India-US Strategic News and Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Feb 2014 21:36

UlanBatori wrote:
UB et al, Spot the Richards connection!!!!
Sorry, loooong day in Ulan Bator. And the assignment seems too tough, I will wait until Teacher posts solution and take my zero.
As for this **** EU comment, they have to use such words to convey Power. Must have heard the Nixon Oval Office Tapes as their education in politics, and read Tom Clancy to get their deep understanding of international affairs.

The other diplomat with whom ASS Nuland is exchanging pleasantries is, Geoffery Pyatt, the former employer in Delhi of Richard's mother-in-law.

Idiocy doesn't get far!!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Feb 2014 21:39

What UB is saying is summed up in a Yiddish "If you want to beat the dog, you will finda stick!"

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 07 Feb 2014 21:50

amit wrote:When beating about CTs on Ranabaxy it's useful to remember that it is majority owned by Japanese pharma major Daiichi Sankyo. Calling it an Indian company is a bit of a stretch .

The real questions to ask are where is the workforce and who get cheap medicine?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 07 Feb 2014 22:04

Shreeman wrote:I am sooper slow today. where is this famous train ride documented?

One can revers-e-indjinneer the whole joke from that punch line.

Like when JFK's babe visited India she saw lots of people completing their "kAlakritya" (morning ablutions) by the side of rail tracks which was being related to Nehru when they were on this apocryphal train ride. Nehru was looking hard everywhere to find something or other with which he can diss JFK. When he sees this person squatting by the train tracks he was overjoyed and smugly points this out to JFK. JFK responds "...".

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 07 Feb 2014 22:26

So elegantly put!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Feb 2014 23:09

shiv wrote:Ranbaxy is like Lucy in Peanuts saying someone loves her. Why? "He threw a stone at me".Ranbaxy is noticed because it is right up there in the US fighting US court battles from as far back as I remember. Many dins ago a friend had advised me to buy Ranbaxy shares telling me "All they need to do is win one case in the US". I bought. They won. I sold. But for every Ranbaxy there are a dozen Indian companies producing the same things, for Indians. In India. Most drugs in use today existed ten years ago and they are all made and sold in India at prices that will feel like a cavity search for US pharma companies. Yes some new drugs are coming - not that many and not that earth shaking, and probably not that difficult to make - hence the takleef.

Hope Not OT
Roche wins battle against India sales of generic cancer drug
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1d8b1ce-8fd6 ... z2sf2pmTqn

( Story of Lion and Lamb Dirtying Water)

Two generic pharmaceutical companies have been ordered to stop selling their
version of a Roche breast cancer treatment in India, after the Swiss group claimed that the drugmakers could not have carried out adequate clinical trials.Bangalore-based Biocon was expected to start selling a biosimilar version of Roche’s blockbuster biologic drug Herceptin – which earned $6.4bn in global revenues for the Swiss company in 2012 – in India this month for about a quarter of the price of the original.High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. However, the Delhi High Court issued an injunction that Biocon and US-based Mylan, which jointly developed the generic medicine, were “not entitled to introduce or launch the drug” until they had persuaded the court that their product had undergone sufficient testing.
The lawsuit launched by Roche against the companies and industry regulator the Drugs Controller General of India is the latest in a series of legal battles by global pharmaceutical innovators facing stiff competition from Indian generic rivals.
The case highlights innovating companies’ determination to use all available tools to defend their position in India’s potentially lucrative drugs market, in spite of their persistent complaints about the country’s weak intellectual property laws.In a statement on Friday, Biocon accused Roche of filing the lawsuit to “protect their market monopoly and prevent Indian patients from accessing a more affordable trastuzumab.”Biocon said its biosimilars to the Roche drugs were “world-class products that adhere to stringent quality standards,” and it expressed confidence that the restrictions “will not stand” once it has a chance to be heard by the court.Indian patient groups have expressed outrage at the court order, calling it “unwarranted and inexplicable”.
Roche unexpectedly relinquished its Herceptin patent in India in August amid mounting legal challenges, and following strong indications that New Delhi was preparing to announce a compulsory licence for the cancer drug.Within months of Roche abandoning the patent, Biocon received the Indian drug regulator’s approval to start marketing its biosimilar version of Herceptin, and was due to commence selling the product this month.At the time of the announcement in November, Biocon said it had been working with Mylan, one of the world’s largest generic drugmakers by revenues, since 2009 on a range of biologic drugs – complex treatments derived from living organisms – including Trastuzumab, the scientific name for Herceptin.Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, chief executive of Biocon, said that the two companies had jointly carried out “extensive product characterisation and clinical trials the comparability and similarity . . . in safety and efficacy . . . against the innovator product”.She also said that Biocon and Mylan would use this data to apply for permission to sell the drug in other markets, where Roche’s Herceptin patent is due to expire in the next few years.But in its lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, Roche argued that Biocon could not have followed the “due process” laid out in India’s 2012 guidelines on the approval of biosimilar drugs, as “approvals could not have been granted in such a short period in view of the long procedure”.Biocon’s final stage clinical trials on its version of Trastuzumab were carried out in 2012, before the Indian guidelines – which Roche was on the advisory committee for the drafting – were issued. In a statement on Friday, activists said that the guidelines were now being used “by big pharma to protect their interests”, and called for a reappraisal.An estimated 100,000 women a year in India are diagnosed with the type of breast cancer that responds to Trastuzumab. But with Herceptin priced at about $1,200 per dose, only a fraction of those women can afford it. Roche sold just $21m worth of the medicine in India in 2012.In a statement on Friday, Biocon accused Roche of filing the lawsuit to “protect their market monopoly and prevent Indian patients from accessing a more affordable Trastuzumab”.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2014 00:04

X-posting....

Prem Kumar wrote:US at its diplomatic best again. Victoria Nuland is EU's Alicia May

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 001169.cms

State Department: "We cant believe we dont have exclusive rights to bug phones in the EU. What is NATO coming to?"

The US state department was left fuming after the leak, pointing the finger at Russia for allegedly bugging the diplomats' phones.

"Certainly we think this is a new low in Russian tradecraft," said spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who did not dispute the authenticity of the call.

"We don't comment on leaked alleged telephone conversations, by non-state actors", said a spokeswoman for EU foreign affairs head Catherine Ashton

and

UlanBatori wrote:I think this whole thing is overblown. As America's top Deep-love-o-mat to the EU, Ambassadora Pottymouth was only expressing her deep desire to have hootchie-kootchie with the entire Eee Yooo. That's what I call ambition, coupled (no pun intended) with personalized attention to all of her constituents.

This is the level of people that IFS has to deal with in US.

If Kerry had any sense he would get rid off Pottymouth for not reflecting the US govt. There is a pervasive problem of superiority complex in the US State Dept.
They are projecting the Ugly American image abroad and making life difficult for ordinary Americans.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 08 Feb 2014 02:46

I got a wonderful lesson in perceptual psychology once. Jan Morris (the transgendered English writer) made a racist comment, in print, about the rosy cheeked people of the hills compared to the people in the rest of West Bengal.

Ladies and gentlemen, Jan Morris:

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 08 Feb 2014 06:28

Shreeman wrote:
This is OT but, I am in the pharma industry and Ranbaxy situation is not a CT, they have huge compliance issues including data integrity.

Can someone summarize the developments in non strategic thread? Is there a thread in tech/eco somewhere on pharma? where is the right place to look up?

It was data falsification amongst others. Wockhardt is another company in deep shi*t. On the other hand companies like Dr.Reddys, Sun have passed all US FDA inspections with flying colors.

You can find all information about inspection out come and warning letters at FDA site.

BTW, Roche is a Swiss company, not US.

Sorry for the OT, not really sure where to post this.

Shiv, Dr.Reddys is the pioneer in challenging patents in the US and winning. They were first Indian company to win Paragraph IV case (Fluoxetine).

If interested I can summarize law governing US generic medicine in appropriate thread. It's called Wax-Hatchmann Act.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 08 Feb 2014 06:38

Having worked in both Generics and Brand drugs, in India and US, I know quite a bit about the situation. Please let me know where the new thread is for discussing the Pharma situation

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 08 Feb 2014 08:16

Please use the healthcare thread in the tech forum.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Feb 2014 13:42

Devyani Seeks Dismissal of Visa Fraud Case in US Court

By Yoshita Singh | PTI - NEW YORK

Published: 08th February 2014 12:12 PM

Last Updated: 08th February 2014 01:13 PM

Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade has sought dismissal of the visa fraud case against her on the ground that the indictment was filed in a court here a day after the US accorded her full diplomatic immunity and the country did not have criminal jurisdiction over her.

Khobragade's lawyer Daniel Arshack submitted her reply, in a federal court here, to Manhattan federal prosecutor Preet Bharara's memorandum that had opposed her motion to dismiss the indictment.

Khobragade was present in the US at the time the indictment was returned and "the State Department's recognition of her diplomatic position with the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations conferred diplomatic immunity upon her requiring that the entire 'proceeding or action' be dismissed," Arshack said in his 17-page motion filed late yesterday.

"The instant indictment was returned and filed with the Court prior to Khobragade's departure (from the US) when she was still recognised as a diplomat and still imbued with diplomatic immunity...The prosecution could not then and cannot now proceed further on that invalid instrument," Arshack said.

He, however, acknowledged that the prosecution is not prevented from prosecuting Khobragade in future but insisted that the current case against her be dismissed since she had diplomatic immunity when the indictment was filed.

Arshack's motion comes a week after Bharara submitted a US State Department declaration that Khobragade did not enjoy immunity from arrest or detention at the time of her arrest and she does not presently enjoy immunity from prosecution for the crimes charged in the indictment.

Arshack said the indictment must be dismissed because the immunity bestowed upon Khobragade "applied retroactively".

The court could now order to hear arguments on the motions.

Khobragade, 39, was arrested on December 12 on visa fraud charges, strip-searched and held with criminals, triggering a row between the two countries with India retaliating by downgrading privileges of certain category of US diplomats among other steps.

Khobragade was indicted on visa fraud and making false statements by a US grand jury. She returned to India after she was asked to leave the US by the State Department.

Arshack said the "pertinent" facts in the case are that Khobragade was given full diplomatic status by the Department of State at 5:47 pm (local time) on January 8 when it approved her appointment as Counsellor to the Permanent Mission of India to the UN.

The grand jury returned the indictment on January 9 "after she was already cloaked with diplomatic immunity".

"It is acknowledged that the prosecution is not forever precluded from prosecuting the defendant. Our application is only that this proceeding must be dismissed.

The prosecution is clearly legally able to seek a new indictment at this time or at some point in the future now that Khobragade no longer possesses such?diplomatic status and immunity, but it may not proceed further with this case," Arshack said.

He said in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the case should have been dismissed on January 9, because Khobragade did not become a "former" diplomat until later that evening when she left the country.

"The proceeding must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because at the time the indictment was issued, the US did not have criminal jurisdiction over Khobragade," he said.

Arshack rebutted Bharara's allegation that Khobragade had employed her domestic worker in her personal capacity and not as India's Deputy Consul General in New York, which made her not immune to criminal prosecution.

"The prosecution goes to great lengths in its opposition to make inapposite distinctions between the immunity conferred upon consular officials versus diplomats under the respective Vienna Conventions as the ostensible basis to deny the requested relief. Such distinctions are a clear effort to obfuscate, are?irrelevant and do not assist the Court in resolving this matter," Arshack argued.

I am not sure why DK did not press the point of her accreditation as Special Adviser to Permanent Mission of India to UN which was agreed by USD as well and it was supposed to run from August to December 2013 i.e. prior to arrest and her new diplomatic immunity was supposed to be conferred before indictment and continued to run till she left US soil . She was supposed not to have been arrested or charged either nor she could have been indicted subsequently. Residual immunity would persist later after departure.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 17:49

I am not sure why DK did not press the point of her accreditation as Special Adviser to Permanent Mission of India to UN

She told them she had dip. Im. She is not a lawyer to go beyond that. Since the complaint came from the SD, that is where the fault is.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 19:49

Time for me to put on my joorisproodenshialistic headwear. Arshack has carefully laid out the request. So the judge does not have to dismiss the indictment "with prejudice", but just dismiss it. Arshack defers ALL issues of the merits of the case to the future.

Interesting point: it is not based on her PRIOR UN immunity. It is based on the fact that PB **Nuland-ed** up and got the indictment only after the SD had approved her NEW UN immunity.

So it was the Bray of PiBs INDICTMENT, not the arrest, that is pointed out to be illegal. I have not looked at those documents linked here by someone (AmberG?) but this may be an irrefutable point, simply based on the date and time when the SD signed off. I think he is right, the immunity is also from prosecution (incl. indictment), not just from arrest. Court has no jurisdiction, so I don't see the need or legality of HerOnner asking to hear arguments on the matter.

Arshak sooooo helpfully declares that he has noooo objection to PiB seeking a new indictment etc.

Makes me weep to read how cooperative he is, with the prosekushun. Uphold da Law of da Land! Yes Ma'am!!! Yesss Sssirr!!

If HerOnner dismisses, well.. PiB is put in the interesting situation of having to seek a new indictment "at a later date". When? Right now? Claiming that she has no immunity since she left the US? Or wait with his grudge until she returns to the Yoo Ess as a non-immune diplo? All she has to do is wait 4(?) years, and the Statute of Limitations expires. Maybe 2-3 years since SR's visa application was sometime in 2012.

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Feb 2014 20:31

But it does show that US State Deapartment is still gunning for her. While MMS is sitting with his finger up is xxx and not doing anything about AES

saip · Post by **saip** » 08 Feb 2014 20:40

If the Grand Jury was told of her diplomatic immunity it would not have returned the indictment. By not informing of it of the immunity I believe PB committed prosecutorial misconduct.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Feb 2014 20:59

UlanBatori wrote:
I am not sure why DK did not press the point of her accreditation as Special Adviser to Permanent Mission of India to UN
She told them she had dip. Im. She is not a lawyer to go beyond that. Since the complaint came from the SD, that is where the fault is.

UB Ji, I don't mean this at the time of arrest but while presenting DK case by her Lawyer before the Court. This point doesn't seem to be stressed upon while filing written statement or the counter reply to DA's reply filed in the court on 31.1.2014.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 21:21

That's the beauty of Arshack's argument. The SD and Bray of PiBs kept hammering on whether that had expired or was valid etc. and went into contortions on date of 2013, 2016 etc.

He neatly sidestepped ALL of that. He used the NEW immunity, and shows that the INDICTMENT is illegal. Slam-dunk, IMJO.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 08 Feb 2014 21:31

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 08 Feb 2014 21:33

Mike(jmm99) read of DA argument

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.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 08 Feb 2014 21:40

chaanakya wrote:I am not sure why DK did not press the point of her accreditation as Special Adviser to Permanent Mission of India to UN

UlanBatori wrote:That's the beauty of Arshack's argument. The SD and Bray of PiBs kept hammering on whether that had expired or was valid etc. and went into contortions on date of 2013, 2016 etc.

He neatly sidestepped ALL of that. He used the NEW immunity, and shows that the INDICTMENT is illegal. Slam-dunk, IMJO.

He did not abandon that line of argument. He has pursued that and in addition has laid out other new ones.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Feb 2014 21:46

Thanks sivab , that makes it very clear. I hope Judges in US Judiciary are not recruited based on how low their IQ is just as Mark Moron Smith and other Diplomats of US are recruited on their failure to cross minimum threshold IQ score for basic thinking intelligence to be qualified as a human being.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2014 21:57

If the Bill Clinton visit marks the Alpha of the post Cold War Indo-US relations, then DK arrest marks the Omega of the period.
Its new world from now onwards.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 22:42

What r u guys reading?
The FIRST thing I read is what, I hope, HerOnner also reads with Rooh Afza in hand:

The pertinent facts are:
a. Dr. Khobragade was given full diplomatic status by the Department of State at 5:47pm on January 8, 2014;
b. The Grand Jury returned the instant indictment on January 9th after she was already cloaked with diplomatic immunity;
c. Dr. Khobragade was present inside the United States at the time the indictment was returned by the Grand Jury on January 9, 2014; and
d. The State Department’s recognition of her diplomatic position with the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations conferred diplomatic immunity upon her requiring that the entire “proceeding or action” be dismissed. See, 22 USC §254(d); Abdulaziz v. Dade County, 741 F.2d 1328, 1329-30 (“the diplomatic immunity flowing from that status serves as a defense to suits already commenced”) (emphasis added); U.S. State Department: Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities at 4
(“Criminal immunity precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts over an individual whether the incident occurred prior to or during the period in which such immunity exists.” See, Gov’t Opp. ExhibitB (emphasis added).

Clear as the pee d'yak of Lake SayannaVanaraVishramaSthanaChali_kkund (formerly known as "Sayram" by the illiterates) north of Kannur, Malloostan.

Then explains it in even plainer language: As in, no basis for any more "hearing of arguments" etc.

TIME LINE OF EVENTS
It is important to place the relevant facts and sequence of events into a time line that
demonstrates that because Dr. Khobragade was immune from prosecution at the time the
indictment was returned this case should have been dismissed on January 9, 2014 when the letter motion addressed to Magistrate Netburn (attached hereto as Exhibit 2) was delivered to this Court and served on the prosecution.

And then it gets more entertaining:

Contrary to the prosecution’s erroneous, self-serving and foundationless unilateral proclamation that her appointment terminated on January 8, 2014, she, in fact, continued in that capacity through January 9, 2014, at approximately 8:30 P.M., when she was obligated by United States of America to depart the country. See, Declaration of Kal Raustiala, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. On August 26, 2013, she was appointed as a Special Advisor to the United Nations. That appointment continued, unabated, through December 31, 2013. See, January 9, 2014 Memorandum o f Law In Support o f Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 1 and see Exhibits 4 and 5, attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and discussed more fully below. Dr. Khobragade was arrested on December 12, 2013, handcuffed, strip searched, and then brought before Magistrate Netburn.

Do u c now y he insisted on the e-diot desi embassy flunkies NOT putting her on the afternoon plane?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Feb 2014 22:42

15 years start to finish. Bush-MMS standing together to declare Nuke agreement in DC is probably pinnacle of that. been downhill skiiing since then.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 08 Feb 2014 22:52

UlanBatori wrote:What r u guys reading?
The FIRST thing I read is what, I hope, HerOnner also reads with Rooh Afza in hand:

That is just introduction. Read the whole document. He lays out two new arguments.
1. The one you noted above
2. A new one on VCCR, i.e. what Devyani did on Visa application falls under official consular acts given that she helped an Indian national file a visa application. He also points out that it was SR who (app)lied.

3. The old argument of UN diplomatic immunity as adviser, hence arrest was illegal. He has given two new evidences (an email from UN and a screenshot of UN accreditation system) to clear up prosecution mischief. It clearly shows she was accredited from Aug 26 to Dec 31.

Basically he points out that all of the prosecution case evidence is for civil cases and not for criminal visa fraud. The intent seem to be to not just get current one dismissed. It is also WARNING to prosecution that they should not file another criminal case because their arguments are weak.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 23:01

Yes, true, but the gist is:

1. U ain't got no joorisdiction 'cause the indictment didn't make it 'fore closing time.
2. And if u were to think about it, there ain't no case 'cause she ain't the one who swore on no form or in person for da visa
3. And even if she had done anything like that, she had immyoonity at the time.

Man, it seems so clear when he says it. Item 1 renders the rest moot for the present, but I agree, items 2 and 3 are for any follow-on attempts at indictment.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Feb 2014 23:09

http://nationalinterest.org/print/artic ... inger-9642
In Defense of Kissinger

As he argued in a 1973 speech, since “Americans have always held the view that America stood for something above and beyond its material achievements,” a “purely pragmatic policy” would confuse allies and eventually forfeit domestic support. Yet “when policy becomes excessively moralistic it may turn quixotic or dangerous,” giving way to “ineffectual posturing or adventuristic crusades.”2 The key to a sustainable foreign policy, in his view, is the avoidance of either extreme: “A country that demands moral perfection of itself as a test of its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.”3

This ever-present fusion of American values and national interests was evident in the spring of 1971, as a crisis erupted in South Asia during Kissinger’s tenure as Richard Nixon’s national-security adviser. When the British Raj ended in 1947, a partition of the subcontinent led to the creation of India and Pakistan as separate, estranged sovereign states. Pakistan, envisioned as a homeland for South Asian Muslims, emerged with an unusual bifurcated structure comprising two noncontiguous majority-Muslim areas: “West Pakistan” and “East Pakistan.” While united by a shared faith, they were divided by language, ethnicity and one thousand miles of Indian territory.

Over the course of a fraught sequence of events from 1970 to 1972, a party advocating East Pakistani autonomy won a national parliamentary majority, and Pakistan’s two wings split. Amid natural disaster (a cyclone of historic proportions struck the East on the eve of the vote, killing up to half a million people and devastating fields and livestock), constitutional crisis, a sweeping crackdown by West Pakistani forces attempting to hold the East, mass refugee migrations, guerilla conflict and an Indian-Pakistani war, East Pakistan achieved independence as the new state of Bangladesh. By most estimates, the victims of the Bangladeshi independence struggle, which included communal massacres unleashed during the crackdown, numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
In his new book, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide, Princeton professor Gary Bass, who has written previous books on humanitarian intervention and war-crimes tribunals, portrays the American president and his national-security adviser as the heartless villains of these events. While Bass makes a cursory acknowledgement of the two men’s geopolitical accomplishments, he derides the thinking that informed their actions as the product of a “familiar Cold War chessboard.” His own implicit framework is a deeply heartfelt and contrary view to Kissinger’s, one that places human-rights concerns at the pinnacle of U.S. foreign policy, at least in this crisis.
. Moreover, he trivializes the possibility that his human rights–dominated policy preferences could have had profoundly damaging strategic consequences for the United States. Ironically, in his previous book Freedom’s Battle, Bass sympathizes with precisely the sort of cautionary impulses that animated Kissinger: If India succeeded, Kissinger warned during the crisis:

The result would be a nation of 100 million people dismembered, their political structure changed by military attack, despite a treaty of alliance with and private assurances by the United States. And all the other countries, on whom we have considered we could rely . . . would know that this has been done by the weight of Soviet arms and with Soviet diplomatic support. What will be the effect in the Middle East, for example—could we tell Israel that she should give up something along a line from A to B, in return for something else, with any plausibility?16

And how would China have reacted if Washington had stood by passively and watched Beijing’s chosen channel to the United States and longtime friend crushed by a combination of Indian military action and Soviet weapons? What then for Mao’s willingness to pursue the opening of U.S.-Chinese relations?

Seeking to deter such a destructive outcome, the United States deployed an aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal (where it was joined by a Soviet naval task force deployed from Vladivostok) and pushed for an immediate UN-backed cease-fire. With military aid to Pakistan frozen, the White House encouraged allies to make shows of force, including a back-channel proposal in which Iran and Jordan would transfer some of their own American-made fighter jets to the West Pakistan front. Bass expresses indignation at this proposal, suggesting that it was undertaken to assist in the repression of civilians in East Pakistan. He fails to explain that the discussion involved transferring jets to West Pakistan during a war in which India was considering a drive for total victory and an all-out destruction of the Pakistani armed forces. In any case, it is not apparent what military role, if any, the planes played in the conflict.17 In Bass’s view, these actions constituted a perverse betrayal of democratic principles by Nixon and Kissinger—American participation in “Kissinger’s secret onslaught” and an “arsenal against democracy” that drove India into the arms of the Soviet Union and “enduringly alienat[ed] not just Indira Gandhi . . . but a whole democratic society.”18 But this insults the sophistication and agency of the main Indian players, in addition to misrepresenting the actual sequence of events.

Scholars will long marvel at how the world’s two largest democracies ended up on opposite sides of the Cold War. Yet their rift was growing well before the 1971 Pakistan crisis, and it transcended Richard Nixon and Indira Gandhi’s mutual personal dislike. Negotiations over the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty had begun by March 1969, when the Soviet defense minister brought a draft treaty text to New Delhi. A draft text was ready by mid-1970, though by some Indian accounts its signing was postponed pending the Indian election. According to one Indian participant in the negotiations, all that remained to be negotiated at this point was the final wording of the decisive military clause.1

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2014 23:12

For those defending Kiss(my a**)inger, some one should let them know how Yahya Khan supplied women for this diplomat.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 23:19

Meanwhile at the State Department College of PottyMouthed Diplomacy

"I will not comment on a private diplomatic conversation," Nuland told reporters in Kiev on Friday. (and then she put both feet further into her potty mouth...) "It was pretty impressive tradecraft," she added. "Audio quality was very good."

But the irritation among top EU leaders focused mostly on Washington rather than the Kremlin -- a worrying signal for the US administration amid continuing fallout over its controversial phone and Internet surveillance work. "The chancellor considers this statement absolutely unacceptable (she wants 2 b the one to **** all the cute EU minsters) ... and wants to emphasise again that (EU foreign policy chief Catherine) Ashton is doing an outstanding job," a spokeswoman for Merkel said in reference to the recording.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Feb 2014 23:32

Here you go, the essential timeline. From the documents filed by Mr. Arshak.

On January 8, 2014, Eileen P. Merritt, Acting Minister Counselor for Host Country
Affairs at the United States Mission to the United Nations, sent a letter to Ms.
Khobragade. The letter contained the following language: “As of 5:47 pm today, you
have been recorded as a Counselor at the Permanent Mission of India to the United
Nations. As a Counselor, you are entitled in the territory of the United States to the
privileges and immunities of a diplomatic envoy under the terms of Section 15 of the
Headquarters Agreement between the United States and the United Nations.” This letter
is attached as Exhibit 2 to Devyani Khobragade’s Motion to Dismiss and as Exhibit F to
the US Government’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

The January 8, 2014 letter from Ms. Merritt to Ms. Khobragade establishes that the United States acknowledged her role as a Counselor at the Permanent Mission of India as of 5:47 PM on January 8 2014. From that point, until her departure from the United States on
January 9, 2014, she enjoyed all the diplomatic immunities and privileges described in paragraph 8 of this declaration.
11. Therefore, pursuant to Article 31 of the VCDR, from 5:47 PM on January 8, 2014 to
approximately 8:30 PM on January 9, 2014, Ms. Khobragade was immune from the
criminal jurisdiction of the United States.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 09 Feb 2014 00:37

So DoJ (through PB) got blind sided by DoS. I can't believe that everybody is on the phone/IM/talk/ntalk all the time.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 09 Feb 2014 01:25

Maybe orders came from Higher Up to not sit on the UN thing, and sign off on it. They DID sit on it a while. Maybe they are just this smart?

My vote is for (b).
The key is the asinine "precision" which has the unmistakeable stamp of an oiseule all over it. "5:47pm" Not "COB" or 5pm.
Remember the scene from "Men In Black"

Hey dude, any idea why y'all were picked for this so-called "mission"?

BECAUSE WE ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST, SIR!!!!

Oh, so you ain't got no clue neither, huh?

Also, if the SD wanted to back out of the case, the smart way would have been to call off the Bray of PiBs directly.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 09 Feb 2014 02:14

Theoretically, The Feb 7 filing should be good enough. If its just prosecutorial zeal, it might limit future problems to a district + influence. No guarantees, no dates for a decision.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 09 Feb 2014 06:08

TSJones wrote:no need to worry there jingos, this is just business, go ahead and prosecute AES:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-pharm ... 31997.html

TSJones, I am too SDRE and caste-ridden to follow your responses which seem almost like cheeky non-sequiturs to me.
What, for instance, are you trying to say above? If India takes any kind of action on AES, then Indian drug industry has to face the wrath of the Pharma lobby in USA as retaliation, therefore Indians would be foolish if they didn't back off the scrutiny on AES, and restore US privileges in India?

Could fill in the gaps for me? Would be real white of you.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 09 Feb 2014 11:44

I totally get people being upset, radical thinking will do that, but damage control, already? Really?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Feb 2014 19:02

I-T Department Probing Alleged Violations by American School

By PTI - NEW DELHI

Published: 09th February 2014 11:33 AM

Last Updated: 09th February 2014 11:33 AM

Income Tax department has begun a "discreet" probe into alleged tax violations by the elite American Embassy school here even as the External Affairs Ministry awaits a response from their officials on the details of the teachers working at the school and their salaries.

The I-T department's exemption wing, which deals with tax related issues pertaining to charitable institutions and those bodies which have been granted I-T waivers, has begun a "discreet probe into the financial aspects" and alleged violation of Indian tax laws, sources said.

"Once the preliminary information is gathered, the tax department would be taking a view on issuing notices to the authorities concerned. Also, the CBDT would be informed as this is not a regular case and involves relations between two countries," the sources added.

As per the information available with the government, several teachers at the American Embassy school were working "illegally", in violation of both tax laws and their visa status.

The government has earlier indicated that these violations were serious and it was likely to initiate action in this regard.

However, MEA is still awaiting a response on the information sought in December last year on visa and other details of all the teachers at these schools and their salaries along with the bank account details of their Indian staff members.

India, in 1973, had granted "tax exempted status" to 16 teachers of the school. However, as per information available with the government, there were many more teachers who were working but not shown as such.

However, in Washington last month, US State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki responded to reports of an Indian government inquiry into allegations of tax evasion with the statement that the school "is not run by the Embassy (and) only about a third of the students there are American".

India initiated a slew of initiatives in retaliation against the arrest and strip-search of its senior diplomat Devyani Khobragade, a 39-year-old 1999-batch IFS officer, on December 12 in New York on charges of visa fraud.

Extra privileges given to US diplomats were withdrawn and activities of various American institutions were put under scrutiny as part of Indian government's stern reaction to the issue.

The sprawling school, located next to the US Embassy on American government-owned land, has about 1,500 students on its rolls, nearly 500 of whom are from the US.

The remaining students hail from several different countries and also include some locals.

"I-T exemptions are made for an agreed number of entities after proper circulars are drawn up officially. Tax authorities have to be informed about any scaling up or down in these numbers. The information that has come is that some violations are being done in these numbers and the department will verify that," the sources said.

Media reports have suggested that the US authorities have advised female spouses to fill up their visa details as that of a "housewife", which is an apparent effort to evade the tax net.

Apart from withdrawing extra privileges of the US diplomats, India also asked the US Embassy to "discontinue" commercial activities undertaken by the American Community Support Association (ACSA) from its premises.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 09 Feb 2014 20:05

tax department would be taking a view on issuing notices to the authorities concerned. Also, the CBDT would be informed as this is not a regular case and involves relations between two countries," the sources added.

Where is the Bray of PiBs when we need it? A Short Course at JNU on How to Be an Oiseule and Destroy International Relashuns? Grant a Canadian Visa?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Feb 2014 21:29

^^^UBji - who needs Bray of PB's when we have aparhmit, antheen, anant maniyon ki ladi ..
(Limitless, endless, infinite gems) in the readership in India alone...

Folks - For perspective please see the following..

While there are endless comments about the "gora" (USA) press, and comments left by readers there...
Every comment by TSJ is answered by 20 replies and 19+ pages are filled with "positive news in USA", please do read the comments left on a typical page from the recent news story from an Indian News Paper by , presumably, their readers.

And this is February 2014, and one can assume that people now are more familiar with the facts..

The story:
Devyani defends call to dismiss U.S. visa fraud case

Comments:

Government of India should recover fully from Devyani all the tax-payers
money spent on defending this officer for the offences she committed in
her personal capacity (Visa fraud & Lying under oath). She could pay
off by selling her Adarsh flat ?

from: Manish
Posted on: Feb 9, 2014 at 16:32 IST
She wants to have the cake and eat it too. If she cannot comply with
the laws of US, her husband can take up an Indian Citizenship and they
can relocate to India. By the by, is she holds a green card, should we
not have a rule which prevents high ranking Indian babus to hold
resident status in other countries other than what is required for their
job? If she hold a green card which is only a step away from becoming a
US citizen, should be allowed to be a GOI Official at such high levels?
Where will her loyalty be?

from: Ravi
Posted on: Feb 9, 2014 at 06:44 IST
I think this is Mr. Arshack, Devyani's lawyer's desperate last attempt to save his skin to collect his lawyer fees from Devyani and Co. before he quits the case. He knows that there are no hopes left in the case and whatever he is filing now has already been a part of the previous filings and has been dismissed by US court. Devyani has lost the case but does not want to admit it. Grapes are sour, eh?

from: Naveen
Posted on: Feb 9, 2014 at 05:17 IST
Devyani was arrested and charged with visa fraud before her full immunity was granted on Jan 8, 2014.
The state dept had said the immunity is not retroactive. The indictment was handed down on Jan 9th,
2014 while she was still in US. Therefore, Mr. Arshack argument is without merit. Here is why. The
alleged crime was committed when she did not enjoy the full immunity. She was charged with the
alleged crime when she did not enjoy full immunity. The indictment is only the second phase of the
proceeding and not the first. The probability of this case being dismissed is slim to none. It is
very likely an arrest warrant may be issued , as the State Dept had indicated when she was asked to
leave.

from: Mohan Das
Posted on: Feb 9, 2014 at 01:28 IST
This woman is a disgrace to our nation. I earnestly hope (against hope), she is convicted for her role in Adarsh scam and is put in prison and then deported to the USA, where she should spend more time in prison. And reportedly, her father (a retired IAS officer) is entering politics, since he would like to "serve the people" !! That one stupid woman can bring the diplomatic relations of big nations to a standstill is extremely unfortunate.

from: Hareesh
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 17:20 IST
Irrespective of the legal and diplomatic merits of the entire episode, one thing stands out. This officer, Devyani , is married to an American citizen and also became a green card holder, voluntarily. Then it was her moral obligation to honor the laws of the land , where she will end up ultimately I. e the U S A. . In stead, the honor of the Indian nation was unnecessarily dragged in. This is highly regrettable.

from: chinta sastry
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 16:49 IST
Sad. There were soldiers killed and their heads chopped off. Our guys
are worried about the trade being stopped because some driver was
arrested for smuggling drugs. The soldiers' honour has not being
restored. But a person who habitually (dont forget Adarsh flats) deals
in false documentation is being protected. To show Haath ke shakti ..
haath ke safai..?

from: RGKrishnan
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 16:46 IST
Instead this fraud woman should be dismissed from all government employment. Shameless
lady that brought disgrace to the entire nation by pledging the nations image and respect.

from: Ramesh
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 15:28 IST
Frankly, I wish the Deputy Consul General goes to jail. She deserves it. And it will be a lesson for many, in particular the Ministry of External Affairs who, by way of having schemed and facilitated her escape from the due processes of law, have made Indians in general an accomplice to this sordid business. This person and the MEA have disgraced India.

from: Sridhar S ( same name as one of our senior moderator )
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 15:28 IST
If US government has acted in an improper manner towards a diplomat it is for Indian Government to take up the issue with American Government. But the act of improper treatment to a foreign diplomat by the American Government does not absolve the diplomat of any alleged wrong doing which is unlawful in the country of posting. I agree with the view that she should be sacked and allowed to face the charges on her own. At the same time the Government of India should take up strongly against the improper treatment meted out to a serving Indian Diplomat. Something tells me that she is seen to be supported perhaps for her high level connections and perhaps others may also clandestinely doing such things using immunity and position.

from: Swaminathan R
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 15:20 IST
Indian government should initiate legal action against her for not following the rules of the country and agreement signed with Indian national. Also spoiling the name of India as a Deputy counsel of India in US.

from: AHMED
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 15:00 IST
Is it necessary to post a photograph of the lady ( however photogenic) each time there is a news item about her? This is true of the print edition also.

from: Balakesari
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 13:40 IST
India should now simply relent on legal charges but hold firm on diplomatic privileges. Only offer what others are offering you in return - Americans should not be allowed to have the kind of space they were able to have earlier. On this lady, she should be sacked for her conduct and inability to leave the US on notice. The very fact that she is married to a citizen of a country where she is stationed should disqualify her from being in the United States anyway. Her problem of not being able to enter America are her own personal problems, India's problems ended when they deported her. This case should now be closed but not without curbing down additional privileges held by Americans in India. I wonder if they had broken a law (or committed a grave crime such as murder) when posted in India earlier, would they have had held full immunity? In that instance, if they didn't promise the same to your diplomats, they can persecute your people without fear of any reprisal for their diplomats.

from: Raj
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 12:50 IST
Enough shutup. Your big shame to India.

from: Venkat Prasad
Posted on: Feb 8, 2014 at 12:32 IST

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Feb 2014 21:53

Folks - I mentioned a few times, about PB not knowing exactly when DK left, and PB making a fool of himself ..

Now hope that makes sense to people here...

5:47 PM on January 8, 2014 to approximately 8:30 PM on January 9, 2014

(5:47 PM is actually in the official letter from SD

)

sivab wrote:
Amber G. wrote:SD guys did not even inform PB when DK was leaving..

My point was simply that PB did not know exactly when DK left. (SD guys, (or at lest a few SD guys and even a few ex NYPD guys) did know that she did not take the AI flight). In fact, there are reports that they took a lot of care so that PB & Co do not pull any stunts - One reason they avoided AI, was not to bring Air India in the middle -- DK's attorneys, did note the fact that US has been known to sent fighter jets and ask the air line to return etc and they did not want to take any chance - Even though India has issued DK a new passport, they waited till they got ok from the US Judge)

Not only India, but even some US guys were very surprised to see all this high handed mean game. (and completely unnecessary IMO) of US/PB ..