venug wrote:We can discuss Sangeetha the instant she surrenders. She absconded, she parted with a foreign government.
Explain to me how a grown up adult absconds? Was she a bonded labor?
venug wrote:We can discuss Sangeetha the instant she surrenders. She absconded, she parted with a foreign government.
Trolling me ?LokeshC wrote:Maybe you should read the past few pages of the thread before trolling?
Minimum Wage Increase .
Beginning December 31, 2013, New York State’s minimum wage will increase in a series of three annual changes as follows: .
$8.00 on 12/31/13 .
$8.75 on 12/31/14 .
$9.00 on 12/31/15
Were you serious when you made that statement to begin with?hulaku wrote:Is that a serious question ?Karan M wrote:Pray, elaborate the differences. Also please tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Check Free Repulic website and you will see mixed response. However they end up blaming Obama as it is he who they care. Then you will seem some TFTA Americans too. Cow, curry and caste is what both dems and repubs discuss. Some rational and sensible people do accept the gravity of mistake. As always the voice of sane gets drowned.ManjaM wrote:Theirs is a weird dichotomy, one one hand lots of Repubs talk of doing away with minimum wage and on the other hand, most FoxNewsish boards are wailing about how DK exploited her help by not paying minimum wage.
After attempting to coerce an Indian official into giving her an illegal visa and extra money.venug wrote:We can discuss Sangeetha the instant she surrenders. She absconded, she parted with a foreign government.
If you were to read the previous pages of discussion, there will be many other points that you might learn.hulaku wrote:@krisna
Thats a good point. I wasnt aware of that.
Irrelevant.But then we do know how babudom protects its own. And the judiciary also likes to play along sometimes.
hulaku wrote:This. Nailed it.Dipanker wrote:And Sangeeta Richard is not our own?
Violating her visa provisions, being an Indian citizen and overlooking the summons of the Delhi HC.Dipanker wrote:venug wrote:We can discuss Sangeetha the instant she surrenders. She absconded, she parted with a foreign government.
Explain to me how a grown up adult absconds? Was she a bonded labor?
And yes, a SIM card and additional takings as well.abscond
əbˈskɒnd,ab-/
verb
verb: abscond; 3rd person present: absconds; past tense: absconded; past participle: absconded; gerund or present participle: absconding
1.
leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to escape from custody or avoid arrest.
"the barman absconded with a week's takings"
synonyms: run away, escape, bolt, clear out, flee, make off, take flight, take off,
I think you are mistaking Nirupama Rao (Indian Amb to US till last month) with NS (Journalist). NR was an official of GoI and cannot express outrage beyond a limit in public. Don't blame her for acting resposibly in public. If IFS officers didn't push for this in private pols would have done nothing.Karan M wrote:I find Ms Nirupama Sub.'s comments in this case to lack any clear sense of outrage or anger.
There's enough already. Just needs cojones, coordination and closure for the exchange which, interestingly will redound to the advantage of both parties. It takes it out of the Justice Department's hands.nachiket wrote: US must have warned their diplomutts. All of them will be extra careful now not to let us get any excuse to arrest them.
I cannot understand how people can defend this:venug wrote:Karan Mji, exactly. Suddenly we have some Indians who are champions of American justice system, they believe USMS than their own
Sorry, you may be right. However, behaving responsibly in public does not mean not showing anger (IMHO) at such incidents or justifying somewhat weird policies (OT for thsi thread though).sivab wrote:I think you are mistaking Nirupama Rao (Indian Amb to US till last month) with NS (Journalist). NR was an official of GoI and cannot express outrage beyond a limit in public. Don't blame her for acting resposibly in public. If IFS officers didn't push for this in private pols would have done nothing.Karan M wrote:I find Ms Nirupama Sub.'s comments in this case to lack any clear sense of outrage or anger.
I am aware of the issue. My point is that Sangeeta Richard is an adult. If she does not want to work for DK, it is her prerogative. Can you deny that?venug wrote:Why dont you ask her? Or go back read the pages, seems like you havent been doing the reading. Start 20 pages back. She was missing when The diplomat filed missing complaint. What do you term it? An excursion party? Or a stroll ?
Reading this letter gives rise to a host of emotions--DK is a good human being, a dedicated professional and family woman, an Indian success story, and as a Dalit she is a living testament that civilizationally we do get very important things right, and have nothing to apologize for, to civilizations whose record at moral growth is very spotty at best.
If you are working in the US on an Indian passport, she needs a valid visa to do so. She always has the choice of returning to India and seeking a normal US work visa. That would have been the legal thing which any sane person would do. This was a clear case of wanting to immigrate by hook or by crook.Dipanker wrote:I am aware of the issue. My point is that Sangeeta Richard is an adult. If she does not want to work for DK, it is her prerogative. Can you deny that?venug wrote:Why dont you ask her? Or go back read the pages, seems like you havent been doing the reading. Start 20 pages back. She was missing when The diplomat filed missing complaint. What do you term it? An excursion party? Or a stroll ?
The babu's integrity claim is irrelevant. That's for India to decide, not for any other country which arbitrarily subjects a diplomat to "strip searches", without even having guilt been proven. Despite the diplomat and Indian state following the letter of the law and alerting host country of a potential issue.hulaku wrote:You question the integrity of an Indian babu and your "Indianess" gets questioned.
*Claps and walks away from this thread*
Evading the issue that she is jumping her visa provisos and also absconding from Indian courts. All this may be her prerogative, as you put it. But it does make her an absconder.Dipanker wrote:I am aware of the issue. My point is that Sangeeta Richard is an adult. If she does not want to work for DK, it is her prerogative. Can you deny that?venug wrote:Why dont you ask her? Or go back read the pages, seems like you havent been doing the reading. Start 20 pages back. She was missing when The diplomat filed missing complaint. What do you term it? An excursion party? Or a stroll ?
For a moment, instead of just reciting the law (which is widely thought to be an ass) let us use our human judgment of what is right and wrong.Dipanker wrote:chaanakya wrote: Many esteemed brfites thought it is a modern slavery issue, perks for ifs or that they deserved, that she lied , visa fraud, perjury blah blah. But surely when facts emerged slowly they have become quietened. If they posted in support I could have understood their learning process. But I am sure they are waiting for storm to pass as it shall inevitably.
I don't count myself among one of esteemed brfites, and let us for a moment assume that DK has been "framed" and there are wheels within wheels in this case but at the end of the day whatever she did, there is documentary proof of that.
The only way she can get out of it is by proving in the court that she was forced to sign the papers that she would pay $9+ /hr instead of the $3 /hr (which of course reeks of exploitation and modern day slavery ) she intended to pay.
LokeshC wrote:
If you are working in the US on an Indian passport, she needs a valid visa to do so. She always has the choice of returning to India and seeking a normal US work visa. That would have been the legal thing which any sane person would do. This was a clear case of wanting to immigrate by hook or by crook.
On the Visa she had, it was a Visa that bonded her into an employment contract with DK. If she did not like it, she should not have entered into it in the first place.
You claimed she was not absconding. By the definition of the term, she is.Dipanker wrote:The point here is that as a grown up adult if Sangeeta decides to quit her job and walk off, even though that makes her an illegal immigrant in US, it is still her prerogative.
She is not a bonded laborer.
Well said. Because if she were a non-grown up child, she would have been bonded labor and would not have had that prerogative.Dipanker wrote:
The point here is that as a grown up adult if Sangeeta decides to quit her job and walk off, even though that makes her an illegal immigrant in US, it is still her prerogative.
She is not a bonded laborer.
Then where's the question of DK being involved in human trafficking as alleged by the DA?Dipanker wrote: The point here is that as a grown up adult if Sangeeta decides to quit her job and walk off, even though that makes her an illegal immigrant in US, it is still her prerogative.
She is not a bonded laborer.
She did walk away and became an illegal immigrant did she not? So where was the bonded part of the labor? She was free to leave anytime she wanted.Dipanker wrote:LokeshC wrote:
If you are working in the US on an Indian passport, she needs a valid visa to do so. She always has the choice of returning to India and seeking a normal US work visa. That would have been the legal thing which any sane person would do. This was a clear case of wanting to immigrate by hook or by crook.
On the Visa she had, it was a Visa that bonded her into an employment contract with DK. If she did not like it, she should not have entered into it in the first place.
The point here is that as a grown up adult if Sangeeta decides to quit her job and walk off, even though that makes her an illegal immigrant in US, it is still her prerogative.
She is not a bonded laborer.
I seriously doubt this version of the story. Sangeeta case was taken up by an NGO, her lawyer belongs to this NGO.LokeshC wrote:Actually the repeated attempts to file a missing persons report to NYPD show that DK was concerned and valued Richard's services as a maid. It only turned ugly when the Richard's shady lawyer called for an out of court settlement (i.e. a bribe to keep quiet).