NATHA and the Bhoga ashram case end (?)

NATHA/MISA apparently lost the case against mr. Kim Schmock regarding the ownership of the Bogha ashram. (Article)

Translation of original article
The case will be appealed, said Joachim Porslund Frederiksborg Amts Avis. Here he is in front of the yard. Photo: Karl Erik Frederiks
The Association Natha Yoga Center failed to prove the ownership of Ådyssegård in Vejby writes Frederiksborg Amts Avis.
The Court of Elsinore delivered Tuesday a ruling in the case in which the association has brought against one of its former members, Kim Schmock, in an attempt to get him to waive the ownership of the farm. He owns the company Bhoga Ltd., founded in 2000 and he had signed the deed on the farm. The farm has since been used by the association and the association wanted to transform the courtyard into the location of yoga courses and meditation as well as summer camps, that first became famous because of the television reportage entitled "Tea and tantrasex in Tisvilde".
During the trial the association has tried to convince the court that Kim Schock only became the owner of the farm because he acted as front man for the association. They have tried to get the court to order him to renounce his claim of the property or to give the association the option to purchase the farm for the sum of 394.000 Crowns. 
Judge Larsen ruled on Tuesday that Kim Schock is cleared of all allegations and that the association Natha Yoga Center has no option to purchase the farm.
The association's former chairman and current press officer Joachim Porslund have previously told Frederiksborg Amts Avis, that the case will be appealed if Natha is unsuccessful in district court.
Of course the representative of NATHA said that they will appeal the decision. The case has been on for years and years. Somehow the same divinely guided justice system that gave the MISA spiritual master political asylum somehow can't get it through their heads that if you were a member of the NATHA/MISA cult and you bought a property then that property is owned by NATHA/MISA and this is always done via a verbal contract and no actual written contract whatsoever. 
See also the case around the Brasov ashram, and recently some properties in Romania involving former MISA yoga teacher and vice president of the association Claudiu Trandafir. 

Interesting isn't it that MISA and it's branches keep stumbling on this kind of problem. Wonder why that is? 
Could it be the evil global Freemason conspiracy against them personally? I personally highly doubt it. Hey, I'm not saying it couldn't just be the case of naivete on the part of the MISA association's board members, but even so I can't see any good reason why they shoul have done this within a legal frame. As far as I understand the laws regarding non-profit organizations and associations (which MISA and it's branches claims to be) is that the properties of the association has to be on the name of the association and if the association buys let's say a building then there needs to be at least a contract of purchase or a contract of rent in existence to be able to call the property connected to the association. Signing the property on the name of one of the association's members is not what is necessary and the association does not have any legal claim to the said property. 

It would be kind of funny if this were not the case. Then there would be the possibility of any associations to go and take the properties of all of it's members claiming that they made a verbal deal with them. 
Or in the two cases that we're talking about now. Kim Schmock former NATHA member left NATHA and does not want to be associated with them anymore, he spoke out about the association's problems. Claudiu Trandafir former MISA member and the association's vice-president also left MISA and started his own yoga school. He did not speak out against MISA but he does not support the association as far as it's obvious for an outsider. 
Now if the laws worked like MISA/NATHA wanted them to work then if they were mad at mr. Schmock for saying bad things about them, at mad at mr. Trandafir for establishing a competition for MISA on the Romanian yoga market, then all that they had to do is sue them for all of the money and properties that had on their name claiming that they had a verbal contract and that they want x, y and z property back, never actually having contributed to purchasing of said properties. 
How is a court of law to decide who's right? And who is telling the truth? Should they (and I have a feeling looking at their propaganda that MISA and NATHA is trying to say this, at least to their devotees) just look at who's the more spiritual and decide based just on that? 
In this case form the MISA/NATHA perspective they are the true spiritual ones and the only one's that are telling the truth (after all they are teaching people about the ancient Hindu concept of Satya that is part of a ethical/moral code very similar to the ten commandments) and the others (Kim Schmock and Claudiu Trandafir) are demon possessed and have failed spiritual tests and are now in a state of spiritual involution and hence can't be trusted. 
What do you think dear reader should this be the deciding point or the presentation of evidence about the claims? If not, why not? 

As far as I'm concerned the problem is proving the contract. Sure there could be a verbal contract in existence but what if the other party changes his/her mind? Don't they have the right to do that if they (like in the case of Kim Schmock) leave the association and change their mind? Should they be obliged by a court to let the association stay in their property without even paying rent? 
And what if the owner want's to sell the property like K. Schmock wanted? Doesn't he/she have the right to do that anymore just because the associations of which he/she is no longer a member and is in no way supporting their activites likes it there? 

That's kind of the situation as I see it, but of course  could be wrong. But in the end it's interesting that even though the problem came up with the Bhoga ashram they still didn't take steps to prevent the same thing happening woth other properties claimed to be owned by the non-profit association MISA. 
Well sorry guys if you are that lazy don't be surprised of the results. What about that favorite saying of yours: attitude creates aptitude? Why are you objecting now that your lazy attitude produced unwanted results? What was the problem? Were you too busy with spiritual activities? Aren't there enough passionate MISA yogis with a law degree? In the videos you produced complaining about the events on the 18th March 2004 you had way enough layers willing to represent you. Couldn't you just ask one of them to look over these papares? 
The excuse now is that after the events of 2004 the properties had to be transferred to the name of some MISA members that were to be trusted, that still sounds shady but if you can prove that that is the case at least you have a starting point for a case, like this it's just another case of starting useless lawsuits and dragging them on for years using the extra slow Romanian justice system in your favor. 

Can someone explain to me exactly how does this help achieve the goals of your organization nameley the elevation of the spiritualaity level of humanity?

No comments:

Post a Comment