Exploitation of employee or blackmail of employer? (Khobragade case) - Page 14

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I would like to evaluate the "interference" on a case-by-case Krystal. In this particular case, yes, I supported the "air lifting" of the family on humanitarian grounds as I feared the family was being subjugated by the authorities over there.

As for wrongdoings, I believe I already explained my position in response to Souro's questions.

I would like to add my opinion that the visa fraud and misrepresentation against USA took place first and Devyani Khobragade got a second (illegal) contract signed within USA - so the US case gets first preference and Indian attempts to hold material witnesses for the US case are interfering with USA law which their citizen broke first.

Also if we hold that no country has the law to interfere in the laws of another then no country should ever offer asylum to someone they believe is being wrongfully charged. It is not as if India has not given asylum on similar grounds.

If past US actions in separate cases can be used as an argument of US ill will and disregard for protocol, then why can't Devyani Khobragade's past actions be used as an argument of her history and propensity to commit fraud?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If past US actions in separate cases can be used as an argument of US ill will and disregard for protocol, then why can't Devyani Khobragade's past actions be used as an argument of her history and propensity to commit fraud?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If past US actions in separate cases can be used as an argument of US ill will and disregard for protocol, then why can't Devyani Khobragade's past actions be used as an argument of her history and propensity to commit fraud?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Just correcting you here Mr . It violate the International Community of Courts guidelines which coerce the countries to respect injunctions by another nation's court.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

The family which was evacuated had an injunction against them? What did they do?

Originally posted by: charminggenie

It's very complicated to be honest. Both sides have filed zillion litigation against each other. Including Ms Richards family . The injunction was released because if we take MEA word and statements which were faxed to US state office in June -July - she and her husband were harassing the diplomat. By the message sheets submitted She went on official pp, appropriate visa, gov ticket, board& lodging in officer's gov flat, which is PMI property. But ran away with some money , cell phone and other stuff. Hence the injunction was issued that the US should wait till India Courts come to verdict.

So if we stand by US standardized procedure , we should respect Indian process even if they should contrived.

Frankly it is incompetency of MEA and it's inability to collaborate with MHA, because if they worked well this family would not have left the country.

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Simply because the past actions cited here share the same legal tone and connotations. The defense were same in all those cases.

anyone is free to cite previous examples of Ms Khobragade which pertains to visa fraud in the past showing her a habitual offender.

Another - the pain about interference is for the evacuation of Ms Richard's family before the arrest when they had litigation. Asylum is provided to Ms richards till now.Huge difference, now if a terrorist or an under trail in Indian jail protests about Indian Courts would the US migrate them as well. What kind of logic is that?

The Adarsh scam would be relevant because it entails her history of fraud for self gain. Fraud for self gain is the center of this case. Just like the party with which US diplomatic rows have taken place in the past have been considered irrelevant, the parties against which Devyani committed fraud would be irrelevant.

I'd prefer the take each situation individually and assess the current pro-cons rather than try to bring past examples. But the floodgates have already been opened.

As for why the Richards family was flown out, I have already explained why the fraud against USA took place first and India holding the Richards back would be interference in US law.

I think by giving the "terrorist" example you are again committing the fallacy of viewing blanket situations rather than specific situations. A country would be in the wrong if they extracted a terrorist and saved them from conviction. A country would be in the neutral if it extracted a wrongfully accused and saved them from execution. Historically, people have sought asylum from other nations when the government victimizes them. In unstable nations when one party takes over, they persecute and run an inquisition against opponents. People have sought asylum because governments turned against them simply because they spoke out. I actually ethically supported nations that gave Edward Snowden asylum because even though he broke US laws, NSA broke them first and conducted an unethical witch hunt against him.

Assess situations by the facts of the situation. Asylum is not wrong or write by a blanket standard. Interfering with legal proceedings is not wrong or right by a blanket standard.

In this case it is a tricky situation. From India's perspective, Indian courts filed the injunction against the Richard's first. Sangeeta Richards is conspiring against Devyani Khboragade. US is interfering in Indian legal matters. From US perspective, the fraud was committed first and it took time to investigate and file charges. Devyani Khobragade exploited Sangeeta Richards. India is interfering in US legal matters. I'd also contend that the first attempt at the alleged extortion took place in the United States and is related to a ongoing US case, so it is still a matter of US jurisdiction.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

OK, allegations not withstanding, did Bharara break any rules when evacuating the family?