Status of the Persecution Trial
This text was machine-transcribed from the printed book and may contain errors. Select the words and choose “Report a mistake”.
25 December 2010 : His Divine Holiness poisoned by Aarthi Rao.
4 March 2010 : FAKE Complaint of misbehaviour registered against His Divine Holiness by a man Lenin 4 March 2010 : FAKE Complaint of misbehaviour converted into a rape complaint, without mentioning anybody as a victim. 13 April 2010 : Police give an advertisement openly declaring monetary compensation to anybody ready to pose as a rape victim or give a negative testimony against His Divine Holiness. Nobody turned up. 21 April 2010 : His Divine Holiness unlawfully arrested and tortured. Police hid the torture, justified the atrocities on grounds of suspicion. 17 August 2010 : Aarthi Rao appeared as a witness, making false rape allegations against His Divine Holiness.
2013 : Courts in U.S. have declared His Divine Holiness innocent. The Courts penalized some of the Aarthi Rao ½ Million USD and her partners in crime, a total of for to a tune of1 Million USD ( Rs. 6 crore INR)
December 2017 : Conspirators in India, continued their crimes against His Divine Holiness. U.S. Courts took a note of the repeated attacks by conspirators and penalized other them and the Media Houses. The total penalty to the conspirators stands to an equivalent of $6 Million USD ( ~ Rs. 400 Million INR ).
6 September 2018 : India on the other hand had blatant illegalities in the case – extra judiciary interruptions and influences evidently making it a biased unfair trial. For example, on 30 August 2018, the trial Court noted that on the next date 6 September 2018 there would be arguments by the lawyers evidently not needing the presence of the accused, and clearly acknowledging that His Divine Holiness as a pontiff was on His spiritual pilgrimage. However, on the next date of hearing, 6 September 2018, the Court did a complete volte face and noted that the pontiff being on spiritual pilgrimage was not valid condition for being absent and that he did not comply with his commitment to be present in the 1st week of September (which was never given or asked for). Non-bailable warrant was issued against His Divine Holiness with no warning and when the law clearly states that the presence of the accused is not necessary when his lawyer is present and does not object to the progress of the trial.