3rd Suit of defamation of Smt. Sonia Gandhi dismissed by a USA Court,
3rd Suit is dismissed with prejudice by a USA Court , which was filed against defamation of Smt. Sonia Gandhi.
Reportedly, earlier `Defamation Suits', filed for the compensation amount of $100 Million Dollars, were dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, on the ground that Indian National Overseas Congress could not bring the said suit in its own name because an essential element in a liable claim is that the allegedly defamatory statement are "of and concerning" the plaintiff". This means Suit should have been filed by Smt. Sonia Gandhi herself and Shri Rahul Gandhi as the Plaintiffs. Whereas the aforesaid Suits were bring by the Indian National Overseas Congress (`INOC') was alleged to be a New York domestic not-for-profit corporation and a "wholly-owned subsidiary organization" of the Indian National Congress Party. Subsequently, third Defamation Suit for $20 Million Dollars was also dismissed on 14th January, 2009, by Middlesex County Judge Nicholas J. Stroumtsos, Jr. as this Suit was also filed by the aforesaid INOC claims that its parent, the foreign political party the Indian National Congress Party, was defamed by full-page political advertisement placed by an organization called the Forum for Saving Gandhi's Heritage in the New York Times on October 6, 2007. Hon'ble Court recorded the fact that "The ad at issue concerns the Indian National Congress Party's Italian-born chair, Sonia Gandhi. Ms. Gandhi is not a plaintiff in this case. The ad is a protest against Ms. Gandhi. It states that she is "NOT related to Mahatma Gandhi" and that "she is attempting to misappropriate his name for the political mileage and international legitimacy."
Hon'ble Court also noted that "INOC knows that the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, has already ruled that INOC could not bring this suit in its own name because an essential element in a liable claim is that the allegedly defamatory statement are "of and concerning" the plaintiff. The Monmouth County Court properly found that here, where the statement are not "of and concerning" INOC, the defamation claim had to be dismissed. That dismissal with prejudice was not appealed." Whereas, in response to the Monmouth County Court 's dismissal with prejudice, INOC has refilled aforesaid new Suit claiming that it obtained an assignment from the Indian National Congress Party of "its rights herein". However, Defendant alleges that this assignment has not been produced and even if it is produced, it is not valid under NJ ; law and thus this matter must again be dismissed.
INOC opposes the aforesaid argument by asserting that not one case from any jurisdiction is cited by Movants in which a defamation complaint has been dismissed on this basis. INOC claimed that this is not a claim for "personal injuries" and there is no claim for emotional trauma or physical injury of any kind. Moreover, INOC claimed that this is "straw man" argument. INOC is merely the appendage of the Indian National Congress Party, and has been authorized to carry out lawsuits on its behalf in USA and has been listed in the caption for administrative convenience in dealing with a foreign client. INOC is not suing on its own behalf; it is the agent of the Indian National Congress Party for purposes of this litigation. Indian Congress Party subjects itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. If necessary, Plaintiff states that the pleadings will be amended to remove INOC and leave only the Indian National Congress Party as Plaintiff.
In response to Plaintiff's aforesaid statement that the pleadings will be amended to remove the INOC and leave only the Indian National Congress Party as Plaintiff, defendant states that such an amendment would be futile. First, Plaintiff has failed to file a formal motion to amend and has failed to provide this Court with the proposed amended pleading. Therefore, Defendant argues that this Court should deny Plaintiff' request to amend its pleading on that ground alone. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's request to amend its pleading should be denied because even if the Indian National Congress Party were substituted as the plaintiff in this action, the amended complaint would still be subject to dismissal because plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action for defamation (1) because the statement is core political speech; (2) because plaintiff has failed to allege "actual malice" as required by New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); and (3) because the statement at issue is either true, not defamatory, opinion, or hyperbole. Lastly, such a proposed amendment would be futile as the statute of limitation on this claim has expired.
Hon'ble Court dismissed the aforesaid Suit with prejudice granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, holding interalia that Indian National Congress Party's alleged assignment of its defamation claim to the Indian National Overseas Congress is a legal nullity. "It is clear that under New Jersey law, that choses in action arising out of tort are not assigned prior to judgment." East Orange Lumber Co. v. Feiganspan, 120 N.J.L. 410, 199 A. 7778, 779 (1938). Furthermore, New Jersey law is clear that defamation claims are not tort claims. See Loigman v. Township Committee of Tp. Of Middleton, 185 N.J. 566, 588 (2006). See also Canino v. New York News. Inc., 96 NJ 189, 195 (1984) The Plaintiff has failed to identify any jurisdiction in which a court has permitted a defamation claim to be assigned. Plaintiff has also failed to provide this court with any clarification, declaration or affidavit to support the existence of the purported assignment. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not provided this Court with any precedent that would support such a decision or that dispute the cases cited by defendants that (1) tort claim cannot be assigned; and (2) a claim for defamation is a tort claim. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, several jurisdictions have explicitly stated that defamation and slander actions cannot be assigned. As such, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff has failed to bring a Motion to Amend to Substitute the Indian National Congress Party as the Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff's request to amend its pleading is hereby denied because even if the Indian National Congress Party were substituted as the plaintiff in this action, the amended complaint is still subject to dismissal because the statute of limitation has now expired.
Citizenry of India are entitled to know that what were published in the aforesaid Advertisement? True copy of the materials mentioned in Full Page Advertisement published on October 6, 2007, in the New York Times is reproduced here, without reproducing Photos printed therein:-
HOW CAN SONIA POSSIBLY REPRESENT MAHATMA GANDHI ON INTERNATIONAL NON-VIOLENCE DAY?
THEIR LIVES ARE
Truth vs Falsehood
Non-Violence vs Aggression
Sacrifice vs Self Aggrandisement
Honest vs Dishonesty
Tolerance vs Intolerance
UN's declaration of Mahatma Gandhi's birthday on Oct 2 as the International Non-Violence day is commendable. However, instead of a true Gandhian delivering his message of peace & non-violence, Sonia Gandhi who is not a representative of Gandhian values is chosen.
· Sonia Maina Gandhi is NOT related to Mahatma Gandhi. She is attempting to misappropriate his name for political mileage and international legitimacy. (see `Truth about Sonia' at http://gandhiheritage.org)
· She is known to be vindictive and undemocratic. Her party uses various mechanisms such as tax raids, direct threats subjugate opposition. (`Know your Sonia' by Dr. Subramanium Swamy, visiting Harvard Professor)
· Due to her party's pro-terrorist policies, India has second highest number of terrorism victims after Iraq . Her Govt. is requesting clemency to Afzal Guru, the mastermind of attack on Indian Parliament. In pursuit of Muslim vote banks, it created soft boarders & turned a blind eye towards Islamic fundamentalism.
· Her respect for human rights is best explained by her decision to make a prime instigator of anti-Sikh riots (that burnt alive 3000 Sikhs) a key central government minister in India .
· Her party has shown religious intolerance towards 900 million Hindus by blowing up Ramz Sethu, an ancient Hindu heritage monument. This is similar to Taliban blowing up the Bomyan Buddhas.
· Gandhi is an embodiment of Hinduism with deep respect for all religions. He called religious conversions the deadliest poison that lethally destroys cultures of the world. Since Sonia came to power, there is a crusade to Christianize India , at the behest of international missionary enterprises.
· Her husband Rajiv Gandhi is alleged to have received payments from KGB. According to Schweizer Illustrierte. Rajiv has a secret Swiss account of 2 billion dollars. Her son Rahul Gandhi projected as next Prime Minister of India, was also detained by FBI with large naccounted cash at Boston in 2001. (`The State within a State" by Yevgenia Albats, Swiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte 11/1991, Indo Asia News Services)
· Her party was invoked in the UN Oil for Food Scam that helped Saddam Hussain. She was involved in numerous scams, scandals and controversies. Before entering India , she was an p-pair with modest means. Since then, she and her family amassed millions through questionable means. (Researched article with proof by Dr. Subramanium Swamy at http://Janataparty.org/sonia.html, `know your Sonia' by India First Foundation.
Successful Protest at UN attended by about 500 people.
Sonia claims to have a degree from Cambridge University , UK , despite not studying beyond high school. She misled the President of India about the number of parliament members supporting her party to grab power.
Sonia's violence spares political, spiritual and physical spheres. Sonia locked the then Congress President with party goons in a toilet and declared herself Party President. Her claim for this position is that she is the wife of an ex-Prime Minister.
Gandhi envisaged the motto `Truth alone Triumphs' that is printed on official documents and coins. As soon as Sonia got hold of power, it was removed from documents & was replaced in coins by an image of Cross used by Louis the Pious (778-840).
Mahatma Gandhi offered to e sacrificed rather than divide India whereas Sonia is dividing India for vote banks and selfish gains. Her policies have made the country a hot bed for terrorist violence.
Corruption and Fraud
With only a high school degree and no technical skills, she started a technical service company, used her connections to get contracts and paid herself handsomely. She violates multiple laws of the country with immunity. India 's security was compromised when her family friend Quattrocchi (Q) became an agent for procuring arms and offered kickbacks worth millions of dollars. Using proximity to high places, Q brokered many questionable multi million dollar deals for the Italian company Snam Progetti. Sonia has amassed millions through trusts running in her dynasty's names. From time to time Sonia entered India , she has looted the country on a large scale.
Endorsed by Forum for saving Gandhi's Heritage consisting of Mahatma Gandhi International Foundation, Mahatma Gandhi Center & Hindu Temple, Indo Caribbean Council, Kashmir Taskforce, Indian American Intellectual Forum & Foundation of Nepalies in America & others on Website.
(End of the materials from the Advertisement. Photos published in the advertisements are not included here)