Smear Campaign Against Fathers Rights Activist? BBC

Two articles from the BBC. Here's the first, from the Dec 13, 2010

Newport fathers campaigner on explosives trial

A campaigning father planned to use bullets and explosives to shut down his home city, a court has heard.

Father-of-three Matthew Starmore, of Newport, was found with smokeless gunpowder, ammunition rounds and bullet heads when police raided his house.

Mr Starmore, branch secretary for New Fathers 4 Justice, had a list of targets in his diary, Cardiff Crown Court heard.

He denies possessing explosives, ammunition and handling stolen goods.

The court heard that Mr Starmore, 31, had promised "The most hard-hitting events since World War Two" for Newport.

Prosecutor Roger Griffiths said a diary entry read: "This will be the most dramatic, climatic and hard-hitting events since World War Two.

"This is just the start of a nationwide campaign."

Mr Griffiths said Mr Starmore's diary had a "to-do" list of targets that included sites key to the city's infrastructure.

'Hypothetical'

Mr Griffiths said: "He wanted to shut down the city and pull in police and emergency services from far and wide.

"Starmore wanted to escalate the activities of Fathers for Justice by using the bullets.

"He had these items and he was going to use them to carry out some kind of publicity for Fathers For Justice."

Mr Starmore told police he and his housemate had found the items in a lane and taken them so they were not picked up by children.

He told police the entries in his diary were not written by him and that they were "hypothetical" thoughts.

The trial continues.

Yikes! Sounds pretty scary, doesn't it! What a scary man!

But then, four days later:

Dec 17, 2010

Matthew Starmore cleared of all charges

A Cardiff Crown Court jury has cleared a campaigning father of all charges relating to possessing gunpowder and bullets.

Matthew Starmore, 31, of Newport, said he knew the materials were in the house but denied they were his.

Mr Starmore, ex-branch secretary of New Fathers 4 Justice, said he was shown the items by another man, David Hodge, who lived in the shared property.

Hodge had already pleaded guilty to possessing the material.

The court previously heard that police searched the house in Newport in October last year and discovered bottles of gunpowder, 24 rounds of ammunition and 108 bullet heads.

The jury was told that when police arrived, Mr Starmore asked if they had come about the bullets.

He said he had been shown the items by Hodge and had advised him to go to the police.

The police had not been contacted by Hodge and officers discovered the gunpowder and bullets when searching the house for another reason.

Mr Starmore was cleared of all charges: Possessing an explosive substance with intent to endanger life or property, two counts of possessing prohibited ammunition and one count of handling stolen goods.

Patriarchal Toonz -- Czech It Out! (Jan Dismas Zelenka - Trio sonata)

Trio Sonata for 2 oboes, bassoon & continuo No. 2 in G minor,

ZWV 181-2- Allegro


Notice, in the title, that I am using the word "patriarchal" in an offhand manner which might seem to imply that "patriarchy"-- whatever that is! -- is possibly not such a bad thing. And if I understand the feminists correctly, this makes me misogynistic. Did I get that right?

Anyhow, the subject of this post is music. And music is a powerful force in the universe; very few people understand just HOW powerful! That brings us straight back to the subject of "patriarchy". To be sure, music is power. But as counter-feminists, we are also aware that "patriarchy" is simply a feminist codeword for male power of any kind!

So today, we are considering two powers in combination: that of music, and that of maleness. Examples of this combination are plentiful, and I will now share just one, captured in the excellent YouTube video below:




We have here a trio sonata (heavy on the oboes!) by the Czech composer Jan Dismas Zelenka -- who came from Prague, and spent most of his life in Dresden. Or was it Leipzig? I forget. That bewigged fellow in the video is most likely not Zelenka; to the best of my knowledge, no likeness of Zelenka has come down to us. His face is lost to us, and so we have only his splendid voice.

Zelenka is one of those unjustly forgotten Baroque geniuses -- and there are tons of them, awaiting rediscovery. Zelenka seems to be undergoing such a revival himself -- and high time for it, I say! I will certainly be adding Zelenka to my CD collection, alongside Telemann, Vivaldi, Telemann, Tartini, Telemann, and their like.

Today's selection is good, rich manly stuff. The music is hauntingly ethereal and cerebral, but all the same muscular and virile, brim-full and overflowing with testosterone! It is furthermore tinged by a certain wistful melancholy that marks Zelenka's music in general, so unlike the buoyancy of the incomparable Telemann! But melancholy, when so sublimely voiced, brings not depression but peace -- like a glass of fine wine! For truly, there is no more certain road to mental illness than a fatuous longing to live in happy-happy land every minute of every day, and to banish every tiniest cloud from the sky the instant it shows itself. You should rather banish to Gehenna those accursed nitwits who will not permit you to not smile without asking you what is wrong!

Jan Zelenka lived from 1679 to 1745, a time very different from our own, a time when men knew how to be men, and never thought twice about it! Yes, I say they knew how to be men -- as opposed to bootlicking feminist manginas on the one hand, or idiotic macho buffoons on the other! Uninhibited male gusto, and brio, and genius, were the order of the day in earlier days, and this was mirrored in all things. The vampire that we know so well, had not yet fastened itself.

Our musical selection today is, let me say it, pure patriarchy, by which I understand pure male power -- no more and no less. But again, it is male power combined with musical power -- the unchained male passion for life in the undefiled fullness of its potency, operating by laws inherent to itself, and synergistically voiced as rhythm and melody. Men today are not men; and the more square-shouldered they try to be, the less manly, in truth, they become. I hate to use the detestable feminist cant phrase "performing masculinity", but regrettably the shoe fits. And of course, I chiefly blame feminism for this detestable state of things.

Real men, who really did exist and occasionally still do, understood more than just manly strength and heaviness. They understood, as well, grace, lightness and wit!

AND . . . they knew how to wield these things as deadly weapons! We, in our present hour of decadence, may profit by their example.

Enjoy the excellent patriarchal music. I must put aside these light diversions now, and forge ahead with serious work.


Source: counterfem.blogspot.com/

For the Benefit of Newcomers: A Review of Some Basic Things (Anti Feminist Movement)

The non-feminist revolution is growing -- no doubt of that. I see signs of this busting out everywhere, like the first crocuses of spring or the first influx of robins. Sometimes I think it is just my imagination. That is, I quickly grow accustomed to the latest hints of quickening life and these in turn quickly become the new norm, the new baseline. Hence, these things become old hat. And straightway, stasis and boredom set in, and it feels like nothing is changing after all. So I become jaded, and I write off my spell of hopeful enthusiasm as "imagination". But then, without warning, larger and improved signs of life arise to remind me yet againthat I am NOT imagining this.

Yes. So much is happening -- everywhere, all at once, at all levels -- that it always comes back around to the vexed question of where to begin.How to start talking about all of this? Especially with new recruits and sympathizers, who have arrived by way of the grassroots? For are they not themselves the foremost among those signs of life which I have spoken of?

Aye, it is good that these new ones have arrived by way of the grassroots, because this thing of ours is a grassroots revolution before all else. It is a revolution of, by, and for the people, with its wellspring in the mundane micro-world -- the non-political universe of everyday thoughts, feelings, conversations, conclusions and decisions. Such is the territory to be reclaimed, and fiercely guarded. And all manner of intellectual machinery -- even the loftiest -- may eventually be inducted into the service of this micro-world. But for the present, let us make the evils and blessings of the day, sufficient unto the day.

I write with newcomers chiefly in mind, although old-timers are welcome to profit by anything they find here. But I will address the question of "where to begin" quite simply, by embarking directly from where the new arrival is most likely to be. And that is, in a state of perplexity. "Where do I fit in?" is what the newcomer will most likely be asking. The newcomer wants a map, marked with a bold, bright 'X' upon the spot where he or she is presently situated. And I will undertake to provide such a map, and to proffer such hints and helps upon the journey as will assist the pilgrim to draw the big, bold X-mark from his or her own reasoned conclusions.

At the outset, I feel safe in concluding that you are not a feminist. I am so sure of this, that I will take it as the organizing premise for all that follows. If you are not dead certain, at the very least, that you are not a feminist, then I would counsel you to retire elsewhere until you have cemented this conviction firmly in your own mind.

Very well, let us review a few basic things. I say a few, because there exist far more such things than I can do justice to in the allotted space. So I will stick to such items as a newcomer would find profitable for orientation. Accordingly, since you, the newcomer, are not a feminist, I think it is safe to say that you are situated in the non-feminist portion of reality. What do you think: does that sound about right to you?

Good. Now, if it will further assist your understanding, think of a hard line drawn straight through the middle of the human race. On the one side of this line, picture a banner with the word FEMINIST inscribed upon it. And on the other side, a banner inscribed with the word NON-FEMINIST. Are you visualizing that?

What you are mentally depicting, is something we call the sector system.And what is the purpose of this . . sector system? I'm glad you asked! Simply put, the sector system is an efficient way to organize your thinking in terms of the larger sociopolitical struggle which presently engages us. Yes, each side of that conceptual line is called a sector --that is the term we use. And so accordingly, we have both a feminist sector and a non-feminist sector. And friend, you and I both know which sector we belong to . . . don't we?

The sector system is useful because it throws feminism on the defensive, forcing it to justify its own presence on earth by answering to something objectively OTHER than itself. Feminism is not the world, but the feminists want very badly to convince the world otherwise. And feminist behavior toward the rest of us is very much like American foreign policy:"We will bring you the blessings of our way of life whether you asked for it or not! We know what is good for you!" But again, the sector system rises up as a challenge to the feminist attitude.

Yes, the hubris and arrogance of feminism has been colossal; it is a revolution meant to encompass even the tiniest dimensions of life, and it aims to convert the rest of the world entirely to feminism -- it will not take no for an answer! The feminist posture toward the rest of the world is one of sheer aggression, blended with a heavy dose of totalitarian psychology -- a macro-plan which they intend to cram into the micro,whether the micro wants it or not! The micro? That's you and me, friend!

Briefly then, feminism does not look kindly upon the existence of anything independent of itself or unequivocally other than itself. That is to say: the feminist sector aims to squeeze the non-feminist sector completely out of existence.

And what is wrong with that, you ask? Many things, foremost of which is that the project which feminism proposes is impossible; it cannot be accomplished; it is a falsehood from the very outset, and to impose it by force can only end in grief and calamity for all concerned. But however far the wreckage extends, feminism can never force the non-feminist sector to stop existing. And that is for the same reason that a lie can never force the truth to stop existing.

The True Believers of the feminist cult believe that Feminist Theory has the power to explain all of life, universally. But the falsehood of this can be demonstrated, and indeed, has been so demonstrated, thousands of times, by the philosophers of the non-feminist revolution. These fine thinkers have plied their trade patiently, and thanklessly, for many years. The reason they advance so slowly, is because they are voices in the wilderness with so very little power against a massively entrenched establishment. When the powers-that-be ordain you as the "village idiot", nothing you say carries any weight. What walks tallest upon this earth is not truth, righteousness, or intellectual integrity, but power pure and simple. The powers-that-be know this well, and they chortle about it.

It makes no matter if feminism has been discredited a thousand times, or ten thousand, or untold thousands. All of that intellective work is no better than spinning your wheels in the mud if it gains you no traction in the arena of sociopolitics. So here is where the sector system turns the tables. In one clean stroke -- by merely declaring itself!-- the non-feminist sector delivers a revolutionary message that feminism is not the world. By sheer self-announcement, non-feminism occupies space in the world and demands to know what the hell feminism plans to do about this. It is as if non-feminism were saying to feminism "what the hell makes you think you are the only game in town?" In the end, the message of the non-feminist sector to the feminist sector, is a simple, non-negotiable DEMAND FOR SOVEREIGN CO-EXISTENCE.

And what does this mean in terms of everyday practice? It means you are entitled to proclaim openly, even loudly, that you are not a feminist, to go your jolly way unmolested, and to quietly pass the balance of your days in a like manner. At first, this might not sound like anything much, but I can assure you that the moral dimensions are critically significant. And in time, those dimensions will fan out into other dimensions.

As a non-feminist, you are nowise bound to answer to any feminist for your personal indifference toward feminism. That fact is immensely important. On the face of it, there is no better warrant to be so interrogated by any feminist, than to correspondingly interrogate said feminist in non-feminist terms. What gives them the right, anyway? Who do these people think they are?

Remember, that you have told them nothing save that you are not a feminist. And that reveals very little about you -- in fact virtually nothing! And so long as you say no more about yourself, they cannot possibly know more. THEY might think that it says a lot about you, that you would verbally disown feminism. But they are just plain wrong! For they cannot possibly know what another person understands by the word "feminism" if that other person does not explain what he understands by it. So they areout-of-bounds if they merely presume that the non-feminist means the same thing by "feminism" as THEY do, and they are a thousandfold out-of-bounds if they derive any moral imputation from such a circumstance.

We have a special counter-feminist name for this feminist "presumption of shared meaning". That name is feminist subjectivism. Feminist subjectivism embraces the fullness of feminism's narrative authority, and may be understood as the sum total of stories which the feminists tell themselves about themselves, and so are constrained to tell others. Among such "stories" may be included the many conflicting, ill-defined, and incoherent understandings of the word feminism. Thus, feminist self-definition comes under the broad umbrella of feminist subjectivism, and will be found to be pivotal.

Feminist subjectivism combines readily, and rapidly, with the feminist conceit that feminism is the world -- or at least, that feminism authoritatively interprets the world. Thus, it is nigh on impossible for a deeply indoctrinated feminist to accurately assess people and circumstances in the non-feminist world -- which, truth to say, lurks around every corner! Given that those external objects are not permitted to operate under their own laws and narratives -- or not acknowledged to do so -- they are transformed by the feminist gaze into a projective hallucination of feminism itself, and feminism becomes, for its participants, a house of mirrors with no windows.

Feminism's projective hallucination is simply the worldly gamut of people and situations interpreted to fit feminist theory, and as such, it composes the actual fabric of the wall. Such is the transformation wrought by the feminist gaze. To phrase this more elegantly, the projection is not projected onto the wall -- it IS the wall. It is objective reality subjectivized, which is precisely what makes it hallucinatory. It is like a fantastical soap-film of deluded understanding which clings to the surface of people and situations, falsifies their nature, and blocks the feminist gaze precisely at its opaque boundary -- so that the world beyond becomes impenetrable to feminist comprehension.

But the opacity works only in one direction -- from the inside-out. From the outside-in, however, the wall is transparent, even non-existent! In consequence, we on the outside can see those on the inside very, very clearly, yet cannot be truthfully seen by them!

And everything we do means something different to them, than it does tous. And so they would have us believe, that whatever they think we are doing . . . is in fact what we are doing! You see, they have never bothered to consult us about this! Apparently, they know more about us than we do!

Very well. Their delusion about us is the "original sin" in this scenario, the initializing transgression that started the whole charade rolling. Yes, they started it! They have built their supposed higher understanding upon a theoretical foundation that is far from settled, and therefore open to dispute. But they will not (because they cannot) acknowledge this, and not to mince words, it means that they are living a lie. And since they are living a lie, they cannot afford to see or comprehend anything that wouldgive the lie to that lie. That is why they cannot see past the hallucinatory wall of their house of mirrors, and why we can see them with more authority than they can see themselves. We are not encumbered by a deception from the outset.

That is also why they have sewn us into the fabric of their hallucination -- fraudulently turning us into something we are not, and making that falsification binding upon us. They have, to coin a new word, hallucifiedus -- even though we are REAL and know that we are real! And the more we struggle to break free from this trap, the more surely we "become" what the eye of feminist subjectivism insists upon seeing -- because, so far, they have the worldly power to "make it stick". We are both real AND the figment of another's disordered imagination, and it does not please us to be trapped in such a paradoxical hell.

So much for the evils of feminist subjectivism. It suffices to understand that this can't go on forever, and can only culminate in violence and destruction -- that the house of mirrors will be shattered without mercy, but that said shattering will not go unaccompanied by a general shattering of everybody and everything. In short, a pandemonium from which none will find haven -- that is, unless we take considered steps, and right soon, to forestall such an eventuality.

Very well, the new recruit to our scene is at the very least not a feminist.That is neither asking, nor expecting, too much. I hope I have made clear by now, that people other than feminists are permitted to furnish adefinition of feminism according to their own criteria. I say this simply because the objective reality of feminism is as real as the subjective reality of it, because that objective reality is knowable only by an objective seer who walks an objective path of knowledge, and finally because feminists themselves, of all people on earth, are the least amenable to such a path.

To suggest that we are "misrepresenting" feminism is itself a misrepresentation. We are not misrepresenting it, but rather RE-representing it. It is our weighty conclusion, that the feminists themselves cannot be trusted to represent feminism accurately beyond the limits of their own sector. I mean, that while the feminist word about feminism is undoubtedly true within the moral gravity-well of the feminist sector, it merits no credence anywhere outside that perimeter. Such are the fruits of feminist subjectivism. Accordingly, what a feminist says about feminism, though it be the sweetest of nectars within the feminist domain, at once becomes the untreated effluent of a sewerwhen it overflows into the non-feminist sector. Feminism's writ does not run beyond feminism's border, and that includes both narrative authority and the power of definition. Again, feminism is not the world.

And so you, my recently-arrived friend, face a question that we all face at some point in our counter-feminist careers. You have confirmed in your own mind that you are not a feminist, and you now propose to sink operative roots in non-feminist territory. But have you thought long and hard about what it really means, to be a non-feminist? Algebraically, what does it mean to be not X? Clearly, you must know the value of the term X. And in the social algebra which presently concerns us, you must likewise know the value of the term feminist. Or more to the point, the termfeminism.

So it is not enough simply to know that you are not a feminist. You must, in addition, have a clear, precise conceptual model of what this thing feminism actually IS -- so that X becomes a known quantity. And finally, in order that you will not be at cross-purposes with your non-feminist cohorts, your conceptual model of feminism ought to bear a marked similarity to their conceptual models -- so that you and they shall agree upon the value of X, and shall proceed, as it were, by an algebraic understanding of things. I go now to enlarge upon this.

The non-feminist sector is populated by a variety of humans of both sexes, who cover the spectrum of human nature, and about whom no moral generalization is either possible or politically relevant. The non-feminist sector -- or as habituated insiders would more tersely say, the sector -- includes folk who are in varying stages of political awakening. Some of them do not yet know that they are non-feminists; the question has not yet migrated to the forefront and become vital for them. Such ones are distinguished chiefly by the nascent elements of a worldview which, if fully fleshed-out, would urge some manner of political confrontation with feminism. But, they haven't quite yet gotten there.

However, there will come a time when the inert non-feminist turns into an activated non-feminist, or if you prefer, a partisan of the non-feminist sector. This is when confrontation becomes imminent. The partisan will gravitate toward the sphere of real-world practice, and will need to direct her endeavor toward a target of operations -- a defined region of sociopolitical space. So the need arises for a pragmatic template by which to chart this defined region. And when all activated non-feminists have mastered this template, we say that they have gained critical consensus, or more precisely, target consensus. The character of their separate endeavors may vary tremendously as per ways and means, but it is imperative they converge upon the same target of operations with the necessary esprit de corps.

Briefly, they must be unlike the blind men in the fable, for they must see the elephant. And that is especially true if they are working on different parts of the elephant, in which case they must communicate and coordinate.

Target consensus is founded upon a common understanding of what feminism IS, and this understanding informs all decisions about what to strike, and when, and how. And counter-feminist analysis claims to provide the master template, the parting of the waters, the necessary objective vision of reality that will generate target consensus and render activated non-feminist projects operable. 

The non-feminist revolution is every imaginable thing that is willfullyopposed to feminism. It is found side-by-side with every imaginable thing that is simply not feminism. These two categories are both not feminism, but the former is activated while the latter is inert. And the non-feminist sector is the territory which they cohabit. It is critical to understand that this territory is in no sense a "movement", but only a container of everything that is not feminism -- only some of which is presently trying to damage feminism.

And the non-feminist revolution itself is likewise not a "movement", but a motley, sprawling aggregate of separate and distinct motions that are sometimes aware of each other, and other times not. However, these separate motions are in the process of finding each other and synchronizing their efforts. We call this a "revolution" because it serves to turn the tables, and if there were another word more all-embracing than revolution - we would use it.

As simply as can be stated, the goal of the non-feminist revolution is to bring about feminism's moral isolation by driving a wedge between feminism and non-feminism, and by reducing feminism's presently vague and fuzzy borders to a sharp line that anybody can clearly discern. This will embrace a multitude of operations, both intellectual and political, and will prove fatal to feminism if properly carried out.

The present treatise does not aim to bring the newcomer to a point of target consensus. That is a task the reader must herself gradually bring to fruition in her own way. But I have posed for consideration, in a merely rhetorical fashion, the question of the reader's non-feminism. I have urged the reader to ponder what that non-feminism might actually consist of, and I have stressed the importance of aligning such mental ingredients with those of other non-feminist partisans, in furtherance of our work.

The newcomer has likely heard of certain individuals known as "MRAs", and been made aware that many of them, at any rate, have a rather piquant reputation. With respect to these . . "MRA" people, altogether too little, and too much, has been said. So at the risk of saying either too little or too much, I will venture another groat upon the heap: that any non-feminist man or woman who is "all fired up" about the idea that men are human beings with human dignity and human rights, may properly consider himself or herself an MRA.

But for the feminists, who are the dullest clods on earth and have no idea what is going on, the term MRA is simply an emotional lightning-rod for their barely suppressed guilt, and for their growing anxiety about feminism's future.

On that note I conclude this treatise, trusting that the reader has gleaned something of value by the study of it.

Source: Counterfem.blogspot.com

OPERATIVE BLUEPRINT AS A COUNTER-FEMINIST AGENT OF CHANGE -- IN 7 POINTS

The Game and How I Mean to Play It

Addressed specifically to feminists everywhere. Intended for
the eyes of the world.

1. I will not play your game. I will not conduct my agency in a manner that rubberstamps your ideology. I will not do things at your behest merely in order to prove that I am not what you impute me to be.

2. I will forecast the probable course of developments in the current gender crisis. I will admonish you, in token of your good faith, to take visible public measures to forestall such developments, and to do so in a way consistent with the redress of male grievance.

3. I will offer counsel to the men's movement and to all male sympathizers, along the line of what I soberly consider to be the best interest of the movement. Such counsel will be consistent with my forecast of probabilities, and variable with the response that women's movement members have shown to my admonitions, or to similar sentiments expressed by others.

4. Consistently with point 1, I will not agitate for women's advantages in any way since it is not my responsibility to do so and since others better suited than I, have undertaken such things already.

5. I will be openly and often harshly critical of feminism, and will make no apologies for this. I will counsel others to follow my example. Repressive overtures on the part of your movement will be deemed inculpatory of your movement, as militating against the spirit of open debate and free expression of diverse viewpoints.

6. I will make no statement of a facially misogynistic character. However, I cannot be bothered to anticipate every possible construction placed upon my words by those who wish to read misogyny in what I say.

7. These policies are my own, but they are not my personal property. Other men's activists are free to adopt this platform, and I would counsel them to do so.

Source: counterfem.blogspot.com

All India Women Conference to be held at Hyderabad

Dec 26, 2010

All India Federation of Women Lawyers is organising an All India Women Lawyers Conference on January 7-9 at Hyderabad. The conference is going to be hosted by the Federation of Women Lawyers of Andhra Pradesh.

Justice SV Maruthi, retired judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is going to be the Chairperson of the Conference Committee. The conference for the year 2011 is going to focus on selected topics relevant for law and women. The first topic of the conference is “March of Law – Empowerment of Women”. The three day conference will also focus on “Law and Rights of Children”. The last topic for discussions shall be “Functioning of the Family Dispute Resolution Methods”.

A number of selected delegates would be presenting their papers on these topics. These papers would also be published as souvenirs for the conference.

The last All India Women Conference was held at Ernakulam, Kerala in December, 2009.

The All India Federation for Women Lawyers was established in March, 2007 following a conference of women lawyers representing 15 states in the country. Thereafter, the association has been formally established under the Society's Registration Act.

The Federation jointly with the National Legal Services Authority has taken up the cause of women starting from rights and welfare of girl child to working women. In order to create awareness about the value of the girl child and the need to protect her needs and rights, a seminar was organised at Chennai in March, 2008. The Federation also organised a seminar on "Night Shift Women Workers" in co-ordination with National Women Commission at Bangalore in September, 2008.

Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com/

Any NRI won 498a/DV cases staying outside India?

Thanks to 498adynamite

Below are the steps.

Have these documents read by your lawyer before you go to India

PRE-CONDITION

1.Bail Papers for AB, Transit Bail, regular Bail, Overseas travel
permission petition
2.Get all your bail papers to USA and Sign them in advance without
date and send to your Lawyer.
3.In any situation, be ready to go to High court if lower court
denies any of your bail/passport petitions
4.Have cash around 500k INR.
5.Letters from your employer about your vacation and return date.

STEPS TO FOLLOW

1.Be brave and think whatever happens I will come back.
2.We are not going to Pakistan or Afghanistan,we are going to our home land.
3.Do not inform anybody in India that you are planning to Visit India,
except Lawyer and important 1-2 persons
4.If your destination is
Mumbai\Delhi\Calcutta\Hyderabad\Chennai|Bangalore, take ticket to
Different State and city.
The reason,is if different state police arrest you, it takes time for them to take you to your home state.
The cops must inform your home state cops who have case against 
you and they have to travel to your place and then take you to home state with them.So,you can
apply for bail immediately once you land in India.
5.Apply AB and regular Bail immediately once you land in India. It should be one cell phone call to your lawyer
6.If you get arrested, do not panic, apply for Transit Bail
7.Do not go to your home town, stay underground and apply for regular bail by your lawyer
8.Once you get regular bail then,go to Home town and
9.Apply for permission to travel to Abroad along with passport since
you are working in Overseas and its your bread and butter issue.
a) Get 2-3 letters from your employer and client stating that, if you
do not join them back after your vacation, you will lose your job
(have these letter ready before you go to India)
10.Take written letter from judge which says, you have permission to
travel anywhere in the world. This letter acts as
counter, if cops try to stop you based on your case in airport.
generally, the Judge will grant you permission to travel with bond
ranging from 50k-500k INR.

POST-CONDITION

1.Once you receive your passport and letter from judge, fly within 24 hours,
because your opposition may go to High court or supreme court for appeal to cancel your travel permission.
2. Again,try to board international flight from a different state.
3. When you come back to Overseas,come in early hours of the day
between 3-5 AM,so that the immigration officer will not
question much as he will be in a hurry to clear the queue.This helps
you if do not have a job.

BOTTOM LINE

To be frank.If you hire a local lawyer in your hometown who knows
everyone in court premises, your work will be done in
4-6 weeks.

First week bail
Second week passport petition
Third/Fourth week counter by opposition party for on your bail petition and judgment on your passport.

Do not use any of your personal cell phone or land lines which are on your family surnames or friends name.
Always prefer to meet in person and do not disclose/discuss any important issues on phone.

BEST OF LUCK


http://www.498a.org/forum/

Dowry death: Lawyer gets life sentence for killing wife

Dec 19, 2010

JAIPUR: A young lawyer was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of killing his wife for dowry by the sessions court at Jaipur on Saturday. The special court, which handed out the punishment, made a stern remark that the convict being a practising lawyer deserved no mercy since he committed a grave crime fully knowing the law and the legal procedures.

"The society expected him to get justice for the oppressed, but he killed his wife for dowry. He deserves no leniency," judge Ashok Kumar Vyas wrote in his order, giving the maximum punishment provisioned for each of the charge levelled against the convict, Tek Chandra Sharma.

The judge, while holding the lawyer guilty of demanding dowry ( IPC section 498 A) and causing the death of his wife while harassing her for dowry (IPC section 304 B), imposed an additional penalty of Rs 2 lakh on the convict. The amount would be paid to the deceased's parents.

Soon after the judge pronounced the order around midday, the 34-year-old lawyer was taken into custody by the city police and handed over to the jail authorities. Sharma is entitled to appeal against his conviction before a division bench of the high court within a month.

It was alleged that Sharma poisoned his wife Meenu Sharma at the couple's rented accommodation in Vaishali Nagar on October 17, 2003. The couple had been married for barely one-and-a-half years then.

Meenu's parents, who teach in separate government schools, lodged a complaint with the Vaishali Nagar police station alleging that Sharma and his parents had started harassing their daughter for dowry soon after marriage. "Meenu suspected that her husband and in-laws might kill her for dowry. She expressed her fear in the letters she wrote to her mother, but could never dispatch," special public prosecutor Shiv Chand Sahu told the media.

One of Meenu's letters, which was produced in court, read: "I had never imagined that there would be such a difference in the life before and after marriage. If something happens to me, these tormentors should never be spared because they will attempt to kill me and call it suicide or natural death." Meenu used to teach in a private school and maintained a daily diary where her letters were discovered by the police.

Minutes after Meenu was allegedly poisoned by her husband and in-laws around 5:30 pm on October 17, she called up her mother Laxmi Kaushik from a public telephone booth located close to her rented home. "Maa, teri beti ko teeno ne kuchh khila diya hai. (Mother, the trio has fed something to your daughter)," Meenu told her mother, suggesting that her husband and parents-in-law had cunningly given her something poisonous to eat.

The telephone operator, a handwriting expert and the private doctor who first treated Meenu when she was poisoned, were among the 28 witnesses who testified against the accused.

Shortly before the judge was to pronounce the order on Saturday, Meenu's father Narendra Bihari Kaushik left the courtroom saying, "I won't be able to hear the verdict."

Source: TOI