Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for rti4empowerment

Hope dear Ravi will send it to you dear Weds
regards
Dr. JN Sharma

On 12/15/10, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear All,
> I fully agree with you Dr Sharma.
> I have not received draft rules of RTI by Ravi. I request him to send it
> again.
> Judicial Accountability bill is need to be passed. KGB's letter has already
> been sent by me after scanning it yesterday
>
>
> Regards,
> WEDS
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Cc: sroy1947@gmail.com; wilevades@yahoo.co.uk; majorravi@gmail.com;
> prof.leorebello@gmail.com; leorebello@hathway.com
> Sent: Wed, 15 December, 2010 8:38:58
> Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for rti4empowerment
>
> Yes Dear Ravi, Weds & Sarabjit
> There should not be adverse comment on any of the member of the
> group.
> As Ravi wrote, I fully agree with him. Those who know what is
> wrong with Judiciary and corruption in Judiciary should join the
> debate. Even Moily sahab wrote some where that the draft bill has also
> been shown to KGB, which is a clear cut case of Collusion of Judiciary
> and the political parties.
> Now gist of the matter is this, that RTI Rules draft as
> circulated by Ravi, need to be seen and comments of Ravi be accepted
> and let all member offer their nod to it or any comments are required,
> can be offered by any member.
>
> KGB's letter contents we know but it would be good if Mr WEDS
> bring to the knowledge of all members.
> I hope Ravi, Weds & Sarabjit are participating Judicial
> Reform Meet at Mumbai on 22-1-11 & 23-1-11,
> I also plan to be there to attend it.
>
> This nexus of political parties( including the Ruling party)
> with Judiciary must be made known to entire nation.
> Regards
> Dr JN Sharma
>
>
> On 12/14/10, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Paranoia- Imagined Xenophobia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> To: Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com>;
>> rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tue, 14 December, 2010 10:49:33
>> Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for rti4empowerment
>>
>> If WEDS, Dr J.N. Sharma etc want to confine themselves to RTI
>> discussion there is no problem. But when they start dragging in
>> irrelevant issues (their dual/triple loyalties are now coming out
>> slowly) then the only solution is for the list owners to intervene and
>> restore order.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 12/13/10, Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Having gone through the series of mail, Mr DSouza has done a great job
>>> getting KGB's letter to PM on exclusion of judges from RTI Act's purview.
>>> But he has erred in applying to Mr Moily instead of the PIO of the office
>>> of
>>> the law minister and following the ue process (FAA in the office of the
>>> law
>>> minister and CIC!) Again he is right in having NO faith in the CIC. (I
>>> also
>>> take this opportunity to request Mr DSouza to post the letter to this
>>> group.)
>>>
>>> Having said that Mr Roy should not have used the terms to condemn Mr
>>> DSouza's efforts. We all know how much sincerely and diligently we are
>>> all
>>> pursuing our aim of bringing in transparency and accountability in govt
>>> and
>>> we are also aware of the nature of the road blocks. Let us not fight
>>> amoung
>>> oursleves and have our adversaries have the last laugh!
>>>
>>> regards n bw
>>>
>>> ravi
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:40 AM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <
>>> wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Sarabjit Roy,
>>>>
>>>> Please re-read. With the erudition you claim to have, you know why I
>>>> did
>>>> so & I have conviction in what I did.
>>>>
>>>> I have been doing so ever since I began using RTI Act 2005 for my
>>>> survival
>>>> since 2006 where I seek certain classified information & I am certain
>>>> who
>>>> possesses the information I seek.
>>>>
>>>> Even PM Manmohan Singh has replied, albeit via PIO of PMO on former CJI
>>>> KGB's letter to PM to include Judges in section 8 of RTI Act 2005. I
>>>> have
>>>> obtained copies of KGB's letter to PM, PM's letter to LM Veerappa Moily
>>>> but
>>>> only Veerappa Moily denied information on course of action on PM's
>>>> letter
>>>> to
>>>> him.
>>>>
>>>> In another case of under valuation of land I addressed similar
>>>> applications
>>>> to CMN CBDT, CVC, PM & FM Pranab Mukherji. Only the last one did not
>>>> reply.
>>>> I have been able to set the process in motion.
>>>>
>>>> Is sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> also your e-mail ID?
>>>> If that is the case & if my assupmtion is correct you must have been
>>>> born
>>>> in the year 1947.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> WEDS
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* INDIA RTI for empowerment <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Mon, 13 December, 2010 22:33:59
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for
>>>> rti4empowerment
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr WEDS
>>>>
>>>> 1) On what basis did you apply directly in RTI to Mr Veerappa Moily ?.
>>>> 2) On what basis did you file a FA to PM ?
>>>>
>>>> It is people like you who don't even possess a copy of RTI Act
>>>> (5.4/5.5) or have the brains to understand it to apply it who are
>>>> screwing up the scene for genuine citizen applicants.
>>>>
>>>> Contaminants like you should be removed from responsible RTI groups as
>>>> soon as possible. List owner kindly take action under RUP.
>>>>
>>>> Sarbajit
>>>>
>>>> DSouza Wilberious Evanglist wrote:
>>>> > Dear Dr Sharma,
>>>> >
>>>> > About the dilution of RTI, you will soon come to know.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you have specific information do let me know. If it was about
>>>> > former
>>>> CJI KG
>>>> > Balakrishnan's recommendations to include judges in section 8 of RTI,
>>>> > I
>>>> obtained
>>>> > copies of those letters & wrote to PM that KGB' s decision is
>>>> > repugnant
>>>> to the
>>>> > Constitution of india & Judges cannot be preferentially treated as
>>>> > they
>>>> are
>>>> > Public Servants. Independence of Judiciary does not connote immunity
>>>> > to
>>>> judges.
>>>> > It only connotes that the process of adjudication does not become
>>>> influenced.
>>>> >
>>>> > However, my RTI application addressed to Veerappa Moily (Section
>>>> > 5(4&5))
>>>> did not
>>>> > elicit any reply. Appealed PM as FAA - no disposal. PM did not reply
>>>> > in
>>>> another
>>>> > issue- appealed to Prez- no reply.
>>>> >
>>>> > I did not have time to pursue further as approach to Central
>>>> > Information
>>>> > Commission or any other Information Commission is futile.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > WEDS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>