soter <[email protected]> wrote thus to Rajan Parrikar: [1] Who is the judiciary? Political Opponents? The media? Who? [2] Is Micky a criminal by the mere fact he is suspected to have a hand in someone's death? [3] Should we treat a suspect as a criminal even before he is convicted? [4] His only fault was that he evaded the police for over a month, which actually reflects poorly on his legal advisors. [5] What we are witnessing is a blatant human rights violation in the name of justice.
COMMENT: re #1: The 'activist advogado' who was able to disrupt court proceedings, and not be held in contempt of the court, IMHO is THE judiciary. re #2 & # 3: There is a precedent set by the SUPREME 'officer of the court' in the Ribandar case. re #4: That may be true ONLY if there is evidence that Micky's lawyers advised him to hide. re #5: Not sure yet if this can be proved .....but Trust Me .... if it can be ..... I will make it my business to make my turmericised ex-friend and now Gabe's amigo .....quite infamous with HR organisations. It might be worth for us to keep political leanings aside and look at Human Rights violations carefully. Today, these gangster advogados are attacking 'them'. Tomorrow, they WILL be after us and ours. IMHO, the primary consideration of gangsters is Poixe. Either that or they are just mad. In both case scenarios, they are very dangerous. We need to protect Human Rights zealously. For, as Lord Reid stated in S v McC and M; W v W (Our) 'law goes to great lengths to protect a person of full age and capacity from interference with his personal liberty. We have too often seen freedom disappear in other countries not only by coups d'état but by gradual erosion: and often it is the first step that counts. So it would be unwise to make even minor concessions'. 48 S v McC and M; W v W [1972] A.C. 24 at 43 PS: Let us watch these unscrupulous gangsters very very carefully. jc
