Appeal to Common Sense
BY: RAGHUNATH DAS
Jun 11, NEW VRINDABAN, WEST VIRGINIA, USA (SUN) — A request to review the policies and procedures of ISKCON’s Child Protection Office, filed with the GBC EC on February 22, 2009.
Dear Respected GBC members, Godbrothers, Godsisters, Vaishnavas and Vaishnavis, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for hearing my request as set forth herein.
Prior to beginning, I must point out that the statements here are based upon my experience with ISKCON’s Child Protection Office (CPO). I make the assumption that the policies and procedures as I have experienced are consistent with those in other cases. I apologize for any omissions, oversights or inaccuracies on my part.
I have been involved in a case before the CPO of ISKCON. While it is not my intention here to review the specifics of this case, I do wish to draw your attention to certain aspects of the judicial system that appear to be less than equitable. I do this in hopes that the GBC body will see fit to review and revise the policies and procedures of the CPO. It is my sincere belief that failure to do so will lead to future strife which may then result in more lawsuits and discord within ISKCON. Addressing these issues now is the responsible and appropriate course of action.
I understand that the system currently in place has been established by ISKCON to protect both the organization itself from future lawsuits and the youth of our society from mistreatment. A stated goal of the CPO is to promote “healing” within our society.
These are unquestionably objectives of utmost importance without which our society cannot continue in any meaningful way. But it is important for us to realize that the meting out of justice is a very complex task and one which requires due diligence and careful consideration of all of the evidence and circumstances. If we desire a fair and just outcome, an equitable judicial system must be in place.
At present, the system of justice currently exercised by the CPO can hardly be considered as equitable, and its rulings are not based upon sound policies and procedures. As such, rather than promoting healing within ISKCON, this system is fostering further injustice, and subsequent disgrace and personal suffering. This, in turn must generate more resentment and more lawsuits in the future. It is, therefore, in the best interest of our society to review and revise these policies and procedures to ensure that all individuals are dealt with in a fair, just and equitable manner.
In particular, the following policies are judiciously questionable, imprudent or unjust:
- There is no actual investigation of a given allegation.
- Where there is a conflict of interest between a CPO official, that official is not required to recuse himself.
- The judges lack experience in the fields of law, counseling and behavioral sciences, and do not consult professionals in these fields.
- There is no due process whereby an accused may question his accuser.
- There is no statute of limitation.
- There are very poor standards of evidentiary acceptability.
- Handling of evidence creates prejudice: The persons who are charged with examining evidence and determining what is actually pertinent to a case are the same persons who determine guilt or innocence. This creates a bias or prejudice in the system.
- In a given case, a statement from an alleged victim is either not required or deemed irrelevant to the determination of guilt or innocence.
- When personal references are provided, such references are not consulted.
- There is no requirement that an accuser state a reason or motive for bringing accusations against the accused.
- There is no attempt to determine the mental competency of an accuser.
- There is no attempt to determine whether an accuser may be inimical towards ISKCON, its mission and its followers.
- Open-ended prosecution - no clearly defined progression from accusation to charge to conviction.
- No separation of duties: The judges are charged with the responsibility to carry out the functions of the prosecution, the judge and the jury and this affects the impartiality of the adjudication process.
I elaborate on these points herewith:
1. Investigation
The CPO judicial procedure involves a secretary who is given the title of “Investigator” while in fact this person does not investigate any allegation. This secretary collects statements from accusers and passes them on to a panel of persons who are given the title of “Judges”. This panel again does not investigate any allegation. The panel does little more than review written statements and then attempt to arrive at a verdict based upon these statements.
2. Conflict of Interest
Tamohar is the CPO director as well as an acting GBC for New Vrindaban. That he should preside over a judicial case involving a person under his managerial authority is unethical and indicates unsound policy. We all respect Tamohar, but common sense dictates that this opens the possibility that the power and authority of the CPO may be misused to accomplish a managerial or political end. Even the appearance of this possibility must be avoided and Tamohar should recuse himself from any and all involvement with this case. That he has not done so is of serious concern.
3. Lack of legal experience of judges
The CPO judges are not required to possess any prior legal experience or qualification. The primary qualifications are that they have experienced a training seminar sponsored by the CPO and are followers in good standing of ISKCON. The judges do not appear to have the facility of consulting with experts in the fields of law or psychology. As such their ability to make decisions in an area which requires knowledge of both fields is questionable at best.
4. Lack of due process
One of the fundamental rights of an individual in a democratic system is the right to due process. This is enumerated in the Sixth Amendment to Constitution of the United States of America wherein it is guaranteed that an accused shall enjoy:
a. the right to a speedy trial
b. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
c. to be confronted with the witnesses against him
d. to have process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
e. to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Of these, the lack of an actual hearing wherein an accused person may question the accuser is most disturbing. The consequence of this policy is that any person can make any statement, however egregious, and the accused can do little more than to say, “I don’t remember such a thing” or “That’s not true.” It becomes a simple verbal contest of one person’s word against another. If, then, a lying accuser is sufficiently verbose, his (or her) story carries the greater weight and the accused loses out by sheer volume. Under questioning, however, the fallacy of such false testimony could be brought to light.
5. Statute of limitation
This is, in most jurisdictions, a legal restriction on the length of time that may elapse between an alleged act of wrongdoing and the bringing of an action seeking legal remedy. In West Virginia such an action alleging mistreatment of a minor must be brought within two years of an alleged victim’s becoming an adult and within 20 years of an alleged wrongdoing (WV legal code §55-2-15). It may be noted here that for “criminal” offences such as murder, extortion or other heinous crimes, such a statute of limitation does not apply. The essential principle of this law, then, is that serious and violent acts are punishable in perpetuity whereas it is deemed imprudent to maintain an open-ended liability for less serious offences. At present any person in ISKCON may be accused and tried of any offence regardless of the length of time that has elapsed. This is not only unwise, it is dangerous. Sanity dictates that there must be some reasonable limit to the amount of time after which an allegation may not be considered. In my case, allegations of 25 and 30 years in the past were brought and adjudicated. This is unreasonable and is unjust.
6. Evidentiary standards
In the current CPO system, if any person states that he or she heard or believes that someone acted in a certain way, that statement is taken as evidence and transformed into a charge. Little distinction is made between this and a statement of first-hand account. In a standard court of law a witness will be instructed to limit testimony to what he or she has seen or witnessed. Hearsay evidence, or that which is not witnessed first-hand, is generally avoided. Non-first-hand evidence may be useful in an investigation as a lead or a clue to help discover first-hand evidence, but in an actual trial wherein a person’s fate is to be decided, the standard of evidence must be held to a higher standard. The simple fact is that each degree of removal from the first-hand observer represents an exponential decrease in reliability. If I say that I remember hearing Bhakta Will state that some 30 years back that he thought he remembered that some other person told him that he thought that so-and-so might have done such and such - we can know for certain that the reliability of such a statement approaches zero. Similarly, we must adhere to first-hand statements when adjudicating guilt or innocence in CPO cases. To do otherwise is to invite disaster. In my case many third-hand accounts were freely admitted as evidence and formed the bulk of the case.
7. Handling of evidence creates prejudice
In a standard court of law, the prosecution may bring evidence to the courtroom, but the judge may disallow certain evidence based upon evidentiary standards. The jury, who decides the verdict is to hear only evidence that meets this standard. In some cases where a jury hears evidence that is disallowed, the judge may declare a “mistrial” at which point the jury is dismissed and the trial must begin again from scratch. The prosecuting attorneys will therefore attempt to be diligent in separating the evidence which is acceptable and that which is not. The jury is not required to discern what evidence is acceptable vs. what is not so that it may focus on the process of arriving at a fair and just verdict. In the CPO system of justice, the judges must determine which evidence is acceptable and relevant, and they must then attempt to arrive at verdict. This is an inherently flawed process. The underlying premise of such a system is that “Any and all evidence is admissible.” In essence, bring any nonsense to the case and we will hear it. The person or persons who determine the admissibility of evidence must not be the same person or persons who determine guilt or innocence in a case.
8. Statement from alleged victim(s)
In any case wherein one person is alleged to have been wronged by another person, a statement should be obtained from the alleged victim. If a statement cannot be obtained then an explanation must be provided as to why such statement was not obtained. In my case there were no statements from alleged victims and no explanations as to why such statements were not provided. This is more than problematic. It borders on criminal.
9. Personal references
The wisdom of consulting personal references should be self-evident. If a reference is provided, why would that reference not be consulted? Is the reference deemed unimportant or is it that the verdict has already been determined and that consulting a reference might run counter to the verdict? Either explanation is unacceptable. In my case, I found no evidence to suggest that any of my many references were queried.
10. Motive(s) of accuser
Common sense dictates that the court should attempt to determine why a person has decided to bring an accusation against another person. In the finest of circumstances a person’s motive may be pursuit of justice. More likely though, the motive is less noble, such as personal revenge or to seek a another’s removal from authority. In any case the motive must be considered as relevant to the testimony provided. To fail to consider this is not a sign of competent judicial policy.
11. Mental competency of accuser
In any judicial case, the mental and emotional condition of a witness must be brought into consideration. If a person is incoherent, obviously the person’s testimony will not be allowed. The testimony of a person who is a manic depressive, socially dysfunctional recluse should similarly be brought into question. A similar deliberation would appropriate for one who is autistic, or a habitual substance abuser. In my case a statement was admitted from a manic depressive, socially dysfunctional person, another statement from an autistic man, and yet another from a person known to be a drug abuser. This is again inappropriate. CPO policy should take into account such mental status of any accuser.
12. Accuser’s standing with ISKCON
This is significant in that if a person is inimical towards ISKCON and it purposes, then any testimony given must be suspect. This is only reasonable. For example, if someone who openly opposed to ISKCON came forward and began making accusations against some of the senior members, we would be suspicious of this person’s motives and hence the truthfulness of his or her testimony. In my case a person who is very inimical towards New Vrindaban and ISKCON’s devotees provided a rambling litany of lies and misinformation. And this was accepted as fact without consideration of the person’s enmity towards the society. This is again imprudent and improper.
13. Open-ended prosecution
The CPO’s system of justice appears to be somewhat freestyle. One or more statements are gathered together after which an accused is asked to respond to the statements without a clear communication of the charge(s) being lodged against him. For example, an accuser may make a protracted statement such as “Things were very hard, the women were treated as second-class people, we weren’t given enough help, the work was really difficult, the children were unruly, and I really didn’t trust the way this guy interacted with the kids.” The accused is then expected to somehow formulate which part of the statement to respond to, what the actual charge is, when an alleged event is alleged to have occurred, whether he may have been involved in such event, and how to present all of this and respond in proper context. The judges may then look at this and come up with an entirely different charge or set of charges. It is a bit like a guessing game in which the target is hidden and continually moving - hardly the type of system that would be expected to bring about a fair and equitable outcome.
14. Separation of duties
The CPO judicial system asks a single group of individuals to act a the prosecution, judge and jury. In fact these three act in very different capacities in a judicial system. The prosecution attempts to prove the guilt of an accused, the judge orchestrates and regulates the process, while the jury actually makes the determination of guilt or innocence. To impose all three functions upon a single group of individuals is unwise, unfair and unreasonable. These duties should be separate and performed by different individuals or groups of individuals.
That any of the above policies and procedures exists in ISKCON’s judicial system is problematic. That all of the above are present is a recipe for disaster. On the whole, the system is so flawed that it is virtual certainty that inequitable and unjust decisions will be handed down. The system is exposed to exploitation and there is every chance that some unscrupulous individual will manipulate the system to achieve an end other than the dispensation of justice for which the judicial system was intended. Indeed, such a perversion of judicial authority may well be happening at the present moment.
In consideration of all of the above points, I must humbly submit to you that unless and until these issues are addressed and rectified I cannot and I will not accept the decisions or mandates handed down by the CPO judicial system.
I believe it is clear that this system is in serious need of reorganization. I strongly recommend that we seek outside help in the task of reforming the CPO. I have worked with an attorney in Wheeling, West Virginia named Mike Hooper who is highly intelligent and respectable. He is also a judge in the judicial system of the Presbyterian Church and is known to Kuladri. I propose that it would be highly advantageous to consult with Mike and request his assistance in reorganizing the CPO. I give his contact information herewith:
Regarding the specific requests of my appeal I beg to submit the following:
- I request that the recent CPO decision in my case be vacated.
- I request that the GBC and its legal team review the points I have delineated herein and determine to revise the policies and procedures of the CPO judicial system accordingly.
- I request further that any further action with regard to my case be suspended pending such a review and revision.
Please consider what I have stated here and please do the needful to deal with this most imperative matter. And please do not hesitate to consult me if you have any questions or concerns with regard to either the issues I have raised herein or the specifics of the case brought against me by the CPO.
Thank you so very much.
Your servant,
Raghunath das
304 845 3875
rj.seward@gmail.com
