death. Since that time, none of the acharyas or the gurus of the Sankaracharya line will ever take any food cooked except by their own men.
Srila Prabhupada: My Guru Maharaj (Srila Saraswati) also.

[2003 Update: Notice that some of the GBC leaders were in fact discussing the issue of poisoning of gurus?]

- So in this section we find that it is known that sometimes great saintly persons are attacked by someone trying to put poison into their food. Tamal Krishna points out that "We've been very liberal letting people cook for you, Srila Prabhupada," and Prabhupada says this should be stopped. Of course, the mystery here is that no outside person was in fact cooking for Prabhupada at this time. His cooking was very tightly controlled by Tamal Krishna and Bhakticharu and a very small circle of people. So there were no outside people at this time cooking for Srila Prabhupada. A testimony we have recently from a devotee who now lives in the Bay area is that Prabhupada's sister, Pisima - he called her Pisima, which I think means sister - he had requested her to cook for him because he told her that "I'm being poisoned, and I want you to buy the (uncooked food) bhoga at the market and cook for me."

So in other words, the process of potentially poisoning someone through food is well known; and Tamal Krishna points out herein that this was used, this process of poisoning a guru was used in the Sankara Sampradaya, and then Prabhupada says, "My Guru Maharaj also." So his Guru Maharaj, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, was said to have been poisoned. Srila Prabhupada mentions this in other conversations that his Guru Maharaj was being given injections. One of his disciples had made this arrangement with a doctor from Calcutta, and his Guru Maharaja objected to that. Prabhupada says, "My Guru Maharaj would have lived for many more years, but he was very disgusted with the way he was being treated." So in 1936 his guru Srila Saraswati had repeatedly said, "I do not want doctors and I don't want injections," and this man, a so-called follower, arranged for these injections. So Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati left the planet untimely.

So you could say perhaps he was also murdered, and that's what Prabhupada says here: "My Guru Maharaja also" was poisoned and/or given something that he should not have been given, and this caused him to leave his body untimely. Now, many devotees have at this point, inside the institution, they have questioned our analysis that the guru of the 1930's, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, who was Prabhupada's guru, that he had been poisoned; but here we have it very clearly. Prabhupada is saying, "My Guru Maharaja also" was given something just like these Sankaracharya guru lineage people. So it's very clear, his Guru Maharaj was given injections which he objected to, he was poisoned. What's very interesting here is that the person that Prabhupada says was responsible for giving these injections to Bhaktisiddhanta in the 1930's was actually glorified by Tamal Krishna, their advisor Narayana Maharaja, and the rest of the GBC later on as an example of one of their gurus.

They said in 1990 that this man who Prabhupada credited with giving these injections to Bhaktisiddhanta, causing him to leave his body, was an example of Tamal Krishna's idea of what a guru is. So this is very interesting. Why would Tamal Krishna glorify a person that Prabhupada had specifically said had caused the untimely death of his own guru, and why would the entire GBC print that statement? And why would Narayana Maharaja make this statement? Notice that Narayana Maharaja and Tamal were close friends just after Srila Prabhupada departed.

This was all printed in their 1990 ISKCON Journal. They said that this guru who Prabhupada credited with the untimely departure of Bhaktisiddhanta, "he's an example of one of our gurus." So it's kind of a Freudian slip here, in my opinion. They glorify a person who actually, from all points of view, seems to have poisoned and killed his own Guru Maharaj. Why would they glorify this individual? So many questions are coming up here. Why would Tamal Krishna say "we shouldn't give you outside food" when no outside food is being given here? The food is being very carefully dealt with by a very small crew of hand-selected people that Tamal Krishna had control over that were not outside people. So this was another perhaps Freudian slip, "Yes, we shouldn't let outside people cook." So who is the outsider? Who is that person who is outside of the confidence of Srila Prabhupada?

Hamsaduta: So we should meet and make a program for going around Vrndavana.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Hamsaduta: You'd like to begin tomorrow morning?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Jayapataka: In this part of India it's very cold now for Your Divine Grace.
Srila Prabhupada: Underneath the tree it is not cold.

So this portion of the tape indicates that Srila Prabhupada was trying to get out of the room that he was in. He was not also happy being confined in a small room, which he said there was no air in there and he said, "Don't keep me locked up in here." So this was one of the indications, which was given many, many times by Srila Prabhupada, "Please take me out of this room," and he wanted to go on a tour around Vrndavana on a parikrama. He wanted to go to Mayapur, he wanted to go to Calcutta, he wanted to go different places, basically indicating he wanted to get out of this room. And so one of the devotees is saying, "Well, it's very cold outside right now for you, Srila Prabhupada." And he said, "Well, underneath a tree it's not cold." So in other words, "Just get me out of here, please, and I'll live under a tree and that will be better for me than staying here in this situation of being confined." And also perhaps if he had gotten out and was living under a tree, he could have said, "Hey, I want someone else to be in charge of my food and medicine" and so on.

Tamal Krishna: You sound like you are very determined to go, Srila Prabhupada.

So this is the voice of Tamal Krishna Goswami kind of indicating in a supposedly questioning manner, "You sound like you're very determined to go, Srila Prabhupada." So in other words, yes, Prabhupada was very determined to go. So who was determined to stop him from going? That's the question here, and why is Tamal saying, in other words, "You seem to be determined what you want to do, and we want to do something else." There's a sort of conflict here.

Jagadish: Can you tell us why you want to go on the parikrama?
Srila Prabhupada: (?)
Tamal Krishna: This seems like suicide, Srila Prabhupada, this program. It seems to some of us like it's suicidal.
Srila Prabhupada: And this is also suicidal.
Tamal Krishna: Hmm. Prabhupada said, "And this is also suicide." Now you have to choose which suicide.
Srila Prabhupada: The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama. Eh? That Marichi, if he does not go to be misled Sita, he'll be killed by Ravana. And if he goes to be killed by Rama, then it is better.
Tamal Krishna: So who is this Prabhupada's talking about?
Devotees: Marichi.

So Marichi was a servant of Ravana, who is a famous demon, and Prabhupada is comparing himself herein to the position of Marichi. Marichi was requested to go and fool Sita so that Rama, who is an incarnation of God, would kill him. Marichi would be chased by Rama and be killed. So Marichi understood, "I'm going to be killed by Ravana if I stay here, and if I don't follow his order I'll be killed. If I go to Rama I'll be killed also, but better to be killed by Rama, who is an incarnation of God." So Prabhupada says, "Take me out on parikrama because then this will be Rama killing me instead of staying here and having Ravana kill me." So who is the Ravana Prabhupada is referring to? He's saying, "If I stay here, Ravana will kill me. It's very clear that a demoniac type of force is at work here if I stay here." That's the implication. From another point of view, we could say let's just forget totally about the poison issue here for one second. Let's just say that Prabhupada was like Grandfather Bhisma, who wanted to go out and die gloriously in a battle. Bhisma wanted to die in a battle because he was a warrior and that was his nature. So Prabhupada wanted to die preaching because he was a preacher. So he said, "Please take me out on a parikrama and let me die in the mode of preaching." So he should have been allowed to go on parikrama simply on that basis. Never mind who would kill him or not, that's not the question here. The question is he is requesting, this is his final request, this is his last request: "Take me out, let me die in the battle. Let me die doing what I am doing, preaching. Don't let me die locked up in this little room here, please." So this is another major, you could say, misunderstanding that the leaders had at this time. They did not understand that Prabhupada was a great preacher and he wanted to die preaching. So even if there was no poisoning issue here (although there is), a separate issue is that his wishes were not being fulfilled. So if he is their master, their duty is to follow his wishes and they did not do so.

Kaviraja: (Hindi)
Bhakticharu: He said pathological point of view there is nothing wrong.
Kaviraja: General condition is now good.
Bhakticharu: His condition, the heartbeat is perfect...
Tamal Krishna: So what is wrong?
Bhakticharu: Blood pressure is perfect.
Tamal Krishna: It is a spiritual...

So this is an interesting section. The kaviraja is saying that the heartbeat is good, pulse is good, physiological condition is good. So what is wrong? What is possibly wrong with Srila Prabhupada? In other words, from ordinary circumstances he should be healthy, but he's not. He's very ill. What could possibly be the problem here? So Tamal Krishna comes up with this very strange explanation at this point: "It's a spiritual thing." Prabhupada, the spiritual master of the Hare Krishna Movement, Tamal's master, has a spiritual problem. Yes, how can this be? How can a person who is fully Krishna conscious, 100 percent Krishna conscious, who wrote 70 books about Krishna consciousness, has put himself in the World Book of Records for writing more books than anybody in a short period of time in the history of writing, he's the world's most prolific author on spiritual topics and yet he's having "a spiritual problem"? No. Tamal is having a problem. He's having a problem understanding what's going on here, the dynamic that's going on here - either that, or perhaps he's covering something up. "Oh, yeah, it's a spiritual problem." No, he's being poisoned. This is not a spiritual problem. He doesn't have a general health problem. So we'll see later that Prabhupada says, "Even ten medicines couldn't save me." In other words, it's not a medical problem, it's not a spiritual problem. The problem is: someone is giving him poison.

Bhakticharu: ...when the Saturn looks away from him and he...
Tamal Krishna: But what did Prabhupada just say?
Kaviraja: (Hindi)
Bhakticharu: No, when he said that pathological...
Kaviraja: (Hindi)
Bhakticharu: He said how can you define it, how can you explain it?
Tamal Krishna: What did Srila Prabhupada say?
Bhakticharu: Like the condition couldn't have improved by ten medicines also, but with one medicine it become perfect.
Tamal Krishna: What did Prabhupada just say?
Bhakticharu: Prabhupada just said that, I mean, this morning his condition was bad, not now.
Bhavananda: But Prabhupada was complaining of mental distress this morning also.
Bhakticharu: Srila Prabhupada?
Srila Prabhupada: Hm?
Bhakticharu: Ota ki byapar hoyechilo, mental distress? [What was that all about, mental distress?]
Srila Prabhupada: Hm, hm.
Kaviraja: Boliye, boliye. [Go ahead, say it.]
Srila Prabhupada: Vohi baat hai, koi hamko poison diya. [Same thing, someone administered me poison.]
Bhakticharu: Oh, accha.

So it almost seems like the kaviraja, the doctor, is trying to pry out of Prabhupada, "What's really wrong with you? Bole, bole, please tell us. You're experiencing mental distress. We can't really figure out what's wrong with you from a physiological point of view, pathological point of view. But you're mentally distressed, so you must know something about your condition that we don't know. So what is that? Please tell us." So Prabhupada finally just says, "OK, I'm being poisoned. That's the problem. That's the cause of my mental distress."

Srila Prabhupada: Vohi baat hai, koi hamko poison diya. [Same thing, someone administered me poison.]
Bhakticharu: Oh, accha. (?)
Bhavananda: Hm?
Kaviraja: Dekhiya bat ye hai, ki, ho sakta hai kisi rakshash ne diya ho. [Look, this is the thing, that maybe some rakshasa gave him poison.]
Bhakticharu: He's saying that someone gave him poison.

[2003 Update: Rather oddly the GBC and their IRM advocates says that there is no reason for Srila Prabhupada to be experiencing mental distress, rather he is complaining about, nothing? Apart from everything else, most devotees say they are heartless for saying this. We think it is because they are likely in sympathy with the poisoner clique. "Our guru is experiencing mental distress from being poisoned, who cares" says the GBC and the IRM? We do not want our dear pals on the GBC to have any mental distress from being exposed in this plot? Jesus was crucified, who cares, we do not want Judas and Pontius Pilate to be implicated?]

POISON TAPE TRANSCRIPT Pt.2

...So I know that that area is a little confusing, but if you listen very carefully you'll hear Bhakticharu, who is now currently Bhakticharu Swami, one of the ISKCON gurus by the way, he is translating what Prabhupada had just said, "someone gave him poison here. Someone gave him poison here." This is not, "Oh, he has a liver problem which is causing poison." No. Someone, a person, an individual, has tried to get rid of Srila Prabhupada. That's what he says.

Of course, Bhakticharu, at this point, for 20 years he's been silent on this issue. So this is a major problem that we're having right now. Here is one of the key witnesses, he's there, he's one of the few people who understands Hindi and Bengali and English, and yet instead of saying at the time, "Whoa, let's hold on a minute, folks. Srila Prabhupada just said that he is being poisoned by someone. Let's make a big investigation."

He could have gone out and recruited many devotees to help him. He didn't say a word, though, to the rank and file devotees. He did not try to recruit any help here. So this is very strange, and we're not sure legally even how this works. If you know someone says "I'm being killed" and you're just not helping that person, not demanding help and investigating the cause of this person being killed, are you implicated legally? I'm not sure, according to different laws. We're studying this issue right now.

Kaviraja: Dekhiya bat ye hai, ki, ho sakta hai kisi rakshash ne diya ho. [Look, this is the thing, that maybe some rakshasa gave him poison.]

[2003 Update: Again, that idea that some "rakshasa" (a demoniac person) is consciously and purposefully administering poison to Srila Prabhupada is repeated. Again, the GBC keeps saying that this was a complaint about a bad liver, but this is clearly not the case. The complaint has to do with the "demoniac" intent of persons giving poison to Srila Prabhupada.]

Bhakticharu: He's saying that someone gave him poison.

[2003 Update: Again notice, "He (Srila Prabhupada) is saying that someone gave him poison." So this was how the conversation is going, he is being poisoned, and it is intentional, and it is being administered by "someone." Oddly, Adridharana dasa of Calcutta, one of the people in the room at the time of the poison complaint, he has subsequently tried to agree with the GBC that this above conversation is not a poison complaint. He says that the people in the room were misunderstanding the complaint, since there really was none? Yet, if he was in the room at the time, and he understood Hindi and Bengali, why did he not clarify this "misunderstanding" at the time? And why didn't he clarify it later on but he remained silent for 20 years, until we brought it up?

Clearly from the audio tape, everyone else in the room is agreeing: "someone gave him poison." And yet Adridharana says he was in the room too, and he was the only one thinking, this complaint is non-existing? Why did he not speak up at the time then? Why did he not come out of the room and notify the other devotees: the people in Srila Prabhupada's room are "making up" a poison complaint, as he now says is what occured? No, there was a poison complaint, and he knew there was one, and now he is trying to "get himself off the hook" of guilt by omission. He should have acted to do something about this complaint.]

Kaviraja: Caru Swami?
Bhakticharu: Yes?
Kaviraja: Kisi rakshash ne diya ho ye ho sakta hai, impossible nahin hai. Vo... Sankaracarya the, unko kisine poison diya, che mahine tak badi taklif paaye. [It is possible that some demon has given it. It is not impossible. Just like Sankaracarya was poisoned over six months with broken glass.]

[2003 update: One of our devotee associates was once eating at a GBC managed restaurant. One of the devotee workers at the restaurant told him to wait, they had some "special food" for him to eat in the back room. Then they brought out a plate of food from behind the kitchen door. He ate it but it tasted "crunchy." The next day, when he passed stool, blood came out. He felt through his stools and, there was finely ground broken glass in it. That means that some of the GBC and their followers were well versed in the techniques of poison and feeding people ground up broken glass and so on. They studied these processes, and since they would use these techniques against Srila Prabhupada, they would use it against some of us.]

- So in this next little section, the kaviraja, the doctor, is saying "impossible nahin," which means "It's not at all impossible that Prabhupada is being given poison because a guru in the Sankara line had been killed by being given broken glass slowly over a six-month period." Someone was putting broken glass into his guru's food preparations in order to kill him. So the kaviraja is saying, "It's not at all impossible that someone also is trying to kill Prabhupada because he's also a guru just like this Sankara guru was." All of this begs the question, why was the killing and poisoning of gurus being discussed a few days before Srila Prabhupada departed, and just after he complained of being poisoned? The malefic administering of poison and broken glass to grurus is being discussed, and the kaviraja says, "this is also what seems to have happened to Srila Prabhupada."

Kaviraja: Abhi bhi ye pakadta hai ki kidney kharab ho gaya hai. Kisi karan se, cahe bimari se ho, cahe graha se ho, cahe poison se. No matter what reason his kidneys are bad, whether from disease, planetary positions or poison, my medicine will counteract it.]

Tamal Krishna: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him? Bhakticharu: Yes.

[2003 Update: Rather oddly, again, Adridharana (one of the people in the room when the poison complaint was made) first said in 1997 he agreed with us that there was a grevious poison complaint. Then later, he basically reversed that and said there was no poison complaint, and he joined forces with the GBC and defended them and advertised the GBC's web site. And thus, when we first posted this story and it was read by Adridharana dasa, he went into a complete rage. He said that we were "blaming" him for being a murderer and for poisoning Srila Prabhupada. So this is very odd is it not? He was saying we are right: there is a complaint. He even said he wanted to help us investigate the matter, then he became very much angry, aggressive and attacking us saying: we were fingering him as one of the murderers?

And then he began to side with the main suspects like Tamal Krishna in opposing us on this complaint. Yet, why would he go into a rage and support the main suspects if his hands were totally clean? This looks even more suspicious? We never said he murdered anyone and yet his party said we had called him "a murderer"? Why the rage? Why the misrepresentation? Why the lack of helping the investigation? So this means there were people in the room who knew of the complaint, and they were thinking it was never going to surface. And as soon as it did, they were trying to look surprised and helpful but later their real feelings came out, they were totally enraged that "their little secret" was going public.

Also, why would Adridharana later on say, Srila Prabhupada was not thinking he was being poisoned, when everyone else in the room was confirming he was saying: he was thinking he was being poisoned? Why would Adridharana countermand Srila Prabhupada's statements and try to blame us for linking him to -- murder? And why would he try to change the whole story of what occurred here, first seeming to help us and then supporting and defending the main suspects? And if everyone else in the room was, as Adridharana tries to imply, "making up some insane story about poison just to taunt and torture Srila Prabhupada for no reason," as Adridharana de facto says is what occurred, then, why did he not stop that from going on at the time? Why did he sit back and allow these people to torture Srila Prabhupada with a so-called "made up" story, as he implies is what occurred, when he was right there and he could have said something to stop it? So once again, the testimony of some of the people in the room: does not add up at all? And their subsequent blatant anger and rage makes it look all the more like, there is a cover up afoot? And it seems they are merely angry that the covers have been ripped off their carefully hidden twenty years of secrecy, secret GBC meetings, contrived cover ups, and perhaps longer, maybe thirty or more years of cover up? In any case the above two sentences alone totally defeat these cover up folks, "Srila Prabhupada was thinking someone had poisoned him?" and the answer is, "yes."]

Tamal Krishna: That was the mental distress?
Bhakticharu: Yes.

[2003 Update: Again, the reason Srila Prabhupada is feeling mental distress is that he thinks someone is giving him poison. The GBC and Adridharana try to say that there was no bona fide reason for his mental distress, de facto, they imply Srila Prabhupada was losing his mind. No, he was catching on to the poison plot, and this was causing him to be distressed. On the background "whispers portion" of these tapes Srila Prabhupada hears them saying they are giving poison and he says, "to me"? So he understood they were "giving poison" and he further understood: it was being given "to him." Testimony from Naranarayan dasa is that he heard Tamal say a few years before 1977, "Srila Prabhupada is a senile old man." Thus it seems that some of the leaders were setting up this poison plan, and if Srila Prabhupada caught on to their plot, then they could say that Srila Prabhupada is a senile old man, he does not know what he is saying.]

Kaviraja: Ye bolte hai to isme kuch na kuch satya rai hai, koi sandeh nahi. [If he says that, there must be some truth to it. There's no doubt.]

[2003 Update: This is very odd, the doctor says at the time that if Srila Prabhupada says he is being poisoned, it must be true. Yet some of Srila Prabhupada's "big disciples" are still doubting?]

- Tamal Krishna: What did Kaviraja just say?
Bhakticharu: He said that when Srila Prabhupada is saying that, there must be something truth behind it.
Tamal Krishna: Tssh.

So here we have Tamal Krishna Swami stating that Srila Prabhupada thought someone was poisoning him, and this was confirmed by two different devotees and also the doctor. The doctor said, "If Prabhupada said he's being poisoned, it must be true." So everyone present has understood and has agreed that Prabhupada is stating that someone is giving him poison at this point. One interesting thing is that Tamal Krishna Goswami wrote a book about Prabhupada's final days and in that book he does not mention one word about this episode where Prabhupada said he is being poisoned, neither has this episode been mentioned in any other official publications by the Governing Body Commission members. They've written many, many books about Prabhupada, his life and his pastimes and so many things, and this particular issue somehow or other never gets mentioned.

[2003 Update: After we originally publicly challenged the GBC over the poison issue in 1997, Tamal then published his diary "to counter the poison investigation." He at least admitted that Srila Prabhupada did make a poison complaint, he could not deny it, BECAUSE this was STATED on the tape, but he still gives us no good explanation why Srila Prabhupada had made that complaint, and why was the complaint hidden and suppressed and so on?]

- So very unfortunately, those of us who have had our lives threatened by the Governing Body Commission members are the persons who time and time again have to investigate various important issues and various important statements given by Srila Prabhupada, and this is simply another instance where the Governing Body Commission has covered up an instruction or an important statement from Srila Prabhupada and suppressed it. In any event, it's now very clear that Prabhupada is saying "I'm being poisoned," and this was the understanding that the people around him at the time also got from that statement. It was verified by the eye witnesses present at the time.

Tamal Krishna: What did Kaviraja just say?
Bhakticharu: He said that when Srila Prabhupada is saying that, there must be something truth behind it.
Tamal Krishna: Tssh.
Jayapataka: What did he say about Sankaracarya?
Bhakticharu: That someone gave him some poison like, you know, the powdered glass they put in his food.
Kaviraja: (Hindi) [(Somewhat unclear) He appears to be saying that he will give Srila Prabhupada certain medicine to be taken with pan, cold water or milk and results will be seen in the morning.]
Tamal Krishna: Srila Prabhupada, Sastriji says that there must be some truth to it if you say that. So who is it that has poisoned?

This is the voice of Tamal Krishna Goswami asking Srila Prabhupada, "Who is it that has poisoned you?" Now at this point in time, this is 20 years later, this is 20 years after this tape was made (this is 1997, this tape was made in 1977), many of the Governing Body Commission members are now trying to say that Prabhupada was referring to his general health, he said he was being poisoned because of a kidney failure and so on and so forth; but that's not how the conversation was going. Right here Tamal Krishna is saying, "Who is it that has poisoned you?" "Who" refers to a person. Someone is poisoning him. It is not a general health condition. So we just wanted to make this very clear because, as is often the case, the Governing Body Commission members try to twist and distort and change the emphasis or the wording, or they lose tapes or they hide tapes; and in fact, if we hadn't brought this tape forward, no one would have done it – no one from their side definitely. So anyway, somehow or other, Prabhupada is thinking someone has poisoned him. Tamal Krishna asks, "Who is poisoning you?" and Prabhupada does not answer the question at this time.

Kaviraja: Sabse bara poison je hota hai, vah mercury ha hota hai. [The most dangerous poison that exists is that of mercury.]
Bhakticharu: Voh to gaya tah unka... voh jo... [Which was given to him]
Kaviraja: Nahi nahi, ye jo Swarupa Guha ka aap parde the na swamiji... Kalkatte me? [No, no. Swamiji, did you read about Svarupa Guha? In Calcutta.]
Srila Prabhupada: Hmm.
Kaviraja: Rupa Guha.
Bhakticharu: Unko malum nahi. Unko nahi pata. [He has not heard about it. He doesn't know.]
Kaviraja: Us ke pati ne diya tha. [The husband poisoned the wife.]
Bhakticharu: Accha.
Kaviraja: Uska koi medicine nahin ata. Itne dose de diya jisko ham raskapoor bolta hai. [He gave her a dose of a poison called raskapoor, for which there is no medicine.]
Bhakticharu: Yehi... Mercury to isme tha, makharadhvaj me. [Right. Mercury was in there, in the makharad

Radhanatha Swami - Murderer Conspirator
Radhanath Swami (Richard Slavin) ordered and paid for the murder of Sulocana
Radhanath Swami
paid money for murder
murderer accomplice


Monday, September 22, 2008
http://blogs.myspace.com/52199499

Radhanatha Proven to be Involved in Murder of Sulocana
BY: KRSNA DASA

Some time go we were able to read article on the Sun written by Janmastami dasa entitled, "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But…". What caught my attention was a legal document attached to the article. These are photos of the testimony of witness Dharmatma das (Dennis Gorrick) regarding the murder of Sulocana das (Steven Bryant). I don't know if readers really noted the contents of the letter. Usually such subjects raise a lot of dust, but this one went by quietly, unnoticed.

I would like to focus attention of readers on parts of this testimony, which particularly deals with the involvement of Radhanath Swami in this case. The characters in this testimony are Dharmatma (Dennis Gorrick), Kuladri (Arthur Villa), Radhanath (Richard Slavin), Hayagriva (Howard Wheeler), Tapahpunja (Terry Sheldon), Tirtha (Thomas Drescher) and Kirtanananda (Keith Ham, Bhaktipada, Mr. Swami, Number One).

From Dharmatma's testimony it is clear that he was disturbed by murder, and quite disturbed also was Kuladri das (Arthur Villa). Kuladri mentioned to Dharmatma that this murder should not happen, and how he told them (Radhanath, Hayagriva and Tapahpunja) not to do it. He mentioned that Radhanatha (Mr. Slavin), Hayagriva (Mr. Wheeler) and Tapahpunja (Mr. Sheldon) were pushing like crazy for the murder to happen.

In our ISKCON slang, we know exactly what " pushing like crazy" means. It means they were pushing real hard, they were really into it, working hard for it to happen over an extended period of time. And Dharmatma mentions Radhanath in the first place. One can conclude from this that since Radhanatha was the first one who came to Dharmatma's mind in connection with the murder, it may be that he was the main organizer. This will be later supported by another incident.

Later on we can read how Tapahpunja (Mr. Sheldon) was describing to Dharmatma about how neat it was, that the demon (Sulocana) was killed on the Appearance day of Nrsimhadeva. Dharmatma states that he was freaked by this. Tapahpunja was present at the murder, and he was describing it in detail.

And then starts the description of an arrangement for escape money. Now Tapahpunja and Tirtha (Drescher) had to get out of the country, so they needed money. Tapahpunja came to get money, but Dharmatma told him to go to Number One (Bhaktipada, Mr. Swami).

The testimony then continues to describe how the next day, Mr. Swami along with **rot not (Mr. Slavin) came to pick the money. Please note that at this point of testimony, Dharmatma actually used the name Radhanath, but the court stenographer, not knowing what that word Radhanath is, typed it as "**rot not". Rot not sounded similar to Radhanath, so the typist wrote that, preceding it with **, which shows that stenographer was not sure about the correctness of the typed word.

So, Kirtanananda and Radhanath came with the car to Dharmatma to pick-up the money for murderers Tirtha and Tapahpunja, to help them escape out of country. Kirtanananda asked Dharmatma to give 6,000 dollars. Dharmatma went inside the house to get it, and gave it to Kirtanananda, who waited in the car.

Then Dharmatma describes how he asked about the purpose of money, if it was for the murderers to get out of country. And in answer, Kirtanananda and Radhanath smiled, and nodded their head in confirmation, that yes, this was for the murderers to be able to escape out of the country. And then Kirtanananda and Radhanath drove off.

This testimony by Dharmatma clearly implicates Radhanath in the murder of Sulocana. Radhanatha was involved in arranging for the murder, being one of those who were "pushing like crazy for murder to happen", possibly the leader. His leadership position in the conspiracy against Sulocana is confirmed also by his picking-up the escape money, together with Kirtanananda.

One thing was the preparation of Sulocana's murder, and a second thing was making arrangements for the murderers to escape the country. Only Radhanath was present on both occasions, which shows that he was involved more than others.

The GBC was confronted with this matter last year, and their response was published on Dandavats. Basically, what they did was to say that the US Attorney said that Radhanath was not involved, and that's it. Therefore the GBC concluded that they need not take allegations against Radhanath seriously. But to cover their backs, they nevertheless stated:

"GBC recommends that any person in possession of newly discovered evidence regarding the New Vrindavana events present such information to the U.S. Attorney's Office or other appropriate legal agency. If any subsequent investigation might ensue, the GBC will fully cooperate with it."

So, what the GBC is saying is: According to present evidence, Radhanath is not guilty. But if he later proves to be guilty, and the case is reopened, the GBC will cooperate.

The GBC was not able to fully guarantee for Radhanath, so they felt the need to protect themselves in case Radhanath goes down anyway, by stating that they will cooperate with any appropriate legal agency. The GBC leaves it up to the legal system to decide whether Radhanath is guilty or not.

The GBC's approach is interesting, since many ISKCON gurus were suspended without any involvement of the legal system - Vaisnavas have their own rules for who is bonafide guru. Vaisnava expectations for guru are higher than the state's expectations for a good citizen. Clearly, the GBC considers Radhanath as a bonafide Guru, no matter his involvement in murder. Is involvement in murder of a devotee, 20 years later, not disqualification enough for one being an ISKCON guru?

In my opinion, Dharmatma's testimony proves without doubt that Radhanatha was involved as the leading organizer of murder. Of course, the case probably cannot be reopened now legally. But the evidence is clear. Radhanath was involved, and no matter what the GBC now does, it is clear that Radhanath was involved in the murder of Sulocana.

Of course, while defending Radhanath, the GBC didn't stop with their own statement. They also arranged for Radhanath's statement on the matter. And besides glorifying himself as very humble, and tactfully criticizing and disqualifying Janmastami in the eyes of entire ISKCON, Radhanath also states that, "every single allegation against me is totally false. I was not involved in any criminal activity."

Radhanath last year openly stated, in front of entire world, that every allegation against him is false, and that he was never involved in any criminal activity.

With the testimony from Dharmatma, this statement of Radhanatha's doesn't stand strong. It is clear that Radhanath was lying regarding his involvement in the murder. He lied to the GBC, in front of the entire ISKCON society. Now, what does this make him? Clearly, a liar. Why was he lying?

The GBC can be of the opinion that involvement in murder of a devotee, 20 years later, does not disqualify one from being an ISKCON guru. How about 20 years of lying about it, even to the GBC? Would this shameless lying disqualify one from being an ISKCON guru?

Devotees are merciful and compassionate. If Radhanath was involved in murder, as the facts prove, and if he admitted it years ago, most devotees would not blame him for his neophyte fanaticism, but would forgive him. Of course, he could not be a big guru and acarya, but he could be a nice devotee, an inspiration for many. But clearly, he was hiding this. He was lying all the time, to everybody, even the GBC. And the GBC made us believe that all is fine. Radhanath tricked the GBC and all of us.

The facts are against him now. Everybody knows that he was involved in the murder of Sulocana, and his lies will not help in hiding it anymore. Will he admit now, and beg for the mercy of the devotees, and thus reveal his material ambitions for position and adoration as an ISKCON guru? Or will he keep hiding it, continuing with his show of humility, to his own disgrace and the disgrace of all his faithful followers? And for the GBC, will they keep such a cheating, lying guru as their very best, or will they slowly and quietly push him aside, allowing him to move into the background and retire?

In any case, it is finally clear now. Radhanath was very much involved in the murder of Sulocana, and he lied about it repeatedly and shamelessly. Such a cunning person cannot represent Srila Prabhupada as guru in the Vaisnava sampradaya. If he has even a particle of decency left, he will immediately step down from his position as guru, and commit his future life.




RE: RADHANATHA SWAMI - Richard Slavin
(pada newsletter June 09, 2002)
by anon das

I am writing this through my friend's email address because I do not want my name on this submission. You mentioned these things below. I think I can give some information about Radhanath because I was in New Vrindavan at that time. First, Radhanath was aware that Kirtanananda wanted to kill Sulochana prabhu.

Radhanath accepted the mood of Kirtanananda and he was instrumental in bringing the money for Tirtha as payment for the hit. When the trial time came, Radhanath had the best lawyer that money could buy JUST IN CASE his name was going to be brought into the picture.

When "Chaits" (at that time, a 12 year old boy) telephoned Radhanath in India, to tell him that Kirtanananda was trying to force him into oral sex, Radhanath told him that he was a liar, and it was due to Radhanath that Chaits almost got killed. This murder was prevented only because Chaits left New Vrindavan knowing that if he stayed he would get killed. Maybe someone should ask Radhanath why he turned his back on the situation when his godsister who had been living in New Vrindavan for more than sixteen years was pushed out of New Vrindavan due to her being mentally ill. She had been living there with mental illness but was under medical care. The authorities of New Vrindavan decided that they did not want her there and when the mataji appealed to Radhanath, he did nothing to help her.
Radhanath Swami
Devotee Murderer


Radhanath is just a bag of hot air, pretending to be a saint, but when it comes to doing something, he does nothing. And it should be known that he goes to all of the Gaudiya Math people to get the nectar that he speaks in his katha, but he will never tell you where he gets his stuff from. I am not supporting or knocking the Gaudiya Math here. I am just saying that Radhanath is not honest. At least he should give credit to where he is getting his stuff from. I think Radhanath also knew about the murder of Chakrapani as well. And all of the years that Kirtanananda was doing the monk robe thing, Radhanath personally glorified Kirtanananda to me as a pure devotee.

From prison Kirtanananda tried to have Tirtha killed when Tirtha started to tell the truth about what happened in the killing of Sulochana. When Tirtha realized that Kirtanananda was not a pure devotee as he was earlier illusioned into thinking, then he started to tell the truth of what happened. Tirtha realized that Kirtanananda had been molesting children and he decided to come forth with the truth about what really happened, that he was ordered by the BIG "K" to kill Sulochana prabhu. At that time Kirtanananda was in jail, and after Tirtha spilled the beans, he was almost killed in prison. There were a few attempts to kill him. Tirtha told me that he knew for sure that it was directly orchestrated by Kirtanananda even though he was in prison. Actually Kirtanananda is in a medical facility. He is not being kept in an actual prison cell. Somehow Krishna is being pretty lenient with him.

As far as Satsvarupa goes, I think devotees can get a better picture of him if they look on the search in vnn under "Sudama Brahmin and the Takeover". There is something about Satsvarupa there about his part in the "appointment of the original eleven" which shows his part in what happened. I hope this helps the readers a little.

ys, anon

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

RADHANATH UPDATE

To Pada: pamho agtsp ... I'm sending this to you along with a snail mail address if you want to get any more information about this, because I know how close you were to Sulochana Prabhu. I was shown your recent newsletter about Satsvarupa where Radhanath Swami's name was mentioned somewhere. Were you aware of the part he played in the killing of Sulochana Prabhu?

Radhanath gave the money and pushed for the murder, he saying that it must be done because Shrila Bhaktipada was a pure devotee and blah blah blah blah blah. Several people were there including Tapah Punja and Janmastami. Radhananth had the money, said the murder must be done and said the money was to be given to Tirtha, [the murderer].

Janmastami also went to LA. He was thinking to do the murder on his own, for free, due to his love for Shrila Bhaktipada who was his guru.

Janmastami now realizes that his guru was a crook as was Radhanath. Janmastami who was also a Vietnam war vet was going to do the hit for free but he didn't because Tirtha got to it first.

If you write to Janmastami he might be willing to tell you what happened and Radhanath's involvement.
(It was Radhanath pushing for the murder.) You can write to Janmastami at RD 1 PO box 270 - C Moundsville, WV 26041

That is not his direct mailing address but he is always there, so make sure to put his name on the envelope. If you want to post this in your newsletter, please don't give out this address or my name. I don't need Radhanatha's henchpeople coming after me. ys, dda


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

Radhanath Swami or Rottennath
(pada newsletter April 11, 2001)


Rotten Radhanath mutiert to Rottennath

Radhanath? Or did you mean Rottennath? How long did Rottennath support Kirtanananda. It was for many years. Rottennath was aware and even assisted in the Sulochana murder.

According to Janmastami who was one of Kirtanananda's hitmen, Rottennath gave the order that Sulochana should be murdered. And it was Rottennath who had the big lawyers to personally protect him - just in case - when the issue was being investigated and then came to the courts. Rottennath likes the pretty girls. Did you ever see him in his (usual) Lord Chaitanya dancing pose? Radhanath - a Murder Conspirator

Shocking Evidence Points to Radhanatha Swami

BY: NAVADVIPCHANDRA DAS


Radhanath Swami
murderer conspirator


The recent letter from devotee murderer Tirtha Das is quite revealing. While the aim of Tirtha's letter is to protect his close friend Radhanath Swami, what he actually does is confirm all of the allegations against him. Previously Janmashtami Das' allegations could be swept aside as the rantings of a bitter ex-devotee, some crackpot with an agenda to malign past leaders whom he didn't like. But now Tirtha Das has just corroborated every thing that Janmashtami Das has been saying, and subsequently elevated his allegations to a whole new level of credibility.

Janmashtami Das has been saying all along that he was involved in the murder conspiracy, and that he had been brought into it by Radhanatha Swami. He claimed that Radhanatha Swami was the one who personally gave him the list of people to kill and where they could be found. Such a claim sounded a little unlikely. How could anyone believe this devotee was actually recruited personally into the murder conspiracy? That was until Tirtha Das' recent groundbreaking letter was published, where he openly admitted that Janmashtami Das was directly involved along with himself in the murder plot and had been his driver on several of the hit trips. This means Janmashtami's statements regarding the murder of Sulochan and the entire conspiracy must now be seen in a completely different light. He is now a confirmed participant who is testifying as a witness against the other criminals involved in this crime - the primary criminal leader being Radhanatha Swami. His words now cannot simply be brushed aside and labeled as the rantings of an angry ex-cult member.

Further, Janmashtami Das' statements have remained consistant from the very beginning, and he never made any attempt to hide the fact that he had been recruited into the murder conspiracy and had full knowledge of it. His story stayed the same from beginning to end, even the parts where he showed himself in bad light. Compare that to the position of Tirtha Das, where he has switched his story every day of the week, and is only caught lying when he accidentally lets the truth slip out, thereby corroborating every word of Janmashtami Das. Tirtha Das now admits he has been lying all these years to protect other conspirators in this crime. Whom those conspirators are Tirtha Das doesn't mention, but he doesn't need to, because the other co-conspirator whom he has identified (Janmashtami Das) has already revealed the participants in this murder conspiracy.

There were other further shocking revelations from Tirtha Das' letter, admissions he has never made up till date:

1) There was a large conspiracy involving many people, for whom he took the blame to shield them:

"The only reason Janmastami was not prosecuted and sent to prison was because I shielded him from the authorities." -- Tirtha Das, Confession Letter, December 24, 2006

Who else did you shield from the authorities? Who were the leaders who gave you the order to kill Sulochan, whom you shielded? The eye witness testimony of Janmashtami Das says that Radhanatha Swami is the main person you are shielding, and that would explain why Radhanatha Swami tried to meet with you in prison multiple times (as stated in your previous letter). From your public admission regarding Janmashtami Das' involvment in the murder conspiracy it is clear that he directly knows who were involved and who gave the order to kill Sulochana, and he is pointing all fingers directly at Radhanatha Swami, one of the main leaders of New Vrindavana at the time of the murder.

2) Till the present date he has not honestly told everything he knows about this ghastly crime. Today he is admitting there was a conspiracy with other members involved, whereas in the past he has denied this. Some foolish people like Umapati Swami said he should be forgiven for all his past crimes. But when he has not yet admitted to the real crimes, nor has he revealed the other criminals involved, why should anyone forgive him or feel sorry for him? Until he fully confesses to the details of the crime he can never be forgiven. But his ISKCON friends in high places (Radhanatha Swami, Candramauli Swami, Umapati Swami, and plenty of others) have taken good care of him. They have given him official recognition in ISKCON as a leading preacher in ISKCON prison ministries, they have published his own books through ISKCON, they have written the introduction to his book, and they have personally tried to visit him many times in jail. Why? What is their close intimate connection with the murderer Tirtha Das? Are they also some of the co-conspirators he has been covering for all these years? Why does the GBC allow such criminals like Radhanatha Swami to repay devotee murderers with ISKCON favors?

3) Tirtha Das fully admits that Janmashtami Das was directly and intimately involved in the murder conspiracy. This elevates Janmashtami Das' statements to those of a co-conspirator and direct eyewitness, testifying against other criminals whom he worked under. This is the most serious revelation in Tirtha Das' recent letter. The GBC needs to review this matter immediately and address how Radhanatha Swami can remain a guru in ISKCON while such serious charges have been levelled against him (with credible evidence and witnesses). If the GBC chooses not to investigate this matter, it shows that they are already infiltrated and controlled by Kirtanananda's henchmen (Radhanatha Swami, Umapati Swami, Devamrita Swami, Malati, Candramauli Swami, Varshana Swami, Candrashekhar Swami and others).

Further, murderer Tirtha Das had also reported the fact that his friend, Radhanatha Swami, had recently been identified by a drug sniffing dog when he tried to enter the prison to visit him. When a highly trained drug sniffing police dog identifies someone, it means that they are either carrying drugs or that they have the residue of illegal drugs on them (from personal use). The GBC should find out whether Radhanatha Swami has been personally using illegal drugs, or whether he was trying to smuggle illegal drugs into the prison to repay Tirtha Das for covering for him in the Sulochan murder.

"We deplore the fact that H.H. Radhanath Swami and H.H. Candramauli Swami have been repeatedly denied access to the Mount Olive Correctional Complex on the pretext that a drug sniffing dog alerted to the presence of illicit drugs on their persons." -- Letter from Tirtha Das

I request devotees to forward this letter to all known disciples of Radhanatha Swami so that his criminal background can be exposed. In the following pages detailed evidences are providing, all pointing towards Radhanatha Swami being the leader who ordered the murder of Sulochan. Personally ordering the murder of another devotee is a terrible sin that not even Krishna can forgive. Radhanatha Swami was a neophyte rascal who publicly propagated that the pedophile child molester Kirtanananda was a pure devotee whom everyone had to worship. When devotees tried to expose Kirtanananda's child molestation, Radhanatha Swami took the matter into his own hands and ordered the killing of these devotees to silence the critics. This is the true spiritual background of Radhanatha Swami that everyone should know.

We should also note that Tirtha Das never attempts to deny Janmashtami Das' statements. Instead he just threatens Janmashtami Das that bad things will happen to him if he keeps speaking against Radhanatha Swami. He even states that he will reveal unknown secrets about the murders to the police:

"The only reason Janmastami was not prosecuted and sent to prison was because I shielded him from the authorities. However, since there is ultimately no statute of limitations on murder, should Janmastami persist in his moronic rantings, perhaps some arrangement can be made for an interview with the US Attorney's Office." -- Tirtha Das, Confession Letter, December 24, 2006

Besides Tirtha Das' latest confession letter, other shocking evidences are cited below, which again point to a larger conspiracy involving Radhanatha Swami.

1) When the police arrested Tirtha Das and Tapahpunja Swami, 5 days after the murder, he had $4,000 in cash in his possession. There was also written, unsigned instructions (found on Tapahpunja Swami) that Tirtha Das should leave the country if the police start looking for him. Who gave the money to Tirtha Das to fund the murder and to flee the police? Who wrote the instructions that Tirtha Das should flee the country if the police started looking for him? Was Tirtha Das an insanse person who wrote notes to himself just in case he forgot what his plan was? It is obvious that there were higher leaders involved in the murder conspiracy, otherwise who gave the money and who wrote the note?

"Kent Police Detective Ronald Piatt and his partner said that when they arrested Drescher, they found on him "surveillance notes" describing Bryant's van, his physical appearance and his movements in Los Angeles . Drescher also carried $4,000 in cash.

With Drescher when he was arrested, Piatt said, was a Krishna priest from Cleveland [Tapahpunja Swami] who had clippings from three newspapers about the death of Bryant and written instructions of unknown origin saying that if Drescher were ever wanted by police, he should be sent to a temple in New York , then flown to India ." - Los Angeles Times, "Killing Sparks Federal Probe of Krishna Sect" (July 20, 1986)

2) Also arrested with Tirtha Das was Tapahpunja Swami (Terry Sheldon). What was Tapahpunja Swami, one of the leaders of New Vrindavan, doing hiding Tirtha Das from police in Ohio? Obviously someone had instructed him to do this, so who was it? From the note in his possession it was clear that he knew Tirtha was the murderer, and as has been stated by Janmashtami Das, he was actually one of the three devotees asked by Radhanatha Swami to kill Sulochan (the other two being Tirtha Das and Janmashtami Das). How would Tapahpunja Swami be involved in hiding Tirtha Das from the police unless there was a larger conspiracy, with a leader ordering them what to do?

3) Tirtha Das was arrested on May 27th, just five days after he had committed the murder in Los Angeles . On July 5th Tirtha Das' mobile home was burned in a mysterious fire:

"The detective added that a fire of undetermined origin burned Drescher's mobile home July 5th." - Los Angeles Times, "Killing Sparks Federal Probe of Krishna Sect" (July 20, 1986)

With Tirtha Das in prison, who was it who set fire to his mobile home to hide evidence? And who gave that order to burn his mobile home? It is obvious there was a larger conspiracy involving many other people. Who the leader of that conspiracy was will be dealt with shortly.

4) The day after Tirtha's arrest, an explosion occurred injuring one of the key witnesses against Tirtha Das:

"The principal witness, Randol Gorby, was seriously injured in an explosion at his home the day after Drescher was apprehended in Ohio , authorities said." - Los Angeles Times, "Killing Sparks Federal Probe of Krishna Sect" (July 20, 1986)

With Tirtha Das in prison, who planted the explosives? Was it all a strange coincidence?

5) In November of 1986 Sulochan's son, Nimai Bryant, mysteriously drowns at New Vrindaban, just months after his father was murdered. He didn't have any past habit of entering the water at all. Coincidentally, Chakradhari's son also died mysteriously at new Vrindavan (in 1984) just months after his father was murdered by Tirtha Das. His son was found suffocated inside an abandoned refrigerator. Is it merely a coincidence that the two people Tirtha murdered also had their sons die mysteriously within a few months of their father's being killed? It is much more likely that the conspiracy leader ordered the sons to be killed, knowing that they would grow up to avenge their father's murders, likely killing the New Vrindavan leaders responsible. Since Tirtha was in prison at the time of the drowning, then who killed Sulochan's son?

6) In sworn testimony, Tapahpunja Swami [Terry Sheldon] stated that he was the one to inform Kirtanananda about the murder plot:

"Sheldon said he participated in the surveillance of Bryant with Drescher and told Bhaktipada of the plot to kill Bryant." --
Associated Press "Hare Krishna member says he acted at leader's behest" (April 18, 1996)

Thus the murder plot never came down from Kirtanananda to Tirtha Das, rather the murder plot was already decided by some other leaders who gave the order to Tirtha Das and Tapahpunja, and Tapahpunja later told this plan to Kirtanananda. This is exactly what Janmashtami Das has been saying from the very beginning:

"In January of 1986, on my return to New Vrindaban, I was ordered by Radhanath to neutralize Sulocana. Three of us were ordered by Radhanath, not by Kirtanananda Swami, to terminate Sulocana. This happened with Tapah Punja Swami and Tirtha in November and December of 1985. I was on SKP until Christmas and didn't get back to the farm until New Years. Immediately on our arrival at New Vrindaban, Radhanath sought me out and made arrangements for us to meet in his van, where he went through a prepared speech that he had delivered to Tirtha, Tapah Punja Swami and Kuladri many times before. Later talks with Tirtha confirmed this." -- Janmashtami Das, "New Vrindaban History, for the Record", ( December 22, 2006)

It is now a confirmed fact that Janmashtami was the third person instructed to kill Sulochan, and this was admitted in Tirtha Das' recent shocking confession letter:

"It may be of interest to note that the author of one recent self-styled expose, Janmastami dasa, was himself a co-conspirator in the death of Sulocana, accompanying myself on several trips to California, he motoring about with various guns and cyanide for the express purpose of finding and dispatching Sulocana. The only reason Janmastami was not prosecuted and sent to prison was because I shielded him from the authorities." -- Tirtha Das, Confession Letter, December 24, 2006

We saw that Tapahpunja confirms Janmashtami Das' account that Kirtanananda didn't give the order to kill Sulochan, but that someone else did. We also saw that he confirms Janmashtami Das' account that there were other people who were asked to kill Sulochan (at the very minimum Tirtha and Tapahpunja). These two points are not admitted by Tirtha Das, but now that two out of three of the hitmen have made the same admissions, it is clear that Tirtha is holding back information. We have already seen Tirtha Das admit that he has secret information about this case that he would expose to the police if Janmashtami didn't keep quiet. So it is clear who the credible witnesses are.

Taking both Janmashtami Das' and Tapahpunja Swami's admissions, we have the following:

Radhanatha Swami believed Kirtanananda was a pure devotee. When Sulochan began exposing Kirtanananda's child molestation cases Radhanatha decided he was an offender who needed to be silenced. Radhanatha Swami contacted three devotees (Tirtha Das, Tapahpunja Swami and Janmashtami Das) and instructed them to kill Sulochana. Tapahpunja Swami later took this plan back to Kirtanananda and informed him of it.

Radhanatha Swami's actions are easy to understand when one knows how much he believed Kirtanananda was a pure devotee. Even as late as 1991, five years after the murder of Sulochan, and years after Kirtanananda's child molestation was known, Radhanatha Swami still publicly glorified Kirtanananda as a pure devotee:

"Bhaktipada is a man of spirit. He is not a man of external form, and he's been training us intensely. Why do you think he changed the dress from dhotis to robes? It was for one reason-preaching in the West. But that's not all. He saw that we were attached to the concept of being a devotee based on how we look externally rather than being fixed in the spirit of devotion. Why are you sitting in chairs instead of on the floor? Why are the hymns in English instead of Sanskrit? Why is our hair an inch long rather than shaved off? On one level, it's practical for preaching in the West, but Bhaktipada had something much deeper and more profound than just that. He saw that we were ritualistically attached to our approach to God, just like practically all other so-called religious persons in this world. We thought we were devotees because of how we looked how we sang, and how we wore our hair. Bhaktipada wanted us to smash through all these external trappings and go right to the essence of the spirit of bhakti."

- Radhanatha Swami, "A Perfect Plan to Increase Devotion," New Vrindaban World, no. 8 (April 26, 1991)

7) In Kirtanananda's trial, the jury was not convinced that he was involved in the Sulochan murder conspiracy. For the RICO conspiracy count the jurors were provided a paper with a check list, where they should indicate which counts they thought Kirtanananda was guilty of. The paper looked like this:

IF YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF [the
count] PLEASE CHECK THE PARTICULAR PREDI-
CATE ACTS YOU HAVE UNANIMOUSLY CON-
CLUDED HAVE BEEN PROVEN BY THE UNITED
STATES WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT SWAMI.

1) STEPHEN BRYANT MURDER ________
2) CHARLES ST. DENNIS MURDER ________
3) DEVON WHEELER KIDNAPPING ________
4) MAIL FRAUD: FUNDRAISING ________
5) MAIL FRAUD: ALLSTATE INSURANCE ________

The following trial document ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/4th/case/945507P.html ) states:

"After a trial, the jury convicted Swami on the RICO and mail fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the murder counts.

The jury found Swami guilty of the RICO conspiracy count and checked all of the predicate acts except the Stephen Bryant murder. The jury also found Swami guilty of the RICO substantive count (Count II) but did not check either the Stephen Bryant murder or the Charles St. Dennis murder as predicate acts."

Thus even the jury, who heard all the evidence against Kirtanananda, didn't believe he was the one behind the murder conspiracy. The jury didn't believe it.

It is already proven that there was a conspiracy, but who the leader was that gave the order is what remains a mystery. The jury did not believe that Kirtanananda was that leader who gave the order to murder Sulochan. If it wasn't Kirtanananda, then who was it? One of the co-conspirators has already confessed and stated that it was Radhanatha Swami who gave the order to murder Sulochan, and all evidence points in his direction, but was Radhanatha Swami the only one who knew?

8) When we see how past New Vrindavan leaders interact with this convicted murderer Tirtha Das it follows a very peculiar pattern. Every one of them is lightning quick to defend his character and point out his wonderful spiritual qualities. Wait a minute, is this the same Tirtha Das who brutally killed devotee Chakradhari Das (Charles St. Denis):

"Prosecutors said St. Denis was shot a dozen times, stabbed, beat with a hammer and finally suffocated with plastic wrap placed in his mouth before he was buried." - Associated Press (August 31, 1986)

Or as another reporter has described it:

"Chuck St. Denis did not die easy. Two gunmen pumped twelve .22 caliber rounds into him. He was stabbed repeatedly in the chest with a kitchen knife and a screwdriver. As the life fled from him he howled like a dog. His cranium was fractured with a hammer. He opened his eyes and spoke to his killers after they were sure he was finally dead. His killers buried him under a stream, which is probably a good way to make a spirit unquiet, if such a thing can be done." -- Charles Carreon, "Killer Krishnas from Inner Space"

This is the person whom people like Malati, Umapati, Radhanatha Swami and Candramauli Swami glorify as the perfect devotee. Below is exactly what Malati (ex-Swami) says about the person who shot Chakradhari Das a dozen times, then stabbed him with a kitchen knife, then stabbed him with a screw driver, then bashed his head with a hammer, and when he still wouldn't die, wrapped plastic over his mouth to suffocate him:

"The person who was charged with and admitted to the murders of Steve Bryant and St. Denis is Thomas Drescher, aka Tirtha das, who is in prison for life.

Therein lies an interesting story, should anyone care to know. But, to make a long story short, this person has undergone a deeply profound recitification and transformation. So much so that the chief prosecutor against him, Michael Stein from the District Attorney's office, feels that he is worthy of a pardon. He contacted me recently and in that conversation stated that he has rarely, almost never, witnessed a change in the character of a convicted felon, but he has seen this in the case of Thomas Drescher, who he refers to by his initiated name, Tirtha das. On his end, Mr. Drescher has become a sober humble person, accepting the results of his awful deeds (double life sentence w/o possible parole) as a befitting indication of Krishna's mercy on him." -- Malati Dasi, letter to Giri-nayaka Das, December 26 2006

Umapati Swami also wrote up a nice defense for Tirtha, saying that he had immediately rejected Kirtanananda as soon as the news of his sexual misconduct came out:

"The stories of Kirtanananda's sexual misconduct came out long after I left New Vrindaban. When that happened, Tirtha rejected him and testified against him in court. Tirtha also wrote a letter to the GBC renouncing all claims to the title of sannyasi." -- Letter from Umapati Swami, (December 18, 2006)

But for the rest of the sane world, they wouldn't need to wait for that information to come out in order to reject him. A normal person would have rejected Kirtanananda as soon as the talk of murdering someone on his behalf arose. This person not only heard such discussions, but actually carried out the murder personally -- of multiple devotees!

Umapati offered other special favors to murderer Tirtha Das, for example initiating him into the sannyasa order in August of 1987, even after he had been convicted of murdering devotees by a court of law. Umapati Swami personally went inside the prison and performed the sannyasa initiation of Tirtha, acting as a ritvik priest on behalf of Kirtanananda.

Other ISKCON gurus are also involved in awarding Tirtha Das special favors. For example, Candramauli Swami, who is in charge of ISKCON Prison Ministries has made Tirtha one of his main highlighted preachers. If you go to the ISKCON Prison Ministries website you will see a prominent link to Tirtha's personal website displayed at the top of the page, along with many other articles written by Tirtha Das. You can also find murderer Tirtha Das featured on ISKCON's Namahatta.org, with his articles and a nice photo of him in prison.

Candramauli Swami has personally visited Tirtha Das many times in jail. He has also written the introduction to Tirtha's book, titled "The Definitive Guide to Practicing Krsna Consciousness in Prison". In addition to writing the introduction, he has also arranged for the book to be published by ISKCON. Why does murderer Tirtha Das get his book published by ISKCON? That's a good question that only Candramauli Swami can answer.

There are also reports that these former New Vrindavan leaders have been regularly supplying money to Tirtha Das even today. Even if that cannot be verified, there is enough evidence to show that Tirtha Das is being shown very special treatment by the former New Vrindavan leaders -- the same leaders who may possibly be involved in the murder conspiracy.

Considering the despicable nature of Tirtha Das' crime, it is amazing that he remains a member of ISKCON in good standing, receives many visits from ISKCON Gurus and GBCs, has his book published by ISKCON, has his articles featured on ISKCON Prison Ministries website, and even has an ISKCON Guru write the introduction to his book and help him promote it. Anytime someone tries to hint that Tirtha Das is bad, these leaders jump up in his defense to tell everyone how he is really an amazing saint. Something just doesn't smell right in all of this. When we add the fact that Radhanatha Swami tried to visit him in prison, but was identified by a drug sniffing dog, then the alarm bells really start ringing. Was Radhanatha Swami trying to pay off Tirtha by smuggling illegal drugs into the prison?

"We deplore the fact that H.H. Radhanath Swami and H.H. Candramauli Swami have been repeatedly denied access to the Mount Olive Correctional Complex on the pretext that a drug sniffing dog alerted to the presence of illicit drugs on their persons." -- Letter from Tirtha Das

With Janmashtami Das' testimony implicating Radhanatha as the one who gave the order to kill Sulochan, everything makes sense and fits it place. Tirtha Das has all the information on these people to put them away for life. They must give him special treatment to make sure he doesn't change his mind and let the secrets out. That special treatment may possibly go as far as smuggling illegal drugs into the prison for him. In U.S. prisons drugs are more valuable than money, they are the real currency.

9) The above clearly explains Radhanatha Swami's special affection for Tirtha, but what about these other people like Malati, Candramauli Swami, Umapati, etc.? What would they gain by showing special favors to Tirtha Das?

The answer to this becomes clear when we realize how many people knew about the murder plot. Janmashtami Das stated that after receiving the order to kill Sulochan from Radhanatha Swami, Tapahpunja immediately tried to involve others in the plot such as Yudhisthir Das from San Diego. As the trial shows, it is beyond doubt that Yudhisthir was an accomplice and knew what was going on, and that is why he was called to testify. Tirtha simultaneously contacted others in Los Angeles to involve them in the hit as well.

That many people became aware of the murder plan is also clear from how long it took the police to arrest Tirtha Das. Just 5 days after the murder, Tirtha Das was arrested in Kent, Ohio , along with Tapahpunja Swami, while preparing to flee the country. How is it possible for the police to immediately identify the name of the murderer and locate him across the country in 5 days, just from the forensic evidence at the crime scene? It is only possible if one of the many people who had been informed of the murder plot ratted him out. Where did they get the name of the murderer, the location he was hiding, and other details from? Tirtha Das and Tapahpunja had tried to involve too many people in the murder plot, and the result was they were immediately ratted out.

How does this connect to Malati and the other New Vrindavan leaders? If Radhanatha Swami is calling three separate people to kill Sulochan (Tirtha, Tapahpunja, and Janmashtami), and if they are subsequently informing many other people across the country about the murder plot, it is clear that secrecy isn't the top priority here. It is likely that Radhanatha Swami may have first consulted with senior leaders of New Vrindavan before ordering the hit, to get their opinion and approval. These leaders would include people such as Malati, Devamrita Swami, Candramauli Swami, Umapati Swami, Kuladri, Bhakti Tirtha Swami, and others. This would clearly explain why all of these people are in a rush to defend Tirtha, to provide special favors to Tirtha, and to always keep Tirtha happy in prison. He knows that they were all involved or in a position to know about the murder conspiracy, and if he ever develops a dislike for them, then he will reveal their involvement, just like he threatened to reveal the involvement of Janmashtami Das.

Malati has already admitted that she is aware of some secrets involving the murder that she hasn't mentioned:

"For that matter, there is a strong contingent of persons who insist that "Janmastami" was directly involved in the murder of Steve Bryant, although never charged." -- Malati Dasi, letter to Giri-nayaka Das, December 26 2006

She clearly knows details she is not revealing, and is subtly trying to threaten Janmashtami to keep quiet or face the consequences. Why else would she mention such a thing? Let her identify "the strong contingent of persons" who informed her of this inside information so we can have a list of the criminals involved in this case. Unfortunately the list of names will include Radhanatha Swami, Devamrita Swami, Candramauli Swami and herself, so she will never give us that information.

In an attempt to discredit the eye-witness testimony of Janmashtami Das, Malati tells us all about his villainous past, and concludes that he is like a mad dog:

"To describe him in one word would be to say that he is deranged. He is like a mad dog." -- Malati Dasi, letter to Giri-nayaka Das, December 26 2006

But what Malati fails to mention are her own transcendental qualifications: the fact that she is a lesbian infected with HIV (AIDS) due to excessive intravenous drug use, and the fact that she was previously one of Kirtanananda's female sannyasis, Malati Swami. Such hypocrisy, seeing that they are surrounded by murderers, pedophiles, homosexuals and drug addicts.

10) Conclusion: The only way for the devotees to solve this case and to remove these corrupt murderers from power is if the ISKCON GBC insists that all participants undergo a polygraph test and answer questions about the murder. People who should be questioned include:

Tirtha Das
Tapahpunja (ex-Swami)
Radhanatha Swami
Malati (ex-Swami)
Devamrita Swami
Candramauli Swami
Kirtanananda (ex-Swami)
Umapati Swami
Kuladri (ex-Swami)
Janmashtami Das

If all of these devotees are allowed to tell their stories and be questioned while simultaneously undergoing a polygraph test we will be able to find the answers once and for all to who was involved in this despicable crime of murdering a Vaishnava. Refusal to take the polygraph test should be viewed by the GBC as admission of guilt, and the individuals should be expelled from ISKCON permanently. If they have nothing to hide, then why would they fear taking a polygraph test to prove their innocence? All circumstantial evidence points to Radhanatha Swami as the leader of the murder conspiracy. It is up to these suspects to voluntarily take the lie detector test and establish their innocence.



Malati Implicates Herself in the Murder Conspiracy

BY: NAVADVIPCHANDRA DAS


Jan 1, USA (SUN) — In a previous article I had pointed out the peculiar favors being offered to murderer Tirtha Das by the ISKCON Gurus, GBCs, and leaders who were previously connected to New Vrindavan during the Kirtanananda era. Now taking a cue from Tirtha Das, former female sannyasi Malati has volunteered to be the next conspirator to open her mouth only to stick her foot inside it. In her letter to Giri-nayaka Das she accidentally reveals her close connections to Tirtha Das and the big favor she has been trying to provide him for years. Let us look closely at what she wrote:


"So much so that the chief prosecutor against him, Michael Stein from the District Attorney's office, feels that he is worthy of a pardon. He contacted me recently and in that conversation stated that he has rarely, almost never, witnessed a change in the character of a convicted felon, but he has seen this in the case of Thomas Drescher, who he refers to by his initiated name, Tirtha das." - Letter from Malati to Giri-nayaka Das (December 26, 2006)


Why would the chief prosecutor from the District Attorney's office be randomly calling up devotees to speak about Tirtha Das and his possibility of getting a pardon? I wonder why other devotees haven't received similar random phone calls from Mr. Michael Smith. I wonder how Mr. Michael Smith managed to get a hold of Malati's phone number, so that he could proceed with his random call to her and randomly speak to her about Tirtha's possibility to be pardoned?


It is obvious the only way that the District Attorney's office would be calling Malati to speak about Tirtha Das' possibility of being pardoned is if Malati herself initiated the request for Tirtha's pardon. Malati is the one who has been contacting Mr. Michael Smith, canvassing for Tirtha to be released from prison on the grounds that he is a "changed man". There is no other way that the district attorney's office would, on its own accord, look up Malati's phone number, call her and suggest to her that murderer Tirtha Das should be pardoned. It is an absurd scenario.


The fact that Mr. Michael Smith refers to Tirtha by his initiated name is proof that this canvassing and these secret "pardon request" conversations have been going on over a long period of time, to the point that he now is comfortable with calling Thomas Drescher by his devotee name, Tirtha Das.


Further, consider this point: A prosecutor does not maintain contact with the people he has prosecuted after they are sentenced. The only way that the chief prosecutor would again be involved with this person, 20 years after prosecuting him, is if he had been contacted by that person's lawyers or supporters (Malati), with the intent of getting a recommendation for a pardon. The pardon would likely have to come from the State Governor, so Malati and Tirtha would need to gather as many recommendations from respectable people as possible to try to sway the opinion of the State Governor. Tirtha Das had been sentenced to life with no possibility of parole. His only chance for being released is if Malati can convince the State Governor to pardon him, and that is what she has been working on for many years.


But let us ask ourselves the real relevant question: Why would Malati be intimately involved in canvassing for a murderers release from prison unless she was involved in the conspiracy to murder Sulochan. As outlined in my previous article, all of the leaders of New Vrindavan likely were involved in the murder plot and approved of it. Radhanatha Swami may have been the leader in the conspiracy, but he would have taken advice and guidance from the other leaders in the New Vrindavan community before making such an important decision: people such as Malati, Devamrita Swami, Candramauli Swami, Umapati Swami, Bhakti Tirtha Swami, Kuladri and others. Because of their involvement in the murder conspiracy, all of these leaders have been providing all varieties of peculiar favors to murderer Tirtha Das while he has been residing in prison. These have been more thoroughly detailed in my previous article. Now it is clear that Malati has been working towards the biggest favor for Tirtha Das, getting him a complete pardon for the murders so that he can be released from prison. I'm sure if one were to check the government records there would be a trail of all sorts of connections between Tirtha Das and the New Vrindavan leaders going back 20 years: prison visits, applications on his behalf, lawyer fees paid for, court cases filed on his behalf. If the GBC really wanted to connect the dots, everything can be found, but they are not interested in digging up past dirt that will make them look bad. Several of their ISKCON rubber-stamped gurus are involved in a murder conspiracy: Radhanatha Swami, Candramauli Swami, Bhakti Tirtha Swami, Umapati Swami.


The latest confessions by Maha Mantra Das further confirms Janmashtami Das' statements and helps in tying up a lot of loose ends. He states that he was shown a letter written by Sulochan that called for the murder of all ISKCON gurus. If we read the book Sulochan was writing at the time of his death, "The Guru Business", we don't find any suggestion to murder all ISKCON gurus. For example, he includes an interview about Hridayananda Das Goswami, where he concludes that HDG was at least externally following all of his sannyasa vows (though he was still deviating from Srila Prabhupada philosophically). It does not sound at all like he would have been advocating for HDG to be murdered. Thus we have to wonder whether this purported letter from Sulochan was really written by him, or whether it was a gimmick to fool people into killing him. Could Rameswara or Kirtanananda have made a fake letter to get their disciples to carry out the murder "for the guru's protection"? Perhaps if some devotee can recall receiving this letter directly from the hands of Sulochan it can be accepted as authentic. Otherwise we have to doubt anything connected with these criminal leaders.


In New Vrindavan the murder was justified by claiming that Triyogi (the devotee who attacked Kirtanananda with an iron pipe) had been sent by Sulochan. If they didn't kill Sulochan, it was only a matter of time before he sent someone else to murder their pure devotee guru Bhaktipada. For the innocent it became a matter of defending their spiritual master from physical harm, and this justified their actions in their minds. But for the higher-ups who were aware of Kirtanananda's child molestations and homosexuality, this obviously wasn't an influence. They were fully aware of his low character, so they were acting on a completely different level of motive. And for Tirtha, as well, the motive was something else, for he had been offered a large cash payment for completing the crime - just before being ratted out and locked away for life. Whether Tirtha had been ratted out by Rameswara's side (to hurt Kirtanananda), or whether Kirtananda himself ratted him out to avoid payment and to find a fall man is not clear.


It is very possible that Bhaktipada and his leaders, in need of a fall man to take the blame, themselves turned Tirtha in, knowing he was not too bright and easy to fool. Then subsequently they flattered him with sannyasa, special visits, and made him a hero in New Vrindavan. Hrishikesh Das states in a previous letter:


"He [Tirtha Das] was considered a "hero" by the New Vrindaban devotees and his articles were published in the Brijabasi Spirit. He also wrote an account of his experiences in prison called Meditations on the American Gulag." - Hrishikesh, "Reply to Bhaktipada or Bhaktifraud?" (December 12, 2006)


"Umapati Das began visiting Tirtha weekly first at the Marshall County Jail and later at the West Virginia Penitentiary in Moundsville." - Hrishikesh, "Reply to Bhaktipada or Bhaktifraud?" (December 12, 2006)


"New Vrindaban even sent kirtan parties to chant and dance on the sidewalk in front of the penitentiary for five days during May 1987 to protest the prison's treatment of the inmates who had become devotees through Tirtha's preaching." - Hrishikesh, "Reply to Bhaktipada or Bhaktifraud?" (December 12, 2006)


So they made Tirtha a hero, presented him as the greatest devotee, gave him sannyasa, authorized him to initiate his own disciples in prison, paid special visits to him every week, provided him with spending money - all to fool him, so he could not figure out that they themselves had ratted him out.


Tirtha, how did they catch you the day you were supposed to flee the country, waiting at the bank to change the cash into traveler's checks? How did they know the exact location you would be in, and the exact time you would be there? Why was Tapahpunja Swami (a co-conspirator in the murder) arrested along with you at the bank, but released just three days later. Could it be that he was there on the order of the FBI to bring you to the right spot for the arrest? In the end he got off pretty light, while you got life without parole. Is there any connection between his actions on that day and his light prison sentence? Think about these things and understand that these people are not worth protecting. They are only externally your friends because you could put them away in prison for years. What about the early murder attempts on you in prison. Who do you think was responsible for those? On one side they were patting you on the back, and on the other side they were trying to have you killed. Do what would please Srila Prabhupada and put this entire mistake behind you by telling the truth about the past involvement of these corrupt leaders.





New Vrindaban: It's All Over Now, Bar the Cover-up

BY: KRSNANANDA DASA


Dec 30, 2007 USA (SUN) — The Truth, as we are assured by sastra, has finally come out into the open and somewhat bumpy fields of 'New Vrindaban'.


Tirtha brutally murdered Chakranadi, and a short while later Chakranadi's infant son was suffocated in an abandoned fridge.


Later, Triyogi dasa bashed in the head of Kirtanananda with a heavy pipe, enraged by the realization that the exclusive eleven paramahamsas were never appointed 'to be gurus' by Srila Prabhupada; his anger was compounded by the fact that Kirtanananda was currently an active homosexual pedophile presenting himself as a 'guru'.


Sulocana Prabhu, who had had his wife and children taken away by Kirtanananda's nasty manipulations, was blamed for this head-bashing by Triyogi dasa. Sulocana had written the ground-breaking expose "The Guru Business" (still available on line) and was known as the sworn enemy of Kirtanananda. In "The Guru Business", the guru-fraud perpetrated by the GBC post November 1977 is documented along with Kirtanananda's deep-seated sexual predilections. Triyogi's attack was thought to have been inspired by Sulocana Prabhu.


While Kirtanananda lay recovering in hospital, Radhanatha decided to murder Sulocana. Tapa Punj would oversee the murder. Tirtha, with Janmastami as assistant/driver, would be the killer. Tirtha had proven himself with his murder of Chakranadi, and Janmastami had military experience in Vietnam. This plan went up the line to Kirtanananda in hospital who gave approval. Kuladri at the bedside of Kirtanananda had already consulted with Radhanatha and through Kuladri news of the plan reached the other leaders of New Vrindaban: Malati, Devamrita, Candramauli, and Umapati. However, at the same time, Tirtha was letting the cat out of the bag by informing various persons, such as Yudhistra in L.A., of the coming murder. Tirtha's line was that the murder was bona fide as Kirtanananda was a pure devotee and it would be a devotional plus to assist.


Tirtha's stupid mouthing about the coming murder and requests for assistance only served to advertise further the murder plan back to practically all residents of New Vrindaban. In fact, the plan quickly went all over the ISKCON grapevine. Hence, when Radhanatha was to be approved as a guru to wear the shoes of the incarcerated Kirtanananda, one of the conditions of the well-informed GBC was that he should not be charged as conspirator murderer. (At this point, it is interesting to note that the GBC condition was not that Radhanatha should have had nothing to do with the murder, only that he not be charged with the murder. All the GBC members knew, then as now, that Radhanatha was involved. Apparently, this is a secret GBC standard: to be rubber-stamped an ISKCON 'guru', one can be a murderer of devotees, but not a publicly known murderer of devotees.)


Interestingly, the police were feeding the murder plotters in New Vrindaban information about the whereabouts of Sulocana Prabhu from his captured diary. The police were knowingly encouraging the murder, hoping that this would give them the excuse to charge into New Vrindaban and bust Kirtanananda, thus hopefully bringing down the whole commune. The police, "to protect and serve", cared little about Sulocana - he was just a pawn to them. This activity by the police of knowingly encouraging Sulocana's murder is of course illegal. So, after the murder there was an unwritten and understood pact between the police and Radhanath: Radhanath keeps quite about the police role, and the police keep quite about Radhanath's role - providing of course Radhanath helps them put Kirtanananda away. Radhanath complied.


One night in L.A., Tirtha, with Janmastami as driver, found Sulocana Prabhu parked up in his mobile home. Sulocana was shot in the head through a window while sitting at his word processor (we are informed).


After the murder, Tirtha and Janmastami split up. Tirtha under close police surveillance was soon picked up. Janmastami left for India, Vrindaban initially, and then after a few months settled in the less conspicuous Gurugoan project of Kirtanananda just south of Delhi. Soon at this time, Tapo-punja also turned up in India, following the route of Janmastami. In India, Janmastami started to have deep feelings of guilt and regret for his role and thus is now speaking the truth about the murder. He takes honest responsibility for his role, but feels that he was manipulated by Radhanath into the murder as he was a disciple of Kirtanananda, whom he now rejects.


Following the murder, the word quickly went out all over ISKCON. In North America to ensure silence, a number of devotees were threatened, beaten or had their property destroyed by mysterious fires. In just a few months, Sulocana's son was to drown mysteriously in New Vrindaban. The message was clear.


Immediately after the shooting, there was a sudden requirement for flight from justice money. Dharmatma, the moneyed sankirtana boss of New Vrindaban, was entreated by Radhanatha to supply funds, but Dharmatma, first of all, didn't want to release the large amount of cash, but also feared the legal implications of supplying money to murderers for their flight from justice. As Dharmatma had balked, Radhanath went to Kirtanananda and told him the situation. Radhanatha was particularly desperate at this time because the murderers if caught would implicate him as the mastermind. The solution was that Dharmatma would give the money directly to Kirtanananda, thereby he, Dharmatma, would not have given the money directly to Radhanatha, i.e., Dharmatma had plausible deniability. Thus Kirtanananda received the cash but made the mistake of putting his fingerprints all over it by counting it before passing it on to Kirtanananda. However at the subsequent trial this was not seen as ultimate proof of his complicit involvement in the murder.


With the darkening cloud of legal proceedings hanging over them, all the murder conspirators and leaders of New Vrindaban swore an oath of silence not to implicate one another in the murder and to support one another always. This oath has been followed to this day like a secret society within ISKCON and the GBC.


Subsequently, Kirtanananda and Tirtha dutifully took the fall for the murder. Radhanath who has attained the heights (or depths) as an ISKCON guru is now a protected kingpin with his societal power and influence, helpful to the New Vrindaban cabal, but he recognizes that he is beholding, especially to Tirtha and Kirtanananda; hence he has always kept good relations with these jailmates, knowing that they could really blow his cover. However Janmastami by speaking the truth has bravely put the cat amongst the pigeons. We must praise Janmastami for his honesty. Those that know him personally know that he is a sincere devotee that was badly manipulated by Radhanatha. He is now on the path of purification by telling the plain truth of the whole sordid affair and by living in a mood of repentance.


Can we expect the same truth, penance and repentance from Radhanath, Tirtha, Tapo-punj, Kuladri, Malati, Devamrita, Candramauli, Umapati, even the GBC, many of whom knew that Radhanath was the murder mastermind even as they were rubberstamping him 'guru'? Of course not. All the above New Vrindaban leaders stayed on for years at New Vrindaban knowing well that Kirtanananda and Radhanatha had been involved in the murder of their godbrother, Sulocana dasa. It suited them to keep quiet about the murder, homosexuality, abuse and pedophilia in New Vrindaban then, and it is highly unlikely that they are going to speak the truth now, especially when some have been rubber-stamped as ISKCON 'guru' and reached the GBC body with covert help from one another. Instead, we will get the usual personal denials and ad hominem attacks on Janmastami dasa and the attempts to sweep the matter under the carpet. But, as the lying, maneuverings, and denials go on for months and months, Radhanath, Tirtha, Tapo-punj, Kuladri, Malati, Devamrita, Candramauli, Umapati, and the GBC, should realize that it's too late: we all know the facts now and that by lying and denying they are only further straying from the truth and only serving to disgrace themselves. Better that they resign their positions within the society and go with just a little dignity.


"The Truth will Out" and is now out.


Your servant,
Krsnananda dasa


Factual Errors in the article of Krsnananda dasa

BY: ANONYMOUS


Jan 4, 2007 USA (SUN) — This is in reply to the recent article by Krsnananda dasa, "New Vrindaban: It's All Over Now, Bar the Cover-up", which contained certain errors.


Unfortunately, I know a whole lot more about this New Vrndavana murder case than I care to. I will point out what I know to be the inaccuracies in this article. Frankly some points are so

UNITED STATES v. HAM



UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Gordon HAM, a/k/a Kirtanananda, a/k/a K. Swami, a/k/a Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada, a/k/a Srila Bhaktipada, a/k/a Number One, Defendant-Appellant.


No. 94-5507.

Argued March 6, 1995. -- June 20, 1995
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

ARGUED:  Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Dershowitz & Eiger, P.C., New York City, for appellant.   Michael D. Stein, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Amy Adelson, Dershowitz & Eiger, P.C., New York City, for appellant.   William D. Wilmoth, U.S. Atty. and Nina Goodman, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.

OPINION

This appeal raises the issue of whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial of the forfeiture count of a RICO indictment where the district court, at the original trial, failed to instruct the jury to consider a required issue and enter a special verdict pursuant to Rule 31(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.   Furthermore, this Court must also decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the retrial of certain RICO predicate acts where the original jury did not indicate on the verdict form that it unanimously found the defendant guilty of those predicate acts.   We hold that double jeopardy does not apply in either instance.

I.

Keith Gordon Ham, also known as Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada (“Swami”), is the spiritual leader of the New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia.   In May 1990, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Swami with three counts of violating the RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1962), six counts of mail fraud, and two counts regarding a related murder.1  The indictment also included a separate forfeiture count in which the government sought forfeiture of all of the property owned by the New Vrindaban community.   After a trial, the jury convicted Swami on the RICO and mail fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the murder counts.

A. The Forfeiture Count

Rule 31(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires in forfeiture trials that “a special verdict shall be returned as to the extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture, if any.”   The jury at Swami's trial never rendered a special verdict on the extent of Swami's interest or property subject to forfeiture.

Before the district court charged the jury at trial, Swami's defense counsel requested that the court not submit the forfeiture count to the jury until the jury returned a guilty verdict on any of the RICO counts.   The district court agreed with the suggestion and ruled that the jury should decide only whether racketeering proceeds went into the properties subject to forfeiture.   The district court did not have the jury decide the extent of Swami's interest or property subject to forfeiture;  the court postponed consideration of that issue until it was clear that the jury would convict on the RICO counts.

In response to the district court's ruling, Swami's attorney drafted the following interrogatory to be answered if the jury found Swami guilty of any of the RICO counts:

Did the defendant acquire an interest in, establish, and/or operate New Vrindaban Community with income received from racketeering acts as detailed in [the RICO counts]?

The jury answered this interrogatory in the affirmative, but the court never held an evidentiary hearing on the extent of Swami's interest or property subject to forfeiture.   The district court discharged the jury without its having rendered a special verdict as required by Rule 31(e).

At sentencing, Swami raised the government's failure to obtain a special verdict on the extent of Swami's interest in the property subject to forfeiture.   Although the government attempted to shift the burden of securing the special verdict to the defendant, the district court held that any failure to comply with Rule 31(e) “is the court's fault, not the defendant's.”   Because the jury had not returned a special verdict under Rule 31(e), the district court did not order the forfeiture of any specific property but only entered a general order that “the defendant Swami shall forfeit to the United States all of his interest in all of the real estate identified by the United States in the forfeiture count of the indictment․”   Nonetheless, the district court concluded that a new jury could make the requisite findings under Rule 31(e) and advised the prosecutor to “set it down for a jury.”

B. The Predicate Acts

The verdict form that was submitted to the jury required, for most of the counts, only that the jury decide whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty.   For the RICO conspiracy count (Count I) and one of the substantive RICO counts (Count II), however, the verdict form also stated the following inquiry:

IF YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF [the count] PLEASE CHECK THE PARTICULAR PREDICATE ACTS YOU HAVE UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED HAVE BEEN PROVEN BY THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT SWAMI.

-----

The jury found Swami guilty of the RICO conspiracy count (Count I) and checked all of the predicate acts except the Stephen Bryant murder.   The jury also found Swami guilty of the RICO substantive count (Count II) but did not check either the Stephen Bryant murder or the Charles St. Dennis murder as predicate acts.

C. Post-trial Proceedings

Swami appealed to this Court, and we vacated Swami's convictions and remanded for a new trial.2  United States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247 (4th Cir.1993).   This Court concluded that the district court erred in admitting evidence of child molestation, homosexuality, and mistreatment of women because the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

On remand to the district court, Swami moved, inter alia, to dismiss the forfeiture count and the two predicate acts that the jury did not check on the verdict form.   Swami argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars retrial of the forfeiture count because the district court failed to have the jury render a special verdict under Rule 31(e).   Swami also argued that the original jury, by failing to check several of the predicate acts on the verdict form, implicitly acquitted him of those acts;  therefore, Swami contended that double jeopardy bars the government from retrying him on those predicate acts.

The district court denied both motions to dismiss.   With regard to the forfeiture count, the district court concluded that the jury's affirmative answer to the special interrogatory on the verdict form was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Rule 31(e) even though it did not specify the extent of Swami's interest or property subject to forfeiture.   With regard to the predicate acts, the district court concluded that the failure to check a particular predicate act did not constitute an implicit acquittal of that act.   Swami now appeals to this Court.   We affirm the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss, but our reasoning differs with respect to the forfeiture count.

II.

 The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”   U.S. Const. amend. V.   The Double Jeopardy Clause unequivocally prohibits the State from retrying a defendant after an acquittal.  Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503, 98 S.Ct. 824, 829, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978).   As the Supreme Court has explained:

The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a constant state of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.

Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957).   Thus, a verdict of acquittal is final and a bar to all subsequent prosecution for the same offense, even where the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.  Washington, 434 U.S. at 503, 98 S.Ct. at 829.

 However, a verdict of guilt or innocence is not required for the double jeopardy bar to apply.   The Double Jeopardy Clause also protects a defendant's right to have his trial completed by the particular tribunal he or she has chosen.  Id. Jeopardy attaches once a defendant is put to trial before a jury, and the Double Jeopardy Clause generally bars retrial if the jury is discharged without the defendant's consent.  Green, 355 U.S. at 188, 78 S.Ct. at 224.  “This prevents a prosecutor or judge from subjecting a defendant to a second prosecution by discontinuing the trial when it appears that the jury might not convict.”  Id.  Thus, the government is entitled to only “one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it [can] assemble.”  Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).   If the government cannot meet its burden of proof at the first trial, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the court from withholding the issue from the jury and allowing the government to reprosecute before a more favorable jury.

 Nonetheless, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not automatically bar retrial when a criminal proceeding is terminated without a final resolution on the merits of the charges.   As the Supreme Court has explained:

Because of the variety of circumstances that may make it necessary to discharge a jury before a trial is concluded, and because those circumstances do not invariably create unfairness to the accused, his valued right to have the trial concluded by a particular tribunal is sometimes subordinate to the public interest in affording the prosecutor one full and fair opportunity to present his evidence to an impartial jury.

Washington, 434 U.S. at 505, 98 S.Ct. at 830.   The Supreme Court has long since formulated the following rules for determining whether double jeopardy bars reprosecution after a mistrial.   If a judge declares a mistrial over the defendant's objection or without the defendant's consent, the defendant cannot be retried unless there was “manifest necessity” for the termination of the first trial.  Arizona, 434 U.S. at 509-10, 98 S.Ct. at 832-33;  Green, 355 U.S. at 188, 78 S.Ct. at 223-24;  United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824);  United States v. Council, 973 F.2d 251, 255 (4th Cir.1992).   However, if the defendant moved for mistrial or otherwise consents to the mistrial, the defendant can be reprosecuted unless he can demonstrate that the prosecutor or judge provoked the mistrial.  Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2089-90, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982).

 In this case, the district court did not declare a mistrial;  instead, the district court completed most of the trial but failed to try a discrete issue required for conviction of the forfeiture count.   Under Rule 31(e), a district court cannot enter an order of forfeiture unless a jury has entered a special verdict regarding the extent of the defendant's interest or property subject to forfeiture.   The district court below never held an evidentiary hearing on the extent of Swami's interest and never directed the jury to enter a special verdict on the issue.   The jury issued a verdict on all the issues presented to it, thus completing those portions of the trial.   But, the trial never even began on the Rule 31(e) forfeiture issue.

 We hold that the double jeopardy rules that apply in mistrial situations also apply when a court fails to try a discrete portion of the case before the original jury.   If the failure to try a discrete issue occurs over the defendant's objection or without the defendant's consent, the court cannot try that issue before a second jury unless there was “manifest necessity” for withholding it from the original jury.   On the other hand, if the failure to try the discrete issue occurs at the defendant's request or otherwise with the defendant's consent, the court can try that issue before a second jury unless the defendant can demonstrate that the prosecutor or judge improperly provoked the defendant's request or consent.

 Swami did not expressly consent to the dismissal of the jury before it decided the Rule 31(e) forfeiture issue.   Nonetheless, Swami's consent may be implied from his failure to object to the district court's dismissal of the jury.   In mistrial situations, a number of circuits have held that a defendant impliedly consents to a mistrial if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the mistrial but fails to do so.   See United States v. DiPietro, 936 F.2d 6, 9-10 (1st Cir.1991) (implied consent where defendant did not object to mistrial even though defendant should have anticipated declaration of mistrial and where trial judge remained in courtroom afterward to discuss case with attorneys);  Camden v. Circuit Court of Second Judicial Cir., Crawford County, Ill., 892 F.2d 610, 614-18 (7th Cir.1989) (implied consent where defendant did not object to mistrial although “[d]efense counsel should have anticipated the possibility of a mistrial and been prepared to object or suggest more acceptable alternatives when the trial judge announced his ruling”), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 921, 110 S.Ct. 1954, 109 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990);  United States v. Puleo, 817 F.2d 702, 705 (11th Cir.) (implied consent where trial judge expressed clear intent to declare mistrial and defense counsel had opportunity to object but did not), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 978, 108 S.Ct. 491, 98 L.Ed.2d 489 (1987);  United States v. Smith, 621 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir.1980) (implied consent where defendant did not object after declaration of mistrial although, before dismissal of jury, court and attorneys discussed instructions to jury upon dismissal and schedule for retrial), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1087, 101 S.Ct. 877, 66 L.Ed.2d 813 (1981);  United States v. Goldstein, 479 F.2d 1061, 1067 (2d Cir.) (“Consent need not be express, but may be implied from the totality of circumstances attendant on a declaration of mistrial.”), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 873, 94 S.Ct. 151, 38 L.Ed.2d 113 (1973).   But see Glover v. McMackin, 950 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir.1991) (holding that consent should be implied “only where the circumstances positively indicate a defendant's willingness to acquiesce in the [mistrial] order”);  United States v. White, 914 F.2d 747, 753 (6th Cir.1990) (same).3  However, a defendant's failure to object does not constitute implied consent if he had no opportunity to object.  United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 487, 91 S.Ct. 547, 558, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (trial judge did not exercise sound discretion when he abruptly discharged jury, offering no opportunity for defendant to object to mistrial);  United States v. Bates, 917 F.2d 388, 393 (9th Cir.1990) (no implied consent where defense counsel, immediately after judge declared mistrial, requested to talk to judge outside jury's presence, but judge did not grant request);  Lovinger v. Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., 845 F.2d 739 (7th Cir.) (no implied consent where judge, immediately after declaring mistrial, left courtroom and “was gone before the defense had any reasonable opportunity to consider the import of his statement and act upon it”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 851, 109 S.Ct. 136, 102 L.Ed.2d 108 (1988).

 Similarly, if a defendant has an opportunity to object to the trial court's dismissal of the jury before it decides a discrete portion of the case, but fails to do so, the defendant impliedly consents to the jury's dismissal and cannot raise a double jeopardy defense to further prosecution before a second jury.   The record in this case shows that, after the clerk read the verdict and the defendants polled the jury, the district judge thanked the members of the jury for their time and effort, apologized for their inconvenience, and wished them a Happy Easter.   With these short remarks, the district judge was clearly dismissing the jury.   Swami's counsel could have interrupted the judge before he discharged the jury and reminded him that the jury had not completed the forfeiture phase of the trial.   If Swami had wanted the original jury to decide the Rule 31(e) forfeiture issue, he should have informed the court of this desire before it dismissed the jury.4

Although Swami had a right to have the original jury decide the Rule 31(e) forfeiture issue, he could have asserted this right and prevented the district court from prematurely dismissing the jury.   He did not do so.   Swami cannot avoid a second trial on the forfeiture count on double jeopardy grounds and thereby profit from his failure to act.   The actions of Swami's attorneys suggest that the double jeopardy argument was a mere afterthought that one of Swami's attorneys conjured up long after the district court dismissed the original jury.   Cf. Camden, 892 F.2d at 618 (concluding that defendant's double jeopardy argument was “merely an afterthought that took form long after the first trial ended in a mistrial”).

We conclude that Swami impliedly consented to the district court's dismissal of the jury and, therefore, that the district court can try the Rule 31(e) forfeiture issue before a second jury without a showing of manifest necessity.   We hold that double jeopardy does not bar retrial of the forfeiture count of Swami's indictment.

III.

We turn now to Swami's contention that double jeopardy bars retrial of the RICO predicate acts that the original jury did not check on the verdict form.   Swami argues that the original jury had an opportunity to render a verdict on the Stephen Bryant and Charles St. Dennis murders,5 and that its failure to check those predicate acts on the verdict form should be treated as an implied acquittal.

Swami finds support for his argument in Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957).   In that case, Green was tried for both first and second degree murder;  the jury convicted Green of second degree murder, but the verdict was silent on the first degree murder charge.   Id. at 186, 78 S.Ct. at 223.   Green successfully appealed his second degree murder conviction, and on remand for a new trial, Green argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial of the first degree murder charge.   The Supreme Court concluded that the “second trial for first degree murder placed Green in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the Constitution.”  Id. at 190, 78 S.Ct. at 225.

The Supreme Court reasoned that Green had been forced to run the gauntlet once on the charge of first degree murder and that the jury had refused to convict him.  Id.  The jury had the choice between convicting him on first or second degree murder, and it chose the latter.  Id.  The Supreme Court regarded the jury's verdict as an implied acquittal on the first degree murder charge.  Id.  It relied on the fact that the jury had been dismissed without Green's consent and without its having returned an express verdict on the first degree murder charge.  Id. at 191, 78 S.Ct. at 225-26.   The Supreme Court reasoned that the jury “was given a full opportunity to return a verdict and no extraordinary circumstances appeared which prevented it from doing so.”  Id.  Therefore, the Court concluded that “Green's jeopardy for first degree murder came to an end when the jury was discharged so that he could not be retried for that offense.”  Id.

More generally, the Supreme Court held in Green that “the double jeopardy clause precludes a prisoner's retrial for a greater offense after reversal of his conviction of a lesser included offense.”  United States v. Johnson, 537 F.2d 1170, 1174 (4th Cir.1976);  see also United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 465 n. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 1589 n. 1, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964) (Green “holds only that when one is convicted of a lesser offense included in that charged in the original indictment, he can be retried only for the offense of which he was convicted rather than that with which he was originally charged.”).

Swami argues that he has been forced to run the gauntlet on all five predicate acts, and that the jury did not convict him on the predicate acts regarding the Bryant and St. Dennis murders.   Swami urges this Court to conclude, like the Green Court, that the failure to return a verdict on those predicate acts constitutes an implied acquittal, thus barring a second prosecution on those acts.   Swami also argues that, although he was prosecuted on RICO charges with five predicate acts, he was convicted of lesser included offenses, namely a RICO conspiracy conviction with four predicate acts and a substantive RICO conviction with three predicate acts.   Having successfully appealed these RICO convictions, Swami contends that he can be retried only on the lesser included offenses.

 We do not agree.   The jury's failure to check a predicate act does not constitute an implied acquittal of that act.   The verdict form required the jury to “check the particular predicate acts you have unanimously concluded have been proven by the United States with respect to defendant Swami.”   The failure to check a predicate act may signify either that the jury unanimously concluded that Swami did not commit that act, or that the jury could not agree on a verdict for that act.

 A jury's failure to decide an issue will be treated as an implied acquittal only where the jury's verdict necessarily resolves an issue in the defendant's favor.   See Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, ----, 114 S.Ct. 783, 792, 127 L.Ed.2d 47 (1994) (“The failure to return a verdict does not have collateral estoppel effect ․ unless the record establishes that the issue was actually and necessarily decided in the defendant's favor.”).   In Green, for instance, the failure to issue a verdict on the first degree murder charge was treated as an implied acquittal because “Green's conviction of second-degree murder established the existence of a fact (the state of mind required for that offense) that was inconsistent with his being guilty of first-degree murder․”  Kennedy v. Washington, 986 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1070, 114 S.Ct. 876, 127 L.Ed.2d 73 (1994).   Nothing in the jury's verdict in Swami's case establishes a fact inconsistent with a finding of guilt on the predicate acts.

We conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of the predicate acts regarding the Stephen Bryant murder and the Charles St. Dennis murder.

IV.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.  More specifically, the indictment charged Swami with conspiring to conduct and participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count I), conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Count II), investing income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity in the operation of an enterprise (Count III), two counts of conspiring to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Counts VI and VIII), four counts of substantive mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts VII, IX, X, and XI), one count of conspiring to murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count IV), and one count of aiding and abetting to commit murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (Count V).Terry Sheldon was a co-defendant in the RICO conspiracy count, the substantive RICO counts, the conspiracy to commit murder count, and the aiding and abetting to commit murder count.   Terry Sheldon and Steven Fitzpatrick were co-defendants in one of the mail fraud conspiracy counts and one of the substantive mail fraud counts.

2.  We also vacated the convictions of Terry Sheldon and reversed the convictions of Steven Fitzpatrick.

3.  Although the Sixth Circuit does not follow the majority view, the First Circuit has concluded that the Sixth Circuit has actually not set a different standard.  “Even where courts have held that the failure to object did not foreclose a good double jeopardy plea, they have generally done so because there was no opportunity to object.”  DiPietro, 936 F.2d at 10.   The First Circuit noted that, in United States v. White, 914 F.2d 747 (6th Cir.1990), the defendant's failure to object to the mistrial did not waive the double jeopardy bar to a new trial because the defense had no time to object.  DiPietro, 936 F.2d at 10-11.

4.  We note that Swami probably had strategic reasons for not reminding the court.   It is unlikely that Swami wanted the same jury that had just convicted him of nine of the eleven counts also to decide the remaining forfeiture issue.

5.  The jury did check the Charles St. Dennis murder as a predicate act for the RICO conspiracy count (Count I).   It did not check it as a predicate act for the substantive RICO count (Count II).   Swami argues that double jeopardy bars retrial of the St. Dennis murder only as to the substantive RICO count.

DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:

Affirmed by published opinion.   Judge RUSSELL wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge HALL joined.

chapter 5 -- KARMA?, WHAT KARMA?, GURU takes all our karma....

"they have their opulence's, i have my benevolence. they have their positions and i have my integrity, in which way do i suffering the comparison?" --- menkus, disciple of confuscius, 400 B.C.

sunday mornings at New Vrndaban were always a festive time.

the children were returned to their parents for eight hours that day and a feast was served in mid afternoon. more than the normal daily fare of a bowl of rice and a cup of soup to go with it, on sundays one might actually get a taste of sugar without having to break a lock to get access to it.

household life was as ridiculed and scorned at the higher echelons of New Vrndaban power as it was anywhere else in ISKCON although there were more white dhotis * than saffron at most gatherings, save and except those at "the top". "at the top" was an expression at New Vrndaban that referred to the brahmachari ashram*. "we have subdued our sexual desires and we are superior!", was the mood of the ashram and women were considered lower than insects because at least insects were not committing sinful acts.

women, on the other hand, according to the brahmachari version, had as their sole mission in life, the seduction of some poor unsuspecting young male who just happened to stray past the women's bathhouse or one who lingered a little too long at the halavah* pile on sunday.

halavah is a sweet as common in asia as doughnuts for breakfast is in the west. if the printing press is "the big mridnga",* then halavah is the newsprint that made the papers roll. no one can dispute the significance of halavah offered to The Lord as a motivating factor for accomplishing tasks in ISKCON. it was one of Jayananda's* most subversive tactics, but it was also used by the likes of Matthew Norton {Manihar das} and his eternal homeboy, Naragadev das, to do their bidding.

one person who was attracted to the foods the devotees eat was known as Taru das, Tom Meyers. He was so much attracted to the prasadam* the devotees took that he was known as the prasadam addict. After he was killed tee shirts were printed and distributed in his honor.

This was an inside the community honor as no one was allowed, under fear of expulsion and/or execution to speak about it to the outside world. Taru's parents and then his sister tried for years to find out what happened to him. the state troopers have been over the grounds on dozens of occasions in pursuit of a body, but as yet, to no avail. what happened to Taru and why is endemic to the issues plaguing ISKCON in general and New Vrndaban in particular. therefore, after twenty five years, the ghost of Tom Meyers returns to NewVrndaban to haunt his hypocritical tormentors.

"if you even think about having sex with a woman after taking sanyass, you immediately go kill yourself. there's no two ways about it!", tamal Krishna was telling vishnujnan, in response to vishnujnan's having revealed his mind in confidence.

"damn, this dude is hardcore!", thought vishnujnan, but tamal had quoted a lot of scipture and he, himself, swore that if he ever came to that position, that is exactly what he would do. still, suicide, even if required by scripture, was not the kind of thing that usually occurred without a significant amount of contemplation. tamal would always go to the example of chota haridas and there was no way that could be denied. sure, subal had fallen from sannyas and he could come back around, but did he want to be like subal? he thought not. on the order of his fellow Radha-Damodara bus captain, tamal Krishna, VJS went to india and drowned himself in one of the holy rivers. when swami maharaj found out what vishnujnan had done, he was not upset, although it was not spoken of openly again.

Having done his obligatory six months "on the top", Tom Meyers, Taru das as he was now known, was initiated into the ashram and the thinking that motivated it. under the influence of his cohort Paul Ferry {Param brahma das, P.B.}, he became like what he associated with, a thief. burglary had become second nature as PB's henchman, so when PB decided to pole his way into the householder/ grihasta ashram, Taru dutifully paddled along with his friend. PB took the stretch-limo model, hoping to end his "chapati problem"* in one fell swoop.

"marrying her is my sankirtan! she's worth millions and I will be turning it in as soon as i get some. get my meaning?", PB had joked with the brahmachari ashram at the buffalo temple. as a charter member of the he man woman haters club back at "the top", PB had feared humiliation at the hands of those he had formerly humiliated when he was "the top of the top". a notorious woman beater, PB knew better than to hit his own wife. he couldn't expect to win a fight with anyone else's wife, or at least, he wouldn't expect to win the aftermath if an irate husband were to show up, so he chose to work out his aggressions on the unmarried women with no defenders. the buffalo temple would later close under the mismanagement provided by PB and Lenny Rader {Narada Muni das, "muni"} and their very shady, enron-like accounting procedures. their highly unorthodox beekeeping practices, under their 501(c)3 requirements are also highly illegal.

How the Taru killing became an FBI cold case is long story that involved a massive cover up that continues to this day. Taru, as he was now known, had some serious problems. for one thing, he believed everything that he read in scriptures, even if he couldn't understand it at the time, he had that much faith.

He was married to a girl called Mahara. if you have ever heard the stereotype of the long haired girl in the flowery long skirt, that just sold someone incense or a book at an airport or at a sporting event, this then is that girl in the vision. not only figuratively, but quite often, literally. this girl was, as they say, "on fire". she was the babe ruth of sankirtan scores of the era.

Women all over the movement knew of her; "why not?", she was probably doing "the pick" in their "zones". Kirtanananda Swami's program for plundering the planet had been surmised in his pamphlet "easy journey to other zones", in which he summarily dismissed anyone elses right to an area of preaching free from his over extended reach. he had the right as Swami maharaj's self effulgent successor.

Now Taru had the experience of being a householder, but unlike his buddy, PB, who appeared to be settling quite well into his new ashram, something was amiss for him. PB's wife was requisitioning him new clothes every month and thought nothing of it, "doesn't everyone get new clothes every month?", while taru's wife brought him a pillow case full of popcorn once a month for three days while they took R&R from the hassle of running through the malls with a full posse of security in pursuit. by being married to taru, she was some what free from the amorous advances of the old canadian bouncer, turned financial director, of new vrndaban, dharmatma. for taru though, it wasn't turning out as PB had said it would. it was turning out exactly like scripture had said it would and that was working out just fine for "the he man women haters club".* the he man women haters club, affectionately named after the little rascals childhood fantasy, was a handful of certain select individuals who felt a spiritual supremacy over others and were not the least bit afraid to show it. while most temples had a few of these individuals, new vrndaban had an entire farm full of them and the elite of this crew purported to have reached the advanced stage of material detachment, such that their lips curled with disgust at the thought of sex with a woman. For many, the thought of sex with the same sex was not that repugnant.

Kirtanananda Swami and his then cabin-mate Jack Mowen {Kasyapa das, Varsana Swami} had "the cabin". the top of the line as cabins went at new vrndaban, it had a stove. there were two seasons at new vrndaban, it was often said, winter and the fourth of july. global warming had not had the far reaching effects that it has today and if someone didn't stoke the fire at night, the bath water would freeze. the ice cold marble floor sent most of the men to the warm comfort of the "pujari room" *. the pujari room was located directly over the furnace that heated the entire building, so finding volunteers was not the difficult task that it has become, of late, for the leaders. this was before the era of "too many chiefs, not enough indians", this was in the era of "one chief, plenty of indians".

Taru had come to the conclusion, urged on by the he man women haters, that marriage was "a fallen condition" and to be avoided at all costs, if at all possible. to further that end, he sent his wife on full time skamkirtan, put on saffron cloth and moved in with the he man women haters club. when taru found that he was much less comfortable with his new bunkmates than he had been with his even part time relationship with his wife, he faced the fact that he was not ready for a life of abstinence. he confided in kasyapa that he was going to renounce the ashram and go back to household life. kasyapa told him it was better to commit suicide, rather than go back to women. there are several versions of what happened next.

There are probably as many versions as there were brahmacharis at the top, BECAUSE THEY ALL KNEW. they all knew that the handgun from the pujari room disappeared the same night that taru did.

Most knew that kasyapa had brought his backhoe and "did his deed", much the same as he would do to the thirty five foot high murti* of Swami maharaj just a few years later. repeat offenders seem to be almost powerless to stop themselves. at the very least, kasyapa, Kirtanananda Swami and Radhanath have obstructed justice and cost the governmentand the taxpayers millions of dollars. Possibly they are murders.

The body is buried, as they well know, along the property line at the Bahulaban farm, where it borders with what once was Floyd Coffield's property, two hundred feet north of Prabhupada's Palace road. he only took the hoe in as close to the trees as he could until he hit roots and the rest, as they say, is history. history known to two or three dozen people, some of whom have already left their mortal frame. may these ease those sufferings of those affected by this tragedy.