Indian diplomat arrested, handcuffed in US for visa fraud

[sam80]

US embassy faces I-T inquiry, urges 'understanding'


US embassy faces I-T inquiry, urges 'understanding' - Hindustan Times


An income tax inquiry now threatens the delicately poised Indo-US relationship, highly-placed government sources have told HT. The ministry of external affairs (MEA) has conveyed the inquiry details to the US embassy. Coming close on the heels of the spat involving diplomat Devyani Khobragade, rattled American diplomats are now urging India to arrive at ''an understanding.''

Despite reminders from the MEA, the US embassy, is yet to provide details of how many teachers are employed at the American Embassy School in violation of visa and tax laws.

The inquiry into what officials believe could be 'a multi-crore tax evasion' saw the issue being raised by assistant secretary of state, Nisha Biswal, during her first visit to India, earlier this month. Confirming the information, MEA Spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin told HT, "These issues were raised before the assistant secretary of state. We intend to address them through the mechanism of a working group."

Soon after Khobragade's arrest and strip search last December, MEA had sought detailed information on how many teachers were employed at the school, their salaries and bank account details. When asked for a comment on the probe, a US embassy spokesperson said, "We continue to engage in discussions with our Indian counterparts on all issues that have been raised through appropriate diplomatic channels."

In a major embarrassment for the embassy, the New York Times had published an article in January, establishing that the teachers were in violation of Indian tax laws, because they were advised in a circulated handout to wrongly represent themselves as housewives. Quoting from the handout, NYT had said, "we usually have the male spouse apply for the 'employment' visa and the female spouse be noted as 'housewife' on the visa application."

Facing the income tax heat, the US now wants to settle the issue through a broader understanding that, government sources say, would be accommodative of India's concerns. The US is caught on the wrong foot because the school has violated the 1973 agreement according to which India had granted tax exemption status to only 16 teachers.

While sources said it was too early to say if a deal could be worked out, India is keen on settling two issues to avoid a repeat of the Khobragade affair. For one, it wants to settle the privileges and immunities of its consulate staff, which are currently not at par with diplomats. Secondly, India wants domestics employed by diplomats in US to be subjected to Indian law, were another dispute to arise, as it did in the case of Khobragade and her domestic help, Sangeeta Richards.

 

[JMM99]

@Compersion, @happy, @ladder, and all others interested in "Swarna" civil lawsuits

@Compersion well pointed out the significant differences between a criminal action and a civil action. Thus, in DK's case, wisdom suggested that a more moderate course of action ought to have been employed - specifically, a persona non grata declaration (which requires no court action, criminal or civil) if the USG really felt offended by SR's visa application. The action taken by the USG managed to take a molehill and build it into a mountain. In the DK case, the working "mountain builders" were middle-level DoS personnel; the supporting "mountain builders" were the powers that are the East Coast and West Coast Democratic machines.

When we turn to the DK and BD civil actions, we find a common link at the "working level" (a snip by @ladder from the news article):

Mr. Rana's attorney incidentally is Dana Sussman, who represents Sangeeta Richard in the case against Devyani Khobragade.

and to put a face on the link:

(Credit Hindustan Times). Ms Sussman is but a very small cog in a very much larger machine, which includes but is not limited to her employer Safe Horizon.

You might find Safe Horizon's Financials interesting, especially the Form 990s. The latest of these (for 2011) shows that the vast majority of Safe Horizon's funding comes from governmental sources (primarily NY City, NY State; see pp.21-22 of pdf) - which take us right to the East Coast Democratic machine. Yet, Safe Horizon is not a governmental agency (legalistically); though financial reality tells us another story.

What do we have here ? In my opinion, this is another example of neo-globalism. Once upon a time (back in the Jurassic Age), "globalists" were "internationalists"; that is, the primary institutions in their worldview were Westphalian states and the international organizations they created (e.g., the UN and its agencies). They still exist in our modern-day world, but have been supplemented (and perhaps supplanted in power) by "transnationalists", whose primary institutions are non-governmental organizations (NGOs, operating internationally) and non-profit organizations (NPOs, operating domestically) working together to advance their special agendas.

The "Swarna-type" civil actions are one manifestation of "Safe Horizon - type" neo-globalism.

Regards

Mike

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Here's some red meat for you Jew-haters

Dana Sussman of the Safe Horizon legal society is a Lesbian Feminazi Man-Hating Jewish Zionist b**** who hates all straight men and women, and uses her "gig" over at Safe Horizon Battered Women's Legal Services to prey on vulnerable young girls and women for her sick, pedophile sexual predilections. This Zio-c*** needs to be jailed or disbarred before she causes any more damage to the world at large while advancing her sick luciferian homosexual leftist agenda.

This post was submitted by Snu Mu Smith.

Dana Sussman of Safe Horizon.Org | LiarsCheatersRUs.com

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Dana Sussman | Great Game India

 

[W.G.Ewald]

PREET BHARARA —–THE JEWS COVER UP MAN AND DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE | Wide Awake Gentile

Preet Bhara is an Indian American of the Shabos Goy Kind .His big aim seems to be the New York Mayors post or maybe something bigger .In New York or as Rev Jesse Jackson so memorably put it HYMIE TOWN to get anywhere you need a Jew Connection . Good old Preet already has it .He has a Jewish wife which means his kids are JEWISH and which also means Preetberg BharaStein is a SEMI CHOSEN ONE

 

[Compersion]

The main reasoning for the current predicament is the Stephen Kerr letter i am not sure the date it was written. Why that was written and is on record allows Preet Bharara and his team to do what he likes and how he likes unless he is told otherwise (and he has not been told otherwise). (He is milking it for sure). There is a feeling that having that letter might have been because there was no alternative since bearing in mind how DK was arrested and denial of immunity and the whole lot of other variables that came in place. The USA State Dept had to justify it self. The letter from Stephen Kerr is in a sense ex post facto and attempts to piece a picture of regularity after the event.

 

[JMM99]

@Compersion,

You are too kind to Mr Kerr and the US DoS. His opinion, in my opinion, is an "opinion of convenience" - that is, written at the behest of a superior to meet the short term goals of that superior and his or her masters. However, the Kerr opinion will remain as a matter of record as an official opinion of the DoS Legal Adviser's Office. As such, Kerr's opinion (which is almost a complete denial of diplomatic and consular immunity) is likely to bite back and be used adversely to the US and its diplomats (and intelligence agents under diplomatic cover) in the future.

The official opinions of the DoS in the US and of the MEA in India, as to diplomatic immunity, are given the same weight in both US and Indian courts from what I can determine. Thus, the Khobragade Opinion, p.6, states the rule as follows:

In proceedings where a person's diplomatic status is contested, courts generally consider the State Department's determination to be conclusive. [16]

16 See, e.g., In re Baiz, 135 U.S. 403, 421 (1890) (noting that "the certificate of the Secretary of State ... is the best evidence to prove the diplomatic character of a person ...."); United States v. AI-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 572 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that "the State Department's certification, which is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the Vienna Convention, is conclusive evidence as to the diplomatic status of an individual"); Abdulaziz v. Metropolitan Dade Cnty., 741 F.2d 1328, 1329,1331 (1Ith Or. 1984) (noting that "courts have generally accepted as conclusive the views of the State Department as to the fact of diplomatic status," and that "once the United States Department of State has regularly certified a visitor to this country as having diplomatic status, the courts are bound to accept that determination"); Montuya v. Chedid, 779 F. Supp. 2d 60, 62 (D.D.C. 2011) ("The Court must accept the State Department's determination that Defendants have diplomatic status."); United States v. Kuznetsov, 442 F. Supp. 2d 102, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("A court's reliance on the State Department's certification when determining diplomatic immunity has a long history in this country's jurisprudence.").

In Vikramaditya Jain (Minor) vs Union Of India And Others (Delhi High Court, on 14 September, 1998; Equivalent citations: 1998 VIAD Delhi 386, AIR 1999 Delhi 232; Author: A D Singh; Bench: A D Singh):

ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order of his expulsion dated June 2, 1998 from the American Embassy School. The facts lie in a narrow compass.
...
6. ... Thus, in other words, [neither] the third respondent nor the fifth respondent have been conferred any diplomatic immunity by the Government of India. According to section 9 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, if in any proceedings any question arises whether or not any person is entitled to any privilege or immunity under this Act, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs stating any fact relating to that question is to be regarded as conclusive evidence of that fact. From the stand taken by the Government of India by means of the above said affidavit and keeping in view the terms of the mutual understanding dated June 28, 1973, I have no difficulty in holding that neither the American Embassy School nor the American Embassy School Association are enjoying any diplomatic immunity. Therefore, they are not immune from the jurisdiction of the Indian court system.

This general rule, that the official certificate is "conclusive evidence", is generally rational and works where the government (whether US or Indian) does not have a dog in the fight. However, for example, where the US DoS is the complainant and complaining witness, allowing its official certificate to be "conclusive evidence" makes the US DoS judge and jury as well. In my opinion, the rule should not be absolute.

Regards

Mike

 

[pmaitra]

So, looks like @JMM99 knows more about Indian Law than most of us, including myself.

I am amazed by the amount of detail he presents.

He is a gem.

 

[ladder]

Charged Dhaka diplomat moved to Morocco

Charged Dhaka diplomat moved to Morocco - bdnews24.com

Excerpts,

Monirul was appointed as Bangladesh's ambassador to Morocco on Mar 21, well before the home help abuse case.

If Monirul was found guilty, he would face a 10-year ban on his visit to the USA, he said.

Home help Rana still bore physical injuries and so if the civil suit turned into a criminal suit, then Rana and his wife might have to face an arrest warrant, Karmakar said.

 

[happy]

@Compersion,

You are too kind to Mr Kerr and the US DoS. His opinion, in my opinion, is an "opinion of convenience" - that is, written at the behest of a superior to meet the short term goals of that superior and his or her masters. However, the Kerr opinion will remain as a matter of record as an official opinion of the DoS Legal Adviser's Office. As such, Kerr's opinion (which is almost a complete denial of diplomatic and consular immunity) is likely to bite back and be used adversely to the US and its diplomats (and intelligence agents under diplomatic cover) in the future.

The official opinions of the DoS in the US and of the MEA in India, as to diplomatic immunity, are given the same weight in both US and Indian courts from what I can determine. Thus, the Khobragade Opinion, p.6, states the rule as follows:



In Vikramaditya Jain (Minor) vs Union Of India And Others (Delhi High Court, on 14 September, 1998; Equivalent citations: 1998 VIAD Delhi 386, AIR 1999 Delhi 232; Author: A D Singh; Bench: A D Singh):



This general rule, that the official certificate is "conclusive evidence", is generally rational and works where the government (whether US or Indian) does not have a dog in the fight. However, for example, where the US DoS is the complainant and complaining witness, allowing its official certificate to be "conclusive evidence" makes the US DoS judge and jury as well. In my opinion, the rule should not be absolute.

Regards

Mike

Hi Mike,

Excellent observation. Thank you.

Regards,

Happy.

 

[JMM99]

@pmaitra,

So long as you realize that the "gem" is rough-cut:

is a country barrister (the "Sam Ervin" "country lawyer" of Northern Michigan :thumb; and simply hit on the Jain case incidentally while following up some American Embassy School posts here, I'll accept the praise.

Regards

Mike

 

[sam80]

i think DK lawyer made mistake by offering Rat-hole to escape SD and Court by using 8th jan Immunity . Obviously Court decision which look like Directly came From State department Used that rat-hole and escaped Immunity during Arrest .

I don't understand why so much chasing after knowing that it's their mistake ? Manipulated court decision and re-indication was act of Provocation by Sate Department and I think somewhere there is need to answer this Provocation from India at least by IT notice to embassy School .

 

[Hari Sud]

US Embassy in India has found itself on the wrong foot. It has committed the same tax evasion, underpayment to employee fraud, incorrect representation on documents crimes as an Indian Diplomat has been charged. Usually diplomats are not arrested but expelled. This was unusual case which will reverberate for years in the diplomatic circle. There are three principal actors of this episode

1. Preet Bharara, the over enthusiastic New York Public Prosecutor, who looks for high profile cases for publicity. He got Two Wall Streeters but that did not get him enough publicity by name. Other little cases drug peddlers and mob chasing had not brought him enough publicity by name. He made this case of Indian diplomats arrest to get a name recognition. His actions prior to him ordering arrests of the diplomat were nothing short of being a crook. He ordered air lifting of two Indian Citizens to persuade the victim to testify in court against the diplomat. That is nothing short of illegal. He knew at that that time that his acts were illegal but continued. He knew that Indian courts for almost kidnapping of two Indian nationals can do no harm, hence he continued with it. He deliberately sent the US Marshall to arrest the diplomat in public and then do cavity search which is usually reserved for drug peddlers. India objected to the fullest and there was public outcry. That is what he wanted. He got name publicity and got himself into the Time cover. Later he had to bury his head in sand because he lost the case in a superior court. But he continued and refiled the case. He will loose again.

He is publicity hungry SOB, to get name publicity by inflicting pain. I hope somebody finds some minor infraction in his life in forms he filled from high school till today and then charge him. Best of all do a cavity search.

2. Nancy Powell, the not do smart US ambassador to India has been pain in the butt. She is not diplomat/politician who are appointed to this high post but a career diplomat of the US State Department. She has been trained under the COLD Warriors in the State Department and had her laurels as tough minded civil servant. She got her job as ambassador to India by a fluke and seniority. Usually a politically savvy and diplomatically smart politician gets this job. Sending a tough minded civil servant was totally unusual. Trouble started right away as she arrived in Delhi. The Nuclear Deal and the INDO- US Strategic Dialogue was going nowhere ever since she arrived. Those BUSH-ManMohan Singh deals were allowed to wither away on one pretext or other. India was reacting strongly to US acceptance of major role for Pakistan after US withdrawal from Afghanistan. India had spent a billion dollar and lost countless lives in Afghanistan rebuilding that it could not let go. That Nancy Powell thought, India should accept US dictat. It was her who had a sort of discouraging attitude on investment in India in a big way,which Republicans of Bush era were just about ready to unleash. That INDO-US dialogue became mostly hot air.

She also offered an encouraging attitude towards a State Department Security officer, when he consulted with her about a maid, who previously worked in US embassy to start proceedings of illegality in paying an Indian citizen under contract in New York. This security Officer is the chief instigator in kidnapping the two Indian nationals.

Hence Nancy Powell in India was a bad dream. When India retaliated, it did target sanctions against her. Now there is talk that this woman has to go as soon as NaMo comes to power. It is well known that it was her who played major role in withholding VISA for NaMo.

3. Chief of US Diplomatic Security (his name slips my memory) was an anti Indian together with his wife and came to India not as diplomat but as an anti Indian policeman. He is the person together with his wife began consultation with Nancy Powell and Chiefl of US Diplomatic Security in Washington to initiate a now notorious Maid under payment case. Without Nancy Powell's encouragement, this officer could not have moved an inch. Finally all three conspired to build a water tight case against the Indian diplomat, which turned out to be flimsy and the court threw it out.

This Security officer is the one who used his diplomatic previlieges to buy the air tickets and not pay taxes. In fact he misused his diplomatic position.

He was expelled from India.

India-US relations would stay in a cold storage for next two years. To appease India, they would replace Nancy Powell, but the damage is done. The mistrust would stay. The new prime minister may not be as kind as ManMohan Singh has been with the US staff in Delhi. He may order the arrest of a diplomat as tit for tat. US would holler a lot but of no avail. India /US diplomatic ties are in cold storage. Now India has built an iron tight case against US diplomats on tax evasion. It will be watershed case to try in absentia the smiling US diplomats in India, just as US would do to Indian diplomats.

There are ways to stop all this madness;

A. Replace Nancy Powell now instead of June.

B. withdraw the case in New York and apologize to the diplomat.

C. Restart the INDO-US dialogue with greater vigor.

D. Do not exclude India out Afghanistan as Pakistan want.

 

[sam80]

US Embassy in India has found itself on the wrong foot. It has committed the same tax evasion, underpayment to employee fraud, incorrect representation on documents crimes as an Indian Diplomat has been charged. Usually diplomats are not arrested but expelled. This was unusual case which will reverberate for years in the diplomatic circle. There are three principal actors of this episode

Thanks , Nancy Powell was most neglected angle in Discussion , Important revelations about her.

 

[ladder]

@Compersion, @happy, @ladder, and all others interested in "Swarna" civil lawsuits

@Compersion well pointed out the significant differences between a criminal action and a civil action. Thus, in DK's case, wisdom suggested that a more moderate course of action ought to have been employed - specifically, a persona non grata declaration (which requires no court action, criminal or civil) if the USG really felt offended by SR's visa application. The action taken by the USG managed to take a molehill and build it into a mountain. In the DK case, the working "mountain builders" were middle-level DoS personnel; the supporting "mountain builders" were the powers that are the East Coast and West Coast Democratic machines.

When we turn to the DK and BD civil actions, we find a common link at the "working level" (a snip by @ladder from the news article):



and to put a face on the link:

(Credit Hindustan Times). Ms Sussman is but a very small cog in a very much larger machine, which includes but is not limited to her employer Safe Horizon.

You might find Safe Horizon's Financials interesting, especially the Form 990s. The latest of these (for 2011) shows that the vast majority of Safe Horizon's funding comes from governmental sources (primarily NY City, NY State; see pp.21-22 of pdf) - which take us right to the East Coast Democratic machine. Yet, Safe Horizon is not a governmental agency (legalistically); though financial reality tells us another story.

What do we have here ? In my opinion, this is another example of neo-globalism. Once upon a time (back in the Jurassic Age), "globalists" were "internationalists"; that is, the primary institutions in their worldview were Westphalian states and the international organizations they created (e.g., the UN and its agencies). They still exist in our modern-day world, but have been supplemented (and perhaps supplanted in power) by "transnationalists", whose primary institutions are non-governmental organizations (NGOs, operating internationally) and non-profit organizations (NPOs, operating domestically) working together to advance their special agendas.

The "Swarna-type" civil actions are one manifestation of "Safe Horizon - type" neo-globalism.

Regards

Mike

The snippets which I provided in my earlier post was for a purpose, which I shall elaborate below.

The first snip was to show that like in DK case, the claim of promised pay is well above of the minimum required. $3000 vs $4500 in DK case where minimum in NY state would come around $1600 pm.

So, it can be easily concluded from form DS 160 and employment contract attached along with it, what was the promised pay.
If indeed $ 3000 was promised and not paid, why that didn't amount to visa fraud. Even if overtime wasn't paid as alleged why didn't it amount to the same charges as in DK case?

But, whatever may be the case, such high salary being promised raises a question why wouldn't the diplomat hire a local employee for that amount?

Secondly, presence of a second contract as mentioned in DK case is also applicable here. The said diplomat from Bangladesh has claimed that he had paid Tk 1200000 as advance ( to the help's father) to be adjusted from salary. And that he has written proof of the same. Did that agreement contained the line that " subject to jurisdiction of US courts" mentioned in it? if not, why has the same being applied in DK case and not here? because, DK gave SR a copy of second contract but here the help had none?

So, what essentially made DK's case a criminal case and this a civil? when the ground realities aren't too different?

Coming to the second snip, it too has a interesting fact.

If my memory serves me right, In Neena Malhotra case or in Prabhu Dayal case, the maid maid ran-off on the eve of her/his transfer out of NY. And that diplomat had then recently disclosed to her about her transfer and offered her to travel with her to the new location. This case too presents such similarity.

The opportunity to run out only presents, itself when bosses are transferred out, is hard to digest.

To, this end I have an interesting theory.

I would like to draw attention to the below mentioned case

Mohammed Saleh vs Shamela Begum case in the year 2000/01.

This civil suit was rejected due to diplomatic immunity.

Compare this with 'swarna' case.

The difference is between a case between full diplomatic immunity and that of residual immunity.
Effectively the human rights lawyers had found a roundabout to the complex immunity thing. Continuing/filing the case after the diplomat has left the country provided them with an opportunity that could allow them to pursue the case.
So, one can find the insistence on the 'absentia or default statement'.

Though the above theory isn't valid here as the diplomat had consul level immunity.


The third snip has already been explained in the most brilliant fashion.

=====================================

The creation of international organistions like UNO or IMF and WB 'twins' back then or NGO or NPO now to suit their agendas is a thing but controlling them as in a dog with a leash is other.

If those organization had independently followed their 'agenda' then half of the world wouldn't have had a problem with them but, when the organizations a made to run for facilitating a hidden agenda in the garb of their outward agendas, then we reach the mess we are in.

If pro human rights worked in a fashion where, their sole agenda would have been to target diplomats, against domestic maid abuse, then I wouldn't have a problem but, if they are given instructions on whom to target and to whom to leave alone. That's where I have a problem.

This view of mine manifests form a commentary from a knowledgeable person, who said w.r.t DK episode that, at the height of India USA relationship, DK's action ( falsification of visa) would have been overlooked by USA.

So, can one infer that if India USA had more cordial relationship, the above group would have closed their doors on SR, under instructions from US govt. for the sake of the bilateral relationship?

And is such thing happening for diplomats of other countries with whom USA has special relationship?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

@pmaitra,

So long as you realize that the "gem" is rough-cut:

is a country barrister (the "Sam Ervin" "country lawyer" of Northern Michigan :thumb; and simply hit on the Jain case incidentally while following up some American Embassy School posts here, I'll accept the praise.

Regards

Mike

Shut yo' mouth. Sam Ervin was from North Carolina.

 

[JMM99]

@W.G.Ewald

Shut yo' mouth. Sam Ervin was from North Carolina.

I know; but he belonged to the nation.

Regards

Mike

 

[W.G.Ewald]

@W.G.Ewald



I know; but he belonged to the nation.

Regards

Mike

What a sorry lawyer response.

He wasn't from Northern Michigan.

Samuel James "Samy" Ervin, Jr. (September 27, 1896 – April 23, 1985) was an American politician. A Democrat, he served as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina from 1954 to 1974. A native of Morganton, he liked to call himself a "country lawyer", and often told humorous stories in his Southern drawl.[1] During his Senate career, Ervin was a legal defender of the Jim Crow laws and racial segregation, as the South's constitutional expert during the congressional debates on civil rights.[2] Unexpectedly, he became a liberal hero for his support of civil liberties. He is remembered for his work in the investigation committees that brought down Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954 and especially his investigation in 1972 and 1973 of the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation in 1974 of President Richard Nixon.

 

[pmaitra]

Shut yo' mouth. Sam Ervin was from North Carolina.

North Carolina DMV license plates claim credit for something that was achieved by two brothers from Ohio.

Eventually, they belonged to the nation.

 

[JMM99]

@W.G.Ewald,

What I meant to put across was that Sam Ervin was a role model for me. This is my last response on this because it's totally off topic.

Regards

Mike