US Dept of State weighs in favour of Badal

The US Department of State has weighed in favour of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal in the pending human rights violation lawsuit before the Federal Court of Wisconsin.

The special agents from the Diplomatic Security Service of the US Department of State have submitted statements to the US court claiming that Badal was not served with the summons. This unprecedented move of the US Department of State has undermined the prospects of Badal being answerable before the US Court for directing the Punjab Police to allegedly torture Sikhs in Punjab.

Rights group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) has released copies of the sworn statements of the US State Departments Special Agents O'Toole and Scharlat that have been submitted to the US Court, which allege that "at 4.50 pm on August 9, Badal was at Boelter Super Store in Milwaukee and was not at Oak Creek High School in Oak Creek, Wisconsin". The Special Agents O'Toole and Scharlat were part of Badal's security detail during his August 2012 visit to the US.

Attorney Michelle Jacobs of the Michael Best and Friedrich, in support of the motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Badal, said, "Since the defendant has presented clear and convincing evidence that Badal was not served, so the case should be dismissed for invalid service."

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus