09-04-2008, 09:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>New Jersey court dismisses Sonia Defamation Suit</b>
SUMAN GUHA MOZUMDER
India Abroad, Aug 29, 2008
http://gandhiheritage.org/images/pdfs/la...missal.jpg
A New Jersey court last week tossed out one of the two defamation lawsuits filed by the Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) seeking $100 million in damages from individuals and non-profits for allegedly defaming Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. The court said the INOC does not have the right to seek damages. A decision on the other identical lawsuit filed by the INOC â but in a New York court and against different individuals â is pending.
Narain Kataria, president of the Indian Intellectuals Forum and one of the defendants in the case filed in New York, told India Abroad that oral arguments on the case were slated for October 2 in the state Supreme Court of New York.
The defendants hailed Judge Patricia DelBueno Cleary of New Jersey's Monmouth County Superior Court's dismissal of the much-publicized lawsuit as a measure of the fairness of the American judicial system. Satyanarayana Dosapati, a defendant along with Naresh Sharma, Sunanda Thali, the Mahatma Gandhi Center and Hindu Temple and others, told India Abroad that he believed the ruling by the New Jersey court would positively impact the case in New York, because the charges are similar.
"We are very happy that justice is done. It has been trying at times, but we had complete faith in the American judicial system. We hope that this will encourage all Indians across the world to come out openly and speak the truth," Dosapati said.
Marc Haefner, attorney for the defendants, told India Abroad that he hoped "the New Jersey's court's decision to protect individuals who with to exercise their rights to free speech without being harassed by foreign political parties will serve as an example to the New York court when it takes this issue up at the beginning of October." He said no appeal had been filed yet, but the INOC has the right to file an appeal with the New Jersey Appellate Division up to 45 days after the decision.
"The New Jersey court took little time in throwing the case out given its frivolousness nature and we hope that the New York court will recognize that and follow suit," Haefner said.
The INOC demanded a judgment against the defendants and an award of 'actual, compensatory, special and punitive damages in the amount of $100 million' in addition to costs and disbursements, legal fees and whatever other relief 'that the court deems fit, just and proper' for defaming Sonia Gandhi.
The issue stemmed from an advertisement published by the Forum for Saving Gandhi's Heritage â comprising several members or former members of the Overseas Friends of the Bharatiya Janata Party â in The New York Times just ahead of Sonia Gandhi's visit to New York in 2007.
The Congress party president was in New York to attend an informal plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly that had declared October 2 â Mahatma Gandhi's birthday â as the International Day of Non-Violence, and also to deliver the inaugural lecture at the event. Coinciding with her visit, the little-known Forum accused her in the full-page advertisement of violating multiple Indian laws. It also organized a noisy protest outside the UN headquarters when Sonia Gandhi was inside to address the plenary session.
Judge Cleary held that the INOC does not have the locus standi to claim damages. The judge noted that Sonia Gandhi is the chairwoman of the Indian National Congress Party, a political party in India, a 'separate and distinct entity, different than the plaintiff.' She noted that the INOC is not mentioned in the advertisement in question.
Citing rules that she said require that every action instituted in New Jersey be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, the judge said that examination of the alleged libelous statement fails to disclose any reference to the plaintiff.
'The advertisement attacks Ms. Gandhi personally. There were references to her political party but that political party is not the plaintiff,' the judge said.
The arguments by the INOC's attorney Andrew Miller that the advertisement was not to attack any entity in India but to attack specifically the INOC and because of which the INOC lost $200,000 in donations and support to the party did not cut ice with the judge.
'It is clear to the court that the plaintiff has no real interest in the outcome of the case since it is not the one who is being libeled. It is impossible for the court to determine how references to Ms. Gandhi relate to the plaintiff,' the judge said.
The judge dismissed the case with the observation that since the court has determined that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, no further analysis is necessary.
The Forum for Gandhi Heritage expressed gratitude for what it called the fairness of the American judicial system. 'It is our dream that one day in India, people will be able to speak openly and be able to bring to justice corrupt politicians without having to worry about reprisals and repercussion,' it said in a statement.
Haefner said the fundamental problem with the INOC's case was its failure to recognize that under the law of New Jersey a plaintiff cannot sue for defamation to punish the defendants for something they said about a third party.
The INOC said it would appeal the decision. "What the judge said was that the INOC does not have the right to sue the defendants. That is all. The judge did not go into the merits or the merits of the case,' said Dr. Marlhotra, INOC president, who initiated the lawsuits. He claimed the case had not been dismissed.
The New York Times, which drew flak from INOC supporters for publishing the advertisement, in a letter to Sheldon Karasik, the INOC's attorney in the New York case, tendered its apologies for a factual error it said it spotted in the ad, about the Ram Sethu being blown up.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SUMAN GUHA MOZUMDER
India Abroad, Aug 29, 2008
http://gandhiheritage.org/images/pdfs/la...missal.jpg
A New Jersey court last week tossed out one of the two defamation lawsuits filed by the Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) seeking $100 million in damages from individuals and non-profits for allegedly defaming Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. The court said the INOC does not have the right to seek damages. A decision on the other identical lawsuit filed by the INOC â but in a New York court and against different individuals â is pending.
Narain Kataria, president of the Indian Intellectuals Forum and one of the defendants in the case filed in New York, told India Abroad that oral arguments on the case were slated for October 2 in the state Supreme Court of New York.
The defendants hailed Judge Patricia DelBueno Cleary of New Jersey's Monmouth County Superior Court's dismissal of the much-publicized lawsuit as a measure of the fairness of the American judicial system. Satyanarayana Dosapati, a defendant along with Naresh Sharma, Sunanda Thali, the Mahatma Gandhi Center and Hindu Temple and others, told India Abroad that he believed the ruling by the New Jersey court would positively impact the case in New York, because the charges are similar.
"We are very happy that justice is done. It has been trying at times, but we had complete faith in the American judicial system. We hope that this will encourage all Indians across the world to come out openly and speak the truth," Dosapati said.
Marc Haefner, attorney for the defendants, told India Abroad that he hoped "the New Jersey's court's decision to protect individuals who with to exercise their rights to free speech without being harassed by foreign political parties will serve as an example to the New York court when it takes this issue up at the beginning of October." He said no appeal had been filed yet, but the INOC has the right to file an appeal with the New Jersey Appellate Division up to 45 days after the decision.
"The New Jersey court took little time in throwing the case out given its frivolousness nature and we hope that the New York court will recognize that and follow suit," Haefner said.
The INOC demanded a judgment against the defendants and an award of 'actual, compensatory, special and punitive damages in the amount of $100 million' in addition to costs and disbursements, legal fees and whatever other relief 'that the court deems fit, just and proper' for defaming Sonia Gandhi.
The issue stemmed from an advertisement published by the Forum for Saving Gandhi's Heritage â comprising several members or former members of the Overseas Friends of the Bharatiya Janata Party â in The New York Times just ahead of Sonia Gandhi's visit to New York in 2007.
The Congress party president was in New York to attend an informal plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly that had declared October 2 â Mahatma Gandhi's birthday â as the International Day of Non-Violence, and also to deliver the inaugural lecture at the event. Coinciding with her visit, the little-known Forum accused her in the full-page advertisement of violating multiple Indian laws. It also organized a noisy protest outside the UN headquarters when Sonia Gandhi was inside to address the plenary session.
Judge Cleary held that the INOC does not have the locus standi to claim damages. The judge noted that Sonia Gandhi is the chairwoman of the Indian National Congress Party, a political party in India, a 'separate and distinct entity, different than the plaintiff.' She noted that the INOC is not mentioned in the advertisement in question.
Citing rules that she said require that every action instituted in New Jersey be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, the judge said that examination of the alleged libelous statement fails to disclose any reference to the plaintiff.
'The advertisement attacks Ms. Gandhi personally. There were references to her political party but that political party is not the plaintiff,' the judge said.
The arguments by the INOC's attorney Andrew Miller that the advertisement was not to attack any entity in India but to attack specifically the INOC and because of which the INOC lost $200,000 in donations and support to the party did not cut ice with the judge.
'It is clear to the court that the plaintiff has no real interest in the outcome of the case since it is not the one who is being libeled. It is impossible for the court to determine how references to Ms. Gandhi relate to the plaintiff,' the judge said.
The judge dismissed the case with the observation that since the court has determined that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, no further analysis is necessary.
The Forum for Gandhi Heritage expressed gratitude for what it called the fairness of the American judicial system. 'It is our dream that one day in India, people will be able to speak openly and be able to bring to justice corrupt politicians without having to worry about reprisals and repercussion,' it said in a statement.
Haefner said the fundamental problem with the INOC's case was its failure to recognize that under the law of New Jersey a plaintiff cannot sue for defamation to punish the defendants for something they said about a third party.
The INOC said it would appeal the decision. "What the judge said was that the INOC does not have the right to sue the defendants. That is all. The judge did not go into the merits or the merits of the case,' said Dr. Marlhotra, INOC president, who initiated the lawsuits. He claimed the case had not been dismissed.
The New York Times, which drew flak from INOC supporters for publishing the advertisement, in a letter to Sheldon Karasik, the INOC's attorney in the New York case, tendered its apologies for a factual error it said it spotted in the ad, about the Ram Sethu being blown up.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->