CLEVELAND, OH – In a May 3, 1995 investigative news story for the Baltimore Sun, reporter Jim Haner exposed how an Indian alien attorney named Lalit Harilal Gadhia funneled money through a federal Political Action Committee (PAC) Indian attorney Subodh Chandra had registered from Alberquerque, New Mexico on August 16, 1993. Chandra’s name has surfaced recently as a possible choice for United States Attorney of the Northern District of Ohio.
Chandra’s PAC was named the Indian-American Leadership Investment Fund. Gadhia’s goal was to use it to support “politicians with ties to India,” but under the direction of Indian Embassy personnel administrator Davendra Singh and Commnunist Ambassadors Siddatha Shankar Ray and later Naresh Chandra. Federal records reveal how Singh delivered $60,000 in cash to Gadhia at a restaurant in Laurel, Maryland to influence elections in the United States of America through Chandra’s PAC.
Haner described Subodh Chandra as a descendant of Indian aliens who had immigrated to the United States of America; and who had coordinated with other descendants of Indian aliens to create a pro-India PAC. Instead of assimiliating and forgetting their home nations after renouncing it to obtain United States citizenship, alien immigrants re-herd and create their own segregated community “associations.”
They then infiltrate government and political offices and institutions to support their own people and home nations from inside the United States of America. It’s also a way to form a national organized ethnic criminal network. It is through such “ethnic” associations that ambassadors of other nations are encouraging their so-called “former” citizens inside the United States of America to create “within” this one that provides the opportunity for foreign espionage.
According to the United States Department of Justice’s indictment of Ghadia, Subodh Chandra is identified as creating the PAC with a group of Indian immigrant friends and handling the duties of a treasurer. Chandra has not claimed that he was born in the United States of America. His published claims have been that he was “raised” in Oklahoma.
Federal court filings identify Subodh Chandra as meeting with pro-Communist Gadhia in 1994; and agreeing to direct the money his fellow Indian immigrant raised to American candidates for elected offices who were favorable towards partially-Communist and Hindu India. The illegal Communist Party of the USA, headquartered in New York, announced in September 2020 how the Communist Party of India was celebrating its 100th year anniversary.
The National Security Act of 1950 and the Communist Control Act of 1954 outlaw Communism in the United States of America. Communist Indian agent Siddartha Shankar Ray was India’s ambassador to the United States of America at the time. Ray is known in India as the brutal Communist governor of Punjab and the orchestrator of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Massacre. 20,000 Sikhs were slaughtered after his friend, Indira Ghandi, was assassinated by two Sikh bodyguards. I’m sharing a link to 100 photos of the massacre here.
The Sikhs hated Ray. He was nicknamed “The Butcher of Punjab” for his “crisis management” role in sending 150,000 troops between October 31 and November 3, 1984 to find one man; and along the way murdering 20,000 Sikhs and burning out their homes and businesses. They raped Sikh women and gave them Indian babies along the way to further exterminate the ethnic group.
Ray was replaced by Naresh Chandra after his scheme with Gadhia and Subodh Chandra’s PAC was exposed. Naresh Chandra’s brother, Girish Chandra Saxena, was brought to the Government of India’s embassy in Washington, D.C. with him. Girish Chandra led India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which infiltrated the Sikh community before Ray’s “Operation Bluestar” attack on the Golden Temple and 38 other Sikh temples throughout Punjab, Khalistan in June 1984. Ambassador Naresh Chandra was accused of smuggling CFC’s manufactured in India through United States Customs.
United States Senator Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, had been investigating Communist India’s appointees and their criminal and government-obstructing acts inside our nation. He wanted Ray and Chandra investigated. Bill Clinton was serving as the nation’s president. He was paying close attention to the investigation of Gadhia and his relationship with Subodh Chandra whose last name was associated with brutal Communist Indians living in the nation.
The indictment reads that Gadhia did not raise money from the 31 donors whose names appeared on Subodh Chandra’s federal PAC records. Instead he collected $60,000 from one of Ray’s Indian Embassy workers and fellow Communist Davendra Singh; and the two devised a scheme to get the money to Chandra’s PAC. The scheme is outlined in a June 30, 1998 FEC notice to Naresh Chandra from General Counsel Lawrence Noble. Subodh Chandra’s name is referenced throughout.
The Government of India did not want the United States of America to arm majority Muslim Pakistan; and was using operatives like Gadhia to obstruct the nation’s foreign policy from within. His job with India’s embassy in Washington, D.C. was as Ambassador Ray’s Minister for Personnel and Community Affairs.
The money was delivered to Ghadia by the Indian embassy worker, Singh, in $100 bills at a hotel restaurant in Laurel, Maryland in 1994. Singh then directed Gadhia to identify to Chandra the American political candidates he wanted to send campaign donations in that year’s federal elections for United States senate and the house of representatives. Gadhia appears to have kept $19,000 and delivered $41,000 to Chandra’s PAC. Chandra wrote the checks.
Foreign nationals and foreign “states” are specifically prohibited under Title 2 of the United States Code, Chapter 3 and section 441(e) from making political contributions and participating in or controlling the election-related activities of a person or organization. Singh’s conspiracy with Ghadia also violated Title 2 of the United States Code, Chapter 3 and section 441(f) as it is illegal to make contributions to federal campaigns in the name of another or even assisting others in the making of such contributions. The individuals making this type of donation are called “straw donors.”
In today’s political climate Gadhia and Subodh Chandra may have been investigated as Logan, Espionage Act and Foreign Agent Registration Act violators. Gadhia was assumed to be operating with the cash Singh delivered to him as an unregistered agent of the Goverment of India. Indian Phillip D’Souza was investigated, prosecuted, convicted and sent to federal prison for making straw donor donations during the 2016 presidential electon. Donald Trump pardoned him before he left the presidency.
Had the Baltimore Sun’s Haner not conducted the investigation Chandra should have done of his own donors, the American politicians Chandra wrote campaign checks to could have been made to look like criminals when they were not. The money Singh directed to Gadhia, that he delivered to Chandra’s PAC, could have been part of a ploy to kill a candidate for Congress’ campaign through an intentional leaking of the information to a reporter like Haner or me.
To work his scheme to deliver the Government of India’s money to Chandra’s PAC, Gadhia initially told his secretary and five others to find donors willing to write checks to it. He would give his straw donors the money back in cash.
Haner contacted Gadhia’s straw donors like I did in my story about the late Paul Voinovich’s donations to a Jefferson County candidate for commissioner in 1996. Matt Parise’s campaign finance report showed large donations from individuals in Cuyahoga County. When I contacted his donors to ask about their $2500 donations to Parise’s campaign, the answers came back “who’s Matt Parise?” They all knew Paul Voinovich.
It appears even from his own statements that Chandra deposited the checks Gadhia delivered to him from his straw donors into his PAC’s bank account no questions asked. Until he met Gadhia, Haner reported how Chandra’s PAC’s bank balance had not exceeded $600. Gadhia delivered a list of donors to Singh at the Indian embassy.
Various sections of Chapter 11, Section 102.17 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) allowed Chandra’s PAC to jointly raise funds with other PACS or individuals with whom he had a written contract. The way instructions to treasurers read, Chandra’s written contract with Gadhia was supposed to include the creation of a separate bank account since the older alien lawyer was operating as a “fundraising representative.”
(c) Joint fundraising procedures. The requirements of 11 CFR 102.17(c)(1) through (8) shall govern joint fundraising activity conducted under this section.
(1) Written agreement. The participants in a joint fundraising activity shall enter into a written agreement, whether or not all participants are political committees under 11 CFR 100.5. The written agreement shall identify the fundraising representative and shall state a formula for the allocation of fundraising proceeds. The formula shall be stated as the amount or percentage of each contribution received to be allocated to each participant. The fundraising representative shall retain the written agreement for a period of three years and shall make it available to the Commission on request.
Haner’s investigation brought him to Chandra on April 27th and 28th for two meetings. Haner told the surprised child of Indian aliens, Chandra, he had investigated his donors and identified FEC law and regulation violations.
Chandra claimed to not know when Haner told him donors writing the checks to his PAC did not have the wealth to make $500 and $1000 donations; and had already admitted their roles in Gadhia and the Government of India’s scheme. Like Chandra, some of his PAC donors claimed they did not know donations had been made in their names with money from the Government of India.
Individual donation limits are $2900. Donations to PAC’s are limited to $5000. In one day, October 31, 1994, Chandra received $39,500 in donations from the money Gadhia had obtained from the Government of India. Gadhia and Ambassador Davendra Singh’s scheme allowed the Government of India to donate $42,000 to Chandra’s PAC in circumvention of the $5000 limit; as well as the nation’s espionage, campaign, immigration and anti-corruption laws.
Gadhia when caught, of course, lied to the Baltimore Sun’s Haner. The investigative journalist reported Gadhia as saying, “It’s untrue that I gave money through anyone. I don’t give money. I get money.”
Mr. “I Get Money” Gadhia pocketed $4000 of the Government of India’s money this way with four $1000 checks from members of his family. The $18,000 left from the $60,000 he received from Singh does not appear in Chandra’s FEC report. I could find no record of an Internal Revenue Service investigation of Gadhia that dealt with the other $18,000 and whether he reported it. He’s now 82.
When Haner confronted attorney Gadhia about $2000 in donations his secretary, Rose Osborne, and her husband made to Chandra’s PAC, the lying alien lawyer blamed his office worker saying he did not know she had used her spouse’s name to make a donation. He further said she forwarded the mail to Chandra in New Mexico; and he didn’ know what was in it.
What Gadhia told Haner he said to his secretary was, “Rose, would you like to make a contribution? You have never made a contribution to Indian candidates before. You make a living, you know, in the Indian community. Maybe this is something you would feel comfortable with?” Under that paradigm Chandra earns money off American Negroes from a law firm that employs none. Chandra’s FEC donations show none to any American Negro candidate. He supports fellow Indian immigrants for Congress; even if they are “Republican” supporters of President Donald Trump like Gary Barve.
Gadhia’s request to Rose was illegal as an employer is prohibited from asking employees to donate portions of their wages to the political candidates of their choices. Slavery still exists in India as the nation with the largest number of slaves. 18 million.
None of the information Haner easily-detected was previously-investigated by Chandra. One of the FEC duties imposed on treasurers is to, “monitor contributions to ensure they comply with legal limits and prohibitions.” It’s language on the FEC’s website and Chandra is both Stanford and Yale educated.
One of Chandra’s PAC donors was a 27-year-old Indian female student who worked as a short order cook at the Charles Street Bar. She lived in a $350 a month apartment and made a $1000 donation. The majority of his donors were cooks, bartenders and office workers ordered to write checks by their Indian employers.
Despite the PAC treasurer’s duties to monitor donations for federal law violations, Subodh Chandra confessed that he had no knowledge of his donors’ backgrounds. Haner described how Chandra simply accepted Gadhia’s word that the donors were affluent. Of course, Subodh Chandra told Haner he would cooperate in every way possible with a federal investigation that would have been unnecessary had he been diligent.
What Subodh Chandra did not do is conduct an investigation within 10 days after being placed on notice by Haner. I can find no evidence that Chandra alerted the contributors in writing of the federal crimes for which he claimed to be unwittingly involved despite his last name being identical to India’s Communist ambassador.
After his April 27-28, 1995 meetings with Haner, Chandra forwarded correspondence dated May 25, 1995 to the FEC, sua ponte, seeking an advisory opinion. A sua ponte admission of an FEC law violations helps mitigate the campaign treasurer’s criminal intent. The letter identified his meetings with Haner and the information he had acquired from the reporter.
The FEC’s General Counsel issued Advisory Opinion 1995-19 in Subodh Chandra’s request and sua ponte excuses for why he had not fully-discharged the duties of a PAC treasurer. The Chandra Law Firm principal was informed of the following:
Contributions that, when received, present genuine questions as to whether they were made by corporations, labor organizations, foreign nationals, or Federal contractors may be either deposited into a campaign depository or returned to the contributor within ten days of the receipt. If such a contribution is deposited, the treasurer must make his or her best efforts to determine the legality of the contribution. The treasurer must make at least one written or oral request for evidence of the legality. Such evidence includes, but is not limited to, a written statement from the contributor explaining why the contribution is legal, or a written statement by the treasurer memorializing an oral communication from the contributor to that effect. If the contribution cannot be determined to be legal, the treasurer must refund it to the contributor within thirty days of its receipt. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(1).
The Commission notes the logical and appropriate application of standards set out in 11 CFR 103.3(b)(1) to situations arising under 11 CFR 103.3(b)(2) where the issue of illegality arises sometime after the receipt of a contribution. Such a situation calls for the taking of ameliorative action where there is a sufficient basis to question the lawfulness of a contribution. In this regard, the Commission does not need to consider whether, by itself, a newspaper article containing general allegations as to contributions in the name of another would provide a sufficient basis to question the lawfulness of a contribution. However, you note the “specificity” of the allegations presented to you in meetings with the reporter. In addition, the May 3 article contains specific information briefly described above as to some of the contributions.
The Commission concludes that these circumstances present a sufficient basis for you to question the legality of at least some of the contributions at issue. You must, therefore, take steps that would constitute best efforts to determine the legality of those contributions. Based on information you may have received from the reporter, there may be some contributions (from the Maryland contributors) that may not present a genuine question of legality to you at this time. Nevertheless, the Commission advises exercising best efforts at determining the legality of those contributions as well. In instances where the Commission has investigated and determined that there is culpability on the part of the recipient committee, the Commission often views the expeditious refund or disgorgement of unlawful contributions as a mitigating factor in determining an appropriate civil penalty.
The Commission assumes that, in connection with your second proposal, i.e., the written memorialization of contributions with the Maryland contributors, the Fund will describe to the contributors the proper criteria for contributions, as provided for in the first proposal. The Commission notes that the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Maryland has submitted comments with respect to your request.
This advisory opinion does not require you to contact any contributors contrary to the express advice of the U.S. Attorney. However, if upon the request of the U.S. Attorney, you decide not to contact contributors, you may not use the amounts of their questionable contributions for any committee expenses, and such amounts must be disgorged as described above. If the Fund does not have sufficient monies on hand, it must make the disgorgement from the next funds it receives.
Chandra was admitted to practice law in Ohio, California and New Mexico. His New Mexico law license is inactive. Ohio and California’s are current. He was licensed in California on May 26, 1997. The California license was inactive between January 1, 1999 through March 26, 2014. Ohio since May 11, 1998. Chandra was employed with the United States Department of Justice as an assistant federal prosecutor working on health fraud cases.
Ex-Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell appointed him as her director of law in 2002 at the age of 36. Twice the United States Department of Justice investigated the constitutionality of the criminal justice system he presided over as legal advisor and found rampant violations of American civil rights. In 2014 a third federal investigation of Cleveland police by federal prosecutors caused Steve Dettebach to blast Chandra for doing nothing with the first two.
The distance from Stanford University in California to Baltimore is 2400 miles. Chandra attended Yale University 260 miles from Baltimore. The documents I’ve read don’t explain how an immigrant Baltimore attorney from India has the juice to get $60,000 in cash from the Government of India’s ambassador; and deliver it to a PAC Subodh Chandra controlled in Alberquerque, New Mexico, fresh out of law school, and 2400 miles away.
Chandra turned on Gadhia with a quickness and in writing. It would be interesting to know who the fresh out of law school child of aliens from India communicated with before he reached out to the FEC nearly a month after his meeting with Haner; and who helped him craft the response to the agency with such “specificity” to avoid being a suspect in Gadhia’s criminal enterprise.
Gadhia appears to be the only agent of the Government of India who went to prison. Where he should have been criminally prosecuted just like Paul Manafort as an unregistered foreign agent, Gadhia did not face either those charges or the risk of deportation.
