Официальное решение ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection [Центральный отдел защиты детей ISKCON] (Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children [Ассоциация защиты детей вайшнавов]) по делу Вакрешвары Пандита даса (Vakresvara Pandit dasa), он же Джеймс Кеннер (James Kenner), вынесенное 26 июля 2002 г. (перепечатка; подписи не воспроизведены)

Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children
Official Decision on the Case of Vakresvara Pandit dasa




This judgment, decided on July 26, 2002, was rendered in accordance with
the guidelines for adjudicating cases of child abuse established by the
ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report, ratified by the ISKCON
Governing Body Commission. This judgment is the official decision of the
ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection (ICOCP), also known as the
Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children (APVC), on the case of
allegations that Vakresvara Pandit dasa (Mr. James Kenner) had consensual
sexual relations with an adolescent minor girl.
This decision defines the parameters of the relationship between
Vakresvara Pandit dasa and ISKCON. The APVC advises child abuse victims,
their parents, and all members of the ISKCON organization to report
allegations of child maltreatment to governmental social service and law
enforcement authorities. Also, the APVC advises all members of ISKCON to
learn and follow their local laws regarding child abuse and mandated
reporting of child abuse.
According to the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report, the criteria for
determining validity of claims of child maltreatment is "preponderance of
evidence", in contradistinction to the criteria of "beyond a reasonable
doubt".
Vakresvara Pandit dasa is a black-bodied person who received initiation
from Srila Prabhupada, and in the 1970s served in the New York yatra, and
in recent years has served as temple president in ISKCON Puerto Rico.
Below are sections of the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report
concerning definitions of child abuse that are relevant to this case.
"I.   Child Maltreatment
A.    Definition- A broad range of mistreatment of children including
neglect, physical, abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological abuse.
1.    Child- a child is defined as 0-18 years of age or whatever the legal
definition for a child is in the particular country where the alleged
maltreatment occurred.
B. Types of Child Maltreatment ..B.3.    Sexual Abuse-   An act of commission
(perpetration) where a child is coerced, induced, persuaded, enticed,

seduced, or entrapped into sexual acts with another person. The coercion
can be either physical or verbal. The other person could be either an adult,
an adolescent (12-18 years of age ), or even another child (less than 12
years of age). The abuser uses his/her position of authority or power (size,
age, social position, cognitive differential) to exert control over the victim.
a) Forms of sexual abuse include:
(1)   voyeurism ("Peeping Tom" ) (2)     exhibitionism (flashing) (3) taking
pornographic pictures of the child (4)    having the child watch while the
perpetrator masturbates (5)     forced masturbation (6) kissing (7) fondling
(8) digital/object   penetration of vagina and/or anus (9) oral sex (10)
sodomy (11) intercourse"
Evidence:
On December 4, 2000, The APVC received a handwritten complaint, about
ten pages in length, dated November 21, 2000, from the claimant stating
that when she was thirteen and till she was fourteen, Vrakresvara Pandita
dasa and she had a sexual relationship. She admits that the alleged sexual
relationship was consensual, but that because of her age at the time, she
was not mature enough to have made a responsible decision to enter a
sexual relationship with a forty year-old man.
The claimant wrote that when she was 13 years old the defendant asked
her to meet him at a spot a few blocks away from the ISKCON Dallas
temple. During that encounter, according to the claimant, the defendant
asked her to kiss him, which she agreed to do. There were several further
encounters, according to the claimant. The claimant wrote that over the
course of nearly a year "we would meet and go to his friend [P]'s house. We
did have sex around seven or eight times."




Through corroborating statements from others, an in-person, verbal
interview with the claimant conducted by two of the panel members, and
additional written statements from the claimant, the panel has found
consistency with the claimant's original handwritten complaint.
"Corroborating statements from others" does not refer to witnesses to the
alleged sexual activity, but rather to other details included in the claimant's
written and verbal statements.
Also, the claimant's original written statement was analyzed by a

renowned expert in forensic written content analysis. Regarding the
allegations by the claimant that there were sexual relations between her
and the defendant, this expert wrote "This consistency in the language
indicates that the statement comes from the subject's memory and thus the
subject is truthful." In another section of the analysis the expert wrote
"Generally speaking, this is a very strong assertion of truthfulness, which is
very rarely found in deceptive people."
On December 5, 2000, the APVC sent to Vakresvara Pandit dasa a
questionnaire related to the accusations of the claimant. His written
responses to that questionnaire indicated, according to accepted standards
of written content analysis as confirmed by the expert cited above, that he
cannot be cleared of the allegations and that his responses are problematic,
in the sense that they contain deception. For example, in response to one
question, where the defendant responded "no", the expert in written
content analysis wrote "Iwhen a person does not answer question 2 on the
last page with ‘yes’ then it is definitely a very strong signal that the subject
is ‘problematic’ or ‘cannot be cleared.”
The defendant, who denies the allegations, later sent in additional written
statements, and two of the panel members personally interviewed the
defendant. The panel found inconsistencies in the defendant's statements.
For example, both Vakresvara Pandit and the claimant claimed that the two
of them met with one of Vakresvara Pandit's clients at the client's home.
Vakresvara Pandit claimed that the meeting occurred in the parking lot,
and the claimant claimed that they met in the apartment. The claimant's
knowledge about the inside of the client's apartment, much of which was
independently verified by the defendant, indicates that the claimant is
being truthful about her presence in the client's apartment.      It was at this
location where the alleged transgressions took place.




While the claimant's testimony seemed consistent and psychologically
viable, several details of the defendant's statements appeared inconsistent.
For example, Vakresvara Pandit claims that he helped the claimant's
mother in various ways when she was getting a divorce. Thus, he became a
familiar figure in the claimant's household during the time period in
question, and in this way he came to know the claimant. The divorce,

however, occurred after the time period in question, and thus Vakresvara
Pandit would not get to know the claimant during that time period through
helping her mother with her divorce processes.       Further, his claim that he
bought life insurance for the claimant's family appears to be unverified.
Another way that the accused claimed he got to know the client during the
time period in question was by driving her home from high school, which
was on his route for his job as an insurance salesman. He said that he did
this for some of the devotee children on occasion. However, for the
majority of the time period in question the claimant was in middle school.
The claimant and her mother deny that Vakresvara Pandit ever did drive
her home from school. Vakresvara Pandit's general description of his
relationship with the claimant appeared inconsistent. For instance, he
claimed "I barely knew her", and also described that he had a relationship
with her such that she would call him on his pager and talk about her
friend's comments about her, and her alleged sexual escapes with other
men. As described above, Vakresvara Pandit dasa's descriptions of the ways
in which the claimant and he would have developed such a relationship
are not consistent with facts, and his descriptions of how close the
relationship was or wasn't are also internally conflicting.
Based on the evidence described above, this panel has determined that the
allegations of the claimant, that Vakresvara Pandit dasa did engage on
several occasions in sexual activity with her when she was an adolescent of
minor age, are true.
In determining a rectification plan, the panel considered that this was not a
case of pedophilia, but rather a case of immoral sexual behavior with a
minor. While not minimizing the severity of the transgressions against the
claimant, the panel also considered the consensual nature of the sexual
activity, and thus the rectification plan is less severe than if physical force
had been used. The panel consulted the California State Penal Codes
(261.5(d), 288(a), 288(c), 288.5(a-c)) to provide a context for the rectification
plan. The State of California takes into consideration the age of the victim,
the age of the defendant, the age difference between the two, and the
number of occurrences that transpired. There are three categories for
victims, determined by age: under 14, 14-15, and 16-18. "Under 14" is
considered a case of molestation, regardless of whether or not there was
consent.

Based on the conclusions described above, this panel has decided as
follows.
1) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must write an apology letter to the claimant. In
this letter he must fully acknowledge his transgressions against her, take
complete responsibility for them, and sincerely offer to rectify himself and
make amends in whatever way he can. This letter should be sent to the
APVC, not directly to the claimant.
2) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must pay restitution to the claimant in the
amount of at least $3,000 during the next three years, with at least $1,000
paid within one year from the date of this official decision.
If Vakresvara Pandit dasa does not comply with items 1 and 2, then he is
completely banned from all ISKCON and ISKCON-related organizations.
This ban will include a restriction from entering the property of ISKCON
and ISKCON-related organizations, and from attending the events of
ISKCON and ISKCON-related organizations. If Vakresvara Pandit
demonstrates that he is in compliance with items 1 and 2, then he may visit
ISKCON temples and participate in ISKCON activities in accord with the
following restrictions:




3) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must show this document to the Temple
President of any temple he visits, or the manager of any ISKCON project he
visits, and obtain a signed statement that the president or manager has
read this decision. Vakresvara Pandit shall send the signed copy of the
decision to the ICOCP. If Vakresvara Pandit only visits a temple once or
twice during public functions, such as Sunday Feasts, then he does not need
to obtain a signed statement from the temple president or manager. If he
visits a temple more than two times within a period of three months, then
he must obtain such a signed statement.
4) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must not assume any leadership positions in
ISKCON. This includes a prohibition from leading kirtana and giving class
on ISKCON property or at an ISKCON function.
5) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must not assume any position of influence that is
connected with ISKCON. This stipulation also includes a prohibition from
representing ISKCON.
6) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must not reside or stay overnight on an ISKCON

property, though he may attend temple functions, such as Mangala-arati,
Srimad-Bhagavatam Class, Sunday Feasts, Ratha yatras and other festivals,
within the parameters described in this Official Decision.
7) Vakresvara Pandit dasa must not have ISKCON service, or service with
an organization affiliated with ISKCON, that involves connection with
adolescent girls, other than his biological children.
8) If the victim of Vakresvara Pandit dasa attends a function at an ISKCON
temple where Vakresvara Pandit is present, then Vakresvara Pandit must
leave the premises, unless the victim gives uncoerced permission for
Vakresvara Pandit to remain.
9) Vakresvara Pandit must not be shown any special privilege or
preference at an ISKCON temple or in an ISKCON project, or in a project or
organization affiliated with ISKCON.
10) Vakresvara Pandit should not be alone on ISKCON property with
adolescent girls who are not his biological children.
If Vakresvara Pandit dasa violates any of the above conditions, then he is
prohibited from any connection with ISKCON or ISKCON-affiliated
organizations until his case is reviewed by the APVC.
If, based on credible evidence that the ICOCP deems to be valid, it is later
determined that Vakresvara Pandit dasa sexually misconducted himself
towards minors other than the claimant who is described in this Official
Decision, then Vakresvara Pandit dasa will be completely banned from all
connection with ISKCON and ISKCON-affiliated organizations for 15 years
from the date that the APVC determines the new allegations to be valid.
After the period of this 15 year ban, Vakresvara Pandit dasa may apply to
the APVC for reinstatement to the ISKCON society. If Vakresvara Pandit
dasa admits, before October 1, 2002, to the existence of additional minors
towards whom he sexually misconducted himself, then this 15 year ban
will not be applied. If Vakresvara Pandit reveals the existence of additional
victims, the APVC will ask that he genuinely apologizes to those victims,
and that he pays monetary restitution to them in an amount to be
negotiated between Vakresvara Pandit dasa and the APVC.
Vakresvara Pandit dasa has been steadily dedicated to Srila Prabhupada's
ISKCON for many years. This panel humbly requests him to continue in
that mood by abiding by this Official Decision and continuing to perform
valuable devotional service within Srila Prabhupada's movement.

If Vakresvara Pandit dasa fully complies with all the items described above,
then as of five years from the date of this Official Decision he may apply to
the APVC for restrictions 3-6 and 10 to be lifted. If Vakresvara Pandit
demonstrates compliance with items 1 and 2 within one month of the date
of this Official Decision, then the APVC will refrain from widely publicizing
this document amongst ISKCON leadership, as is the standard with most
official decisions of this office. This panel humbly requests ISKCON
spiritual and managerial authorities to fully encourage Vakresvara Pandit
dasa to rectify himself by complying with this decision.
Full documentation of the case is on file with the APVC.
The panel wishes to clarify that this is not a case of pedophilia, but rather a
case of immoral sexual behavior with a minor.
These judgments constitute the minimum restrictions that an ISKCON
organization may place on Vakresvara Pandit dasa . Any specific ISKCON
organization may choose to invoke more stringent restrictions.
While this Official Decision has delineated various constraints and
conditions, the panel members realize that engagement in devotional
service to Sri Krsna is essential for purification. Though it is not the
function of this panel to determine or suggest the type of devotional service
that Vakresvara Pandit dasa should perform, we want to mention that,
within the restrictions described herein, there are countless ways in which
Vakresvara Pandit dasa may serve Srila Prabhupada's mission, and we
encourage him to do so. Also, we wish to state that the directives described
in this document, such as writing apology letters and donating for the
betterment of the children of Srila Prabhupada's movement, are also forms
of bhakti-yoga.
According to the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report, Section 5, in
cases where an allegation(s) of child abuse are determined to be valid, the
accused may appeal the Official Decision to the GBC Executive Committee
and the ISKCON Minister of Justice within one month of the date of this
decision. The Official Decision described in this document is effective
immediately, and the perpetrator must abide by its guidelines during the
appeal process, should he choose to appeal this decision.
The panel members who served on this case and determined whether the

allegations were valid were Kaisori dasi, Praghos dasa, and Jayasacisuta
dasa. Joining this panel to assist in formulating the rectification plan was
Dhira Govinda dasa, who was the case manager for the case and the
director of the APVC at the time of this Official Decision.
[Signatures]