Indian diplomat arrested, handcuffed in US for visa fraud

[aerokan]

How can you blame America alone when every industrialised country in the World is requiring foreign diplomats to pay their maids in accordance with the minimum wages and treat them in accordance with the labor laws of the host country?

I have shown here before the webpages of the Foreign Affairs Ministries of Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and Australia that explicitly requires foreign diplomats to comply with their wages and labor laws with respect to the maids that they will officially bring to their countries. I will not repost those web pages anymore.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the only issue settled thus far is the immunity of Khobragade at the time of her indictment which the Court ruled in her favor. The other issues are left open and it seems that as early as now the Office of Bharara is already thinking of next steps.

Does Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and Australia arrested Indian diplomats and did a strip/cavity search which is considered more than just simple humiliation in a land where modesty is considered valuable than life traditionally? I guess not. If anybody does a cavity search of me, I will make sure that I will work for their demise for the rest of my life. :thumb:

 

[asianobserve]

Does Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and Australia arrested Indian diplomats and did a strip/cavity search which is considered more than just simple humiliation in a land where modesty is considered valuable than life traditionally? I guess not. If anybody does a cavity search of me, I will make sure that I will work for their demise for the rest of my life. :thumb:

You cannot bait me. I learned my lessons already.

 

[aerokan]

You cannot bait me. I learned my lessons already.

No, you didn't learn anything. It's just sidestepping from proving what you speak. If you don't want to prove your statements, atleast make a proper argument. Also just because some other countries suggest actions which are against the conventions they signed, doesn't mean they are gonna act in wrong. If they act in wrong, they will face consequences like US is facing.

 

[asianobserve]

No, you didn't learn anything. It's just sidestepping from proving what you speak. If you don't want to prove your statements, atleast make a proper argument.

What sidestepping? I have discussed in this thread at length my opinions on the issues of Khobragade's immunity. I stand by my arguments. So far the acquittal has only ruled on one of issues: immunity from indictment.

Also just because some other countries suggest actions which are against the conventions they signed, doesn't mean they are gonna act in wrong. If they act in wrong, they will face consequences like US is facing.

The fact is that the countries I cited have the same requirements for maids brought to their countries by foreign diplomats. That they don't enforce their rules does not change the fact that those requirements exist. Anyway, I think there were cases of other Indian diplomats getting into trouble in Europe for their maids. But I don't want to look for the articles anymore.

 

[aerokan]

You're way OT trying to psychoanalyse me.

I don't need to psychoanalyse you again and again. It was overflowing all over the threads. The previous post of yours #3989 is a good example of how to obfuscate, sidestep the main point and jump across the spectrum to be able avoid answering the questions straight

 

[aerokan]

What sidestepping? I have discussed in this thread at length my opinions on the issues of Khobragade's immunity. I stand by my arguments. So far the acquittal has only ruled on one of issues: immunity from indictment.

This is not about the issue as a whole. Once again you repeat which has been debunked before. I was refuting something else and you bring up another case of argument. Another case of sidestepping.

The fact is that the countries I cited have the same requirements for maids brought to their countries by foreign diplomats. That they don't enforce their rules does not change the fact that those requirements exist. Anyway, I think there were cases of other Indian diplomats getting into trouble in Europe for their maids. But I don't want to look for the articles anymore.

If you think that law is just simply following certain commands, why not program some robots and enforce 'justice' ? It's all about understanding the law and the spirit in which it was made. You fail to understand that simple point even after being repeatedly pointed out. Any country which fails to understand the spirit of why the law was made focusing only on the rules of law will end up eventually in a downward spiral. US is no exception.

 

[aerokan]

@asianobserve: Please do refrain from making unnecessary posts when you

1. Can't prove with a proper backing.(Some of your links that you post are in direct contraction to what you imply. I am surprised that you quote a post and conclude otherwise)

2. Or Can't present a proper logic. (Well, most of the times, it will work like this and that.. but fails to understand that it doesn't work the way you expect it to be)

3. Or when you have no interest (Best is to stay silent when you have no intention to fight with points 1 or 2. I do the same even when I know I am in the right)

 

[aerokan]

You don't have questions, you have baseless statements (rants).

Try harder. Focus all your attention like Obama trying to justify Afghanistan and oppose Putin in Ukraine at the same time. :thumb:

Hint: Questions generally end in '?'

 

[Haman10]

US didn't act like a civilized country in this mess they created . The ruling of the court can't and won't replace all the suffering they caused for the innocent indian diplomat . She has every right to sue the idiots in white house now

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

 

[sayareakd]

No personal attack guys. Lets not cross lines.

 

[Blackwater]

The servant sangeeta Richard files divorce case with her husband in USA

 

[Compersion]

On a side note (not sure of posted earlier)
Devyani Khobragade's help, husband cite 'differences', file for divorce | The Indian Express | Page 1



Interesting.

"So much had been written showing Sangeeta in a bad light, about her fabricating the entire story just to extort money out of the Khobragades, but no one knows of how we have suffered as a family. We left our place overnight under threat from the Khobragades," he claimed.

Did that person and also the family report this to the police in India. Did they allege any mistreatment in India. They ought to have and rest assured the India legal system would have taken care of them and provided them justice if it was due to them. In fact they would have made much more money (there is mention on "money" often in this whole affair) by way of compensation and other returns if they got justice. To suggest that India Legal System does not provide such justice is far from the truth, disrespectful and ill-mannered. And to go to USA on that context and in view of the DK affair is bizarre.

The two people that ought to keep their mouth silent now is father of the accused and husband of accuser.

 

[happy]

The servant sangeeta Richard files divorce case with her husband in USA

As long as her husband was in India all her games were unnoticed, now as her husband is with her he gets to see the bitter truth. Very cunning and conniving lady I say !!

 

[sayareakd]

The servant sangeeta Richard files divorce case with her husband in USA

This will be interesting.
this will also show what has happen during that period.

 

[pmaitra]

How can you blame America alone when every industrialised country in the World is requiring foreign diplomats to pay their maids in accordance with the minimum wages and treat them in accordance with the labor laws of the host country?

I have shown here before the webpages of the Foreign Affairs Ministries of Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and Australia that explicitly requires foreign diplomats to comply with their wages and labor laws with respect to the maids that they will officially bring to their countries. I will not repost those web pages anymore.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the only issue settled thus far is the immunity of Khobragade at the time of her indictment which the Court ruled in her favor. The other issues are left open and it seems that as early as now the Office of Bharara is already thinking of next steps.

Look, this is the last time I am telling you, and seriously, it is getting extremely annoying.

The US keeps pontificating about "international law," while they have violated Article 47 of VCCR. The story ends there.

• What other industrialized countries do does not nullify Article 47 of VCCR, do you understand?
• What the US court says does not nullify Article 47 of VCCR, do you understand?

Looking forward, I would like India to make a legislation, clarifying that:

If a foreign diplomatic staff in India, protected under VCDR, or foreign consular staff, protected under VCCR, requires any Indian diplomatic or consular staff to provide evidence and/or make a promise that he or she will pay a certain amount to his or her private staff, then that should be construed as a violation of VCCR, and in the larger sense, violation of international law, and therefore, will stand to lose all protections and immunities that they themselves enjoy under VCCR and VCDR, and they should be prosecuted in India, for (1) violation of Article 47 of VCCR, for (2) infringement of India's sovereignty, for (3) conspiracy to abduct, for (4) conspiracy to hostage taking, and for (5) conspiracy to extort and blackmail.

In total, this would be 5 counts of criminal misconduct, and the accused should be prosecuted theretoforth.

Coming back to the US, if one US VISA stamper is arrested and jailed, the US will fall back in line. Personally, I think this is necessary.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade has charges dropped because she had diplomatic immunity - NY Daily News

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed an indictment that accused Devyani Khobragade of illegally obtaining a work visa for her nanny and paying her just $3 per hour. The judge said the charges were moot because Khobragade, who has returned to India, had diplomatic immunity when the indictment was filed in January.

 

[sayareakd]

Just saw on Zee TV that US govt has objected to the Judgement....................

 

[sayareakd]

Since i had free time in morning i found the full judgement, here for all to read.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=383

 

[sayareakd]

IV. DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that Khobragade acquired full diplomatic immunity at
5:47 PM on January 8, 2014, and did not lose that immunity until her departure
from the country on the evening ofJanuary 9,2014.20 On January 9, immediately
following the return of the Indictment, Khobragade appeared before the Court
through counsel and moved to dismiss the case. Because the Court lacked
jurisdiction over her at that time, and at the time the Indictment was returned, the
motion must be granted.21
The Government argues that the Indictment should not be dismissed
because Khobragade did not have diplomatic immunity at the time of her arrest,
and has no immunity at the present time.22 In support, the Government submits a
declaration from Steven Kerr, Attorney-Advisor in the Office ofthe Legal Advisor
ofthe United States Department ofState. Kerr concludes that "Dr. Khobragade
did not enjoy immunity from arrest or detention at the time ofher arrest in this
case, and she does not presently enjoy immunity from prosecution for the crimes
charged in the Indictment.,,23
Even assuming Kerr's conclusions to be correct, the case must be
dismissed based on Khobragade's conceded immunity on January 9,2014. The
fact that Khobragade lost full diplOlmtic immunity when she left the country does
not cure the lack ofjurisdiction when she was indicted. Courts in civil cases have
dismissed claims against individuals who had diplomatic immunity at an earlier
stage of proceedings, even ifthey no longer possessed immunity at the time
dismissal was sought.24 These courts reasoned that the lack ofjurisdiction at the
time of the relevant procedural acts, such as service ofprocess, rendered those acts
void. Because Khobragade moved to dismiss on January 9,2014, the motion must
be decided in reference to her diplomatic status on that date.
Similarly, Khobragade's status at the time ofher arrest is not
determinative. The State Department has explained that "criminal immunity
precludes the exercise ofjurisdiction by the courts over an individual whether the
incident occurred prior to or during theperiod in which such immunity exists.,,25
Furthermore, several courts have held that diplomatic immunity acquired during
the pendency ofproceedings destroys jurisdiction even ifthe suit was validly
commenced before immunity applied. For example, in Abdulaziz v. Metropolitan
Dade County, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that diplomatic immunity "serves as
a defense to suits already commenced.,,26 The court found that the "action was
properly dismissed when immunity was acquired and the court was so notified.,,27
Lower courts have cited and followed Abdulaziz in the absence of binding case law
in other circuits.28
The Court notes that Abdulaziz involval civil claims rather than
criminal charges. However, the Government has not cited any criminal case in
which immunity was acquired after arrest, and the Court is not aware of any such
case.29 Abdulaziz is persuasive precedent given that the standard for dismissing
criminal and civil cases based on diplomatic immunity is the same.30 Furthermore,
because diplomatic immunity is a jurisdictional bar, it is logical to dismiss
proceedings the moment immunity is acquired. Even if Khobragade had no
immunity at the time ofher arrest and has none now, her acquisition of immunity
during the pendency ofproceedings mandates dismissal.
The Court has no occasion to decide whether the acts charged in the
Indictment constitute "official acts" that would be protected by residual immunity.
However, ifthe acts charged in the Indictment were not "performed in the exercise
of official functions," then there is currently no bar to a new indictment against
Khobragade.31 Khobragade concedes that "[t]he prosecution is clearly legally able
to seek a new indictment at this time or at some point in the future now that [she]
no longer possesses [] diplomatic status and immunity ...."32 However, the
Government may not proceed on an Indictment obtained when Khobragade was
immune from the jurisdiction of the Court.
v. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Khobragade's motion to dismiss the
Indictment on the ground of diplormtic immunity is granted. Khobragade's
conditions of bail are terminated, and her bond is exonerated. It is ordered that any
open arrest warrants based on this Indictment must be vacated. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to close this motion (Dkt. No. 15) and this case.
Dated: MarchJL,2014
New York, New York

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=383

 

[happy]

[PDF]http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=383[/PDF]
@sayareakd Sir, I just pasted the pdf from your link. Thanq.