Dear All, I don't think that it is fair to make Bharat Uday Mission a mission against a particular party instead of a particular ideology. If we people want to make it a political forum, then I will start from a simple question - Was it logical and reasonable for Uma Bharti & Sushama Swaraj to threaten for "Mundan" if Sonia Gandhi had become the PM of India? Wasn't it a threat to Indian Voters and Indian Democracy?
Regards, CA Anil Gelra Anil Gelra & Co. +91-9252400248 ________________________________ From: uma.srinivas99 <uma.sriniva...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:31:56 PM Subject: [bm] NJ court dismisses 20 million dollar lawsuit from Sonia Gandhi - PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Politics/Religion Contact: Narain Kataria Phone: (718) 478-5735 E-mail: gandhiheritage@ gmail.com THIRD CONSECUTIVE IGNOMINIOUS DEFEAT SUFFERED BY INDIAN NATIONAL OVERSEAS CONGRESS IN US COURT http://gandhiherita ge.org New Jersey (Jan 22, 2009): Judge Nicholas J. Stroumtsos, Jr., J.S.C. of Middlesex county in New Jersey dismissed 20 million dollar lawsuit filed by Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) at the instance of Indian National Congress headed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, against Satya Dosapati, Naresh Sharma, Mahatma Gandhi Center and Hindu Temple, Mahatma Gandhi International Foundation, Inc., Sunanda Thali, Hindu International Concil Against Defamation, Inc., and John Does 1-100,on Jan. 14th, 2009. It should be noted that Indian National Overseas Congress had filed two 100 million dollar defamation suits earlier, one against Narain Kataria, Arish Sahani, et al. in New York Court and another against Satya Dosapati, Sunanda Thali, et al. in New Jersey Court. This was in response to an advertisement taken up in New York Times on Oct 6, 2007 during Sonia Gandhi representation on Mahatma Gandhi at United Nations. Since the INOC is not the right party and has no locus standi, NJ case was rejected. Subsequently, INOC withdrew the New York case. INOC then filed a third lawsuit in New Jersey with purported assignment from Indian National Congress to file the lawsuit on their behalf. However, such assignment was never produced to defendants or to the court. In his judgement, Judge Nicholas J. Stroumtsos ruled that assignment is not permitted in New Jersey and even if Indian National Congress was substituted as plaintiff, it cannot pursue the case since the statute of limitation (of one year) has expired. It is apparent that the purpose behind filing these three lawsuits is to muzzle freedom of speech, subject to financial hardships and serve as a warning to those who muster courage to speak up. The conduct and basis on which these lawsuits were filed shows the ethical and moral bankruptcy of Ms. Sonia Gandhi and her Congress Party. It is a sad testimony to the reason why Forum for Gandhi Heritage protested and took out the advertisement in New York Times claiming that Ms. Sonia Gandhi is not the right person to represent Mahatma Gandhi at an international body. Mahatma Gandhi stood for freedom of speech, for truth, honesty, unity of the country and respect for all religions. INOC, Ms. Sonia Gandhi and Congress party has little to show their respect for these values. Forum feels immensely proud that not only the members of its Organizations but the entire community stood behind to fight against the tyranny imposed on them. This adversity imposed on us has become a source of strength to community and showed that once we come together, we can fight against any evil, fight against any crookedness and fight against those who will sacrifice the welfare of a country for their personal interest.
