Don't you worry about my foot or any other Goanet members' foot, instead always make sure that you don't put your foot into your mouth!
You wrote saying withdrawing cases in state amounts to interference with process of law! Does this mean that when Kongress was ruling in Goa and when they withdrew pending cases on their netas and their party men on two occasions, first after defeat of MGP party and later after defeat of BJP party was not an act of interference! And that that ACT of Kongress was LEGAL!! Is it? OR are you trying to say that only Kongress party chief ministers are given license to interfere with process of law and not any other party's chief ministers? You asked me, 'do you Barad think that M Parrikar has that power invested in the Chief Minister's Job?' To this my counter question is: Do you mean to say only Kongress Chief ministers have the powers to withdraw pending cases and no other party's chief minister has such powers? My counter question to your second followed question: is it only M. Parrikar's job to 'uphold the rule of law' and Kongress party chief ministers are free to play with rule of law? Lastly, you are asking me: 'So why do you not tell Parrikar to let these cases have their final conclusion? Is it not 'dadagiri'??' My answer to this is: You claim yourself to be Goan and therefore you show your concern to Goa and Goans. So, as a responsible Goan, why don't you directly tell Manohar parrikar to let all pending cases go to logical conclusions? Why you are showing your reluctance to do so? Talk to Parrikar directly to get the answer whether it is Dadagiri or other '*giri'! About Presidential Pardon & clemency petitions read my message written in reply to JC's response. Here I will only say, don't jump to conclusion like JC did in haste. U. G. Barad On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 Nascy Caldeira [email protected] wrote: Barad, You have put your 'foot into your mouth' here. Ha Ha Ha! It is one thing to withdraw cases, amounting to interference with process of law; and another thing to grant clemency to convicted people by Presidents who have been granted the Constitutional power to do so, after due process. Do you Barad think that M Parrikar has that power invested in the Cheif Minister's Job? His first and most important job is the 'Uphold the Rule of law; is it not? So why do you not tell Parrikar to let these cases have their final conclusion? Is it not 'dadagiri'?? Nascy Caldeira
