If The Form Is Filed By More Than One Reporting Person, See Instruction 5(B)(V: Fill & Download for Free

Although this link has been posted in a comment, I want to specifically post a link to the actual judgment.It's a model of clear thinking, and should be read beginning to end for a full overview: Google ScholarEdit to add: I've added the full text below for those who cannot click the link:________________________________APRIL MILLER, et al. Plaintiffs.v.KIM DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 15-44-DLB.United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland.August 12, 2015.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERDAVID L. BUNNING, District Judge.I. IntroductionThis matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk's Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anycouples. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Davis, an Apostolic Christian with a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, specifically sought to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples without discriminating against them. Plaintiffs now allege that this "no marriage licenses" policy substantially interferes with their right to marry because it effectively forecloses them from obtaining a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs' right to marry, which is justified by the need to protect her own free exercise rights.The Court held preliminary injunction hearings on July 13, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier were represented by William Sharp of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and Daniel Canon. Jonathan Christman and Roger Gannam, both of the Liberty Counsel, and A.C. Donahue appeared on behalf of Defendant Kim Davis. Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins and Jeff Mando represented Defendant Rowan County. Official Court Reporters Peggy Weber and Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Court submitted the Motion pending receipt of the parties' response and reply briefs. The Court having received those filings (Docs. # 28, 29 and 36), this matter is now ripe for review.At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party's rights. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative.II. Factual and Procedural BackgroundPlaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts have been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years. (Doc. # 21 at 25). After hearing about the Obergefelldecision, they went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license from one of the deputy clerks. (Id. at 25-26). The clerk immediately excused herself and went to speak with Kim Davis. (Id. at 28). When she returned, she informed the couple that the Rowan County Clerk's Office was not issuing any marriage licenses. (Id.). Plaintiffs Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez, a committed opposite-sex couple, had a similar experience when they tried to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Id. at 36).Both couples went straight to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins and asked him to issue their marriage licenses. (Id. at 30-32, 36). Blevins explained that, under Kentucky law, a county judge executive can only issue licenses when the elected county clerk is absent. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.240. Because Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, Blevins concluded that she was not "absent" within the meaning of the statute. (Id.). Therefore, he did not believe that he had the authority to issue their marriage licenses. (Id.).Plaintiffs Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs also planned to solemnize their long-term relationship post-Obergefell. (Id. at 42-44). Before going to the Rowan County Clerk's Office, they phoned ahead and asked for information about the marriage licensing process. (Id.). They wanted to make sure that they brought all necessary documentation with them. (Id.). One of the deputy clerks told the couple "not to bother coming down" because they would not be issued a license. (Id.).Seven neighboring counties (Bath, Fleming, Lewis, Carter, Elliott, Morgan and Menifee) are currently issuing marriage licenses. (Doc. # 26 at 53). All are less than an hour away from the Rowan County seat of Morehead. (Id.). While Plaintiffs have the means to travel to any one of these counties, they have admittedly chosen not to do so. (Doc. # 21 at 38, 48). They strongly prefer to have their licenses issued in Rowan County because they have significant ties to that community. (Id. at 28-29, 47). They live, work, socialize, vote, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. (Id.). Quite simply, Rowan County is their home.According to Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk's Office serves as a "pass through collection agency" for the State of Kentucky. (Doc. # 26 at 24-25). She and her six deputy clerks regularly handle delinquent taxes, oversee elections, manage voter registration and issue hunting and fishing licenses. (Id.). A portion of the fees collected in exchange for these services is used to fund the Office's activities throughout the year. (Id.). The remainder is remitted to the State. (Id.).Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage licenses.[1] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple must first go to the county clerk's office and provide their biographical information to one of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.[2] Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk's office for recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080.The Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives ("KDLA") prescribes the above-mentioned form, which must be used by all county clerks in issuing marriage licenses.[3] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.100, 402.110. It is composed of three sections, which correspond to the steps detailed above: (1) a marriage license, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk; (2) a marriage certificate, to be completed by a qualified officiant; and (3) a recording statement, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk. The marriage license section has the following components:(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100(1) (emphasis added).Davis does not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they will bear the above-mentioned authorization statement. She sees it as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which runs contrary to her Apostolic Christian beliefs. (Id. at 42). Four of Davis' deputy clerks share her religious objection to same-sex marriage, and another is undecided on the subject. (Id. at 49). The final deputy clerk is willing to issue the licenses, but Davis will not allow it because her name and title still appear twice on licenses that she does not personally sign. (Doc. # 29-3 at 7).In the wake of Obergefell, Governor Beshear issued the following directive to all county clerks:Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.(Doc. # 29-3 at 11). He has since addressed some of the religious concerns expressed by some county clerks:You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you're also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.(Doc. # 29-11). Davis is well aware of these directives. Nevertheless, she plans to implement her "no marriage licenses" policy for the remaining three and a half years of her term as Rowan County Clerk. (Doc. # 26 at 67).III. Standard of ReviewA district court must consider four factors when entertaining a motion for preliminary injunction:(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits;(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm;(3) whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of such an injunction.See Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 1998). These "are factors to be balanced, and not prerequisites that must be met." In re Eagle Picher Indus., Inc.,963 F.3d 855, 859 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating further that these factors "simply guide the discretion of the court").IV. AnalysisA. Defendant Kim Davis in her official capacityPlaintiffs are pursuing this civil rights action against Defendants Rowan County and Kim Davis, in her individual and official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .This statute "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotations omitted).At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights by obtaining injunctive relief against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk. Because official capacity suits "generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," one might assume that Plaintiffs are effectively pursuing injunctive relief against Rowan County. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978). However, Rowan County can only be held liable under § 1983 if its policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation. Id. at 694.A single decision made by an official with final policymaking authority in the relevant area may qualify as a policy attributable to the entity. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986). Whether an official acted as a final policymaker is a question of state or local law. Id. However, courts must avoid categorizing an official as a state or municipal actor "in some categorical, `all or nothing' manner." McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). They key inquiry is whether an official is a "final policymaker [] for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue." Id. Accordingly, the Court will focus on whether Davis likely acted as a final policymaker for Rowan County regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.While Davis is the elected Rowan County Clerk, subject to very little oversight by the Rowan County Fiscal Court, there are no other facts in the record to suggest that she set marriage policy for Rowan County. After all, the State of Kentucky has "absolute jurisdiction over the regulation of the institution of marriage." Pinkhasov v. Petocz, 331 S.W.3d 285, 291 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). The State not only enacts marriage laws, it prescribes procedures for county clerks to follow when carrying out those laws, right down to the form they must use in issuing marriage licenses. Id.; see also Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.080, 402.100. Thus, Davis likely acts for the State of Kentucky, and not as a final policymaker for Rowan County, when issuing marriage licenses.This preliminary finding does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from obtaining injunctive relief against Davis. While the Eleventh Amendment typically bars Plaintiffs from bringing suit against a state or its officials, "official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state." Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). This narrow exception, known as the Ex Parte Young doctrine, permits a federal court to "enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law." Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). "It rests on the premise-less delicately called a `fiction,'-that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign immunity purposes." Va. Office for Prot. and Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1638 (2011). Because Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Davis from violating their federal constitutional rights, this Court has the power to grant relief under Ex Parte Young.[4]B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction1. Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the meritsa. The fundamental right to marryUnder the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This "due process" clause has both a procedural component and a substantive component. See EJS Prop., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012). Procedural due process simply requires that the government provide a fair procedure when depriving an individual of life, liberty or property. Id. By contrast, substantive due process "protects a narrow class of interests, including those enumerated in the Constitution, those so rooted in the traditions of the people as to be ranked fundamental, and the interest in freedom from government actions that `shock the conscience.'" Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 588 (6th Cir. 2014).Although the Constitution makes no mention of the right to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified it as a fundamental interest subject to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes as violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). After all, "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Id. This right applies with equal force to different-sex and same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2604-05 (2015) ("[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.").If a state law or policy "significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right[, it] cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978). A state substantially interferes with the right to marry when some members of the affected class "are absolutely prevented from getting married" and "[m]any others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements[,] will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry." Id. at 387 (invalidating a Wisconsin statute that required individuals with child support obligations to obtain a court order before marrying).However, "not every state action, `which relates in any way to the incidents of or the prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.'" Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1134 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386). States may impose "reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship." Id. at 1135. If the statute does not create a "direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married" or significantly discourage marriage, then it will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Id. (quoting Zablocki 434 U.S. at 387-88 n. 12); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 54 n.11 (1977) (upholding a Social Security provision that terminated secondary benefits received by the disabled dependent child of a covered wage earner if that child married an individual who was not entitled to benefits).The state action at issue in this case is Defendant Davis' refusal to issue anymarriage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly interferes with their right to marry because they are unable to obtain a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy does not significantly discourage Plaintiffs from marrying because they have several other options for obtaining licenses: (1) they may go to one of the seven neighboring counties that areissuing marriage licenses; (2) they may obtain licenses from Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins; or (3) they may avail themselves of other alternatives being considered post-Obergefell.Davis is correct in stating that Plaintiffs can obtain marriage licenses from one of the surrounding counties; thus, they are not totally precluded from marrying in Kentucky. However, this argument ignores the fact that Plaintiffs have strong ties to Rowan County. They are long-time residents who live, work, pay taxes, vote and conduct other business in Morehead. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Plaintiffs would prefer to obtain their marriage licenses in their home county. And for other Rowan County residents, it may be more than a preference. The surrounding counties are only thirty minutes to an hour away, but there are individuals in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel.[5]This argument also presupposes that Rowan County will be the only Kentucky county not issuing marriage licenses. While Davis may be the only clerk currently turning away eligible couples, 57 of the state's 120 elected county clerks have asked Governor Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to address religious concerns related to same-sex marriage licenses.[6] (Doc. # 29-9). If this Court were to hold that Davis' policy did not significantly interfere with the right to marry, what would stop the other 56 clerks from following Davis' approach? What might be viewed as an inconvenience for residents of one or two counties quickly becomes a substantial interference when applicable to approximately half of the state.As for her assertion that Judge Blevins may issue marriage licenses, Davis is only partially correct. KRS § 402.240 provides that, "[i]n the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk." The statute does not explicitly define "absence," suggesting that a traditional interpretation of the term is appropriate. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015, Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster, (describing "absence" as "a period of time when someone is not present at a place, job, etc."). However, Davis asks the Court to deem her "absent," for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unableto do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties.[7] Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.Davis finally suggests that Plaintiffs will have other avenues for obtaining marriage licenses in the future. For example, county clerks have urged Governor Beshear to create an online marriage licensing system, which would be managed by the State of Kentucky. While these options may be available someday, they are not feasible alternatives at present. Thus, they have no impact on the Court's "substantial interference" analysis.Having considered Davis' arguments in depth, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses-they must go to another county. Davis makes much of the fact that Plaintiffs are able to travel, but she fails to address the one question that lingers in the Court's mind. Even if Plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? The state has long entrusted county clerks with the task of issuing marriage licenses. It does not seem unreasonable for Plaintiffs, as Rowan County voters, to expect their elected official to perform her statutorily assigned duties. And yet, that is precisely what Davis is refusing to do. Much like the statutes at issue in Loving and Zablocki, Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly discourages many Rowan County residents from exercising their right to marry and effectively disqualifies others from doing so. The Court must subject this policy apply heightened scrutiny.b. The absence of a compelling state interestWhen pressed to articulate a compelling state interest served by her "no marriage licenses" policy, Davis responded that it serves the State's interest in protecting her religious freedom. The State certainly has an obligation to "observe the basic free exercise rights of its employees," but this is not the extent of its concerns. Marchi v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Serv. of Albany, 173 F.3d 469, 476 (2d. Cir. 1999). In fact, the State has some priorities that run contrary to Davis' proffered state interest. Chief among these is its interest in preventing Establishment Clause violations. See U.S. Const. amend. I (declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). Davis has arguably committed such a violation by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.[8] In such situations, "the scope of the employees' rights must [] yield to the legitimate interest of governmental employer in avoiding litigation." Marchi, 173 F.3d at 476.The State also has a countervailing interest in upholding the rule of law. See generally Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 171 (1972) ("The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, . . . is the great mucilage that holds society together."). Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.For these reasons, the Court concludes that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' rights without serving a compelling state interest. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, this first factor weighs in favor of granting their request for relief.2. Potential for irreparable harm to PlaintiffsWhen a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of a constitutional deprivation claim, it follows that he or she will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Courts have also held that a plaintiff can demonstrate that a denial of an injunction will cause irreparable harm if the claim is based upon a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights."); see also Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir .1998) (finding that the loss of First Amendment rights for a minimal period of time results in irreparable harm); Ohio St. Conference of NAACP v. Husted, 43 F. Supp. 3d 808, 851 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (recognizing that a restriction on the fundamental right to vote constitutes irreparable injury).The Court is not aware of any Sixth Circuit case law explicitly stating that a denial of the fundamental right to marry constitutes irreparable harm. However, the case law cited above suggests that the denial of constitutional rights, enumerated or unenumerated, results in irreparable harm. It follows that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from Davis' "no marriage licenses" rule, absent injunctive relief. Therefore, this second factor also weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.3. Potential for substantial harm to Kim Davisa. The right to free exercise of religionThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). This Free Exercise Clause "embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act." Id. at 304. "The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." Id. Therefore, "[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Id.Traditionally, a free exercise challenge to a particular law triggered strict scrutiny.See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 (1963). A statute would only be upheld if it served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest. Id. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated slightly from this approach. See Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). While laws targeting religious conduct remain subject to strict scrutiny, "[a] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532; see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 880 (stating further that an individual's religious beliefs do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate")."Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532. A law is not neutral if its object "is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation." Id. at 533 (finding that a local ordinance forbidding animal sacrifice was not neutral because it focused on "rituals" and had built-in exemptions for most other animal killings). The Court has not yet "defined with precision the standard used to evaluate whether a prohibition is of general application." Id. at 543. However, it has observed that "[t]he Free Exercise Clause `protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment,' and inequality results when a legislature decides that the governmental interests it seeks to advance are worthy of being pursued only against conduct with a religious motivation." Id. at 542.While Smith and Babalu do not explicitly mention the term "rational basis," lower courts have interpreted them as imposing a similar standard of review on neutral laws of general applicability. See, e.g., Seger v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 453 F. App's 630, 634 (2011). Under rational basis review, laws will be upheld if they are "rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest." Id. at 635 (noting that "[a] law or regulation subject to rational basis review is accorded a strong presumption of validity"); see also F.C.C. v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)(stating generally that laws subject to rational basis review must be upheld "if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification").In response to Smith and Babalu, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. It prohibits the government from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," except when the government demonstrates that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Id. Although Congress intended RFRA to apply to the states as well as the federal government, the Court held that this was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' powers under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 512 (1997). Free exercise challenges to federal laws remain subject to RFRA, while similar challenges to state policies are governed by Smith. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).For purposes of this inquiry, the state action at issue is Governor Beshear's post-Obergefell directive, which explicitly instructs county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argues that the Beshear directive not only substantially burdens her free exercise rights by requiring her to disregard sincerely-held religious beliefs, it does not serve a compelling state interest. She further insists that Governor Beshear could easily grant her a religious exemption without adversely affecting Kentucky's marriage licensing scheme, as there are readily available alternatives for obtaining licenses in and around Rowan County.[9]This argument proceeds on the assumption that Governor Beshear's policy is not neutral or generally applicable, and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.[10]However, the text itself supports a contrary inference. Governor Beshear first describes the legal impact of the Court's decision in Obergefell, then provides guidance for all county clerks in implementing this new law. His goal is simply to ensure that the activities of the Commonwealth are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.While facial neutrality is not dispositive, Davis has done little to convince the Court that Governor Beshear's directive aims to suppress religious practice. She has only one piece of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that Governor Beshear "is picking and choosing the conscience-based exemptions to marriage that he deems acceptable." (Doc. # 29 at 24). In 2014, Attorney General Jack Conway declined to appeal a federal district court decision striking down Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-12). He openly stated that he could not, in good conscience, defend discrimination and waste public resources on a weak case.[11] (Id.). Instead of directing Attorney General Conway to pursue the appeal, regardless of his religious beliefs, Governor Beshear hired private attorneys for that purpose. (Doc. # 29-13). He has so far refused to extend such an "exemption" to county clerks with religious objections to same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-11).However, Davis fails to establish that her current situation is comparable to Attorney General Conway's position in 2014. Both are elected officials who have voiced strong opinions about same-sex marriage, but the comparison ends there. Governor Beshear did not actually "exempt" Attorney General Conway from pursuing the same-sex marriage appeal. Attorney General Conway's decision stands as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on an unsettled legal question. By contrast, Davis is refusing to recognize the legal force of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in performing her duties as Rowan County Clerk. Because the two are not similarly situated, the Court simply cannot conclude that Governor Beshear treated them differently based upon their religious convictions. There being no other evidence in the record to suggest that the Beshear directive is anything but neutral and generally applicable, it will likely be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.The Beshear directive certainly serves the State's interest in upholding the rule of law. However, it also rationally relates to several narrower interests identified inObergefell. By issuing licenses to same-sex couples, the State allows them to enjoy "the right to personal choice regarding marriage [that] is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy" and enter into "a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 135 S. Ct. at 2599-2600. It also allows same-sex couples to take advantage of the many societal benefits and fosters stability for their children. Id. at 2600-01. Therefore, the Court concludes that it likely does not infringe upon Davis' free exercise rights.b. The right to free speechThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Under the Free Speech Clause, an individual has the "right to utter or print, [as well as] the right to distribute, the right to receive and the right to read." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)(citing Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943)). An individual also has the "right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977) (invalidating a state law that required New Hampshire drivers to display the state motto on their license plates). After all, "[a] system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Id.While the Free Speech Clause protects citizens' speech rights from government intrusion, it does not stretch so far as to bar the government "from determining the content of what it says." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,135 S. Ct. 2239, 2245-46 (2015). "[A]s a general matter, when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and carries out its duties on their behalf." Id.That being said, the government's ability to express itself is not unlimited. Id. "[T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government's speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government's speech." Id. (stating further that "[c]onstitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may [also] limit government speech").This claim also implicates the Beshear directive. Davis contends that this directive violates her free speech rights by compelling her to express a message she finds objectionable. Specifically, Davis must issue marriage licenses bearing her "imprimatur and authority" as Rowan County Clerk to same-sex couples . Doc. # 29 at 27). Davis views such an act as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which conflicts with her sincerely-held religious beliefs.As a preliminary matter, the Court questions whether the act of issuing a marriage license constitutes speech. Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to "authorize" same-sex marriage. A close inspection of the KDLA marriage licensing form refutes this assertion. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry.The Court must also acknowledge the possibility that any such speech is attributable to the government, rather than Davis. See Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2248 (finding that specialty license plates are government speech because the government has exercised final approval over the designs, and thus, chosen "how to present itself and its constituency"). The State prescribes the form that Davis must use in issuing marriage licenses. She plays no role in composing the form, and she has no discretion to alter it. Moreover, county clerks' offices issue marriage licenses on behalf of the State, not on behalf of a particular elected clerk.Assuming arguendo that the act of issuing a marriage license is speech by Davis, the Court must further consider whether the State is infringing upon her free speech rights by compelling her to convey a message she finds disagreeable. However, the seminal "compelled speech" cases provide little guidance because they focus on private individuals who are forced to communicate a particular message on behalf of the government. See, e.g., W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(striking down a state law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag). Davis is a public employee, and therefore, her speech rights are different than those of a private citizen.[12] Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006)."[T]he government may not constitutionally compel persons to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition of public employment," but it does have "a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 156 (1983); Waters v. Churchill,511 U.S. 661, 671 (1994). Accordingly, "[w]hen a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, (1973) (stating that "neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution" invalidates the Hatch Act's bar on partisan political conduct by federal employees)."[T]wo inquiries [] guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech." Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 563 (1968)). First, a court must determine "whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." Id. (explaining further that this question often depends upon whether the employee's speech was made pursuant to his or her official duties). Id. at 421. If the answer is no, then the employee's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 421 ("Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen."). If the answer is yes, a court must then consider "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Id.(stating further that the government's restrictions "must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations").The Court must adapt this test slightly because Davis' claim focuses on her right notto speak. In this context, the first inquiry is whether Davis refused to speak (i.e. refused to issue marriage licenses) as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The logical answer to this question is no, as the average citizen has no authority to issue marriage licenses. Davis is only able to issue these licenses, or refuse to issue them, because she is the Rowan County Clerk. Because her speech (in the form of her refusal to issue marriage licenses) is a product of her official duties, it likely is not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to succeed on her compelled speech claim.c. The prohibition on religious testsArticle VI, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Under this Clause, "[t]he fact [] that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution." Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (striking down a state requirement that an individual declare his belief in God in order to become a notary public); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)(invalidating a state law that prevented religious officials from serving in the state legislature).Davis contends that "[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation, amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office." (Doc. # 29 at 20). The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met thelegal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief as a condition of public employment, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties. Thus, it seems unlikely that Davis will be able to establish a violation of the Religious Test Clause.Although Davis focuses on the Religious Test Clause, the Court must draw her attention to the first half of Article VI, Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office on January 1, 2015. However, her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents. When such "sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602. Such policies simply cannot endure.d. The Kentucky Religious Freedom ActKentucky Constitution § 1 broadly declares that "[a]ll men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned .. . [t]he right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences." Kentucky Constitution § 5 gives content to this guarantee:No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Kentucky courts have held that Kentucky Constitution § 5 does not grant more protection to religious practice than the First Amendment. Gingerich v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Ky. 2012). Such a finding would normally permit the Court to collapse its analysis of state and federal constitutional provisions. However, the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, patterned after the federal RFRA, subjects state free exercise challenges to heightened scrutiny:Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.350.Davis again argues that the Beshear directive substantially burdens her religious freedom without serving a compelling state interest. The record in this case suggests that the burden is more slight. As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.4. Public interest"[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994). Because Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry, and because Davis herself is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free speech or free exercise rights if an injunction is issued, this fourth and final factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.V. ConclusionDistrict courts are directed to balance four factors when analyzing a motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, all four factors weigh in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein,IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. G:\DATA\Opinions\Ashland\15-44 MOO Granting Mtn for Preliminary Injunction.wpd[1] This task requires relatively few resources, at least in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 24-30). Davis testified that her Office issued 212 marriage licenses in 2014. Marriage licenses cost $35.50. (Id.). Of that sum, the Office retains $21.17, and remits the remaining $14.33 to the State. (Id.). Thus, Rowan County Clerk's Office made about $4,500, or roughly 0.1% of its annual budget, from issuing marriage licenses in 2014. (Id.). Davis also estimated that the task of issuing marriage licenses occupies one hour of one deputy clerk's time per week. (Id.).[2] A couple is "legally qualified" to marry if both individuals are over the age of eighteen, mentally competent, unrelated to each other and currently unmarried. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.010, 402.020(a)-(d), (f).[3] Only one aspect of the form has changed since Obergefell-whereas the marriage applicants were once referred to as "Bride" and "Groom," they are now identified as "First Party" and "Second Party."[4] In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that the Court need not decide whether Davis is a state actor or municipal policymaker in order to grant injunctive relief. The Court's preliminary finding on this matter does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from arguing the "municipal policymaker" theory in the future. The Court simply seeks to ensure that it is indeed able to grant injunctive relief against Kim Davis in her official capacity.[5] The median household income in Rowan County is $35,236 and 28.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. See United States Census Bureau, Rowan County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. For the entire state of Kentucky, the median household income is $43,036 and 18.8% of the population lives below the poverty line. Id.[6] See also Jack Brammer, 57 County Clerks Ask Governor for Special Session on Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, The Lexington Herald Leader (July 8, 2015), 57 Kentucky county clerks ask governor for special session on same-sex marriage licenses; Terry DeMio, Boone, Ky. Clerks Want Same-Sex License Law, Cincinnati Enquirer (July 9, 2015), Page on cincinnati.com ession-address-sex-marriage-issues-clerks/29919103/.[7] Even if the Court were inclined to accept Davis' interpretation of the term "absence," it would have doubts about the practicality of this approach. Judge Blevins is the highest elected official in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 7). He is frequently out of the office on official business. (Id.). While Judge Blevins would not have to process a large number of marriage requests, he might not be regularly available for couples seeking licenses. Thus, the Court would be concerned about Judge Blevins' ability to perform this function as efficiently as Davis and her six deputy clerks.[8] Although it is not the focus of this opinion, Plaintiffs have already asserted such an Establishment Clause claim against Kim Davis in her official capacity. (Doc. # 1 at 13).[9] Davis further develops this argument in her own Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against Governor Beshear and KDLA Librarian Wayne Onkst. That Motion is not yet ripe for review.[10] In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that free exercise claims involving neutral and generally applicable laws may still be subject to heightened scrutiny if asserted alongside another constitutional right. If the Court concludes that the Beshear directive is neutral and generally applicable, Davis argues that strict scrutiny must still apply because her free exercise claim is coupled with a free speech claim. (Doc. # 29 at 23). However, this proposal fails because Davis' free speech rights are qualified by virtue of her public employment. See Draper v. Logan Cnty. Pub. Library, 403 F. Supp. 2d 608, 621-22 (W.D. Ky. 2005) (applying the Pickering balancing test to a combined free exercise and free speech claim asserted by a public employee). The Court will discuss this concept further in the next section.[11] Davis refers to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky's decisions in Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542, 545 (W.D. Ky. 2014), and Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 539 (W.D. Ky. 2014). Judge John Heyburn held that Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages "violate[] the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review." Bourke, 996 F. Supp. 2d at 544. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated these cases with several similar matters originating from Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and reversed them. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari on these cases, now collectively known asObergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).[12] Most free speech cases involving public employees center on compelled silence rather than compelled speech. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48 (focusing on a district attorney's claim that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her free speech rights). "[I]n the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees `freedom of speech,' a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-97.

Citizenship in a democratic republic brings with it the obligation to monitor, and express concerns with regard to, the actions of government representatives. However, we must be cognizant of the potential for tyranny of an uninformed populace, and the potential for demagoguery. As Eagleman[i] (2011) began his book on human cognition: “Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.—Blaise Pascal, Pensées.” And, he also stated, “Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it’s true, that doesn’t mean it is true” (p. 53).Multiple issues were raised following the unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman.Was racism involved?Was there political pressure to seek prosecution?Was the confrontation asymmetrical—man against boy?Is there evidence supporting self-defense on the part of Zimmerman?Did the “Stand Your Ground” law precipitate this incident?Was Zimmerman a rogue, self-appointed vigilante?Why does Racial Profiling exist?This essay does not attempt to answer all questions. However, it is an attempt to counsel for consideration of what can be determined and how it can contribute to an understanding of a verdict of not guilty; which is not an unequivocal judgment of innocence, but an acknowledgment that there is reasonable doubt as to guilt. What is needed is a dispassionate and objective view.Moreover, statistics (as unreliable as they sometimes are) indicate that racial profiling is not the primary threat to young Black men, that position is held by young Black men. The challenge is what can we do about that?Was racism involved?Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother, who helped raise him,was the son of an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather. In 2004, Zimmerman entered into an insurance office partnership with an African-American (Francescani, 2012).In September 2011, Zimmerman sent an email message to the Sanford Police Chief (the same one later indicating a lack of probable cause in this case) expressing outrage over the police handling of an assault on a Black man by a relative of a White police lieutenant. This had been preceded by a public statement critical of this same incident at a public meeting in January 2011 (CNN, 2012).During his call to police prior to the contact with Martin, Zimmerman used the term “assholes," and indicated that they always eluded arrest, apparently referring to perpetrators of burglaries and robberies within his community, some of whom were identified as Black (Francescani, 2012).The testimony of a person that spoke to Martin prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman indicated that Martin stated the he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker” (abcnews, 2013).Was there political pressure to seek prosecution?The Sanford police chief stated that there was insufficient evidence to arrest Zimmerman (and subsequently stepped-down under pressure). And, the State’s Attorney initially assigned to the case declined to file charges against Zimmerman (Legum, 2012).The governor of Florida then appointed a special prosecutor, who chose to by-pass the Grand Jury process (Vamburkar, 2012). The special prosecutor has admitted submitting a defective affidavit that apparently omitted exculpatory information (Huckabee, 2013), failed to release photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries until after charges were filed, failed to provide exculpatory information to defense attorneys as required by law (realclearpolitics.com, 2013), submitted a request for inclusion of lesser charges at mid-trial when faced with an apparent acquittal (Huckabee), and fired the employee who reported this failure to disclose required information to the defense attorneys (realclearpolitics.com). Alan Dershowitz, a noted civil liberties attorney, a defender of civil rights, and the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, has called for the special prosecutor to be disbarred for the above acts. The special prosecutor also made a post-acquittal statement indicating guilt on the part of Zimmerman (Huckabee).After announcement of the state verdict, the U.S. Attorney General apparently implied that Zimmerman was guilty of something by describing the incident as a “tragic, unnecessary shooting” (Hallowell, 2013). Arguably, this statement could taint the pursuit of federal prosecution, not to mention amount to defamation of an acquitted individual. According to the American Bar Association (2012), Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor:“Except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”(Rule 3.8 (f))Judge Jeanine Pirro stated the following:Almost every legal expert on both sides of the aisle agreed, in contrast to special prosecutor Corey, that the evidence presented by prosecutors was insufficient to convict. Which begs the question of whether the charges against George Zimmerman were proper or a capitulation to public pressure by the governor and that appointed state's attorney who continues to say that the public had a right to watch this trial as though it’s theater, as though criminal justice and evidence is about theater for the public’s interest. (realpolitics, 2013, n.p.)Scott (a 42-year-old Black male) confronted three young men reportedly engaged in vehicle burglary in a neighbor’s driveway in New York. Sixteen-year-old Cervini (a White person) reportedly charged Scott, who shot twice and killed him, even though Cervini made no physical contact with Scott. Scott was acquitted in 2009 (Hedeen, 2009). This is in spite of the facts that New York does not have a stand-your-ground law, and it is a general principle of law that the amount of force cannot be unreasonable (Gardner & Anderson, 2000). Presumably, most are unaware of this incident, as opposed to the Zimmerman/Martin incident.The NAACP has indicated that justice has not prevailed in this case (Novogrod, Winter, Connor, & McClam, 2013). And, there have been calls for changes in law to prevent recurrence of this incident (Trotta & Cotterell, 2013). Since the Magna Carta in 1215, our system of law has demanded credibility from witnesses. Subsequently, evaluation of physical and circumstantial evidence has enhanced our ability to judge guilt; and, our senses have been found to be frequently in error, for psychological and neurological reasons (Eagleman, 2011).In this case, according to the jury, there are insufficient credible witnesses, physical, and circumstantial evidence to overcome the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria. Changing the law to get past these purported deficiencies would violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law prior to deprivation “of life, liberty, or property” (Amendment V, 1992).Was the confrontation asymmetrical—man against boy?The reasonableness of self-defense can be dependent upon the relative disparity of the participants, in addition to the determination of who initiated the assault (Gardner & Anderson, 2000). At the time of the incident, according to police reports, Martin was six feet tall and weighed 160 pounds, and Zimmerman was five feet nine inches tall and weighed 170 pounds (wtsp.com, 2012; Rogers, 2012).Photographs of Martin as a younger child were widely distributed, and may have shaped public perceptions (Allen, 2013).In 2005, Zimmerman’s insurance business failed, he was arrested for resisting arrest and battery on a plain-clothes alcohol control agent, and he avoided conviction by participating in a pre-trial diversion program. Also, Zimmerman’s first engagement ended with issuance of mutual restraining orders; although he remains married to another woman (Francescani, 2012).Evidence of Martin's drug use, school suspension, eviction from his mother’s home, possession of a firearm, and past fighting were judged not admissible in the trial (Schneider, 2013).Is there evidence supporting self-defense on the part of Zimmerman?A physician’s report disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting.Dr. Vincent Di Maio[ii],a forensic pathologist, testified that in his expert opinion, the wounds suffered by Zimmerman were consistent with the statements of Zimmerman (Alvarez, 2013a).Di Maio also testified that the gunshot wound suffered by Martin was consistent with the statement of Zimmerman. The examination of the clothing worn by Martin and the body of Martin indicate that Martin’s clothing was pulled away from the body, as would be expected if Martin had been straddling Zimmerman and leaning forward; and, the estimated distance of the gun muzzle from the clothing was consistent with Zimmerman’s account.Zimmerman ignored the advice of a police dispatcher to not follow Martin; although, Zimmerman claimed to have been returning to his vehicle when confronted by Martin, with prosecutors being unable to indicate otherwise (Alvarez, 2013b). It is not a criminal violation to follow another person, less any menacing remarks or behavior. And, “all people … may use deadly force, if necessary, to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or others” (Gardner & Anderson, 2000). And, the distinction between a six foot tall child weighing 160 pounds, and an adult who is five feet nine inches tall and weighs 170 pounds is irrelevant in a rapidly unfolding confrontation.Did the “Stand Your Ground” law precipitate this incident?Included in the judge’s instructions to the jury was the advisement as to the parameters of the stand your ground law. However, Zimmerman’s defense team did not raise this issue. The self-defense claim was based on the inability of Zimmerman to retreat or otherwise prevent his own death or serious bodily injury (Zimmerman was reportedly on his back under Martin); and, although Zimmerman was injured, the Florida law does not require an individual to actually suffer injuries in order to claim self-defense, merely that it this reasonably likely (Alvarez, 2013b).Was Zimmerman was a rogue, self-appointed vigilante?Francescani (2012) provided a detailed description of the evolution of Zimmerman from passive resident to neighborhood watch captain, from being repeatedly menaced by a pit bull in the Fall of 2009; to June 2011, when multiple robberies within the community led the homeowners association to ask him to create a neighborhood watch. A Black neighbor indicated that demonstrators should recognize that, at the time of the incident, numerous crimes in that community had been committed by young Black males.Francescani is a Reuters journalist who provided a lengthy and fairly detailed review of Zimmerman’s background, and it is recommended reading (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425).Why does Racial Profiling exist?Despite the fact that it has been established that there are more intra-racial biological differences than there are differences between races (Banton, 1998), there are cultural differences. Access to health care and education (as it pertains to diet and exercise) are apparent contributors to this situation. In recent decades, health differences between Blacks and Whites have decreased; however, gaps still exist.Hypertension, diabetes, and stroke are much higher in the U.S. Black population, and these ailments are acquired at a younger age (WebMD, 2011). Black men are 35% more likely to die of cancer than Whites, and the disparity for Black women is 18% (WebMD, 2007). In the U.S., Blacks, at about 14% of the population, account for 44% of the new HIV infections, with Black females having rate of infection 15 times higher than White females (WebMD, 2012). According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Blacks have a significantly shorter life expectancy; which is attributed to increased cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and murder (as cited in DeNoon, 2007).When factors contributing to the likelihood to be arrested for crimes are considered, racism must be included; however, there is statistical support for the argument that Blacks are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. Crime statistics are a relevant consideration in the arena of bias and reality, with about one in three Black males being convicted felons, as opposed to about one in 17 White males (statistics cited below). And, several variables are taken into consideration during the decision-making process regarding prosecution and sentencing; these include prior convictions, employment history, and education level. These considerations contribute to the determination of whether or not the individual will be a contributing member of society, or will return to criminal behavior if not prosecuted and incarcerated.Education plays a major role in employability, and employment can counteract pursuit of criminal activities. The national average for completion of high school by White students is about 75%, and the average for Black students is about 50% (Swanson, 2004). It seems possible that a lack of education, lack of cultural appreciation for education, and a lack of parental expectations perpetuate the problem of black crime; even though racial profiling is a prominent argument for this situation. Empirical research indicates a link between low socio-economic status, poor education, and anti-social behavior (Baron-Cohen, 2011). Lack of employment apparently stems from poor education, which may result in criminal behavior being needed to supply income.In addition to the contribution of familial socio-economic status to deviance, crime can be inter-generational. Studies of repeat offenders indicate that 37% have fathers with criminal records, while 8.4% have non-deviant fathers; and, and research indicates that juvenile delinquents eventually tend to parent deviant children. Moreover, divorce and separation rates are higher in Black homes, and these rates are significantly associated with murder rates (Siegel, 2006).Police must rely on the community as their eyes and ears in areas inaccessible to police in order to address criminal predation. The world of black music provides examples of the Black community’s failure to provide witness information that could reduce crime. Jam Master Jay, Biggie Smalls, and Tupak Shakur were murdered by unidentified perpetrators, and in all of these cases witnesses have been uncooperative. Likewise, rapper Busta Rhymes refused to cooperate after witnessing the murder of his bodyguard, as did 50 other witnesses (Hampson, 2006). Hampson also reported on the nation-wide “Stop Snitching” movement in the Black community. This billboard graced the Houston Montrose area in 2013:Based on then current incarceration rates, about 32% of Black males will be imprisoned during their lifetime, along with 5.9% of White males (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). In 2005, one victim and one offender homicides were mostly intra-racial, about 93% for Black victims (with 49% of all homicide victims being Black) and 85% for white victims (Harrell, 2007). Black offenders accounted for more than 50% of the offenders arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). The 2000 census indicated that 77.1% of the U.S. population was White (Census, 2001a), and 12.9% was Black (Census, 2001b). And, Blacks on federal pretrial release had a significantly higher history of failures to appear for court hearings and engaging in escape behavior than Whites (Fennessy & Huss, 2013).Hickey (2006) reported on an extensive study that indicated that out of the 249 serial killers studied, 72% were White, 23% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.” Since more than 20% of the serial killers have been Black, there is an over-representation of Black serial killers. Hickey reported that, between 1995 and 2004, about 44% of identified serial killers were Black. Walsh (2005) reported serial killing ratios similar to those of Hickey, and commented on the mythological nature of the popular conception that serial killing is a White phenomenon. Hickey also reported that serial killing has been generally intra-racial; however, serial killers do kill people of other races.Safarik, Jarvis, and Nussbaum (2006) studied elderly female sexual homicide and their research population of offenders was found to be 44% White and 42% Black. Safarik et. al determined that, in their elderly female sexual homicide research, "Blacks offend interracially 77% of the time … and Whites only 4%" (p. 113).In attempting to maintain an empathetic frame of mind when interacting with minorities, one must acknowledge that being defensive due to past experience of discrimination has been empirically supported. Research on prejudice (in this case with Jewish males) has indicated that those who have been the subject of prejudice, or perceive that they have been subjected to prejudice, were reportedly more aggressive, sadder, more anxious, and more egotistical than those not perceiving such prejudice (Dion & Earn, 1981). In other words, once a person has been discriminated against, it is more likely that the person will be hypersensitive to perceived discrimination, possibly seeing it where it does not exist. And, more importantly, their perceptions of prejudice interfere with their accepting the culture of the majority group, and encourage differentiation in speech, fashion, and resistance to the adoption of majority group goals.Moreover, our brains are hardwired to be xenophobic (fearful and hateful toward strangers/foreigners or anything that is strange/foreign), according to Eagleman (2011). Therefore, people of different races, ethnicities, cultures, and religions are viewed with suspicion instinctively; and this suspicion can only be overcome by intentionally altering these subconscious reactions, facilitating conformity with societal expectations for acceptance of diversity.While this current discussion concerns self-defense in general, the greater implication concerns the criminal justice system. The problem with racial profiling is that it subjects innocent people to unwarranted suspicion and accusations. No matter what percentage of an identifiable group of people can be considered criminal, there is an additional, and apparently larger, percentage who cannot be considered criminal. And it is a violation of the civil rights of all of these people to make an assumption that is not based on evidence, as opposed to statistical or biased assumptions.It is a display of prejudice (pre-judgment of a person or act without facts of the particular situation) to make a statement such as that of President Obama with regard to the arrest of a Black professor (“Cambridge police acted stupidly,” as cited in Baichwal, 2010, para. 5); for, as the President later admitted, he was not in possession of all of the facts. And, it is a display of prejudice for police to confront minorities based only on the fact that they are minorities. An exacerbating factor to be overcome by police is the instantaneous nature of the decision-making process in the public safety arena.“The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court that sets the legal standard for Use of Force in the United States. … The early application of a reasonable amount of force will result in less force having to be used; less injury to suspects, less injury to officers. … Officers have to use force that’s objectively reasonable based on the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the seizure. … Holding the officer to the least intrusive or minimal amount of force is a subjective standard. … Imposing such a requirement would inevitably induce hesitation by officers, and thus deter police from protecting the public and themselves. It would also entangle the courts in endless second guessing of police decisions made under stress and subject them to exigencies of the moment. … The court went on to say that officers … do not have to avail themselves of the least intrusive means of responding to an exigent situation; only a reasonable one.” (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, n.d.)Decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that:The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, [n11] will not be [p15] stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be used effectively to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. No judicial opinion can comprehend the protean variety of the street encounter, and we can only judge the facts of the case before us. Nothing we say today is to be taken as indicating approval of police conduct outside the legitimate investigative sphere. (Terry v. Ohio, 1968, para. 19)Presumably, the expectations of police officers as to the increased probability of Black people being engaged in illegal activities (as supported by available statistics) affects how they deal with Black people, hence the “driving while Black” scenario and the existence of racial profiling. Unfortunately, this fuels the negative responses of the Black community, perpetuating a negative spiral contributing to the arrest and incarceration statistics.This state of affairs cannot be cured by emotional calls for “justice” in this specific case. Subversion of due process by popular demand to conform with faulty perceptions is equivalent to vigilantism, nothing more.What must be done is to focus attention on altering the roots of the problem, the underlying precipitators of criminality, like low socio-economic status and low educational achievement, and ensuring equitable treatment and negating bias [color-blindly providing due process (equality under law, based on individual circumstances, not perceived equality of outcome)].This can be done in law enforcement by review processes that evaluate enforcement actions by requiring that officers specifically articulate the circumstances used to determine that an appropriate level of suspicion was reached, such that a reasonably prudent person drawing on relevant experience would agree, according to the U.S. Supreme Court (Terry v. Ohio, 1968), would reach the same conclusion. This is the current standard, and while it can be questioned by the public, it is not public opinion that determines the outcome.As Dr. King indicated, people must be judged on individual character, not skin color; and that includes those defending themselves.Daniel L. Robb, Ph.D.Special Agent, Retired, U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityPrivate Investigator and Personal Protection Officer (Texas License No. 15531)Certified by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Peace Officer (inactive)References:abcnews.com. (2013). Trayvon Martin's friend: 'Creepy-Ass Cracker' comment not racist. Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/creepy-ass-cracker-is-not-racist-says-trayvon-martins-friend-19506887Alcindor, Y. (2013, July 10). Pathologist supports Zimmerman's description of attack. USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin--marijuana/2501293/Allen, J. (2013, June 4). Trayvon Martin: How pictures have told his story. http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/4/trayvon_martin_how_p.htmlAlvarez, L. (2013a, July 9). Martin Was Shot as He Leaned Over Zimmerman, Court Is Told. The New York Times.Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/teenager-was-over-zimmerman-as-he-was-shot-expert-says.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Alvarez, L. (2013b, July 12). Zimmerman Case Goes to Jury, With Defense Urging It to Remove Emotion. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/zimmerman-trial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0American Bar Association. (2012).Model rules of professional conduct. Retrieved from: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.htmlBaichwal, R. (2010, July 22). Obama comments on arrest of Harvard prof. Retrieved from: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?id=6930219Banton, M. (1998). Racial Theories (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New York: Basic Books.Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Criminal Offenders Statistics. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#prevalenceCNN. (2012, May 24). Tape showed Zimmerman's anger over black man's beating. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shootingDeNoon, D. J. (2007, February 1). Black cancer death rate higher: Late diagnosis, less access to treatment cuts cancer survival for Blacks, report says. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20130718/us-blacks-still-lag-whites-in-life-expectancy-studyDion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1981). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 281-292). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. [Reprinted from The journal of personality and social psychology 32(5), 1975]Eagleman, D. M. (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain, New York: Random House.Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. (n.d.). Use of force. Retrieved from: http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/use-of-force-myths-and-realities-part-i-podcast-transcript.html/?searchterm=use of forceFennessy, M., & Huss, M.T. (2013, January). Predicting success in a large sample of federal pretrial offenders: The influence of ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 40 no. 1, 40-56.Francescani, C. (2012, April 25). George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2000).Criminal law: Principles and cases (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Hallowell, B. (2013, July 15). Eric Holder speaks out on Zimmerman case: Trayvon’s killing an ‘unnecessary shooting’ and calls for ‘difficult’ national dialogue. Retrieved from: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/eric-holder-speaks-out-on-zimmerman-case-says-trayvons-killing-an-unnecessary-shooting-and-nation-must-have-difficult-dialogue/Hampson, R. (2006, March 29). Anti-Snitch Campaign Riles Police, Prosecutors. USA TODAY. Retrieved from: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/antisnitch_camp.phpHarrell, E. (2007, August). Special report: Black victims of violent crime. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bvvc.txtHickey, E. W. (2006). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Hedeen, M. (2009, December, 18). Jury Finds Roderick Scott Not Guilty. Retrieved from: http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/Huckabee, M. (2013, July 14). Dershowitz: Zimmerman Special Prosecutor Angela Corey should be disbarred. Retrieved from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.htmlLegum, J. (2012, March 28). Sanford police recommended charging Zimmerman with Martin’s death, but police chief claimed ‘no probable cause.’ Retrieved from: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/28/453675/sanford-police-recommended-charging-zimmerman-with-martins-death/?mobile=ncNovogrod, J., Winter, T, Connor, T., & McClam, E. (2013, July 13). Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty. Retrieved from: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19441838-jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty?literealclearpolitics.com. (2013, July 14). Judge Jeanine Pirro rips Zimmerman Special Prosecutor Angela Corey. Retrieved from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/judge_jeanine_pirro_rips_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey.htmlReinberg, S. (2013). U.S. Blacks still lag Whites in life expectancy: Heart disease, cancer and murder main contributors to four-year disparity, experts say. HealthDay. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20130718/us-blacks-still-lag-whites-in-life-expectancy-studyRogers, K. (2012, March 28). George Zimmerman weighs 170#; Trayvon Martin 160#. Retrieved from: http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-weighs-170-trayvon-martin-160Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J. P., & Nussbaum, K. E. (2006). Sexual homicide of elderly females: Linking offender characteristics to victim and crime scene attributes, in R. D. Keppel (Ed.). Offender profiling (2nd ed.) (pp. 107-125). Mason, OH: Thompson. (Reprinted from Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2002. Sage Publications, Inc.)Schneider, M. (2013, May 23). New Trayvon Martin case evidence: Defense team releases photos, texts that teen had on his phone. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/trayvon-martin-evidence-photos-texts_n_3327658.htmlSiegel, L. J. (2006). Criminology (9th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn’t? A statistical portrait of public high school graduation, class of 2001. Urban Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410934Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1. 67. (1968) Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.htmlTrotta, D., & Cotterell, B. (2013, July 17). Zimmerman juror: Self-defense laws should be changed after Trayvon Martin killing. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/zimmerman-juror-self-defense-laws_n_3612130.htmlU. S. Census Bureau. (2001a, August). The White Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdfU.S. Census Bureau. (2001b, August). The Black Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdfU.S. Constitution. (1992). Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.U.S. Department of Education. (2005, February 23). President's New High School Initiative, Other Proposed Programs Tackle Issues Important to Hispanics [Press Release]. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/02/02232005a.htmlU.S. Department of Justice. (2009, September). 2008 Crime in the United States: Table 43: Arrests by race, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.htmlU.S. Department of Labor. (2008, February 1). Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htmVamburkar, M. (2012, April 9). State Attorney decides against using Grand Jury in Trayvon Martin case. Retrieved from: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/state-attorney-decides-against-using-grand-jury-in-trayvon-martin-case/Walsh, A. (2005), African Americans and serial killings in the media: The myth and the reality. Homicide Studies, 9(4), 271-291. Retrieved from: http://hsx.sagepub.com.ezproxy.apus.edu/cgi/reprint/9/4/271WebMD. (2011). High blood pressure in African-Americans. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/hypertension-in-african-americansWebMD. (2012). HIV and AIDS in African-Americans. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-in-blacks-alarming-crisiswtsp.com (2012, Mar 29). Trayvon Martin pictures shape our perception on the case. Retrieved from:http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247690/8/Trayvon-Martin-pictures-shape-our-perception-on-the-casewtsp.com. (2012, March 29). Trayvon Martin pictures shape our perception on the case. Retrieved from:http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247690/8/Trayvon-Martin-pictures-shape-our-perception-on-the-case[i] Dr. David Eagleman directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action and the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law, Baylor College of Medicine.[ii] Dr. Vincent Di Maio, is a forensic pathologist with more than 40 years of experience (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Professor--Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and fellow of the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences), and author of Forensic Pathology and Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, among other works.

Antonia is Sonia’s real name in her birth certificate. Sonia is the name given to her subsequently by her father, Stefano Maino [now deceased] following his return from Russia where he had been a prisoner of war. Stefano had joined the Nazi army as a volunteer. Sonia is a Russian not Italian name. While spending two years in a Russian jail, Sonia’s father had become quite pro-Soviet; especially after the liberating US army in Italy had confiscated all fascists’ properties including his.Second, she was not born in Orbassano as she claims in her bio data submitted to Parliament on becoming MP, but in Luciana as stated in her birth certificate. She perhaps would like to hide the place of her birth because of her father’s connection with the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists, and her family’s continuing connections with the Nazi-Fascists underground that is still surviving since 1945 in Italy. Luciana is where Nazi-Fascist network is headquartered, and is on the Italian-Swiss border. There can be no other explanation for this otherwise meaningless lie.Third, Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond Primary School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections that she is qualified and got a diploma in English from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK.The truth is that Ms. Gandhi has never studied in any college anywhere. She did go to a Catholic run seminary-school called Maria Ausiliatrice in Giaveno [15 kms from adopted home town of Orbassabo]. Poverty those days forced young Italian girls to go to such missionaries and then in their teens go to UK to get jobs as cleaning maids, waitresses and au pair. The Mainos were poor those days. Her father was a mason and mother a share cropper..Paola Maino Antonia Sonia Gandhi MotherSonia thus went to the town of Cambridge and first learnt some English in a teaching shop called Lennox School [which has since 1970 been wound up]. That is all her “education” which is enough English language to get domestic help jobs. But in Indian society education is highly valued. Thus, to fool the Indian public, Sonia Gandhi willfully fibbed about her qualifications in Parliamentary records [which is a Breach of Ethics Rules] and in a sworn affidavit [which is criminal offence under IPC, severe enough to disqualify her from being MP].This is just a beginning. As this booklet unfolds Sonia’s story, it reveals shocking details on the corruption and fraud, disrespect for Indian laws, alarming threat to democracy of India, religious intolerance towards Hinduism, pro-terrorist policies, dividing country to perpetuate dynasty rule.Sonia lied from President of India to a common man. She lied to the President about the number of MPs supporting her and to a common man on a trivial issue such as her educational qualification. She says that she is outside Government but controls every move Government makes and there is no record of her ever admitting or apologizing for any lies and mistakes.Non- Violence.Sonia is violent and her violence spans Political, Spiritual and Physical spheres. The way she installed herself to become congress president, the way she treats congressmen and opponents speaks volumes in Political Sphere. Her crusade against Hinduism such as Rama Sethu (historic bridge built by Lord Ram, as per Hindu Holy Book, “Ramayana”) speaks of spiritual violence. In the Physical sphere, Sonia was sympathetic in Congress party and in Government to the killers of 3000 Sikhs, where innocent Sikhs on streets of New Delhi were lynched to death. Jagdish Tytler who was one of the instigators of the lynching was rewarded with a Government ministry. Central Government provided a weak defense in courts and no congressmen was ever punished for the anti-Sikh pogrom. Rajiv Gandhi whose wife is Sonia even justified the killings by saying “When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake”. She is pursuing pro-terrorist policies for vote banks that resulted in number of killings in last three years she was in power just next to Iraq.Opinion on Hinduism and Ram SetuSonia, in her opinion and according to the affidavit submitted in Supreme Court, Ram is a fictional character and Ramayana never happened. Under her rule ‘Rama Sethu’ is being blown up just like Taliban blew up Buddha Statues. Her protégé Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister have attempted to take over 5 out of 7 Tirumala Hills for building Churches and Tourism. This is akin to non-Christians taking over Vatican for building their worship places. Her reasons for not taking firm action against terrorism are two fold. One is the sense that investigation would hurt vote bank and another is that the overwhelming number of those who were killed in the terrorism are Hindus who are not from the vote bank. As recently as few weeks she visited Andhra Pradesh that witnessed the brutal terrorist attack that killed more than 50 people and she did not go visit the city where attack occurred (Hyderabad) because those affected are not her vote banks.Truth Alone Triumphs (Satyameva Jayathe)Sonia, under her rule ‘Satyameva jayathe’ has been replaced by a Christian cross used by Louis the Pious (778-840) on currency coins. indian two rupees coin,compare it with french coinchristian cross on coins of french denier_louis_le_pieuxForeign Missionaries & conversionMahatma Gandhi: Gandhi, had a clear foresight about missionaries. On numerous occasions he condemned missionary activity. He said “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing.” He further said “The effect of Christianity upon India in general…has been disastrous.” Regarding conversion Gandhi said “The idea of conversion, I assure you is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth.” He also said “Conversion is like a drop of poison which fouls the whole food” and that “poverty does not justify conversion”.Sonia is known for her sympathy and support to deceitful proselytization. Her party granted the high-security Air Force field to Benny Hinn to hold his healing charade that even Christian Trinity Foundation declared as a fraud. A leader of seventh day Adventist church, Ron Watts was ordered deportation by courts for his illegal activities. He seems to have been blessed by Sonia and continues to live in India. The state Governors she appointed have been consistently rejecting State laws to enact anti-conversion laws to prevent conversion of poor people by allurement.HYPOCRISY OF MOTHER & SONSONIA is a staunch roman catholic and she is be fooling the HINDU masses by putting tilak on forehead and by performing pooja in HINDU temples and bowing the head before pujari etc.She pretend to be Hindu,which she is not.We are quoting a report published on 24th march 2011,which is self explanatory.Indian envoy refers to Sonia as ‘Christian,’ reference is deletedFor the Congress, the subject of Sonia Gandhi’s religion is a touchy one and generally off-limits when it comes to official communications.Just how sensitive an issue it is was revealed last month when the official representative of the UPA Government in Washington, Ambassador Meera Shankar, delivered a speech at a US university referring to Sonia Gandhi being a Christian as a testament to India’s pluralism and diversity. However, that reference was later quickly deleted.In her keynote speech on the subject “Why India Matters” at Emory University on February 24, Shankar said: “India is a land of incredible diversity. Like the United States it celebrates pluralism. It not only tolerates diversity but has embraced it and has allowed people from all walks of life to flourish and realize their full potential. This is a tradition that is rooted in our civilization. Throughout our history peoples from other parts of the world have come to India and made it a home, resulting in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one where individual faith and belief is not only respected but adds to the overall sense of nationhood. Today the fact that we have a woman Head of State, a Sikh Head of Government and a Muslim Vice President and a Christian as the leader of the largest national political party is perhaps the best statement of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of our state.”Sonia,according to the respected Swiss magazine (published in 1991), Schweitzer Illustrate, Rajiv Gandhi, her late husband had secret Swiss accounts worth $ 2 billion. Sonia is known for her close association with Italian fugitive Quattrocchi. Sonia and her family are believed to have looted country wealth worth billions of dollars.Secret unaccounted wealth in Swiss accountsSwiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte published an explosive story in its issue dated Nov. 11, 1991 which disclosed that fourteen rules or ex-rulers of the third world countries have a deposit of foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 5 lakh 50 thousand crores in Swiss banks. The magazine printed the names, photographs and the amount deposited by each of them. They included Idi Amin of Uganda, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, Jean Claude Duvalier of Haiti, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Seke Moboto of Zaire, Nicolai Chausescue of Rumania, Haile Selassie of Thiopia, Abu Nida of Palestine, Jaafar Numeiri of Sudan, Suharto of Indonesia, Saddam Hussain of Iraq, Jaa B. Bokassa of Zontralafrika, Rajiv Gandhi of India and Reza Pahlevi of Iran, in that order. The amount said to be deposited by Rajiv Gandhi in various Swiss Banks was 2 billion US dollars. Most of them, who figure in the list, are infamous for being corrupt, nationally and internationally. The magazine which published this story is supposed to be a very serious publicationCPI(M) MP Amal dutta raised the matter in parliament, and he did mention the name of Rajiv Gandhi and the amount, but nothing could go on record for there was pandemonium from treasury benches which happened to be occupied by the Congress at that time. There upon, Sunday Mail carried this story and reproduced the photographs and money mentioned under their names which in turn was published in the Hindi daily Amar Ujala, too. The point to note was that Congress Government neither confirmed the story nor denied it. No defamation suit was filed by any of the fourteen leaders or by their relatives. This speaks volume about the Rajiv-Sonia couple. India can get her money back, according to the Swiss laws, if prosecution proceedings are finally launched against the heirs of Rajiv GandhiTHE ROYAL SON IN LAW ROBERT VADRA DUKE OF MORADABAD IS EXEMPTED FROM PRE-EMBARKATION SECURITY CHECKS.THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ITALIAN QUEEN VICTORIAFeelings towards enemies/detractorsSonia is known for her vindictive nature. She is known not to spare even her party men and routinely humiliates them. She even humiliated the dead body by denying a respectful funeral, of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao who did not encourage Sonia’s political growth.Nationalism and confidence in IndiaSonia abandoned India during 1971 war and in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost elections she hid herself in Italian embassy. She did not even apply for Indian citizenship for 16 years though living in Prime Minister’s house.Moral principles vs. political GainsSonia,in 1997, Sonia pulled down United Front Government at centre because a political party DMK, a constituent of United Front Government was found to be close to her husband’s killers i.e., LTTE. Every election costs Indian tax payer billions of rupees. But in 2004, she joined hands with same DMK to gain power.Scams & Scandals.Sonia was almost and always in news due to some scandal or scam. Maruti Scam, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, Indian Artifacts smuggling, Bofors kickbacks, Indira/Rajiv Trusts and Indira Arts Center usurpation, political manipulations are some of the widely published notorious scandals she was involved in.Contribution towards IndiaSonia: Except for scandals, scams and intolerance primarily towards Hindu institutions, she has no positive contribution to lay claim to.QUEEN WITH KING,PRINCESS AND CROWN PRINCESonia –Rajiv’s relationship(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Ms. Sonia Gandhi upon learning enough English became a waitress in Varsity Restaurant in Cambridge town. She first met Rajiv when he came to the restaurant in 1965. Rajiv was a student in the University, but could not cope with the academic rigor for long. So he had to depart in 1966 for London where he was briefly in Imperial College of Engineering as a student. Sonia too moved to London, and according my information, got a job with an outfit run by Salman Thassir, a debonair Pakistani based in Lahore, and who has an export-import company headquartered in Dubai but who spends most of his time in London. This fits the profile of an ISI functionary.Obviously, Sonia made enough money in this job to loan Rajiv funds in London, who was obviously living beyond his allowances [Indira herself expressed anguish to me on this score in late 1965 when she invited me to a private tea at the Guest House in Brandeis University]. Rajiv’s letters to Sanjay, who was also in London then, clearly indicate that he was in financial debt to Sonia because he requested Sanjay who obviously had more access to money, to pay off the debt.However, Rajiv was not the only friend Sonia was seeing those days. Madhavrao Scindia and a German by name Stiegler are worth mentioning as other good friends of Sonia. Madhavrao’s friendship continued even after Sonia’s marriage to Rajiv. Scindia in 1982 was involved in a traffic accident near IIT, Delhi main gate while driving a car at 2 AM. Sonia was the only other passenger. Both were badly injured. A student of IIT who was burning midnight oil was out for a cup of coffee. He picked them up from the car, hailed an auto rickshaw and sent an injured Sonia to Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s house since she insisted in not going to a hospital. Madhavrao had broken a leg and in too much pain to make any demand. He was taken to hospital by the Delhi Police who had arrived a little after Sonia had left the scene. In later years, Madhavrao had become privately critical of Sonia, and told some close friends about his apprehensions about Sonia. It is a pity that he died in mysterious circumstances in an air crash.Sonia’s India connectionSonia’s connection with India is always found with all wrong reasons. A rational analysis of what India gained vs. what India lost reveals a shocking picture.Foreign Agency initiated marriage to RajivThe circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T.N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in “the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship”. Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to.Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defense purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, PhD [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, The State within a State, The KGB in Soviet Union, she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats’ disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”.When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians.The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller”. The new Indian government which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation?Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.Illegal registration as a voterIn January 1980, Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister. The first thing Sonia did was to enroll herself as a voter. This was a gross violation of the law, enough to cause cancellation of her visa [since she was admittedly an Italian citizen then]. There was some hullabaloo in the press about it, so the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer got her name deleted in 1982. But in January 1983, she again enrolled herself as a voter! Such is her revealed disdain for Indian laws and that is her mindset even today.How and when she became an Indian citizenShe did not apply for Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India, which is what good Indian wives would have done. She filled in an application in 1968 for permission to stay as a foreigner in India for five years. She said I am married, I am married into the family of the Indian Prime Minister but I would still like to remain a foreigner. So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in India as a foreigner for five years. Okay, this may have been due to some adjustment problems.In 1973, after the first five year period expired, she again applied for the permit to stay on India for another five years as a foreigner and this is the person who is going to live and die for us. I will now come to what Cho, my friend told me, never believe what she says. There is not only complete divorce between what she says and what she does there is also a clue that she will do precisely the opposite of what she says. I will come to it later, there are instances and instances. So, she again applied for a foreigner’s permit. You know why? Between 1968 and 1973, the indications were all there of the imminent war with Pakistan over East Pakistan. And sure enough, there was the Bangladesh war. During the Bangladesh war, when all commercial pilots were asked to forego their leave and come into service, she asked Rajeev to go on a long leave and he was given special permission and they left India. And throughout the period of the war, they were in Rome. Why, because the American seventh fleet was moving towards India and Sonia Gandhi probably had serious doubts about India’s survival! So she ran away from the country with her husband; to that extent faithful. And she returned only after peace was restored, after India had won the war, when because of Indira Gandhi, that family acquired stature and became invincible.So, we have to read between the lines, you have to look at the persons behind the skin. So, in 1973, she again applied for a permit to remain a foreigner in India. Now let us come to the period between 1973 and 1978. In the year 1977 when Mrs. Gandhi was defeated after she lifted the Emergency and called for elections, Sonia Gandhi learnt the mood of the nation and she went into the Italian embassy and refused to come out of it. She said she was going back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead with her to return. This is the person who is going to live and die for India, please http://understand.To live in India is very different from living for India. And to live in India in such glory, with such protection, with such resources, is very different from dying for India. No one will die for something which one does not own up to. Owning up to India is different from thinking you own India.Abandoning India at the time of crisisThe bottom line observed in Sonia’s mindset is that she can always run back to Italy if she becomes vulnerable at anytime. In Peru, President Fujimori who all along claimed to be “born Peruvian”, faced with a corruption charge fled to Japan with his loot and reclaimed his Japanese citizenship.In 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the government, Sonia with her two children, abandoned Indira Gandhi and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. Rajiv Gandhi was a government servant then [as an Indian Airlines pilot], but he too tagged along and hid in that foreign embassy! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv did snap out Sonia’s influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify it. Those close to Rajiv knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. She did too know of it because he had told her. Ever wonder why Sonia’s closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why she asked the President of India to set aside, on a mercy petition, the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi’s LTTE killers be hanged to death, when she was not similarly moved for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi or recently for Dhanajoy Chattopadhyaya? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE lies in what Rajiv had told her in 1990.Sonia’s greed for power: How did she become party presidentSonia said that she was not interested in politics, she would not enter politics. She said she would not become a Congress member. She will only help the party as a person belonging to the Congress family. She said I am just a four penny member; I will not occupy any position.And then she goes and physically throws out poor Sitaram Kesari (then president of Congress party) from the office. Physically, poor fellow. He has gone to the toilet. His chair was empty, and you know what happened? These congress goons, they went and locked up the toilet and made Sonia occupy that place. And the elderly man cried. This is how she became the Congress President. In the same way as the western armies in the past, would invade other civilizations. Seize power, she seized power in a ‘coup d’toilet’.This is how every word that she has spoken so far had nothing to do with what she did. Her conduct was the very reverse of her professions.First confrontation with Indian law(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)After Sonia married Rajiv, she went about minting money with scant regard for Indian laws and treasures. Within a few years the Mainos went from utter poverty to billionaires. There was no area that was left out for the rip-off. On November 19, 1974, as fresh entrant to Parliament, I asked the then Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi on the floor of the House if her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi was acting as an insurance agent of a public sector insurance company [Oriental Fire & Insurance], giving the Prime Minister’s official residence as her business address, and using undue influence to insure all the officers of the PMO while remaining an Italian citizen [thus violating FERA]? There was uproar in Parliament, but Mrs. Indira Gandhi had no alternative but to cut her losses. She made a rare admission that it was so, and that it was by mistake, but that Sonia had resigned from her insurance agent status [after my question]. But Sonia was incorrigible. Her contempt for Indian law continued to manifest.The truth about Quottrochi(By Arun Shourie)Responding to a question regarding her family friend Ottavio Quattrocchi, at her singular press conference Mrs. Sonia Gandhi said, ”The CBI has said he is a suspect. But we have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty.”The fact that he received money from Bofors, as well as particulars of his accounts into which the money was paid, transferred and re-transferred are available in the public domain, in judgments which the Courts have already delivered on appeals by her family friend..The relevant judgments are as follows:1. Judgment of the Chamber of Accusation, Switzerland, dated 6 September, 1996, in regard to Colbar Investments Ltd, Inc, and Ottavio Quattrocchi v. The decision taken by the Examining Magistrate on 12 July, 1995. THIS JUDGMENT WAS FURNISHED TO THE DELHI HIGH COURT INADVERTANTLY, PERHAPS! BY THE COUNSEL OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI HIMSELF.2. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 5 August, 1998, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. Central Bureau of Investigation.3. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 23, February, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.4. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 26, March, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.These judgments together establish the following facts about the money received by Ottavio Quattrocchi from Bofors.In his sworn affidavit, Myles Tweedale Stott revealed that he was contacted by Ottavio Quattrocchi. In accordance with their discussions, M/s AB Bofors entered into an agreement with AE Services on 15 November, 1985, and agreed to pay the latter THREE PER CENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT if the contract was awarded to Bofors on or before 31 March, 1986.2. From 7 June, 1984 to early February, 1986, the Negotiating Committee met seventeen times. The Army consistently ranked the SOFMA gun as its number one preference. On 17 February, 1986, it switched its preference to Bofors. After a note from a Joint Secretary, mini signatures of ELEVEN OFFICERS AND MINISTERS headed by those of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Defense Minister and Prime Minister-were obtained IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS.3. Rajiv Gandhi visited Sweden on 14/15 March, 1986, and told the Swedish Prime Minister that the contract would indeed be given to Bofors. The deadline agreed to by Quattrocchi was thus met.4. On 2 May, 1986, the Government of India released 20 per cent of the contract money-that is, SEK 1,682,132,196.80- as the first advance payment to Bofors.5. On 20 August, 1986, Myles Tweedale Stott opened an account in the name of AE Services c/o Mayo Associates SA, Geneva. The account was NUMBER 18051-53 in the NORDFINANZ BANK, ZURICH.6. On 3 September, 1986, Bofors remitted SEK 50,463,966 into this account- then US $ equivalent being $ SEVEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE, AND 98 CENTS- $ 7,343, 941.98. This amount was credited into the account on 5 September, 1986.7. THIS AMOUNT PAID BY BOFORS- SEK 50,463,966- WAS EXACTLY THREE PER CENT OF THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT AS HAD BEEN STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT OF 15 NOVEMBER, 1985 BETWEEN BOFORS AND AE SERVICES.8. On 16 September, 1986- that is, within 11 days of the money being received into the account which had just been opened by AE Services- it was transferred to ACCOUNT NUMBER 254.561.60 W held by COLBAR INVESTMENTS Ltd in the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva. The amount was transferred in two installments. $ SEVEN MILLION WERE PUT INTO THIS ACCOUNT ON 16 SEPTEMBER, 1986, AND ANOTHER $ 123,900 WAS PUT INTO IT ON 29 SEPTEMBER, 1986.9. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY. COLBAR INVESTMENTS. DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT ONLY TWO PERSONS COULD OPERATE THE ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI AND HIS WIFE, MARIA. TO CONCEAL MATTERS, QUATTROCCHI GAVE A NON-EXISTENT ADDRESS IN DELHI FOR THIS ACCOUNT.10. On 6 August, 1987 a new company was floated in Panama, M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THIS COMPANY.11. An account-NUMBER 488.320.60 X- was opened within the same bank, the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva, on the name of M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA, THE NEW COMPANY QUATTROCCHI HAD OPENED. THIS ACCOUNT ALSO COULD BE OPERATED ONLY BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI OR HIS WIFE, MARIA.12. On 25 July, 1988, ON THE INSTRUCTION OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI $ SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND FORTHY THREE THOUSAND [that is, the amount received plus the interest which had accumulated] WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HIS COMPANY, COLBAR INVESTMENTS TO THAT OF HIS OTHER COMPANY WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA.13. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT, LIKE COLBAR INVESTMENTS, WETELSEN OVERSEAS WAS OWNED BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI.14. In yet another round of laundering, on 21 May, 1990, another $200,000 were transferred from the account of M/s Wetelsen Overseas SA in the Union Bank of Switzerland into the account of INTER INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION with ANNSBACHER Ltd, St PETER PORT, GUERNSEY.15. The Swiss Court noted that Quattrocchi had denied receiving any commission directly or indirectly from Bofors. It noted on the other hand (a) the statement of Myles T Stott that the amount Bofors had paid AE Services was related to the agreement of sale of guns to India; (b) and the trail of subsequent transfers of the money to companies owned by Quattrocchi-from AE Services to Colbar Investments to Wetelsen Overseas. At page 7 of its judgment, the Swiss Court then noted,”This decision [ of the Examining Magistrate] was in particular imparted to Ottavio Quattrocchi, economical owner of Colbar Investments Ltd and Wetelsen Overseas SA, who in view of the documents transferred appeared to have received commissions through the channel of these companies, who had given no explanations and who had not obeyed the judge’s injunction of June 20th, 1994”.16. After setting out further facts, after rejecting roundly the assertions of Quattrocchi that he would not get justice in India and therefore the bank documents should not be allowed to be transferred at page 14 of its judgment, the Swiss Court pronounced,”The Requesting Authority can therefore neglect no track and insofar as the appellants seem to have been used as transfer channels for commissions paid out by Bofors, it is of the first importance that it have at its disposal elements as complete as possible enabling it to reconstruct the network susceptible of having been used and ending, in this case, at a firm in Guernsey..”Rejecting the contentions of Quattrocchi decisively, at page 15 of its judgment, the Swiss Court further concluded,”Now, Colbar Investments Ltd Inc and Ottavio Quattrocchi seem to have received an amount issuing from commissions paid by Bofors and one cannot therefore say that their appearance in the case, was the proceed of pure chance, especially that on the own confession of the appellants it appears that Ottavio Quattrocchi had relationships in India at the highest level and that he had very close relationships with this country.””In conclusion”, the Swiss Court said after rejecting further contentions, ”the recourse [in our terms, the appeal of Quattrocchi against the decision of the lower court that the relevant bank documents be transferred to India] IS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED.”17. On 3 July, 1993, Interpol, Switzerland, informed India that appeals filed by Quattrocchi and others had been dismissed by the Swiss Supreme Court.18. For the next week, though he was in India, no action was taken to restrain Quattrocchi. On the contrary, as had happened in the case of Win Chaddha, Quattrocchi was allowed to escape from India on 29 July, 1993.19. The investigating agency raided the house and offices of Ottavio Quattrocchi. Diaries, family photographs, telephone records nailed his extreme proximity and of his wife to Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi.20. The Special Judge examining the case concluded that there was prima facie evidence to the effect that Ottavio Quattrocchi had received SEVEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS in the Bofors deal. Accordingly, he issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest.21. Interpol issued a Red Corner Alert for his arrest on 17 February, 1997.22. Quattrocchi appealed against this Red Corner Alert on 7 April, 1997.23. The Interpol Supervisory Board rejected his appeal on 20 September, 1997.24. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal against the Special Judge’s order in the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court roundly rejected the appeal. It held that it found no merit in the appeal. It held that the non-bailable warrant for his arrest was fully justified. The Court said,”We have in extensor quoted the averments which the respondent [the CBI] made in the application seeking the issuance of the warrants. The same on the face of it do constitute making of sufficient allegation pointing out that the evidence so far collected prima facie reveals that the petitioner was recipient of fraud committed in the Bofors gun deal, which he received for himself and on behalf of certain public servants and, therefore, he was required to be arrested and interrogated for expeditions investigation of the case and to reveal the truth.”25. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On his behalf his counsel told that Supreme Court that Quattrocchi would indeed appear before the Special Court, that he would cooperate with the investigating authorities who want to interrogate him, and that for this purpose the would remain in India for two weeks. The Supreme Court recorded these assurances in its order on 22 February, 1999, and directed him to appear before the Special Judge on 15 March, 1999, and remain present in India for two weeks thereafter so as to enable the investigating authorities to interrogate him. The date came and went, Quattrocchi did not appear.26. The matter was taken again to the Supreme Court. It recorded, ‘we strongly disapprove the manner in which the petitioner [Quattrocchi] has conducted himself in the proceedings before this Court”. That was on 26 March, 1999.Each of these facts is a matter of public record. Each is available in judgments of the highest courts of India and Switzerland.And yet Mrs. Sonia Gandhi says,”We have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty”!There is a second striking feature. A comparison of dates will show that with each failure of Quattrocchi’s efforts to escape the law, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s efforts to bring down governments in India accelerated.Who is Quottrochi?(Dina Nath Mishra)Five years ago, India was at the crossroads. An ordinary, Italy-born woman had all but grabbed the prime ministerial chair, claiming the support of the majority of Lok Sabha members. The 120-year-old Congress willingly surrendered to the Italian bahu (daughter-in-law) of the dynasty. The oldest party in the country could not find a single individual other than her to lead it and the nation of over a billion people.On her part, the widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made bold to strangle inner-party democracy. Five years ago, the nation was saved by the bell. For, finally, the nationalist in Mulayam Singh Yadav surfaced, and he quietly put paid to Sonia’s dreams. There may be a whole lot of reasons why she should not be the Prime Minister of India. But just one is enough: She is not of Indian origin.Today, when the nation is once again witnessing the battle of the ballot, every nationalist of every party should ponder whom is he voting? He may be voting for the CPI (M), which ultimately translates into support for Sonia Gandhi, whether directly or indirectly. They may be voting for Laloo Prasad Yadav’s party, which would ultimately strengthen the hands of Sonia Gandhi. They may be voting for the DMK-Ied front whose prime ministerial candidate is Sonia and Sonia alone. They may be electing PDF candidates in J&K but with the same result. The duty of all true nationalists then is to ensure that power does not slip into the hands of someone of foreign origin.The ramifications of her entry into Prime Minister’s Office are numerous. One of them is the Quattrocchi angle. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, originally came to India as a chartered accountant based in a Chennai- based Italian MNC. Gradually, he made his way into the corridors of power especially after Rajiv Gandhi burst on the political scene in the wake of Sanjay Gandhi’s death in a mysterious air crash. It is essential to understand the Quattrocchi phenomenon, particularly in relation to Sonia Gandhi.He worked for a firm which provided services like designing, engineering, management of construction and training of personnel in the sectors such as oil refineries, gas processing, petrochemicals, fertilizers and pipelines. He had no experience of any guns, gun-systems or related equipment. However, he was a close friend of Rajiv Gandhi’s family.Investigation has shown that the families of Rajiv Gandhi and Ottavio Quattrocchi were on very intimate terms and they used to meet frequently. Quattrocchi and his family had free access to the Prime Minister’s house. As a result, Quattrocchi was able to project himself as a person of great influence.Even during the 1980s, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, Quattrocchi had direct frisk-free entry to Prime Minister’s residence, courtesy the Italian ‘bahu’ of Indira Gandhi. Senior journalist Mahendra Ved had this to say in The Times of India (Delhi Edition; February 3, 1998): “Throughout the 1980s, Ottavio Quattrocchi, the affable Italian, was the man about town who moved in high circles and wielded influence in the corridors of power. His word, spoken in smooth Italian-accented English, was the law.“Ministers would rise in their chairs whenever he would walk in unscheduled and see him off, apparently due to his proximity to the then ruling Gandhi family. One minister, Ramachandra Rath, who did not oblige, was dropped in the next round of cabinet reshuffle, recalls a former Member of Parliament. Rath was at the moment talking to veteran Gandhian, BN Pande, and took exception to Quattrocchi simply walking in.“This was also the era of ‘four powerful women’ in New Delhi. They held kitty parties and went on picnics, recalls a Delhi socialite. They were Sonia Gandhi, Maria Quattrocchi, Nina Singh, wife of Arun Singh and Sterre, the Dutch wife of Satish Sharma.“If Rath paid a ‘price’, so did two Fertilizer secretaries, senior enough to become Cabinet Secretaries. Mr. KV Ramanathan had sought a ‘correct’ approach in the awarding of the Thal- Vaishet fertilizer project to Messrs Kellogg and CF Braun. Snam Progetti, the Italian public sector multinational that Quattrocchi represented in India, did not have the appropriate technology.”The decision by the late HN Bahuguna was reversed by Indira Gandhi in 1980. Snam was conversant only with the technology for urea-based fertilizer, while Thal-Vaishet was to run on ammonia. Snam hired the technology from a Dane, Haldor Topsoe, who was essentially an individual consultant. That matter came up in Parliament in a big way.Even while releasing the 1999 election manifesto of the Congress, Sonia Gandhi dodged the question of Quattrochi connections. But her connection with ‘Q’ is too well known to be forgotten. Here I reproduce the news story written by AB Mahapatra in Free Press Journal dated February 20, 1998.“Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose extradition is demanded by many political parties in connection with the Bofors case, had access to sensitive files in the Prime Minister’s Office when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister and he was able to appoint ministers and top bureaucrats. Authentic sources told the Free Press Journal that he used to get information about cabinet meetings and its agenda much in advance. When he was visiting offices, ministers and bureaucrats used to get up from the chair to receive him. He was a frequent visitor to the official residence of India’s so-called royal family without security check, a privilege very few enjoyed.”Though officially Quattrocchi was the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, he worked as a conduit for some in receiving kickbacks and transferring them to safe havens in many deals for over a decade. “In every deal there was a cut. At least there, he was loyal to the royal family,” remarked a retired bureaucrat.He used to appoint ministers, bureaucrats, PSU executives and finalized deals which came his way, even if those were beyond his areas of expertise. The word ‘no’ perhaps did not figure in his dictionary. Soft-spoken Quattrocchi, also worked as an extra-constitutional power centre since 1980s.He got ministers and bureaucrats sacked and snubbed the most influential people of his time who challenged his authority. For Quattrocchi, it was a meteoric rise and an ignominious fall as well, as he has been disowned by the Italian company, Snamprogetti, which he represented in India and elsewhere for more than 16 years. He was known to almost all the top ranking people who mattered and his proximity to Gandhi family was the talk of the town.While the AB Bofors executive, Martin Ardbo, who negotiated the Rs 1,700 crore Bofors gun deal, mentioned him in his diary as the mysterious ‘Q’, his victims in India call him as a ‘pushing man’.He was a good PR man for Snam which won as many as 60 projects worth Rs 30,000 crore in its favor during his tenure. Today, there is nobody to save ‘Q’ in Milan, the headquarters of Snam’s holding company, “ENI.Moreover, ENI’s chief executive committed suicide in 1993 and many of its senior officers are facing police cases on charges of corruption. Snam” ‘a state-owned company of Italy, is not involved in the Bofors deal as such. But Quattrocchi’s activities as a middleman in international deals has raised many an eyebrow as far as the company’s credibility is concerned.While it is widely believed that Quattrocchi is at present a consultant to Snam in Kuala Lumpur, the company has diplomatically denied it. However, it was believed that he was operating from Snam’s India regional office when the Bofors deal was finalized in 1986.The company has clarified that it was not aware of Quattrocchi’s other alleged activities in India and maintained that he was a full time representative of the company. Even the company has said that it has no idea of Quattrocchi being wanted by the CBI which has already sought his extradition from Kuala Lumpur to prosecute him in the Bofors case.This was first noticed in 1980 when Indira Gandhi returned to power. The government had decided to award the contract for ammonia technology for RCF’s Thal plant to CFBraun of the US. But he wanted the World Bank-aided project to be awarded to Haldor Topsoe of Denmark, a sister concern of Snam. Quattrocchi played a crucial role in the appointment of PC Sethi as Petroleum Minister and tilted the deal in favor of Holder Topsoe -against the World Bank’s decision. Later, the World Bank withdrew from the project.That was his first showdown where he proved he could get what he wanted. That virtually gave a clear message to policy-makers and bureaucrats to follow Q’s line of action.He also had an encounter with Vasant Sathe, then Fertilizer Minister, over a project in Guna which till the last moment was very much in favour of Kellogg. But ‘Q’ got the decision reversed in favour of Snam. Those who toed his line were rewarded; those who did not were punished. Ti1l 1985, ‘Q’ used to resort to pressure tactic to get his work done but the real showdown took place when Snam did not get the 1,700 km long HBJ pipeline contract which went to Spie Capag of France. That perhaps was his first defeat; He wanted to punish those who stood in his way.The first to go was former Petroleum Secretary AS Gill who was very much in favor of piecemeal tenders instead of turnkey contracts to make the country self-reliant in terms of technology. That did suit ‘Q’ because India’s self-reliance in this field was bound to harm his interests.There was a standing order for implementation of Snam technology in every petroleum and fertilizer project which had been issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Government. But Gill had contested that order by showing another official order issued by Indira Gandhi where she reportedly said that there should be technology transfer in case of any foreign participation. But that did not happen in practice.Interestingly, ‘Q’ used to clarify his position a day after Gill had written to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on the official file regarding technical difficulty of a particular project for clearance. “That means files were going to him accordingly:’ said a former official.Gill, who had a bright career and was all set to become the next Cabinet Secretary on the basis of seniority, told the FPJ that “there is nothing left for comment after 14 years of my retirement.”Naval Kishore Sharma, Minister of State for Petroleum, was shunted out to the All India Congress Committee as general secretary. VP Singh, who did not change evaluation norms in favor of Snam, and Arun Nehru who allegedly backed the French consortium to win a contract from Snam, had to leave both the government and the party.HS Cheema, former chairman of Gas Authority of India Limited, was removed in similar fashion. It was Quattrocchi who played a major role in removing him as chairman. “Yes, my career was a bright one all along but there was some unseen hand behind all this,” Cheema said in a telephonic interview from Solan, Himachal Pradesh to the newspaper.Former Indian Oil Corporation Chairman Venkatsubramanian, who refused to call Quattrocchi for talks, had to go even though the government was at a loss to explain the specific reason for his removal. A senior official whom Quattrocchi once offered money indirectly to get a project done, recalled, “He (‘Q’) said he can arrange Rs. two crore for the one who you like the most.” But the official got angry and asked Quattrocchi to get out of his room and never try to contact again. “That was the last time I met him. I have not received any new year greeting since then,” according to the senior official.I shall now list out all the major projects backed by Quattrocchi’s company, thanks to his proximity to Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.Projects won by Snam/TopseProjects Location Client YearTwo Ammonia Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981Three Urea Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981Four Urea Plants Hazira Kribhco 1981One Gas Pipeline Hazira ONGC 1981One Ammonia Plant Una NFL 1983Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1983One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1984Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1984One Ammonia’plant Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985Two Urea Plants Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985One Offshore Complex ONGC 1986One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987One Urea Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987One Ammonia Plant Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988Two Urea Plants Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988One Ammonia Plant Babrala Tata Chem. 1988Two Urea Plants Babrala Tata Chem 1988One Gas Pipeline Network ONGC 1988One Ammonia Plant Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988Two Urea Plants Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988One TPA MTBE Plant Mahul BPCL 1990H-P Isobutene Plant Taloja Lubrizol 1991One Ammonia Plant Guna NFL 1994Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1994One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1994Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1994One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1994Two Urea Plants Kakinada NFCL 1994One Ammonia Plant Phulpur IFFCO 1994Two Urea Plants Phulpur IFFCO 1994Let us now move from fertilizers and chemicals to armaments that became the new grazing ground for Ottavio Quattrocchi,A First Information Report was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation on January 22, 1990, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, President of AB Bofors of Sweden, WN Chadha and GP Hinduja of London and others including beneficiaries of M/s AB Services Ltd of UK, alleging that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy during 1982-87 and in pursuance thereof committed offences of cheating, forgery, bribery, etc., to the extent of Swedish Kroners 319.40 million (approximately Rs 64 crore) in the matter of contract regarding supply of 410 FH- 77 guns, etc., at a total cost of SEK 8410.66 million (approximately Rs 1437.72 crore).Investigation of the case included several countries including Switzerland. During Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership, these investigations were placed on the bargaining counter. Rao bought peace with Sonia to continue in power. In an atmosphere of lull, one of the chief offenders slipped to Malaysia and has not returned till date.The governments of HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral used the same Bofors case for counter-bargaining. First, Deve Gowda was ousted from power by the then president of the Congress, the late Sitaram Kesri to install IK Gujral as Prime Minister.But CBI investigators moved fast and secured some important documents from the Swiss Government. For a decade the most important missing link has been Ottavio Quattrotchi. Ottavio Quattrocchi remained in India from February 28, 1964, to July 29, 1993, except for a brief interval between March 4, 1966, and June 12, 1968. Ottavio Quattrocchi, thereafter suddenly left India on July 29/30, 1993, in order to escape the process of law and has not returned to India since then.Ottavio Quattrocchi was the beneficiary of the amount of commission for himself or others received by M/s AB Services from M/s AB Bofors, as practically the entire amount, i.e. PS$ 7,123,900 (approximately 97 per cent of the total) was transferred from the account of M/s AB Services to the account of M/s Colbar Investment Limited Inc. Further, he has been transferring the funds received from M/s AB Bofors frequently from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another to avoid detection and evade the due process of law.During the proceedings before the Chamber D: Acquisition, Geneva in relation to the appeal filed by him against the execution of Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi (India), at the request of Central Bureau of Investigation, Ottavio Quattrocchi reportedly had even admitted to his relationship at the highest level in India.This is to be seen in the light of the fact that Bofors had paid SEK 50,463,966.00 in the name of commission to M/s AE Services on September 3, 1986, and virtually all this amount was transferred by AE Services to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investment Ltd; Inc. in Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva on September 16 and 29, 1986.The proximity of Ottavio Quattrocchi with the then Prime Minister of India, the contractual promise of AE Services to M/s AB Bofors to swing the deal) in their favour in a short span of time, the transfer of virtually all the commission amount (received by AE Services) to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investments Ltd.Soon after the receipt, further transfer of funds from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another soon after the disclosure of offences, his giving a non-existing address in the relevant bank, his contesting the execution of Letters Rogatory in Switzerland, his sudden disappearance from India after disclosure of his name by an appellant, all are the factors which prima facie show the involvement of Quattrocchi in the offence of criminal conspiracy for cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.On receipt of crucial documents from Switzerland in January 1997, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi on October 22, 1999, against SK Bhatnagar, WN Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi, Martin Ardbo and M/s AB Bofors for trial for offences, under sections 120-H Indian Penal Code r/w section 420 Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and substantive offences thereof.Further investigation under Section 173 (8) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 continued. At the time of filing of charge sheet, accused Ottavi of Quattrocchi was based in Malaysia and as such, proceedings for his extradition were initiated there. After the lower court did not accede to the request of his extradition on certain preliminary technical grounds, the matter was taken up in higher courts and at present, it is pending before the Court of Appeals in Kuala Lumpur.CBI is in touch with the authorities in Italy and efforts for ascertaining the present whereabouts of Quattrocchi through Interpol and diplomatic channels are continuing.The CBI was informed by Interpol, London, on June 25, 2003, that Quattrocchi, against whom charge sheet was also filed along with others in CBI case No RC 1(A)/90- ACU-IV/SIG (Bofors case) has an amount of three million pounds (approximately ) in a UK bank account and the same was likely to be moved out very shortly. The CBI requested IP, London, to freeze the said account pending a formal Letters Rogatory. A Letters Rogatory dated July 21, 2003, was issued by the Court of Special Judge, New Delhi. The Letters Rogatory was further supplemented on certain points on July 24, 2003, by the Court.An amount of US$ 1 million and Euro 3 million held in two bank accounts i.e. Account No. 5A51516L & 5A51516M of accused Ottavio Quattrocchi held with BSI AG, 39 King Street, London EC2V 8QD were frozen by the authorities in the UK on the strength of a restraint order issued by the London High Court, Queen’s Bench Division on July 25, 2003 pursuant to Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of the Special Judge, New Delhi.The aforesaid restraint order was challenged by Ottavio Quattrocchi and the London High Court has dismissed his application for discharge of restraint order with cost of UK £ 30,000.00 vide its judgment delivered on November 24, 2003.Subsequently, an appeal was filed by Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Supreme Court of Judicature, London, against the judgment of London High Court. The Supreme Court of Judicature, London, has dismissed the said application on January 20, 2004, again with cost of UK £ 38,000.00.The authorities in the United Kingdom have also been requested by the CBI to conduct investigation into the source of aforesaid restrained funds. While the funds held in the aforesaid accounts have been restrained, the request for execution of Letters Rogatory is still pending.A request had been conveyed to the concerned authorities in UK through Interpol Division of CBI on Decmber 3, 2003, and reminder dated January 30, 2004, for execution of the aforesaid Letters Rogatory on priority and intimating the present status in the matter. But so far, no response has been received from the UK authorities in the above matter.Where did all this money come from? Why did Bofors pay such huge sums to Quattrocchi when India purchased field guns for its army? Since Sonia Gandhi has been the dearest friend of the Quattrocchi’s for over three decades and since she provided them unprecedented access to the prime minister’s office and residence for long years, she owes the country an explanation.Maruti Scandal and FERA violationsThe second and equally disturbing event is the impunity with which Sonia Gandhi violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 30 years ago. This happened with the launch of a company called Maruti Technical Services Private Limited (MS’FPL) on November 16, 1970. This company was set up by her along with her brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of a ‘wholly indigenous motor car’.It is in the context of this company, of which she was half-owner and managing director while being an Italian national that the question of FERA violation arises.The company’s story provides valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. The birth of MTSPL, preceded that of another company, Maruti Limited, which was to avail of the former’s ‘know-how’ to produce the cars.The Articles of Association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it.Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render ‘technical know-how’ to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. In June 1971, Maruti Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its Managing Director. On December 15, 1971, MTSPL allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti Ltd, according to which MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 Lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how.This document describes MTSPL, of which Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi were the only directors, as a technical company ‘which has the capability of imparting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car’. It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of two per cent of the net sales of motor cars.Six weeks after this agreement, Maruti Ltd paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to MTSPL. Later, MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase ‘technical know-how’ from him!The next move came about a year later. MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi as its managing director. This happened at an ‘extraordinary general meeting of share holders’ held on January 25, 1973.Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter, MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company, subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites.Sometime later, the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi. For some reason, this was later sub-divided into two share certificates of 1900 and 1000 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to her on February 4, 1974. On the same day, 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. This company, called Maruti Heavy Vehicles Private Limited, had 13 shareholders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares.This was incorporated on February 22, 1974, and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974, in regard to her appointment as its MD. But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary.In 1975, this road roller company too sought out Maruti Technical Services Company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975, between the two companies, according to which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts.Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies?Was MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, competent to provide technical know-how to make ‘a wholly indigenous motor car’ and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi technically qualified and competent to be the managing director of such companies?A Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice AC Gupta, which probed the Maruti Scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission’s report said SM Rege, who was Secretary of Maruti Ltd, told the commission it was known to all concerned that Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India.S Kumar, Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of MTSPL and MHVPL to Sonia Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and therefore `ab initio void’. After listening to the testimony of several such witnesses, the commission concluded:“It was a fact known to all concerned that Ms Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the Act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India,”The commission further noted, “She tendered her resignation on January 21, 1975. It is surprising that Ms Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company.”The Gupta Commission also recorded the fact that A Banerjee, Income- Tax Officer, disallowed part of the remuneration to Sonia Gandhi as excessive “because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company”.Among other issues, the commission went into the question of the competence of MTSPL to provide know-how to make cars and road rollers. WHF Muller, a German technician on the staff of MTSPL, told the commission that all that Maruti Ltd produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were ‘hand-made’ and ‘fabricated/purchased in parts’ and not of the same design. They were different from one another.Yet another witness said MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on its rolls. There was no fixed and finalized design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show rooms “to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent”.Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show rooms, narrated their experience to the commission. “One had to push the car to his show room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000 // $1 = Rs.40) he had paid for it.”The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by Maruti Ltd against the dealers who wanted to back out. “One of the dealers, Mr. SC Agarwal, who terminated his agency was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail. Mr. Agarwal had to apologize by touching Sanjay’s feet. Mr. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit was arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.”Witnesses also told the commission that MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road rollers. The commission, therefore, concluded: “Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of Maruti cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers.”The Maruti cars that are now on Indian roads came to be produced after the Central Government took over the company and brought genuine “know-how” from Japan and dispensed’ with the bogus “Italian” know-how that the company was saddled with in its formative years.In any case, the bottom line is that the contents of the Gupta Commission Report and the Voters’ List Episode provide sufficient evidence of Sonia Gandhi’s disdain for Indian laws. Regrettably, it would appear the Nehru-Gandhi family was party to these fraudulent declarations.Although an Italian citizen, she was appointed Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services Private Limited on January 25, 1973. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), which was debated and passed by Parliament that year, came into force on January 1, 1974.Among other things, it prohibited foreigners from owning shares or accepting appointment in Indian companies without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Yet, Sonia continued as Managing Director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the Act, which listed the punishment for contravention of FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years.Smuggling of Indian artifacts(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Those who have no love for India will not hesitate to plunder her treasures. Mohammed Ghori, Nadir Shah, and the British scum in the East India Company made no secret of it. But Sonia Gandhi has been more discreet, but as greedy, in her looting of Indian treasures. When Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers, not a day passed when the PM’s security did not go to the New Delhi, or Chennai international airport to send crates and crates unchecked by customs to Rome. Air India and Alitalia were the carriers. Mr. Arjun Singh first as CM, later as Union Minister in charge of Culture was her hatchet man. Indian temple sculpture of gods and goddesses, antiques, pichwai paintings, shatoosh shawls, coins, and you name it, were transported to Italy to be first displayed in two shops owned by her sister [i.e., Anuskha alias Alessandra]. These shops located in blue-collar areas of Rivolta [shop name: Etnica] and Orbassano [shop name: Ganpati] did little business because which blue collar Italian wants Indian antiques? The shops were to make false bills, and thereafter these treasures were taken to London for auction by Sotheby’s and Christies. Some of this ill-gotten money from auction went into Rahul Gandhi’s National way into the Gandhi family account in the Bank of America in Cayman Islands.Rahul’s expenses and tuition fees for the one-year he was at Harvard, was paid from the Cayman Island account. What kind of people are these Gandhi-Mainos that bite the very hand of Bharat Mata that fed them and gave them a good life? How can the nation trust such greedy thieves?Terrorist connections(By Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)Sonia has had long connection with the Habash group of Palestinian, and has funded Palestinian families that lost their kith and kin in a suicide bombing or hijacking episode. This, Rajiv Gandhi himself told me and was confirmed to me [the funding] by Yassir Arafat when I met him in Tunis on October 17, 1990 at the request of Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi and I were good friends from 1978, but became very close buddies after V.P. Singh had betrayed him in 1987. We met practically every day, mostly in the early hours from 1AM to 4AM. It was at my suggestion that he made Chandrashekhar the PM. And contrary to public impression, he was not mainly responsible for the fall of Chandrashekar government in which I was a Minister.Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly with the LTTE [”the Tamil Tigers”] since 1984. Sonia’s mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions.Sonia’s conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who uses Bangalore as the nodal point for contact. There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have assured the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because they would ensure it is blamed on the Sikhs or the evidence so much fudged that no court would convict them. But D.R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation got the support of Narasimha Rao and cracked the case, and got the LTTE convicted in the trial court, and which conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court.Although on the involvement of Congress Party in the assassination, DRK soft peddled on a number of leads perhaps because he did not want political controversy to put roadblocks on his investigation as a whole. The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia’s pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court judgment convicting the LTTE came earlier, and that sinister effort too failed.The Maruti scam (by Arun Shourie)Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers — even official papers — of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.Donation of public money to Sonia controlled foundations to promote her interestsReal estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built — the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls — the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores. The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi and enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world — Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate — to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia, every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide. The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed — the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, “The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust.”What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully — for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.7: Bilateral and multilateral programs of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.8: Brief report on implementation of programs from April 1994 to March 1995.9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.11: Gita Govinda project.12: IGNCA newsletter.13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.15: Matters relating to building project.16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: “I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India’s approval to the alterations.”The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less “unanimously approved” changes in the Trust Deed. And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?She became President for life. The other trustees — two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years — became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out. The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers’ money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force — on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted — without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post “approval” was obtained from an obliging trustee. That “approval” was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, “no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet.” Other departments were manifestly concerned; concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.The rule proceeds to provide, “Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may… (b) Involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant… (d) Otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not…”And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament — Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan — began seeking details, and raising objections.For a full two and a half years, governments — of the Congress (I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress (I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral — made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over Governmental assets of incalculable value — through technicalities collusively arranged.Here is an overview of Sonia’s EmpireName of the trust Year founded Budget Function1 Rajiv Gandhi Trust 1991 Rs. 24 Crore The Trust Helps the women and the children. Also active in the field of literacy, health, aviation and science.2 Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies 1992 Rs. 3 crore Study of the public policy from Rajiv Gandhi’s viewpoint3 Jawahar Bhawan Trust 1989 Unknown Registered for maintaining Jawahar Bhawan4 Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust 1985 Rs. 3 crore Organizes lecture on the occasion of the distribution of Indira Gandhi Peace Prize given once in every two years5 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Museum and Library 1985 Unknown This a Government committee which besides maintaining Nehru memorials organizes seminars and exhibitions6 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund 1965 Rs. 7 crore It maintains Anand Bhawan and Swaraj Bhavan in additions to providing Nehru fellowship7 Veer Bhoomi and Sriperumbdur Memorial committee 1991 by the Ministry of the Rural Development This committee which is solely handled by Sonia, manages the two memorial places associated with Rajiv GandhiRGF list of donorsOne another dimension of Sonia Gandhi’s greed for real estate and money [power has been amply exhibited in the way she acquired six trusts bearing the name of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It is a well-known fact that Jawahar Bhawan was built to house the Congress party headquarters, but the building worth hundred crores was manipulated to be the property of Rajiv Gandhi Trust of which she is a chairperson trustee for the life. It may be recalled that scores of public and private sector, undertakings were advised to pay handsome donations to RG foundation. The sample of the donors’ list along with the money is given below: (As per the list of donors published in daily Jansatta on December 14, 1992)Name AmountJ.N.M fund 1,00000.00Hindustan Times Ltd. 20,00000.00Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. 6,00000.00M/s J&K Industries Ltd 5,00000.00M/s Straw Products Ltd. 5,00000.00Smt. Sonia Gandhi 1,00000.00Shri G D Parthasarathi 5,00000.00Shri Bharat H. Barai 1,00000.00Dunlop India 20,00000.00Mathair & Plant India Ltd. 5,00000.00Orissa Cement Ltd. 2,00000.00Hindustan Door Oliver Ltd. 5,00000.00Shri M. R. Chabariya Charity Trust 1,00000.00ITC Ltd. 50,00000.00ANZ Grindlays Bank 6,00000.00M/s Indian Petro Chemicals Cor. Ltd. 5,00000.00Ravi’s Sant Pvt. Ltd. 1,51,000.00Click Nicson Ltd. 7,50000.00Niryat Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I) 2,00000.00Snow Chem India Ltd. 7,50000.00Bajaj Auto Ltd. 25,00000.00M. N. Dastoor & Company 5,00000.00M/s JCT Ltd. 12,50000.00M/S Fera Alloys Corpo Ltd 2,50000.00M/S APJ Ltd 2,50000.00M/s Simplo (E) Tea Company Ltd 2,50000.00M/s Surendra Overseas Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Empire Plantation (E) Ltd. 2,50000.00M/s Usha Rectifire Corp (E) Ltd. 10,00000.00M/s Prajakta Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00M/s Kausar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00M/s S G Chemical and Dyes Trading Ltd 10,00000.00Mahalakshmi Charitable Society 12,50000.00M/s Godfray Philips (E) Ltd 12,50000.00Shri SS Surjewala 1,11000.00M/s Batliboi & Company Ltd. 1,00000.00M/s Carner Sone Brands Ltd. 1,50000.00Shri Natthu Bhai Patel 1,00000.00M/s Associated Beverage & Distilleries 1,00000.00U N Mehta Charitable Trust 1,50000.00All India Congress Committee 50,00000.00M/s Indian Polaseze Comp Ltd. 5,00000.00M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Petro 3,00000.00M/s Indian Acritize Ltd. 1,00000.00Central Bank of India 2,00000.00M M Joshi Trust 5,00000.00C D Vajpayee Trust 5,00000.00K N Singh Trust 5,00000.00R Gupta Trust 5,00000.00Shri B. N. srivastava 5,00000.00Treasurer, AICC 50,00000.00Sethi Trust 15,00000.00Indo-soviet Pharmacy 1,00000.00M/s Jury Agro Chemicals Ltd. 25,00000.00M/s Vinayaka Enterprises 2,000000.00M/s Vinayaka Enterprises (Rawgandha Mint) 1,00000.00M/s Adarsh Enterprises 2,00000.00M/s Mejestic Acriviter 2,00000.00Ravi Kumar Traders 2,00000.00Shri Ram Krishna Lodge 2,00000.00Rangnath Enterprises 2,00000.00M/s Shri Ram liquor 2,00000.00Mahamahim Srhi Li pand 5,15771.00Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd. 10,00000.00Treasurer, AICC(I) 50,00000.00M/s Premium Exports Ltd. 2,50000.00Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00Jyotsna Holding Pvt. Ltd., 15,00000.00Warden Armenion Church 10,00000.00Rohan Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7,50000.00Meravnazi Security 1,00000.00ONGC 1,00000.00UniPatch Ruber Ltd., 1,00000.00Shri Harshad S Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Promor Race Asset Manage Ltd- Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Shri J H Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00Shri Ashwin Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00RPG enterprises (According to 4,18900.00(According to RGF foundation 1,83100.00M/s Borosil Glass Works Ltd 1,00000.00M/s M P Dist Ltd. 1,00000.00M/s Asian Capital Consolidated Fund 1,00000.00Shri P V Huglar 5,16000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Lalit Suri 50,00000.00M/s Wahwan Automotive Centre 1,23396.59Peerless General Finance & Investment 50,00000.00Setia Trust 5,00000.00Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00Shri Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Smt Meena Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Shri Vishal Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd., 25,00000.00Fund Raising sub committee for RGF 12,33370.00All India Congress Committee (I) 25,00000.00M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 25,00000.00M/s Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. 25,00000.00M/s Mysore Cements Ltd., 20,00000.00M/s Simco Ltd., 5,00000.00M/s coloride Ind Ltd., 15,00000.00M/s VXL Indian Ltd., 10,00000.00CESC Ltd., 37,50000.00Miscellaneous 1,15000.00Soka Glai International 5,74268.00Firozeshah Godrej Foundation 4,00000.00Treasurer, AICC (I) 25,00000.00Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 10,00000.00Dena Bank 1,00000.00Finish Development Agency (Phinida) 3,44827.59Vijayshri Liquor Company Pvt. Ltd., 5,00000.00H. Themmegowda 7,50000.00J P Narayan Swamy 5,00000.00Ravi Kumar Traders 7,50000.00The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company 25,00000.00Nobody pays any money for nothing. Most of the money has been paid by repeated reminders (read coercion)IGNCAIndia Today published a report about Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts in its issue dated July 5, 1999. The write up exposed her manipulation, some portions are given below.“… with Congress having ruled the country the longest, it is not surprising that its president Sonia Gandhi has not only gained her family’s political inheritance but also control over its vast assets in the form of public trusts, institutions and funds. The IGNCA was set up in 1987 with a corpus fund of Rs. 50 crore, a grant of Rs. 100 crore for its grandiose yet-to-come-up edifice, 21 acres of prime land in Delhi (worth of Rs. 5,000 crore), a battery of Government officers on deputation and 15 duplex flats in the capitals Asian Games complex (worth over Rs. 1 crore each).The IGNCA’s original trust deed provided for the trustees to hold office for a period of 10 years, the Member-Secretary to be appointed by the Government and for the President of India in his capacity as the visitor to periodically review the functioning of the IGNCA. However, in May 1995 the trustees without seeking the permission of the Government made crucial changes to the trust deed. According to a document circulated by the IGNCA Workers Union, “During 1994-95, when the Congress party was facing an uncertain elections, Vatsyayan, the then Member-Secretary, got certain major changes carried out in the basic structure of the IGNCA so as to remove the role of the Government of India in the affairs of the IGNCA altogether”.The new trust deed made Sonia life president of the IGNCA and bestowed life membership on R. Venkataraman, P.V.Narasimha Rao, Pupul Jayakar, H.Y.Sharada Prasad and Vatsyayan. When Jayakar declined to accept life membership saying “Indira would be shuddering in her grave if she knew what was happening in her name”. Mahmohan Singh was drawn into the charmed coterie in her place. More significantly, the role of the President of India as visitor was done away with as was the power of the Government to appoint the member-Secretary. Kapila Vatsayayan, who till then held the post with the rank of a Secretary n the Union Government and had reached the age of superannuation, was given the rank equivalent to that of a Minister of State and re-designated Academic Director. Madhavrao Scindia, then HRD Minister, gave post facto approval to the changes without consulting either his department or others like finance, urban affairs of parliamentary affairs.Nor was the matter ever discussed by the Cabinet, then. With the IGNCA clearly violating its own original constitution, the Attorney-General believes that the so-called life president and all the life trustees were not legally exercising their authority over the institution. Moreover, despite receiving huge amounts of public money, the IGNCA does not submit itself to scrutiny of the CAG and instead has hired private Chartered Accountants to do the job. The Government insists that the IGNCA open its book for the CAG and is all set to see this matter to its logical conclusion. “We may even take over its assets if they don’t restore the original trust deed”, says a high official in the DoC. Meanwhile, notices are being issued to the IGNCA officials to vacate the Asiad Village flats where they have been overstaying without even paying the nominal Rs. 685 monthly rent. However, in a country where occupation is two-thirds of the title and political exigencies more powerful than the niceties of law, Joshi’s audacious bid to restore status quo ante in the IGNCA may prove to be difficult, if not more, than throwing out the Pakistani intruders in Kargil”.BoforsFinally the mega corruption issue – the Bofors investigation – which Sonia Gandhi never allowed to be completed. During the Narasimha Rao years, he bought peace with Sonia Gandhi on the bargaining counter in Bofors inquiry itself. The tenure of V P Singh was too short, and Chandra Shepherd was not too enthusiastic, for the probe to be completed. When Deve Gowda pushed the inquiry and then CBI chief Joginder singh was about to start the proceedings further, Sonia Gandhi saw to it that Gowda was toppled. It was again for the furtherance of the proceedings by Prime Minister I K Gujral, that the government led by him was toppled. When Vajpayee gave clearance and the papers went to the President, within a fortnight his Government was too voted out on the specific instructions of Sonia Gandhi.The CBI has enough documents to prove close linkage of ‘Q’ with Sonia and her family. The joint photographs showing Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv’s family members, and ‘Q, several travel documents which prove beyond doubt that Mr. Q’ and Sonia’s family were more closer than knowledgeable people can think of. Quattrocchi’s name is there in kick-back accounts; the remaining last leg of the inquiry is bound to catch Mr. ‘Q’ red-handed, which would in turn show the real greedy Sonia.Sonia vs. Gandhi: The controversy, the Full Page Ad in New York Times in Oct 2007 that triggered multi million dollar lawsuits against activists in US.US activists requested Sonia proxy in US, INOC (India National Overseas Congress) that Sonia is not the right person to represent Gandhi’s principles at UN on Oct 2, 2007 and not to use his name for political purposes. They requested to bring in a freedom fighter from Congress party itself. But INOC started calling activists fundamentalists and other names. About 500 NRIs gathered in front of UN when Sonia spoke on Oct 2nd, 2007 and they took out a full page Ad in New York Times Ad. In Apr 2008, INOC sued with multi 100 million dollar lawsuits which were challenged in US courts and defeated. READ THE WHOLE STORY AT Gandhi Heritage -It is an accepted fact that almost every Indian politician is corrupt if measured against Gandhian principles every Indian politician will fail on some points or other but Sonia would fail on every point. Sonia is a symbol of what Gandhi advocated against. She is trying to wear Gandhi’s cloak to cash on Gandhi’s fame and gain legitimacy. Gandhi stood for:I. Sat — which implies openness, honesty, and fairness: TruthSonia repeatedly proved her untruthfulness and dishonesty. Even in a trivial issue such as her educational qualifications she lied. Furthermore there is no public record of her ever apologizing for her mistakes.II. “Ahimsa” — refusal to inflict injury on others.Sonia is known for vengeance actions. She is known for intolerance towards party members who rejoined her party.III. “Tapasya” — willingness for self-sacrifice.There is no incidence of Sonia’s sacrifice. She sacrificed India, congress party and national icons such as Gandhi to promote herself and her children.Anybody who respects Gandhi will be against misusing his name and fame. This protest is an attempt to save Gandhi’s name and legacy from misuse..