Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion
Posted: 22 Dec 2013 12:33
by vic
USA has got its Indian dog ToIlet paper to attack Devyani & family on the front page. Anyway posting below from a friendly forum which shows Devyani is stupid (but you still cannot rape her). How idiots like her are given important positions??:-
MANDA K Ty GREENBERG
Assistant United States Attorneys
Before: HONORABLE DEBRA FREEMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of New York
__________-___i__.x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEALED COMPLAINT
— v. — Violations of
. l8 U.S.C. §§ l00l, l546(a) and
DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, 2.
Defendant. COUNTY OF OFFENSE:
NEW YORK
.___,___,-__,.____x
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK )
MARK J. SMITH, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he
is a Special Agent with the United States Department of State,
Diplomatic Security Service (“DSS"), and charges as follows:
COUNT ONE
(Visa Fraud)
1. In or about November 2012, in the Southern District of
New York and elsewhere, DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, wilfully
and knowingly did make under oath, and under penalty of perjury under
Title 28, United States Code, Section l'746, and did subscribe as true,
a false statement with respect to a material fact in an application,
affidavit, and other document required by the immigration laws and
regulations prescribed thereunder, and did present such application,
affidavit, and other document which contained such false statement
and which failed to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact, and
did to wit, Kl-IOBRAGADE caused to be submitted to the U.S. Department
of State an employment contract that KHOBRAGADE knew to contain
materially false and fraudulent statements, which contract was
submitted in support of a visa application filed by KHOBRAGADE for
another individual. V
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1546(a) and 2.)
COUNT TWO
(False Statement)
2. In or about November 2012, DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the
defendant, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, willfully and
knowingly, did falsify, conceal, and cover up by trick, scheme, and
device material facts, and made materially false, fictitious, and
fraudulent statements and representations, to wit, KHOERAGADE caused
to be submitted to the U.S. Department of State an employment contract
that KHOBRAGADE knew to Contain materially false and fraudulent
statements, which contract was submitted in support of a visa
application filed by KHOBRAGADE for another individual, and
KHOERAGADE caused another individual to make statements KHOERAGADE
knew to be materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent, to an
employee of the United States Embassy in New Delhi, India, in support
of the same visa application.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2.)
The bases for my knowledge and for the foregoing charges
are, in part, as follows:
3. I am a Special Agent with DSS, and am the lead
investigator of the above~captioned case. I am familiar with the
facts and circumstances set forth below from my personal
participation in the investigation, including my review of pertinent
documents and interviews of witnesses. Because this affidavit is
being submitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating probable
cause, it does not include details of every aspect of my
investigation. Where I relate statements, conversations, and
actions of others, those statements, conversations, and actions are
related in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated.
4. Since in or about November 2012, DEVYANI KHOERAGDE, the
defendant, has been employed as the Deputy Consul General for
Political, Economic, Commercial and Women's Affairs at the Consulate
General of India in New York, New York. Based on my review of an
official database of the U.S. Department of State, and my
conversations with an employee of the Protocol section of the U.S.
Department of State, which is the entity that accredits foreign
diplomats and determines immunity levels, I know that KHOBRAGADE
enjoys limited diplomatic immunity with respect to only those acts
undertaken in her official capacity.
5. Based on my review of the publicly—available website
entitled “Visas for Diplomats and Foreign Government Officials,"1
published by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs
(the “Website”), I know the following (the quoted paragraphs below
have been copied verbatim from the Website):
a. Diplomats and consulate officers may obtain A-3
visas for their personal employees, domestic workers, and servants ,
if they meet the requirements set out in in 9 Foreign Affairs Manual ‘
(“FAM”) 41.22.
b. “As part of the application process, an interview
at the embassy or consulate is required. Proof that the applicant
will receive a fair wage, sufficient to financially support himself,
comparable to that being offered in the area of employment in the
U.S. is required.”
c. To apply for an A~3 visa, the visa applicant must
submit the following, among other items:
i. An “Employment Contract signed by both the
employer and the employee which must include each of the following
items:“
1. “Description of Duties. The contract must
describe the work to be performed, e.g., housekeeping, gardening,
child care, and also must include a statement that the domestic
employee shall work only for the employer who signed the contract.“
2. “Hours of Work. The contract must state
the time of the normal working hours and the number of hours per week.
It is generally expected that domestic workers will be required to
work 35—4O hours per week. It also must state that the domestic
employee will be provided a minimum of one full day off each week.
The contract must indicate the number of paid holidays, sick days,
1 Available at
Visas for Diplomats and Foreign Government Officials.
3
and vacation days the domestic employee will be provided."
3. “Minimum Wage. The contract must state
the hourly wage to be paid to the domestic employee. The rate must
be the greater of the minimum wage under U.S. Federal and state law,
or the prevailing wage for all working hours. Information on the
prevailing wage statistics by occupation and metropolitan area is
available on the Department of Labor's Online Wage Library 8: Data
Center website."
4. “The contract must state that wages will
be paid to the domestic employee either weekly or biweekly. As of
March 20ll, the Department determined that no deductions are allowed
for lodging, medical care, medical insurance, or travel. A5 of April
2012, deductions taken for meals are also no longer allowed."
5. “Overtime Work. The contract must state
that any hours worked in excess of the normal number of hours worked
per week are considered overtime hours, and that hours in which the
employee is “on call” count as work hours. It also must state that
such work must be paid as required by U.S. local laws.”
6. “Payment. The contract must state that
after the first 90 days of employment, all wage payments must be made
by check or by electronic transfer to the domestic worker's bank
account. Neither Mission members nor their family members should have
access to domestic workers’ bank accounts. In addition, the
Department requires that the employer retain records of employment
and payment for three years after the termination of the employment
in order to address any complaints that may subsequently arise.
Further, the bank account must be in the United States so that
domestic workers may readily access and utilize their wages."
7. “Other Required Terms of Employment. The
contract must state that the employer agrees to abide by all Federal,
State, and local laws in the United States. The contract also must
include a statement that the domestic worker’ s passport and visa will
be in the sole possession of the domestic worker. In addition, the
contract must state that a copy of the contract and other personal
property of the domestic employee will not be withheld by the employer
for any reason. The contract must include a statement that the
domestic worker's presence in the employer's residence will not be
required except during working hours. The contract must also include
a statement by the employee, promising not to accept any other
employment while working for the employer."
6. Based on my interviews of an individual who, in or about
the fall of 20l2, was residing in India (“Witness~l”), I know the
following, in substance and in part:
a. In or about the fall of 2012, Witness—l met at
least twice with DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, at KHOBRAGADE’s
residence in India (the “Residence") in reference to Witness—l’S
potential employment as a domestic worker for KHOBRAGADE in New York,
New York.
b. KHOBRAGADE told Witness-l that KHOBRAGADE was
seeking to hire a babysitter who also could handle additional
household work at her home in New York. After some discussion,
KHOBRAGADE agreed to pay Witness~l 30,000 rupees per month.
KHOBRAGADE stated that she would need to observe Witness—1's work.
C. At KHOBRAGADE's request, Witness—l stayed at the
Residence for a trial employment period of several days. At the
conclusion of the trial employment period, KHOBRAGADE told Witness—1
to expect a call from the United States Embassy in India (the “U.S.
Embassy”).
7. Based on my interviews of the spouse of Witness»1
(“Witness~2“), I know the following, in substance and in part:
a. Witness-2 and Witness—l met with DEVYANI
KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, at the Residence in reference to
WITNESSA1’ s potential employment for KHOBRAGADE in New York, New York
as a domestic helper. KHOBRAGADE offered to pay Witness—l a starting
salary of 25,000 rupees per month, plus an additional 5,000 rupees
for overtime.
b. At KHOBRAGADE's request, Witness—l stayed at the
Residence for a trial employment period of several days.
c. KHOBRAGADE stated that she would apply for a
passport for Witness—l through the Indian Ministry of External
Affairs. Witness—l provided KHOBRAGADE with her Indian passport.
8. Based on my review of a publicly available report of the
U.S. Department of Treasury, which sets forth the rate of exchange
in effect as of September 1, 2012, I know that at that time, 52.35
rupees was equivalent to $1 U.S. dollar. At that rate of exchange,
30,000 rupees is equivalent to $573.07 U.S. dollars. At 40 hours
per week, with approximately 4.3 weeks in a month, $573.07 dollars
equates to a rate of $3.31 per hour.
9. Based on my review of a U.S. Department of State
database, I know the following:
a. On or about September 27, 20l2, an electronic form
DS~l60, which is a visa application, was submitted through the
website for the U.S. Department of State's Consular Electronic
Application Center, for an A-1 visa for DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the
defendant. The visa application for KHOBRAGADE stated that nobody
assisted KHOBRAGADE in the preparation of the application, which was
electronically signed by the applicant, KHOBRAGADE, and filed from
a computer or digital device with an identified IP address (the
“Khobragade IP Address"),
b. On or about October l5, 20l2, an electronic form
DS—16O was submitted through the website for the U.S. Department of
State's Consular Electronic Application Center, for an A-3 visa for
Witness~l. The A<3 application for Witness~l (the “Visa
Application”) indicated that the preparer was KHOBRAGADE, and that
the Visa Application was submitted from a computer or digital device
assigned the Khobragade IP Address.
c. The Visa Application stated that an A—3 visa was
sought for Witness~1, who was to be the personal employee of
KHOBRAGADE beginning in November 2012 at an address in New York, New
York.
d. The Visa Application stated that Witness~l was to
be paid $4,500 per month in U.S. dollars.
e. On or about November l, 2012, Witness~1 appeared
at the U.S. Embassy to be interviewed in connection with the Visa
Application.
10. Based on my interviews of witness-1, I know the
following, in substance and in part:
a. When Witness—l first appeared at the U.S. Embassy
to be interviewed in connection with the Visa Application, an
employee at the U.S. Embassy told Witness~l she could not be
interviewed until she returned with the necessary paperwork.
b. Witness~l contacted KHOBRAGADE, who then executed
an employment Contract with Witness-1 (the “First Employment
Contract"). KHOBRAGADE provided Witness—l with the First
Employment Contract to bring to Witness-l’s interview at the U.S.
Embassy in connection with the Visa Application. KHOBRAGADE told
Witness—l that the First Employment Contract was a formality to get
the visa.
b. KHOBRAGADE told Witness-l that Witness-1 would he
questioned about the terms of the First Employment Contract at her
interview, and that Witness—1 should say that Witness~1 would be paid
$9.75 per hour and would work 40 hours per week. KHOBRAGADE also
instructed Witness~l to say that Witness—1’s duty hours would be 7
a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. KHOBRAGADE instructed
Witness~l not to say anything about being paid 30,000 rupees per
month.
c. Witness-l then provided the First Employment
Contract to the U.S. Embassy during her interview in connection with
the Visa Application.
ll. Based on my interviews of Witness—2, I have learned, in
substance and in part, that on or about November ll, 20l2, Witness—l
and Witness—2 went to the Residence to obtain an employment contract
for Witness—l to bring to her interview at the U.S. Embassy. DEVYANI
KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, provided Witness—l with the First
Employment Contract to bring to her interview. Witness—2 signed the
First Employment Contract as a witness.
12. I have reviewed the First Employment Contract, which is
entitled “Employment Contract for Personal (Domestic) Employees of
An Alien of a Foreign Mission in the United States (Visa A3),” which
is dated November 11, 2012, and which provides, in part:
a. The parties to the First Employment Contract are
“Dr. Devyani Khobragade (Deputy Consul General — CGI—NY)
(hereinafter referred to as the Employer)” and Witness—l
“(hereinafter referred to as the Employee)."
b. “The Employee will go to the U.S. with the Employer
as a domestic employee. The Employer agrees to employ the Employee
at or in connection with the Employer's residence in the position(s)
of housekeeper and babysitter.”
c. “The Employee will he paid wages at the prevailing
or minimum wage rate as required by law, whichever is greater. The
expected hourly salary in the U.S. would be $9.75."
d. “The normal number of hours per week shall be 40
hours, including the following normal work hours:” off on Sundays,
Monday through Friday from 7am to 12pm and 6:30pm—8:30pm, Saturday
from 8am to 1pm.
e. “Wages shall be paid biweekly by electronic fund
transfer to the Employee's bank account. Copies of pay records will
be made available without charge to the Employee.”
f. “The Employee shall be provided a minimum of at
least one full day off each week, which day(s) will normally be
Sunday.”
g. “In addition, the Employee will be provided
time-off from work, as follows . . . Holidays (With Pay): 7; Sick
Days (With Pay): 7; Vacation Days (With Pay): 7."
h. “The Employer agrees to abide by all Federal,
state, and local laws in the U.S."
i. “Other benefits normally required for U.S.
domestic workers in the area of employment: full medical care, full
board and lodging shall be provided at Employer's expense with no
unpermitted deductions made."
l3. The First Employment Contract is initialed on the first
page with the handwritten initials “DK" and the handwritten date
ll/ll, and is also initialed on the first page by Witness-l. The
second and final page of the First Employment Contract bears the
signatures of DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, Witness~1, and two
witnesses, including Witness—2.
14. Based on my review of a U.S. Department of State
database, I know that on or about November 14, 2012, Witness—l
appeared at the U.S. Embassy in connection with the Visa Application,
provided an employment contract to the U.S. Embassy employee (the
“Embassy Employee), and represented that Witness—l understood that
she would make $9.75 per hour working as a domestic helper in the
U.S. The Embassy Employee processed the Visa Application.
15. Based on my interview of the Embassy Employee, I know,
in substance and in part, that the Embassy Employee would not have
been authorized to process the Visa Application absent an employment
contract that complied with the requirements of 9 FAM 41.22,
including the commitment to pay the A-3 visa applicant at least the
minimum or prevailing wage and the provision that normal working
hours would be limited to 40 hours per week.
16. Based on my review of a U.S. Department of State
database, I know that on or about November 15, 2012, Witness~l
received an A—3 visa.
17 . Based on my interviews of Witness~l, I know, in substance
and in part, that shortly before departing to the airport in India,
DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, called Witness—l to tell
Witness—l to come to the Residence. Upon arriving at the Residence,
KHOBRAGADE told Witness~l that Witness~l needed to sign another
employment contract (the “Second Employment Contract") . Witness—l
signed the Second Employment Contract.
18. I have reviewed the Second Employment Contract, which
is an untitled document dated November 23, 2012 that appears to be
an enlarged and electronically edited version of the First Employment
Contract, which provides, in part:
a. The parties to the Second Employment Contract are
identical as to those in the First Employment Contract: “Dr. Devyani
Khobragade (Deputy Consul General — CGI—NY) (hereinafter referred
to as the Employer)” and Witnessvl “(hereinafter referred to as the
Employee).”
b. The scope of the Employee’s duties is identical
as to that set forth in the First Employment Contract: “The Employee
will go to the U.S. with the Employer as a domestic employee. The
Employer agrees to employ the Employee at or in connection with the
Employer's residence in the position(s) of housekeeper and
babysitter."
c. With respect to wages, the Second Employment
Contract provides: “The Employee will be paid an expected monthly
salary of Rs, 25,000 per month with an additional 5,000 for
overtime, i.e. work on Sunday, after hours and for parties, etc. The
maximum salary per month including the overtime allowance will not
exceed 30,000 per month."
19. The Second Employment Contract does not contain any
provision about the normal number of working hours per week or month.
The only statement concerning working hours in Second Employment
Contract is “The Employee shall be provided a minimum of at least
one full day off each week, which day(s) will normally be Sunday."
20. The Second Employment Contract does not contain any
provision about time off from work, and is silent as to holidays,
sick days, and vacation days.
21. The Second Employment Contract does not contain the
representation present in the First Employment Contract that “The
Employer agrees to abide by all Federal, state, and local laws in
the U.S.”
22. The second and final page of the Second Employment
Contract bears the signatures of DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the defendant,
Witness—l, two witnesses, including Witness-2, and a notary public.
23. Based on my review of records maintained by the U.S.
Department of Homeland security, I know that on or about November
24, 20l2, DEVYANI KHOERAGADE, the defendant, and Witness~l, passed
through customs at a New York airport within two minutes of each
other.
24, Based on my interviews of Witness—l, I know, in substance
and in part, that Witness—l worked for DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the
defendant, as a household employee in New York, New York from
approximately November 2012 through approximately June 2013.
Notwithstanding the terms of the First Employment Contract,
Witness—l worked far more than 40 hours per week, and Witness—l was
paid less than $9.75 per hour by KHOBRAGADE. In fact,
notwithstanding the terms of the oral agreement between KHOERAGADE
and Witness—l and the terms of the Second Employment Contract,
Witness—l was paid less than 30,000 rupees, or $3.31 per hour.
l0
WHEREFORE, the deponent prays that a warrant issue for the
arrest of DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE, the defendant, and that the defendant
be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the Case may be.
United States Department of State
‘ ‘ , Bureau of Diplomatic Security
Sworn to before me this
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion
Posted: 22 Dec 2013 13:15
by vina
Okay. Now with the layers of the onion peeling, and news that Devyani Khobragade is married to an American (of Indian origin) and her children probably have American passports, these things seem to fall in place.
I can see how the Americans got incensed about it. A (nearly American) couple and children, well educated and settled ( hubby a "Pill-o-so-pee" prof at an Ivy League univ, wimmin, a diplomat with benefits), and still instead of hiring locally and paying wage like all others (including ordinary changu mangu immigrants from India and everywhere) , they try to do an end run and get in a live in maid at these salary levels and try to get legal protection for it by trying to take it out of jurisdiction.
That would have led the Americans (justice dept and the state dept) to lower the boom on this Khobragade woman and led to the arrest (after multiple "dialogs"/"discussions", but the arrest wouldn't have been informed to the Indians). The arrest was badly botched by the Federal Marshals (or they might not have been given instructions saying "Fragile" , handle with care) who put her through the usual wringer (including cavity and strip search) and escalated what would have been a "law enforcement" issue into an one of outrageous behavior against a diplomat who didn't warrant that treatment and fed the flames in India (and probably elsewhere).
That realization perhaps dawned on the Americans and Kerry "regretted" the treatment (strip search and cavity search), but not the arrest itself. So really, I think Khobragade was was given bad legal advice by the Govt of India which facilitated her taking the maid to the US and then gave here legal cover via the case in Delhi. I doubt if Devyani's husband and children weren't American, she would have got targeted for this treatment, but all the same, the botched handling (communication gap with Federal marshals) left the Americans holding a searing hot potato and blow back in Delhi leading to snapped privileges , downgraded diplomatic immunity and an Indian govt now holding all the cards of options of giving it back in equal measure to the American diplomats now that the tax, pay and other contractual details of what they paid to their Indian domestic and other staff will become available on Monday (Dec 23).
That said, while I condemn the treatment Devyani got as a woman in the hands of the Federal Marshals, there probably is some of her own and dad's bad Karma in this somewhere.
Dad Uttam Khobragade from the face of it seems to have been corrupt to the core, leveraged his "Dalit" advantages (overarching quotas and special treatment in everything from education to jobs to promotions and his political clout) to some serious wealth and privileges and of course daughter Devyani seems to have done exactly similar thing (I bet she wouldn't have spent a dime to get her medical degrees upto the master's level, got into IFS on a SC quota, promoted preferentially and got plum positions leveraging her Dalit and political connections, done cool things like learn German at the Goethe institute in Berlin and meet and marry a "Pill-o-so-pee" and Oenology sprouting Rathore boy from NY and been the cool kitten) and done the usual "loot maar" including huge land holdings in multiple places in Maharashtra , Kerala and of course both dad and daughter were influential enough to swing plum apartments in a patently criminal enterprise such as Adarsh (in addition to a plot in Mumbai on "govt quota") . It is utterly shameful for a couple such as she and her husband to continue misusing privilege and special treatment to import a maid from India and then try to do an end run by taking it out of local jurisdiction by using the govt's influence in working the courts in her favor in India. SHAME.
While her and dad's patently corrupt and immoral misuse of privilege, special treatment (maybe it is time to remove the SC/ST special treatment away from the likes of the Khobragades and give it to the really deserving Dalits) , connections and political clout should have absolutely no bearing on her treatment by the Federal Marshals (I sort of agree with the basic premise behind the arrest), and she had every right to have been respectfully treated, Karma is another thing altogether.
The common Indian, which none of us are, is more nationalistic than any of us. For the simple reason he has nothing else. The poorest are the smartest and it is not easy to lead them astray.