The comments you made are very helpful for me, they are insightful and informative and have given me a better understanding of what happened in the court case.It was also interesting how you described the tricks the ego can play (in both posts).

It would appear from the account you have given that you have an incompetent, lazy, uncaring (un)justice system. But even if this whole situation at the moment seems unfair for NATHA (and on top of this they will have to pay some wholly unjust debts), NATHA maintains their integrity and it will just become another experience that will be filed away with all the other ones,and the school will carry on with its important business..
However the other party, even if they feel they have seemingly won, they will be imprinted with their wrong deeds. You do not have to know be a yogi to know that actions have consequences (even my 3 year old niece knows when she does something wrong there will be a consequence) that will return. How cheaply Karsten sold himself in comparison to the karmic price he will pay, it is scary. Before i felt resentment towards Karsten.. i thought he was a weak and angry person who was blaming the others for his misfortunes and his attempts to bring down the school and Mihai were completely outside my understanding… Now i feel overwhelming compassion for him, as we witness the lengths he will go to protect his mistakes and his ego.. How can a being who is on a spiritual path and so close to the teachings have such a terrible fate that they not only leave it but they stamp on it?

Isobel

Since I was also present at the court case you mention in this article I would like to share with the people here on the blog the considerations which I have about it.
Some of my considerations are about the judgment itself and the (missing) logic and justice in how the case was judged. And the others are about Karsten’s person – since he presented himself in a very strange and unflattering way.

1. About the court case
As you probably read in Mihai’s introduction, the law firm Holm & Schmidt took Prema Fonden to court because we did not agree on the amount charged for the work they had done.

They claimed amongst other things that the work was done and charged correctly, and that they had been mainly charging us for meetings, phone calls, research and consultations.
Also they had been working for many hours on several documents which were “almost ready”, “only the very last part was missing”, this being the reason given to why they were not able to present this material to the client.

They even stated in the court that they had all the unfinished material filed, as well as the description of every single hour they had spend, in their accounting archive. Yet they did not wish to show any documentation or any official report of their work for Prema Fonden.

The judge let them get away with this in the court, by ignoring the fact that the lawyer firm claimed to have documentation for their work, but was not asked to present it!

The judge basically demonstrated a well known formal strategy in a small case which is complicated and would take more resources to deal with properly than what they want to give it: She simply tried to close the case compromising the truth and the justice by emphasizing on the witness testimonies (Karsten’s false statements) and not on the facts presented in the case and not by analyzing the work which was actually done.

So still the Holm & Schmidt law-firm has at no point been asked to present a complete documentation of their work for Prema Fonden, and the verdict in the court was decided based on a false testimony from an unpredictable and unreliable person, whose only motivation in court was to make Prema Fonden – his old friends and now sworn enemies – pay as big a price as possible for some mistakes, he himself in reality had committed in his period as responsible and chairman for the Foundation: By not being attentive to the invoices of the law firm, he only very late discovered that they were overcharging and he announced this to the board of Prema only after the cooperation had stopped.

An absolute absurd situation of injustice on a background of juridical formalities:
Consider the strategy of a professional veteran law firm, who of course know the court procedure and knew already on forehand that the judge would focus on the witnesses and not the written statements and analysis of the case, since it would be too complicated and too much work:

It was clearly declared in the verdict from the judge that the decision was made because of Karsten’s statement: That he considered that the amount of money charged by the lawyer firm Holm & Schmidt was correct and in accordance with their amount of work for the client Prema Fonden.

But the new and inexperienced trainee- lawyer defending the case for H&S himself admitted that THEY DID NOT DELIVER THE WORK DONE: It was clear in the court that it was the law firm who withdrew the further cooperation and refused to give the last part of the work – so how could such a decision occur? Only few results, not much help from the lawyers who let the client confused for months without giving a clear direction according to their professional expertise, and no documentation for their work – because basically only half of the claimed work was actually done!

If for example an architect would make a drawing on a house and would work for it hundreds of hours and in the same time he is giving the customer advices about where to buy materials, which offices to talk with etc. but then he decide to stop the work and not to give any drawings at all. Even with a lot of drawings on his table and hundreds of hours of work, – but the customer did not get the finished drawing of the house – should the customer then pay for those hundreds of hours of work? Would it not be enough that the customer only pays for the actually given advices? Or at least that there will be a partial reduction in relation to the lack of results and competence?

Or if a baker starts making a huge wedding cake and it takes him 2 days but then he gets upset and refuse to put the last glamour on the cake and refuse to give it to his customer (announcing it in the last moment before the wedding) – the customer still have to pay for those 2 days of work on a cake he never gets?

Is the case like that in Denmark that lawyers have special protected conditions in which they do not have to deliver the work in order to get the payment? It is enough to say: “but I worked and since you did not believe me I will not show it to you, – but please pay anyway!”
How did the logic work in the mind of that lady judge? Did she listen at all? Are they (the core of the juridical system) protecting each others like in a club of friends?

My point is that with or without Karsten’s statement – it was clear (note: both parts were agreeing about that) that Prema did not see the result of the many hours of work which the law firm (claim) they had done – then why Prema have to pay for it? Prema did not get the “drawings of the house”, “NO CAKE” – and the judge ignored this fact!

2. Karsten’s statements in the court
Karsten’s statements – and very presentation of himself – are part of my other observations which I wish to share here:
In Court Karsten presented himself as a guy completely without any balls and on top he presented himself as a liar who would lie without any consideration – unless under oath in court.
(I must say that I was very surprised that he who is so concerned about people’s opinion about him did not feel embarrassed to present himself like that).
He said that the opinion that he himself so eagerly presented to the rest of us, while he was in Prema’s board, was given against his better judgment – just to please us!
Why did he do this? “He was afraid to give another opinion and only under oath he would give the true opinion?” – so he said!
Can you imagine having such a guy among yourself? Can you imagine having such a guy as your chairman? As your friend? As your beloved? As your teacher? As your coach? As your working partner?
A man – an EXPERT, a CONSULTANT – who doesn’t have the balls to say his true opinion and to give his true judgment of the situation to the rest of the company because of opportunistic interests, because of fears for his image in front of the others?
Only in court he would suddenly turn 180 degrees and say the complete opposite – against you! And that after the whole court case started because of his initiative!

Don’t think that he did that only with Natha and Prema. He does that all along. He did that with the people with whom he worked very closely together (he is kind of a work alcoholic) and he expressed utmost concern in any working matter (I bet he still does that wherever he is working). He did it with his best friends and with his girlfriend with whom he has kids.

He is lying to anybody unless you put him under oath in court (this is what he himself claims under oath in court).

Who would ever want to trust him? And please mark: These are not something that I claim from observations which I made. It is not something that I concluded.
IT IS SOMETHING HE HIMSELF ADMITTET IN COURT UNDER OATH. In the same circumstance that he claimed that only under oath in court he can be trusted with his word.

Another chapter would be if it is likely that his word is trustworthy even under oath in court – when it is not to be trusted in any other circumstance. The “law of resonance” teach us something else. A resonance is a resonance! A liar is a liar. A man who is only concerned about his own image doesn’t change that just because he made an oath in court.
(He was actually using the fact that he made an oath in court as a trump in order to make the judge believe his lie: He basically said; in my daily life I am constantly lying but today – because I took the oath – I am for once not lying. This is why I express the exact opposite opinion now than then.).

So it speaks for itself that he described himself as a person who like a chameleon adapts the opinion of the group he is joining in order to give a good impression. Before he was part of Natha and took on an opinion which he believed would give him a good image at that time. Now he declared himself an enemy of Natha, he is contacting newspapers to attack Natha, he joined the other enemy of Natha (Kim, whom he before disliked and constantly was fighting with) – so now he is adapting all the opinions of that group of people (however small it is), who are against Natha.

Not to mention other groups that he is part of, his family, his job, his “friends” – all those places it should be obvious by now that Karsten is more concerned with keeping a good opinion about himself than about saying the truth in order to protect the best of the community he is part of. For his job Karsten is more interested in his status than in the interest of the working place, he is ready to bring you in a situation which will ruin you, just to please your opinion about him.

Another point which makes it very unlikely that his word can be trusted – even under oath and knowing his character – is that he completely changed his statement right after the law firm withdrew the case against him.
First the law firm filed a case against Karsten and Karsten made a statement, written to his best friend Sahaj, in which he states that the law firm was charging far too much money and they had not done the work which they ask to be paid for.

The same instant the law firm withdraw the charge against Karsten then he is not only changing his statement 180 degree – but he is even witnessing for them in court. IS THAT NOT NORMALLY CONSIDERED A VERY SUSPISCIOUS TURNING WHICH WOULD MAKE ANY JUDGE RELUCTANT TO RELY ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN?

How can the judge close her eyes to all these facts unless she already made her decision beforehand?

Ending this post. Maybe you find it strange that I do not address to Karsten but to all of you.
Well… The wonderful Karsten I knew 2 years ago is long gone. He would have reacted to my long letter to him which I posted on this blog in the spring.
He did have some aspiration and wanted to transform. He did have inner feelings of emptiness that he wanted to heal – but he did not manage and now he is not at all the same anymore. For him I am just one of the same with all that he wants to attack.
I still have this inner feeling, inner picture of Karsten whom I love soo much – but the Karsten I met at the court, the Karsten who went to Jyllands-Posten is not the same Karsten.
Karsten also loved me (he claimed utmost devotion), but now he doesn’t love me – why? : because he doesn’t love Mihai or Natha? What does it have to do with each other? He is upset with Mihai – and then he wants to revenge on all the persons whom he loved in Natha? To revenge on Mihai?
Most of us who were close to him tried to reach out to him. What does your relation with Mihai (or Adina) have to do with your relation to me?

So I am talking to you who are reading this blog, because I want to show you how the vendetta of Karsten is not about Natha but about his own personal failure. How he failed not only his own spiritual path, but also all his friends, not only all the people he loved but also all the values that he loved.
Now he sees his former friends as just a thing, an object which he wants to harm just in order to harm someone else (Mihai or Adina).
The failure is he failed love, he failed to be a human being with a soul, he failed the deep urge which is inside any one of us, the urge to blossom in our full potential.

For that I can have only compassion – and I would be so happy if I would find again the Karsten which I once knew and still know and love in my heart. For that he would have to find again his own heart, and then I am sure he would also suddenly find his friends again – and even his soul, his integrity and his balls.

With love and deep concern,
Amrita

Success for all of us.
m

With Love,
Isobel