The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip wrote:Has there been a building collapse after an explosion in Harlem?
If it is indeed a explosion followed by a building collapse, the following will be the response of a certain minority community
1) silent prayer "Please let this not be a mujlim"
2) if it is mujlim then, propagate "terrorism do not have a religion"
3) during investigation muddy the waters by peddling wild conspiracy theories
4) after conviction claim "mujlims fought jihad for a legitimate cause"
5) later, collude with the leftists to eradicate "ijlamophobia"
With a face like this, is it any wonder we are the laughing stock of the world?
To be fair, Secretary of State John Kerry started out at a considerable disadvantage. His long, narrow face — with those sad, sunken eyes — has often been compared to that of a horse. Perhaps a starving draft mule retreating with a family from the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression.
That, along with what he says when he opens his mouth, has long made him an easy caricature of a perfect buffoon.
The problem with Mr. Kerry and the reason he is making a ridiculous fool of the U.S. the world over is not the looks God gave him but, rather, the looks he has since tried to give himself.
In the years of insecurity and self-doubt since his 2004 defeat, Mr. Kerry has submitted his face to an unknown battery of syringe pricks, scalpel slices and sutures.
His once-narrow jawline has been blown out as if he has had a serious set of jowl implants. His face looks more like a flat tire today than that of a malnourished horse.
Repeated apparent Botox overdoses have led to swollen cheeks and a taut fattiness around the bridge of his nose and eyes. His lips are bloated like a corpse’s, enflaming that unflattering area where the pink of his lips give way to the white of his skin.
Just look at a recent picture of Mr. Kerry and blur your eyes the slightest bit. You cannot tell if you are looking at the face of American diplomacy or an unflattering picture of Zsa Zsa Gabor.
All the cosmetic sorcery has done a real number on his eyes, leaving his right eye looking downright dead. The other looks propped open. His eyes are so weirdly messed up today, they make Bob Costas during the Sochi Olympics look like an eyeliner model.
“To say he looks Frankenstein-ian is not inaccurate,” a plastic surgeon told the Boston Herald last year. “Tell him we can fix him, if he wants to get in touch.”
That is a little hard on the monster in Frankenstein, I think. That manufactured creature was not gripped by vanity. If anything, Mary Shelley’s monster was a sad realist adrift in a romantic world.
Mr. Kerry is the opposite. He is a sad romantic adrift in a realist world, with American diplomacy at stake.
He travels the globe in search of the fantastical fountain of youth. Naivete and delusion are a dangerous combination when it comes to foreign policy.
And for leaders around the world, it is very difficult to take seriously a guy whose face appears to be sliding off his skull as he searches for unicorns.
Also Mr. Richards testimony that his wife is evasive and gave incorrect statements leading to their filing for divorce can be used in the DK case. How can one be sure Mrs Richards is telling truth in one case of her employer when she has been telling lies to her husband leading to filing for divorce!
To put it mildly, he has just TOTALLY justified his T2 vija.
Yes, yuwar Honner! She lied to me about where she goes, when she goes, whom she meets, what she does... and this I can testify of my own free will, and from my own direct knawlidj. She is a LIAR, yuwar Honner! Alla* ki kasam, and I am sweyaring on the Bibal onlee!
And YES, yuwar Honner! She TOLD me that she was mistreated by DK, was not allowed to go anywheyar, and she only went to c Immigrashun, did not dijabbear phor months. And this I know entirely from what SHE SAID on phone. 400% Re-Lie-Abal onlee, yuwar Honner!
I think the esteemed Ham il-Burger-ul-Manhattani has a slight puncture hole in his ego balloon, not to menshun his case, at this point...
May the Lawd grant him his divorj, so that he can testify freely - and be cross-examined freely. And repeatedly. And again.
NEW YORK: An Indian woman whose arrest late last year prompted a diplomatic row between her home country and the United States has won the dismissal of a US indictment charging her with visa fraud and making false statements to the government.
Indian airline SpiceJet places $4.4bn Boeing jet order
India's SpiceJet has ordered 42 of Boeing's 737 MAX aircraft in a deal worth about $4.4bn (£2.7bn) at list prices.Shares in SpiceJet - India's fourth-biggest airline by market share - rose 7% after the news was announced.The budget airline is hopeful its fleet renewal will bring in new investors. As with other domestic airlines in India, SpiceJet has been struggling to turn in a profit due to due to high fuel costs and a weak rupee."The induction of Boeing 737 MAX will further modernise our fleet, improve customer experience, and ensure that we operate the most efficient fleet well into the future," said S.L. Narayanan, chief financial officer for the Sun Group, which owns SpiceJet, in addition to several TV channels.To date, SpiceJet has ordered about 90 aircraft from Boeing, of which 31 have already been delivered. Boeing said in a statement that delivery of the 737 MAX to customers will start in 2017.
A growing population guarantees that every national election in India is the largest election ever held. This year is no exception. More than 814 million citizens are eligible to vote in national elections scheduled to begin on April 7 and conclude on May 12. Much is riding on the results, which are expected on May 16. The Election Commission of India has time and again performed the amazing feat of getting mind-boggling numbers of voters to the polls — and then counting all those votes. There is every reason to believe that this next mammoth democratic exercise will be free and fair. Polls indicate that the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party is likely to win the most seats, though probably not enough to form a government without support from one or more of India’s large regional parties. This leaves a very slim chance that the Indian National Congress could cobble together enough seats to remain a part of a governing coalition. There are many wild cards, including the impact of India’s new Aam Aadmi Party, whose anticorruption campaign resonates with many voters. India’s national elections are an achievement, but are only one of the pillars on which democracy depends. And here India’s democracy has proved far shakier. Its Constitution promises much: It guarantees essential democratic rights, including equality before the law and freedom of religion and expression. It prohibits discrimination based on religion, caste or race, and it guarantees the right to an education. The Constitution also explicitly prohibits exploitation, forced labor and child labor.Yet in many of these areas, the country has fallen tragically short. While a vibrant economy has created a record number of billionaires and an aspiring middle class, grossly exploitive working conditions are the lot of many Indians, including children. The vast majority of young children are now enrolled in primary school, but many attend schools so poorly staffed and equipped that they cannot learn. The court system remains inefficient, with far too many cases languishing without resolution. Attacks on freedom of expression are increasingly common, with pressure and threats of the crudest kind casting a dangerous chill on the free exchange of ideas and opinions. These conditions pose serious threats to India’s open society. That’s why the next election will be crucial. Voter turnout is expected to be high. Indians hold dear their power to express their hopes and vent their frustrations at the ballot box. But if the next government cannot deliver the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, India’s democracy will have failed its citizens.
NEW YORK: An Indian woman whose arrest late last year prompted a diplomatic row between her home country and the United States has won the dismissal of a US indictment charging her with visa fraud and making false statements to the government.
Papa khobraghade will claim sole victory of epic proportions onlee.
Even better than WW2 and claim obummer as family friend
Quoting from the above report......
US attorney Preet Bharara said Khobragade was afford courtesies most Americans wouldn't get — such as being allowed to make phone calls for two hours to arrange child care and sort out personal matters — after she was discretely arrested by US department of state agents outside her children's Manhattan school.
As discrete as invading eyraq, perhaps?? Bharara, ever the silver tongued diplomat.
Last edited by chetak on 13 Mar 2014 04:00, edited 1 time in total.
Ok, so where are the apologies now? Will DoS appeal?
If this is not a contrived outcome, then a major civil trial should follow (according to knowledgeable people here) as well. What about the JNU posting and relocation? Do the visa restrictions stay or are they dropped in a quid pro quo re. civil trial.
Finally, what does the prosecutor have to say now? Will he prosecute those who committed the illegal actions?
Ok, so where are the apologies now? Will DoS appeal?
If this is not a contrived outcome, then a major civil trial should follow (according to knowledgeable people here) as well. What about the JNU posting and relocation? Do the visa restrictions stay or are they dropped in a quid pro quo re. civil trial.
Finally, what does the prosecutor have to say now? Will he prosecute those who committed the illegal actions?
The judge's ruling says Devyani Khobragade (dayv-YAHN'-ee KOH'-bruh-gah-day) had diplomatic immunity when she was indicted on charges of fraudulently obtaining a work visa for her housekeeper and lying about the maid's pay.
But the ruling left open the possibility prosecutors could bring a new indictment against her. The U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan said Wednesday it intends "to proceed accordingly."
Remember the American motto! Declare victory and then surrender
Here is the non-sense from NYTimes fart-board
That’s why the next election will be crucial. Voter turnout is expected to be high. Indians hold dear their power to express their hopes and vent their frustrations at the ballot box. But if the next government cannot deliver the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, India’s democracy will have failed its citizens.
When is the failure of a government to uphold constitution a failure of constitution?
NYTimes (and hence the AmeriKhans) are constipated that a turd-whorld country is a larger and better democracy than itself!
What will they do? Send the US Marshalls to come and take her from India? In fact the MEA babus must say - (if you have --nads) *come and take her*.
They will make damn sure that she stays out of the US forever. The rest of it they won't give a rodents behind about. The rest of the families' US citizenship status will become very uncomfortable for her. Pure malicious decision onlee to safeguard US H&D.
I am never optimistic, but in this case I will believe the new indictment when I see it. Much water has passed since Bharara tried to act all superstar. This is just a threat to ward off civil action.
New indictment or not, apologies are due for past action. And the cricket team members who argued here against immunity should also revisit their own prejudices.
Aha interesting development. The joker wants to part ways from his flighty wife but does not want to lose his T2 visa status. And hence he talks in plural when talking about "suffering". I suppose he used to stay up and stand in a corner to express solidarity with his wifey when she was being made to work 40 hours a day in NYC.
He suspects his wife is having an affair but he's going to valiantly defend her in her fight for "justice". Why do I get a feeling this is just more gooey matter on the face of the great Perry Mason of this era, our very own Preet bhaiya.
He contradicts facts when he says his wife did not go "missing" and contradicts witness accounts that his wife was offered a ticket to get back to India but refused. Does he still remain a credible witness? Pity this did not go to trial.
Added later: Interesting data point. They filed for divorce in January but it is only in March that this joker is opening up to the media. I wonder why? And does anyone know, if US jurisdiction is applicable to a marriage between two Indians which has been registered in India? Or is it that they have already been given citizenship on a super fasttrack basis and hence now are parting ways without fear of deportation?
Agreed.
What a surprise! Sangeeta Richards is a liar! She lied on everything else except about "torture and suffering" from the Indian diplomat DK.
Now's the time for Devyani's counsel to file a civil suit - before Bharara's team manages to figure out what else they can try to convince a pliant judge to indict her on.
Since the judge didn't hold the arrest illegal and only acknowledged the immunity obtained through Devyani's new posting, I don't see how this order helps with the civil case. I am not arguing against the civil case, but just that there isn't much in this order that is helpful to the civil case.
Now that the indictment is gone they have to represent the case to another Grand Jury and obtain a fresh indictment. Looks like there are three immunities:
1. Consular immunity, which is limited and applies only to official acts.
2. Full immunity when DK was assigned to UNO from August but which was never claimed and the SD never officially granted it
3. Full immunity which Dk acquired on Jan 8th at 5:47 pm
(the SD expressly granted this)
Court only dealt with the third one and said because she had immunity on 9th the indictment must be dismissed.
Immunity at 2 was not commented on by the court (I dont remember if Ashrak claimed it either).
saip wrote:Now that the indictment is gone they have to represent the case to another Grand Jury and obtain a fresh indictment. Looks like there are three immunities:
1. Consular immunity, which is limited and applies only to official acts.
2. Full immunity when DK was assigned to UNO from August but which was never claimed and the SD never officially granted it
3. Full immunity which Dk acquired on Jan 8th at 5:47 pm
(the SD expressly granted this)
Court only dealt with the third one and said because she had immunity on 9th the indictment must be dismissed.
Immunity at 2 was not commented on by the court (I dont remember if Ashrak claimed it either).
Daniel Arshack did claim DK's immunity at the time of her arrest.
sivab wrote:Thanks to Mike (jmm99) at small wars journal council
Technically (i.e., all required legal points on immunity, and their supporting exhibits, are decisively presented), this brief is superior to Mr Arshack's initial effort. That happens quite a bit, especially in complicated cases. My early trial court briefs were usually exceeded by my later trial court briefs; they were exceeded by my Court of Appeals briefs; and they by my Supreme Court briefs.
Here are the three main points (IA is a sub-point refuting the USG's argument that, by leaving the USA, DK forfeited her diplomatic immunity expressly granted by the US Mission on January 8, 2014, and confirmed by it on January 9, 2014):
Point I
DR. KHOBRAGADE HAD FULL DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY UNDER ART. 31 OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (“VCDR”) AT THE TIME OF HER INDICTMENT, ON JANUARY 9, 2014. THEREFORE THIS CASE MUST BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 22 U.S.C. § 254(d).
Point IA
DISMISSAL IS REQUIRED EVEN AFTER TERMINATION FROM A DIPLOMATIC POST
Point II
DR. KHOBRAGADE HAD FULL DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE U.N. CONVENTION AT THE TIME OF HER ARREST, ON DECEMBER 12, 2013.
Point III
ALTERNATIVELY, EVEN IF DR. KHOBRAGADE ENJOYED ONLY VCCR “OFFICIAL ACTS” IMMUNITY, EVEN THAT IMMUNITY PRECLUDED HER ARREST AND INDICTMENT FOR THE ACTS ALLEGED BY THE PROSECUTION.
Points I, IA and II were covered in the initial submission by both parties. Point III was barely covered by either party in the initial submissions.
Point III, consular official acts immunity, is based on the "consular functions" argument under VCCR Article 5(e), etc. - assisting a national of the sending state in meeting the requirements of an A-3 visa application, to include submission of the work contract alleged to be the fraud and/or false statement. This point is finally presented in coherent form.
This case is not Swarna et al (Swarna, 622 F.3d at 133-140, Park, 313 F.3d at 1141-43; Baoanan, 627 F. Supp. 2d at 163-170). Those cases were civil claims by domestic employees for wage violations and various types of mistreatment. The Swarna et al courts held that the hiring, supervision and treatment of the personal domestic employees were NOT acts covered by “official acts” immunity under VCCR or residual immunity under VCDR.
As stated by Mr Arshack:
It is clear that the prosecution’s reliance on these cases is inherently flawed for the basic reason that Dr. Khobragade has not been charged with a wage violation or for assault or other mistreatment of her domestic employee. Dr. Khobragade stands accused of federal charges of (1) submitting a fraudulent visa application to the U.S. and (2) presenting false statements to the U.S. See, the Criminal Complaint and the subsequent Indictment.[5]
[5] But let us be clear on the facts. We reject the unsubstantiated and baseless allegations made by the prosecution. Dr. Khobragade did not submit a visa application. Her domestic worker did. And Dr. Khobragade did not present any documents to the United States to support that visa application. Her domestic worker did. And Dr. Khobragade did not appear at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi to attest to the accuracy of the visa application. Her domestic worker did. And Dr. Khobragade did not affirm to the U.S. Embassy that the documents submitted in support of the visa application was truthful and accurate. Her domestic worker did. None of these facts are disputed.
and, two important points are made here:
Here, the assistance in preparation and submission of an A-3 visa application and preparation of an accompanying employment contract, both of which were actually submitted to the United States prosecution by the domestic worker, were reasonable efforts to effectuate Dr. Khobragade’s consular function of helping and assisting nationals of India. Without the application and employment contract, the domestic worker could not obtain an A-3 visa to work as a domestic employee in the United States.
The prosecution’s disputed allegations that false statements were contained therein do not take this case of out the “official acts” immunity provided by Article 43 of the VCCR. In the case of Koeppel & Koeppel v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 704 F.Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y.1989), this Court rejected the argument that “no immunity should be afforded if the consular official’s conduct involves breach of the law,” aptly remarking that “f this were the rule [...] there would be no immunity, [... since] every lawsuit asserted against a consular official accuses him or her of some violation of legal rights.” 704 F.Supp. at 523–24.
"She is heartened that the rule of law prevailed," he said, adding that a new indictment "might be viewed an aggressive act and one that (prosecutors) would be ill-advised to pursue."
Aha! IOW, go that route, and Ham-il-Burger ul Manhattani steps into a malicious harassment lawsuit.
BTW, HerOnner had no reason to delve into any other matter: Arshack merely said the Indictment was illegal since the SD had signed off on UN immunity hours before Hamburger sought the Indictment. Period. So the Judge correctly refrained from about the rest of Hamburger's pakistan.
She said there was no bar to seeking a new indictment. She did not say that this would not lead to huge esp. when the ex-hubby DUI testifies against the Poor Exploited Victim. Hamburger is "considering options" like sticking his mug under a shower to get the egg off.
a_bharat wrote:Since the judge didn't hold the arrest illegal and only acknowledged the immunity obtained through Devyani's new posting, I don't see how this order helps with the civil case. I am not arguing against the civil case, but just that there isn't much in this order that is helpful to the civil case.
Still the prosecutor's fault. The indictment when immune is no less a problem. You filed a bad complaint, now reap the consequences -- doesnt change a thing even if they can file a new indictment. Arshack will advise against stirring a hornet's nest, and Bharara might have career related compulsions, but otherwise the matter is purely civil now.
My prediction is that there will be no new indictment. This is the reason for the long delay in HerOnner's pronouncement: the decision should have taken no more than 10 seconds to arrive at, given that it took me only that long on reading about the SD pompously signing off at 5:48:37 or something like that. OK, it could have taken her 3 minutes because she may have choked on her chewing gum, and had to recover from that.
So why the long delay? I think there were back-room panic attacks and "negotiations". So now PB will huff and puff, but do nothing. A pity: the cross-examination of SR and DUI should have been worth buying tickets to watch.
UlanBatori wrote:My prediction is that there will be no new indictment. This is the reason for the long delay in HerOnner's pronouncement: the decision should have taken no more than 10 seconds to arrive at, given that it took me only that long on reading about the SD pompously signing off at 5:48:37 or something like that. OK, it could have taken her 3 minutes because she may have choked on her chewing gum, and had to recover from that.
So why the long delay? I think there were back-room panic attacks and "negotiations". So now PB will huff and puff, but do nothing. A pity: the cross-examination of SR and DUI should have been worth buying tickets to watch.
The ruling is substantial. It probably took some effort on part of the clerks/assistants/judge. Dockets are choke full. This is still miraculously fast. I am actually surprised a judgement was delivered, there was nothing preventing this being in abeyance more or lesss forever.
What happens now is actually what might make a difference. Where is the media now? Why is the opposing team silent?
a_bharat wrote:Since the judge didn't hold the arrest illegal and only acknowledged the immunity obtained through Devyani's new posting, I don't see how this order helps with the civil case. I am not arguing against the civil case, but just that there isn't much in this order that is helpful to the civil case.
Still the prosecutor's fault. The indictment when immune is no less a problem. You filed a bad complaint, now reap the consequences -- doesnt change a thing even if they can file a new indictment.
This brings up issues like:
- involvement of judge (wasn't this required prior to arrest?)
- involvement of grand jury -- does this provide any cover to the prosecutor?
Also, didn't the court-acknowledged immunity come after the indictment?
Edit: Immunity granted by US on Jan 8th; Judge doesn't allow postponement of Indictment to a later date (after Jan 13th). Indicted by grand jury on 9th.
Last edited by a_bharat on 13 Mar 2014 09:49, edited 1 time in total.
a_bharat wrote:Since the judge didn't hold the arrest illegal and only acknowledged the immunity obtained through Devyani's new posting, I don't see how this order helps with the civil case. I am not arguing against the civil case, but just that there isn't much in this order that is helpful to the civil case.
Still the prosecutor's fault. The indictment when immune is no less a problem. You filed a bad complaint, now reap the consequences -- doesnt change a thing even if they can file a new indictment.
This brings up issues like:
- involvement of judge (wasn't this required prior to arrest?)
- involvement of grand jury -- does this provide any cover to the prosecutor?
Also, didn't the acknowledged immunity come after the indictment?
Different judge. Grand juries will typically return whatever prosecutors file. Your protection is the trial, and in cases like this, the civil process. Prosecutors are typically given wide berth in filing cases (with corresponding big consequences of poor filings).
The sad thing will be if work is left half done and back room dealings happen now. This is the trickle-down benefit time. If there is no push back and status quo is agreed as a compromise then no wider benefit or protection from a repeat.
Media is already batting on "will file new charges" vs "charges dismissed". Based on the same AP story. The H&D protection system is already awake. Time to write a new letter to your representatives, if you have any, remibding them public money is spent better on matters otger than Bharara's H&D.
Devyani Khobragade’s help, husband cite ‘differences’, file for divorce
n a new twist to the India-US row involving Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, the domestic help, who was at the centre of the controversy, and her husband have filed for divorce citing differences between them.
<snip>
Speaking to The Indian Express over phone, Richard said he was disappointed with what he called the way his wife started to lie to him and the couple decided to part ways. They filed for divorce in January, he said, but added that he would continue to defend his wife against Khobragade’s allegations.
This moron has to support his wife's story or the reason for his "evacuation" to the US will become fake.
Of course the entire thing was fake from the outset anyway. Sangeeta Richard simply wanted to go to the US and maybe she got a boyfriend there and she was getting laid as well. You know - freedoms and all - no sexual repression like turd world countries.
6th coujin got the usual polite "this eej one of the issues that the 113th Con-grej will be conjidaring" letter from reprejentative. MAY mean that the letter was passed on to SD by rep.
May send a follow-up pointing to Oookrain and this one, as evidence of SD+PB incompetence, plus include SR-DUI tamasha as "I told u so". Or wait until Oookraine plays out?
I wonder if the "boyfriend" is that Paki door man we heard about who introduced her to all the Paki tribe in NYC that led to Safe Haven and other Heavenly stuff? Poor Mr Richards always a cuckold hubby - remember SR first ran away from him because he earned too less and then came back when she discovered she's pregnant. Now in the "land of free choices" she chooses to sleep with whomever she wants to. Serves the bugger right. No wonder that Momma Richards was so mad on SR.
It would have been so delicious if it had gone to trial.
Lawyer: Why are you divorcing you wife?
Richards: I'm divorcing her because she is lying to me and keeping me in the dark....
Lawyer: Did she lie to you when she said that DK mistreated her?
Richards: Oh No! She was telling the truth and nothing but the truth.
Lawyer: Then you are saying that she is telling you lies now but was telling you the truth when you were in India and she was in NYC?
Richards: Yes Sir, that's exactly what I'm saying.
[Richards, thinking to himself: Gosh I hope my T2 visa does not get cancelled]
In the background: Preet bhaya continues to stuff his mouth with samosas...
UlanBatori wrote:6th coujin got the usual polite "this eej one of the issues that the 113th Con-grej will be conjidaring" letter from reprejentative. MAY mean that the letter was passed on to SD by rep.
May send a follow-up pointing to Oookrain and this one, as evidence of SD+PB incompetence, plus include SR-DUI tamasha as "I told u so". Or wait until Oookraine plays out?
No poiynt in waiting -- they will have an excuse again if they convene another jury. Ookraine is a side show for public consumption. Not taking their time.
NEW YORK: An Indian woman whose arrest late last year prompted a diplomatic row between her home country and the United States has won the dismissal of a US indictment charging her with visa fraud and making false statements to the government.
Let us see if good sense is going to prevail and the US Government will now stop attempting to trifle with the legal immunities of Indian diplomats present in the US.
Meanwhile it is hoped that any privileges that the US has not granted to Indian diplomats in the US will not be given to US diplomats in India. Strict reciprocity must be the order of the day. Further service conditions for India’s diplomatic corps must be revised to bar those who have spouses with US citizenship from serving as Indian diplomats.
NEW YORK: Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade whose arrest and strip-search spurred an international flap had charges against her dismissed by a US court on Wednesday.
The US district judge's ruling said that Devyani Khobragade had diplomatic immunity when she was indicted on charges of fraudulently obtaining a work visa for her housekeeper and lying about the maid's pay. But the ruling leaves open the possibility prosecutors could bring a new indictment against her. The US attorney's office in Manhattan didn't immediately comment on its plans.
Khobragade's attorney, Daniel Arshack, praised the ruling. "The judge did what the law required, and that is: that a criminal proceeding against an individual with immunity must be dismissed," Arshack said. "She's (Khobragade's) hugely frustrated by what has occurred. She is heartened that the rule of law prevailed."
After being indicted, she complied with a department of state order to leave the US. The government then asked Washington to withdraw a diplomat from the US embassy in New Delhi. The US complied.
A federal prosecutor ventured into the tense relationship between the US and India in December, defending the arrest and strip search of Khobragade when she was held on visa charges and saying she was treated very well, even given coffee and offered food while detained.
US attorney Preet Bharara said Khobragade was afford courtesies most Americans wouldn't get — such as being allowed to make phone calls for two hours to arrange child care and sort out personal matters — after she was discretely arrested by US department of state agents outside her children's Manhattan school.
Khobragade was arrested on charges she lied on a visa application about how much she paid her housekeeper, an Indian national. Prosecutors said the maid received less than $3 per hour for her work.
Bharara said Khobragade, who had pleaded not guilty, wasn't handcuffed, restrained or arrested in front of her children. And he said that while she was "fully searched" in private by a female deputy marshal, the move was a standard safety practice all defendants undergo.
US to seek new indictment against Indian diplomat
An Indian diplomat whose arrest and strip-search spurred an international flap had the case against her dismissed by a federal judge on Wednesday, but prosecutors suggested they might refile the charges stemming from claims she exploited her housekeeper.
For now, at least, Wednesday's ruling closes the case against Devyani Khobragade on the grounds of diplomatic immunity. The judge found Khobragade had broad immunity from prosecution when she was indicted on charges of fraudulently obtaining a work visa for her housekeeper and lying to the government about the maid's pay.
But the ruling left open the possibility prosecutors could bring a new indictment against her, and they "intend to proceed accordingly," said James Margolin, a spokesman for Manhattan US attorney Preet Bharara.
While USSD and USDA NYC South office and their henchmen are left with eggs on their faces they are yet to acknowledge the wrong they did. Preet Bharara and his team of idiots are trying to make a last stand to save whatever little credibility he might have . Should he not be sued for wrongful arrest and violation of human rights of DK and conspiring with USSD and their pigheaded BDS agents who have proven themselves bigots of first order.
