Dr 1 Forms Legal Separation: Fill & Download for Free

India is not afraid to hold plebiscite in Kashmir.The premise of the question is wrong Kashmir has no right on plebisciteit was and is an offer which was made to entire state of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed on and before 22 nd October 1947, the day Pakistan invaded independent and soveirgn state of Jammu and Kashmir recognised by Pakistan by signing a STANDSTILL agreement with the Maharaja of the state.I have ANALYSED many discussion on the issue (which are available on YouTube ) involving Pakistani commentators and Kashmiri sympathisers arguing very passionately on the demand of Plebiscite and squarely blaming India and describe the Pakistani sponsored terrorism as freedom struggle .I am always surprised by the lies propagated and partial explanation of UN resolution despite being aware that original documents are available on UNSC and UN website and can be downloaded by any one free of cost and their LIES will be exposed.The lies and untruths taught to generations of Pakistani students were exposed by Prof. KK Aziz in his book murder of history.Some truths which are not taught or discussed in Pakistan and ignored by Kashmiri separatist (despite being aware of Truth) in their enthusiasm to be on the right side of their masters in Pakistan are:A. The division of India into Muslim majority Pakistan and India under India independence act was applicable to BRITISH INDIA. Not to principalities.B. State of J & K was a principality where india independence act was not applicable.C. Jinnah as Governor General of Pakistan signed STANDSTILL agreement recognising independent and soveirgn state of J & K.D. Pakistan under command of Brig. Akbar Khan invaded independent & soveirgn state of J&K on 22nd Oct 1947.E. The above fact was confirmed and is on record by PM of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan in Feb 1948 in front of UN fact finding mission when it visited Karachi .F. As per India independence act the soveirgn had right to decide on accession to either domain but if the soveirgn belonged to community different from majority community of state the final decesion on accession was taken after conducting Plebiscite in state .G. The maharaja signed accession document to India on 26 October 1947 in Srinagar.H. India airlifted its forces to Srinagar on 27 October 1947.H. The UN resolutions clearly said :1. Pakistan is aggressor in state.2. Issue is between State of J & K and India.3. Pakistan has to vacate all occupied territory in state and handover the vacated territory to India.4. India has to remove all its forces leaving aside enough to maintain law & order.5.. India to conduct plebiscite in state.I. Pakistan asked for time to vacate its occupation but it never complied .J. As 1/3 state of J& K was under occupation of Pakistan and this was taken as noncompliance of conditions leading to plebiscite, hence India could never conduct plebiscite in state of J & K.K. The state is defined as it existed on or before invasion of Pakistan on 22 nd October 1947. And includes present territory of POK, GIlgit, Baltistan , Jammu, Laddhak and Kashmir valley.Reference :A. Raiders in Kashmir by Maj. Gen. Akbar Khan.B. Murder of history by K K Aziz.C. UNSC resolutionsD. Soldiering with Dignity - a biography of FM Sam ManekshawE. Freedom at midnight by Dominique Lappaire and Larry CollinsF. YouTube channel of KNPG. Dr. Shabbir Chodhry , Taraq Fateh, Hassan Nissar, Najam Sethi , Dr. Christine Fair, stephen. Cohen, Hussain Haqqani and many more.H. Various Pakistani news channels .ADDENDUM:I have seen many replies on this answer many of them have been down voted and in some my replies have been termed as insensitive and not understanding a Kashmiri view point , issues like AFSPA and human rights violation by security forces have been brought in which has compelled me to write this addendum . I would like to place few facts on records :A. Historically The issue of state of. J & K has been confirmed in international forum as LEGAL issue between India and State of J & K.B. This question of legality has its origin in the India Independence act where the decesion to merge with either India or Pakistan was given to Soveirgn of the state but if he belonged to different relegion than majority of population of state this accession was considered as PROVISIONAL and need to be confirmed by a PLEBISCITE in the state.C. Again. It was in India Independence act that it was duty of dominion to which the state merged to get the PLEBISCITE conducted.D. There was no third party or independent or international agencies role in the conduct of PLEBISCITE.E. What happened in the state in 1947-48 has been explained in above answer.F. It is a fact on records that after the UNSC resolution was passed PAKISTAN asked for time to vacate the occupied territory.G. It is also a fact that in 1950 A DIXON plan was mooted which said the territory occupied by India to remain with India and territory occupied by Pakistan to remain in Pakistan and PLEBISCITE to be conducted only in KASHMIR valley .H. As nothing was moving and Pakistan had no intention to vacate its occupation India started discussion on Completion of merger of India occupied territory Into Indian Union.I. This discussion resulted in article 370 of induan constitution.J. Under article 370 a constituent assembly was elected in the state in 1951 to finalise its constitution .K. This constituent assembly passed a unanimous resolution in 1955 confirming the merger of State of Jammu and Kashmir with India.L. There was always a silent minority in State which wished to merge with Pakistan.M. But presence and popularity of leaders like sheikh abdullah always deterd them to come out in open.N. Pakistan has always tried to to create and encourage separation in Kashmiri leadership.O. The separatist leadership has failed to venture beyond Kashmir valley .P. This leadership has forgotten that there is big Muslim majority in dustricts like Kargil, DODA, POONCH etc.Q. Just understand the progress of separatist movement from talking about entire state of J & K to only talk about Kashmir Valley.R. No militants, separatist, independence lover now talks about The entire state all only talk about Valley.S. Legally they have no case as the dispute is between state of J & K and union of India and valley is just a small part of it.T. They do not talk About POK or Gilgit or Baltistan and their status under India independence act and UN SC resolution.U. If you listen carefully the present discourse by separatist has an undertone of idea that " Muslims cannot live as minority under a Hindu majority " and as valley is now 98% Muslim it has right to ask for accession"V. And the discourse is emotional catering to the lowest possible denominator but it has no LEGAL or HISTORICAL validity.W. Thee separatist leadership has copied the Palestenian protests and now days we see young boys on street pelting stones on slightest instigation the latest being in support of Zakir Naik.X. The separatist leadership just like in Palestine in an effort to wean spotlight away from their insecurities and failure and incompetence has brainwashed a generation of youth on false promise of UMMAH, Independence, Etc. Which have no legal standing and no chance of achieving ever.Y. I would like any Kashmiri to explain what Zakir Naik, Salafi or WAHABI system has in common with Kashmiriyat which ihas been exploited to the hilt.Z. Will the adherence RISHI order and the great saints remain in Kashmir or in their enthusiasm to their narrow political goal they are ready to kill Kashmir as it existed since centuries.AA. It is my opinion that Indian state has accommodated kasmiri dissident fir long and it is time for some plain speak and articulating the legal positions very clearly.AB. Regarding AFSPA and human rights these separatist call their struggle JIHAD and in every language of the world JIHAD means WAR and a WAR is fought to win and nobody has human rights when in war.AC. And ever side uses its best mind and tactics to win a war so nobody should grumble on AFSPA or human rights of terrorist or collateral damage if any from both the sides.AD. And a question to separatist , independence supporters their supporters in India academia, NGO if it is JIHAD then fight FAIR and SQUARE and accept the results even defeat gracefully .AE.Kindly do not hide behind Nivedita Menins, Arundhati Roys and other leftists of this world as they will ditch you as soon as they have another cause.

Just a month ago, Dr Mahathir has made several remarks regarding the pricing of raw water sold by Malaysia to Singapore at 3 cents. And one of his most remarkable comments was “ I felt that the water agreement with Singapore was "morally wrong".In my opinion, these are strong emotive words, no doubt intended to rouse public opinion.The 1962 water agreement is about the fundamental principle of respecting the sanctity of the agreement.The agreement is not about who is richer or poorer.Singapore’s position on the 1962 water agreement has been clear and consistent.In 1962 when this agreement was signed, Malaysia was an independent country, they have their own leadership, they have their own legal advice, and they entered into this agreement in 1962.In 1965 when Singapore was ejected from the Federation, Singapore took the precaution of ensuring the 1962 water agreement was guaranteed by the governments of both Singapore and Malaysia.It forms in effect part of Singapore 1965 separation agreement. Any breach of the 1962 water agreement would call into question of the separation agreement.This separation agreement is the basis for Singapore’s existence as an independent sovereign state. Therefore, Malaysia and Singapore must fully honour the terms of the 1962 water agreement including the price of water that stipulated in it. And Singapore’s long-standing position has been that neither Malaysia nor Singapore can unilaterally change the terms of the agreement between the two countries.Malaysia has lost the right to review the price of raw water under the 1962 water agreement.In fact, Malaysia itself has previously acknowledged that they chose not to seek a review in 1987, because they have benefitted from the pricing arrangement under the 1962 water agreement.And to highlight, Dr Mahathir was the prime minister of Malaysia at that point in time. He was the PM from 1981 to 2003.Dr Mahathir himself explained in 2002 that Malaysia did not ask for a review in 1987 as Malaysia knew that any revision will also affect the price of treated water that sold by Singapore to Malaysia.Singapore continues to sell treated water to Malaysia today in excess of Singapore’s obligations.Singapore supplied additional amount of treated water to Johor when Johor needed more water as Johor experienced disruption in its water plants due to pollution.Important point: If Malaysia had exercised the right to review the price of water in 1987, Singapore might well have made very different investment decisions on developing the Johor river. Overall, S’pore have spent more than S$1 bil on water projects in Singapore and this has helped Johor waterworks.When the water level of reservoir in Johor dropped to a historic low depth due to a drought, Singapore continued to provide Johor with treated water upon their request. And Singapore do so out of their good will without prejudice to their legal rights under the 62’ water agreement. Singapore have never chide away from dealing with difficult bilateral issues.Since separation in 1965, Singapore has chosen a different and unique fundamental philosophy of governance, and quite frankly Singapore has taken quite a different path of development.Singapore has no natural resources and they are even short of water supply. But Singaporeans have long-internalised that no one owes them a living. Singapore government has provided a framework where all Singapore citizens strive to do their best and achieve their potential by dint of their efforts.Also, Singapore takes a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption. Singapore government also plans and invests for the long term as exemplified by their annual Budgets, they honour and fulfil their international agreements and commitments. As a result of that, businesses have the confidence to invest and grow in Singapore and the government makes sure that they invest in infrastructure ahead of time so that to attract furthermore investments.So, on that note, I will let everybody to decide for themselves whether Singapore has been ‘fair’ or as quoted by Dr Mahathir: “morally wrong”.

This particular issue - the accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh when in High School, and all the actions and reactions surrounding it - is likely to become a cultural bellwether of our times. How we process and respond to it may define us. As a nation we need to seek common views and common grounds on core ethical issues, and not invest further into ever-deeper ruts along dividing tribal paths.To that end, let’s start with what we know, or at least that we think we know, before we move on to opinionating or passing judgement. This being Quora, please help me correct any errors and omissions.In July, the office of Palo Alto Congresswoman Anna Eshoo received a letter from a female constituent, describing concerns with Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It remains unclear what exactly happened after this: some reports state that Eshoo forwarded the letter to Feinstein. Why neither Eshoo’s office nor Feinstein’s office acted on the letter at the time, or when and how Eshoo forwarded the letter, or whether in fact Dr Blasey wrote to both her congresswoman and her senator simultaneously. From various reported sources, my current conclusion is that Dr Blasey wrote to Eshoo on July 6th, and receiving no reply or other assistance from her representative, wrote again and separately to Feinstein on July 30th.An actual copy of the letter has yet to be available to the general public, but reports of it’s content, and subsequent interviews with Dr Blasey, surmises the following accusation:In the summer of 1982, at the age of 15, Dr Blasey was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh with the aid of Michael Judge, both around age 17 at the time, at a party in somebody’s home, with a few other teenagers in attendance. Dr Blasey reports the assault as follows: Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom and onto a bed, he and Judge locked the door and played loud music. Kavanaugh was on top of her, Judge was periodically jumping on top of Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh tried to disrobe her, at times putting his hand over her mouth, both highly inebriated. When the two boys were “scrapping” after tumbling around on top of Blasey, she made her escape and locked herself into a bathroom, later making her way out of the house.The accusation in the letter is made in July of this year (2018). Subsequent notes from couples therapy session from 2012 largely align with the above summary.When first confronted with the accusation, Kavanaugh responded in a statement with “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” A few days later, after more details including the identity of the accuser was public, he reiterated, including stating that “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes-to her or to anyone.” [1]Relevant to the story is Kavanaugh’s friend from high school, Michael Judge. Judge eventually wrote a book about his youthful descent into alcoholism that began with these High School years, including references to his friend “O’Kavanaugh”. That they were friends in High School has been supported by contemporary yearbook pictures. When asked about the incident, Mr Judge is reported to have responded that he has no recollection. Dr Blasey has stated that she never met Kavanaugh after the incident, but did at some point meet Mr Judge, who she said was uncomfortable with seeing her - presumably Dr Blasey infers that Mr Judge recalled the incident, at least at that time.In addition, groups of women have banded together on both “sides” of the issue - one group stating that they have known Kavanaugh much of his life including his High School years, and attest that his character could not have acted this way. Another, larger, group of women are self-reported alumni of the same High School, and attest not directly to the incident per se, but that it strikes them not just as believable but “all too familiar” with incidents that they either experienced themselves during their time in High School, or that they heard of at them time.So what actually happened?It would be easy to avoid stating an opinion and reference the obvious he-said-she-said dynamic. But that’s not readily applicable in this case. We are precisely required to form an opinion, since the gentleman in question is a nominee to the highest court in the land. And said court will pass not just legal but moral judgement on issues central to public interests, for decades to come.In this case it seems to me - and at this point I digress into personal judgement - that we can begin with the hypothesis that neither side is overtly and trivially lying.Consider the alleged circumstance: two drunken 17 year old boys at an elite prep school, both large and muscular from their football, “horse around” with a naive 15-year old girl at a small “party” at somebody’s parents house, unsupervised. The girl leaves the interaction traumatized, the boys take little notice and barely remember the incident, if at all. The girl goes on to study psychology, a field well known for participants who seek to understand and process difficult childhood experiences. One boy spirals downwards into alcoholism before turning things around as a writer. And one boy goes down the golden path of success and establishment status, right up to the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. An upstanding citizen, the establishment rushes to his side when his character is questioned. The girl, knowing full well the reception her accusations will have, is torn between her fear of the impact on her life and her family, and her sense of responsibility to her community - and her country.All the statements from all the parties thus far harmonize with the above portrayal. In it, Kavanaugh isn’t a rapist, isn’t a bad person, but had a “bad boy phase” in youth, during which he broke more china in the china shop than he appears to be aware of. The women coming to Kavanaugh’s defense aren’t wrong - his character was and is one of highest integrity. Except for aforementioned youthful period. The women coming to Dr Blasey’s defense aren’t wrong either - they are simply representing the seedier side of elite prep school teenage boy behavior, from an era when it was not just condoned but arguably encouraged. And overall they reflect a story we’ve heard repeatedly: one where a jock culture amongst the “in” group of elite school boys tempts them into behavior with a culture that might not state it outright, but certainly implies it: that different rules apply to them.If the above all seems reasonable to you, dear reader, then the judgement on Kavanaugh depends not so much on the accusation per se, but his handling of the accusation at this time. On one end of the spectrum, he might concede that there were occasions of too much alcohol and possibly overly-rough behavior in his teenage years, regardless of his recollection of this specific incidence. He might concede that he has no real reason to doubt that Dr Blasey’s recollection, and emotional trauma, was, and is, real, and express his regret at damage he might well have caused.At the other end of the spectrum he doubles down on absolute denial, which would by necessity include essentially claiming that he was never drunk the summer of 1982, that he never was at anybody’s house with alcohol and younger girls thrown into the mix, etc. He would have to deny that the basic circumstances underlying the accusation never occurred in his boyhood years, not even once. He would have to assert that the alter ego of “O’Kavanaugh” did not refer to him, and that the reality of his prep school years did not conform to that described by contemporary student’s description.So onwards to our judgement. What does the allegation tell us? If true, per se, it is in my mind not completely damning. I would expect many people to disagree with that, but his generation, that context, that culture, it could easily have happened in a manner that did indeed frighten a young girl but was not “attempted rape” as some detractors contend. Terrible judgment, yes, eternally damning, no. In his defense, he wasn’t given an opportunity at the time to be confronted with the accusation and have a chance to resolve it, contemporaneously, with fresh recollections and while still a minor. If indeed the incident was never brought to his attention in the 36 years since, it’s quite understandable that his immediate response would be outright denial.But after a few days reflection, he needs to reach a higher bar. He needs to show respect and empathy with the accuser, at a minimum, and convince us that he’s truly processing the accusation, and being truthful about the circumstances of his youth in so doing. There’s little reason to believe that her pain isn’t real. And to me at least it’s a stretch to assert that what she describes couldn’t possibly have happened.After all, once you’re seated as one of the highest judges in the land, your ability to empathize with victims will be at the very core of your duties. So now is a good time to show that you’re able to do just that. Even if you are the one being accused. In fact, especially when you are the one being accused.Again, this being Quora, please point out errors and omissions, and critique where you think my reasoning goes astray.Comments/Notes:[1] Reported as being a statement conveyed by White House spokesman Raj Shah on September 14th. I have not been able to find a written version - transcript or otherwise. It’s unclear if the choice of precise wording is from Kavanaugh, or the WH spokesperson. It has not been referred to as a “written statement”. The second statement is also unclear from press coverage if it was written, provided as such to the press, or provided indirectly through White House spokesman. In fact, at this time it appears we haven’t heard directly from Mr Kavanaugh on the accusation.Selection of sources with various commentary:“California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault”, Washington Post, September 16“Read the letter Christine Blasey Ford sent accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct”, CNN, September 17. True to CNN’s current journalistic standards, despite the title CNN did not in fact have access to the letter, but a transcribed a “redacted” version that “a source” shared with CNN by reading it. For example, in CNN’s version, the letter is addressed to Senator Feinstein, and dated July 30th, but it’s not clear from any reporting thus far whether it was in fact forwarded to Senator Feinstein from Representative Eshoo, or whether Dr Blasey subsequently sent another copy of the letter to Feinstein, or if she wrote to both.“California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault”, Washington Post, September 16th. This is the one and only direct reporting of the therapist notes. There were notes from one session in 2012 and another one in 2013. The Post doesn’t quote from the notes directly, but paraphrases and narrates parts of them. In particular with note to the “four boys” vs “two boys” discrepancy[, the Post leaves frustratingly vague exactly what the notes say, re-stating only that the notes imply that four boys were “involved”. Lacking access to verbatim text, or even better an actual scanned copy, it’s difficult to speculate with any certainty about the nature of any error, either on the part of Dr Blasey or her therapist or both. It should also be noted that in the typical course of therapy, notes are not necessarily taken at the time of the session, many therapists write notes afterwards, even days after. The original notes should indicate when the session occurred and when the notes were put on paper, but that distinction is lacking in the Post’s coverage.10 Things I Learned From the Jesuits | RealClearReligion - authored by Michael Judge in 2014, it includes this gem: “6. It's OK to have a good time. Catholic guys like to have a good time. We drink. We wrestle. We (politely) chase women. Occasionally, there is an arrest. Yet we were taught to keep revelry in its proper place. While a lot of people when I was in school in the 1980s were getting high or drunk to try and reach some unattainable transcendence, a heaven here on earth (and truth be told I was one of them), we learned that the reason we are occasionally unserious is that ultimately God is in charge. The authority on this subject is the great retired Georgetown University Jesuit Fr. James V. Schall. When your rowdiness is under the authority of God, it becomes a healthy and important affirmation of our creatureliness, not a pathway to nirvana.”Michael Judge’s yearbook page from 1983 is here (https: //pbs.twimg.com/ media/ DnQmNiLXgAAjjIO.jpg - copy/paste and remove spaces to get link), it includes the Noel Coward quote “Some women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” (From the character Elyot in Private Lives, 1930, generally viewed as Coward’s alter ego in the play, but it’s a tricky character to parse).Mr Judge’s statement is here [https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-18%20Judge%20to%20Grassley,%20Feinstein%20(Kavanaugh%20Nomination).pdf]. His statement, through counsel on September 18th, says:“I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved. The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault. In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes. I have no more information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter.”To me, “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr Ford describes” is a little too specific, e.g. legalistic, for my taste, and is close but still short of communicating “there’s no way anything like that could have happened”. For a lot of people it will be a little too reminiscent of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” for comfort. Similarly, “I do not recall the party described” is not the same as “I do not recall any parties even remotely like that”. The fact that the statement is conveyed in writing through counsel is a bit of a red flag, at a minimum implying that the choice of words have been carefully weighed with an eye to possible future legal liability. That’s not a criticism of Michael Judge, given this day and age, it’s understandable that he would run his statement past legal review. But it does mean you need to parse exactly what the statement says and does not say, rather than trying to read anything between the lines or going with the sentiment that it’s intended to leave you with. The statement does not specifically deny that an incident materially similar to what Dr Blasey describes did not, or could not, have taken place.In support of my skeptical reading of his statement, I would point to how Mr Judge ends it in an odd manner: “I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter.” So, does he believe there were such incidents? Something happened, but he doesn’t recall exactly? Or it wasn’t Mr Kavanaugh but one of the other friends at the party? I bring this up because it jibes with the main “hypothesis” of my overall answer: it seems quite likely that something along the lines of Dr Blasey’s description did in fact occur. Mr Kavanaugh has publicly (previously) alluded to three close friends in high school, and Dr Blasey says there were four boys at the party. Is Mr Judge recalling the incident but knows it was one of the other two boys? He notably does not deny knowing Dr Blasey, nor that she was ever at parties with him and Mr Kavanaugh, nor that they had unsupervised parties with alcohol and inappropriately aged girls present, etc. Is it possible that when Kavanaugh’s name circulated in 2012 in conjunction with Mitt Romney’s candidacy, that Dr Blasey’s recollection then went from unspecific to very specific on who the main perpetrator was?There is in fact quite a bit that he does not say, and he knows that, hence is comment that he has “no more information to offer”. He knows there are any number of obvious follow-on questions to his statement, and he’s signaling that he has not intention of engaging with that. Of course, he’s not obligated to provide more detail, however, in the absence of such detail, I don’t think this written statement quite passes the sniff test: it does not it actual fact contradict the material elements of Dr Blasey accusation. It serves as a public statement of support of his friend, and as fodder for his supporters, but it does not constitute a clear denial of the incident. [UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that Maryland appears not to have a statute of limitations for sex crimes, especially if the victim is under the age of 16, so that alone would merit very carefully worded statements by Mr Judge on the topic, thus, it could well be a fool’s errand to read anything specific into wording that could well have been entirely formulated by his counsel.][I’ll be updating sources and commentary related to them, as people point me to stuff. So, point away. Also, I’ve continued to make various redactions and corrections, in response to informed and smart commentary. Thanks readers.]