PNM in Gov't(2015-2020)

[zoom rader]

Occah refused to step down due to her involvement in a court case, where it is alleged that here testimony under oath was inconsistent.And by inconsistent I mean she was lying.Under Oath

Martin Daly in the Express

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commenta ... 68948.html

An example of how difficulty arises when a convention is not recognized is illustrated by the removal of Ms Occah Seepaul as Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1995, particularly when contrasted with the departure of Mr Michael Martin as Speaker of the House of Commons in the British Parliament in 2009.
Ms Seepaul refused to leave in response to the likely dictates of the PNM MPs who held the majority in the House, with the result that a state of emergency was declared to confine her to her residence while the Constitution was amended to provide (as the dry bones of the law were insufficient at the time) for the removal of a Speaker by the passing of a resolution moved in the House of Representatives and subject to certain safeguards (for which I and other Independent Senators successfully fought).

Zoom -remind us how the PNM abused her.
Sedition?
No mention...
Moving on

Any one here can show with fact...or a link to a law how the Gang Act will change the power of the Sedition Act ?

And Zoom, your first answer quoted the Sedition Act as the foundation of your argument
Despite there being explicit protection in the Act for whatever you concerned about.

Since then you have just repeated your anti PNM rhetoric. which while expected remains irrelevant.

LAW.
You saw they will lock us up if we say X.
Ive shown the limitation clause that explicitly protects us if we chose to do that.
You repeat your blather about your history of predictions-so you have zero fact.
Which is where you started..ole talk and baseless blather

We all know that Occah case was nothing to do with her court case. It was all about disagreement with Patrick Manning. The PNM media did as they told in showing a court case.

Trinis are so naive to believe the PNM media houses

[megadoc1]

the late Dana seetahal a victim of criminal gang activity had this to say about this bill that was law in 2013
[url]This is Dana Seetahals take on the anti gang law in 2013

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commenta ... 89621.html [/url]

Many persons have commented on the police actions in the last week or so in response to the wave of killings in east Port of Spain and, latterly, to the “detention” of Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union leader Ancel Roget during an apparent protest outside the Hall of Justice. A recent release by the Law Association purported to remind the police that the country is governed by the rule of law and suspects must be dealt with “in accordance with the law and the police must be above reproach”.



There is no question that the rule of law must prevail especially in a body such as the Police Service that is charged with enforcing the law to maintain order and protect the vulnerable. The statement by the Law Association, however, suggests that in arresting about 100 residents of East Port of Spain last week the police were somehow acting other than in accordance with the rule of law. It may also suggest that the police somehow acted illegally in entering and searching homes in the area.



Now it is undoubtedly a fact that the police did release about 60 of the arrestees without charging them for any offence but does this fact make their initial arrests illegal? The Anti-Gang Act provides at Section 12 that a police officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be a gang member or who may have committed an offence under that Act.



We do not know what the police information was when they arrested the various men. If they did have cause based on intelligence or surveillance or other observation of the area to believe that these persons were gang members, then they acted legally in arresting them. A gang member is a person who belongs to a gang or who voluntarily associates himself with any gang-related activity at whatever stage of the activity. Gang-related activity is criminal activity involving any one of a number of offences including murder, robbery, possession of firearm and drug trafficking/possession, agreed to or directed by a gang member. And a gang is a combination of two or more persons engaging in criminal activity through its members.









Arrest without charge



With this wide definition and given the type of activity that frequently occurs in East Port of Spain, and that did occur in the last two weeks, it is not unreasonable to assume that the police could have had reasonable cause to believe that persons they arrested were gang members. Of course an arrest is not a charge. The latter ought only to occur when there is evidence sufficient to amount to prima facie proof of the offence. The police are however entitled to arrest persons without having sufficient evidence. That is what the law providing for arrest without warrant is about. At this stage there need just be “reasonable cause”.









Having arrested the person the police may seek to question the suspect. He may or may not answer questions. Sometimes he does and may implicate himself. In addition a police officer may seek to obtain further evidence by searching premises and people. There are generic provisions allowing for a search warrant to be issued in pursuance of investigation of a named offence but the Firearms Act in particular at section 30 allows a search warrant to be obtained when “there is a substantial risk to the safety of the public”. Armed with such a warrant an officer may enter and search the premises and persons found therein.









Detention under the Anti-Gang Act



A person arrested as a suspected gang member/leader may be kept for 72 hours without charge but his status must be reviewed after 48 hours. If at that time the senior officer who reviews the detention decides that the detention is not required in “the public’s interest” he must be released. This is a peculiar provision in the Anti-Gang law as this is not a usual reason for continued detention. Furthermore, a police officer may obtain an ex parte order from a magistrate for detention up to six days to allow (among other things) the police to “obtain evidence by questioning” the detained person.It is evident therefore that once a police officer has reasonable cause to believe someone is a gang member the law allows the officer to arrest and detain him pending investigations. This is without any charge and in fact he may never be charged and the law does not require it.



If there is any quarrel with this it must be with the wide terms of the legislation, passed with the requisite constitutional majority, and not with the police when they are acting within the law. It is evident that Parliament specifically passed law to enable this kind of police intervention in areas which gangs operate.









Roget’s “arrest”



DCP Richardson has said that Ancel Roget accompanied him to the police station but it is clear that since Mr Roget was physically detained he was arrested. Whether Mr Roget and his group were simply protesting and not marching is irrelevant. Under the Summary Offences Act they were likely holding a “public meeting”: a gathering of persons held for the purpose of the transaction of matters of public interest. In any event in wearing bandanas (as has been reported) partially covering their faces the protestors were caught under the law which states that a person should not appear in public “masked or otherwise disguised”. If there were valid constitutional reasons for this type of wear such as it is part of their religion then this could possibly be a defence.



It appears from where I stand that in the last week or so in dealing with difficult situations the police actions were not unreasonable. There was need to balance the public interest and common good with individual rights and they had to act in favour of the former.









• Dana Seetahal is a former



Independent senator

[Redman]

We all know that Occah case was nothing to do with her court case. It was all about disagreement with Patrick Manning. The PNM media did as they told in showing a court case.

Trinis are so naive to believe the PNM media houses

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1995/Trini ... 71b53e6e54

ONY FRASER , Associated Press
Aug. 7, 1995 9:05 PM ET

PORT-OF-SPAIN, TRINIDAD PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad (AP) _ The government freed the Speaker of the House on Monday and lifted a limited state of emergency it had imposed to oust her from office.

Speaker Occah Seapaul was put under house arrest Thursday so the House of Representatives could pass a constitutional amendment that would allow the government to oust her. The amendment passed on Friday.

Officials acted after Seapaul blocked several attempts to remove her from office for allegedly concocting fraud charges against a former business partner.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Patrick Manning accused her of conspiring to overthrow the government of Trinidad and Tobago, a charge Seapaul denies.

Seapaul went to the Supreme Court on Saturday and agreed she would step aside pending its ruling on the constitutionality of the amendment. A hearing is scheduled Sept. 4.

``The government is convinced that the circumstances which necessitated the proclamation of the emergency no longer exists,'' National Security Minister John Eckstein told the House on Monday.

Efforts to oust Seapaul began after she accused a former business partner, Victor Jattan, of defrauding her of $17,000. Attorney General Keith Sobion, citing an absence of evidence, concluded Seapaul was lying, dismissed the charge and urged her to resign to ``maintain the dignity of parliament.''

When parliament attempted to launch a vote of confidence last month, Seapaul deemed it unconstitutional.

[16 cycles]

^AG at the time made a determination on a case and dismissed a charge??

[zoom rader]

^AG at the time made a determination on a case and dismissed a charge??

Yep that's the dangers of PNM.
Wishy washy laws that suits them

[Redman]

Yes he dismissed OS claim (aka charge) as bulllsheeeeeit.
Like we can dismiss ZRs claims....

The Case with the infamous Victor Jattan was in the high court.
It was thrown out over her inconsistency...

[shake d livin wake d dead]

Allyuh men take this bill to heart Jed...

[zoom rader]

Allyuh men take this bill to heart Jed...

Redman defending crap.

We just escaped a dictatorship thank Jah for the opposition

[De Dragon]

The max under the Gang law is 14 with judicial review.

The logic given about the sunset clause was that it will take time to get evidence and act.
And as you spent a whole heap of time arguing a while back the judicial system is slow....So a two year clause would not be enough time.

Hasn't the esteemed AG The Hon Arse-Wari said that they know who the gangs and gang members are? Two years to gather evidence? Isn't the sunset clause to re-evaluate the law's effectiveness? Hasn't said law already proven ineffectual after 5 years already?

[shake d livin wake d dead]

about 470 not out....

[16 cycles]

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2017-12- ... r-critical

Sad

[zoom rader]

^^ and Redman continues to support the PNM and getting paid as a blogger

Meanwhile the PNM crime problem is affecting day to day citizens.

We have a PNM CJ that passing HDC houses to his bros.

The PNM prime Minster can't answer questions.

media houses houses protecting the PNM. Mind you the Media houses is all controlled by the 1%

[timelapse]

Anti gang law for what?
What makes anybody think TTPS going to do anything resembling police work?
I think that it would be a means of legitimizing searches of people that would have otherwise been deemed illegal.

[zoom rader]

Anti gang law for what?
What makes anybody think TTPS going to do anything resembling police work?
I think that it would be a means of legitimizing searches of people that would have otherwise been deemed illegal.

This law has nothing to do with gangs.

It was intended for an anti citizen law , where if you disagree with the PNM you will be held as being a gang member.

[Redman]

The max under the Gang law is 14 with judicial review.

The logic given about the sunset clause was that it will take time to get evidence and act.
And as you spent a whole heap of time arguing a while back the judicial system is slow....So a two year clause would not be enough time.

Hasn't the esteemed AG The Hon Arse-Wari said that they know who the gangs and gang members are? Two years to gather evidence? Isn't the sunset clause to re-evaluate the law's effectiveness? Hasn't said law already proven ineffectual after 5 years already?

Were you not the person that insisted that the legal system and the judiciary were so slow that any one approaching the courts had to be prepared to wait years?

So 24 months for the act to run through the house, get assented,implemented arrests,charges,preliminary enquiries,the case delays and all...and convictions???
yep that's a genuine expectation and not a red herring

The Govts position is that they have corrected faults in the legislation....and need the same time granted to the last govt to do the same thing. Despite the un challenged belief that things are worse wrt gangs

The TTPS say it was working...but the courts take time.

IMHO I would let the govt and the TTPS -as the arms that have the authority and responsibility have what they want-and hold them accountable.

The opposition is NOW saying that the law was flawed....it wasnt when they were advocating for it.The UNC at the time prided itself on its legal acumen...being led by 2 Senior Counsel.

That cant jive....not when their issues in committee stage were dealt with,and the opposition, when asked to vote clause by clause , remained silent.
The single issue is that they want the sunset clause BEFORE the elections???
If elections are 2 + years out, what difference is the sunset clause going to make??
Isnt the last 3 years or so under a new administration???

Also there are many mechanisms for the Opposition to get performance data on the act during its implementation


Given the fact that it is the AG that fighting cases AGAINST law that he enacted....any one here want to guess who will be representing the accused-and highly motivated to delay delay delay....until the lapse and then sue the govt for malicious prosecution.
He and Ramdeen had a cookie cutter,copy and paste system in the Prison Gate case.

The same thing will happen-all the cases would be in the middle of the courts and then the law lapses.

It seems clear to me that the belief is that the PNM is not worthy of the same latitude that the UNC was given.
That is PURELY a political opinion.
Wasnt it under the UNC that Jack too TTDF down to the Highway re route movement?
The SOE stands alone-and yes a chunk of those charged under the Anti Gang 2011....were dragged off the street during the SOE.Under the SOE powers -not Application of the AntiGang Act.

Can you say that you dont see how the UNC has been manipulating the legal system for political expedience?
Answer that please

[sMASH]

Anti gang law for what?
What makes anybody think TTPS going to do anything resembling police work?
I think that it would be a means of legitimizing searches of people that would have otherwise been deemed illegal.

trying to frighten the ole tanty with 'gangs', the gangs coming for them. so they need to deal with gangs.

a gang is only dangerous if they conduct criminal activity. police need to detect those activities, gather evidence, and prosecute according to the law.

[Redman]

So A,B and C in a gang.
A has an issue with D
A gets C to kill D

The 2011 act increased the penalties on the murder ..due to the gang association.
B is also under pressure since his association with the gang is now fair game for attention from the police.

C in now more likely to resist the order or flip if caught.
you dont see the benefits ??

[sMASH]

using what is already here, if A B and C are in a gang, then they would already be 'known to the police', if police are actually doing their jobs, or running the blocks themselves. nothing in that law prevents them from pursuing C for murder.
if B hasnt committed any crime then he should be treated like the non criminal person that he is.

how does the law recognize a gang? a gang doesn't have a registration to make itself prevalent or persistent. so, it would more or less exist in the minds and words of those speaking its name, the members, the citizens whom are in the area that they frequent, the police in the area that take taxes.

if the concept of a gang is so ethereal, my problem is that it would be easy for less than upstanding persons in positions of power and authority can simple state out loud and claim that any other citizen is a gang member and a police can arrest them and detain them for months on end, with no body to justify it to, or explain it too.


it is enough for police to do good police work and prosecute each crime.

gang bill is effectively a witch hunt where u persecute your opponents with flagrant misuse of the laws.

i also believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. and anything else is ole talk, and anything else is considered libel or slander

[timelapse]

So A,B and C in a gang.
A has an issue with D
A gets C to kill D

The 2011 act increased the penalties on the murder ..due to the gang association.
B is also under pressure since his association with the gang is now fair game for attention from the police.

C in now more likely to resist the order or flip if caught.
you dont see the benefits ??

Here's the problem:
Who is confirming that A, B and C are in a gang? Useless police or politicians?

Police are involved it gangs as well.What's their punishment, being transferred?

If some big wig politician doesn't like me, I am certain that my name is going to be called as a gang member to justify their political purposes.
In theory is a good law.In T&T with corrupt government practices and a police farce ,it is just a means to further victimize people.
TTPS not going to be using it for anything productive, half the time they don't know the laws that they enforcing, so adding more homework for them is not beneficial.

My suggestion for this law if it gets passed as well as other criminal charges: Make members of the protective services more liable than regular civilians if they are found to be involved. Thats the best way to start. Case in point Vicky Boodram's escape. What if was a man like Joey Ramiah that they had helped to escape? Busy searching civilian vehicles while a prisoner escaping in police vehicles, who are they trying to fool?

Just my thoughts.

[Redman]

Right....so we working the premise that the LAW remains static...and not evolve
while the Industry that is crime get to use the latest knowledge and tech.

the US states modified their laws to address the current dynamics as they existed...in the 80s.

If you have to ask how a gang is defined-its clear you havent read the bill.
or even the definition section....

There are many cross checks in the 2011 and 2016 bill.
Including JUDICIAL oversight.

[zoom rader]

Amazing the PNM knows the gangs but does nothing to jail them. Despite the fact that they have lots of technology to apprehend these ppl that they created.

[sMASH]

u can add to the law if it will improve, but not at the expense of the safety and liberty of the citizen.
that what allyuh want to pass, is not an improvement, its is just lazy policing. instead of gathering evidence, u just let them say that someone is a gang member and throw them away without a court hearing. and if they do reach to court, the judge will say, 'what he do?' and the police will say, 'he was a gyang membah'. to which the judge will press, ' what crime he do?' to which the police will supplement, ' non yet, but he was a gyang membah'. then the judge will say, 'oh ho, well, free to go mr citizen'. to which mr citizen will then sue the state.


what can help clean up the country, is make any false suit brought to court by a citizen or a police to have the claimant suffer some sort of penalty if found out to be malicious or false.
put body cameras on police where they must have a working one on thier person, and the feed is remotely collected and databased and readily available for the public to peruse, even live. and allow those recordings to be used as evidence.
send police to do degrees and masters in criminal investigation, forensics, and criminal prosecution. so that they will know what to do when they leave the police station.
(that would mean that u cant just put a nice boy with a clean fresh and no record to be a police, u would need people who actually intelligent)

implement a system where vehicles get an an incentive to have a gps system tagged on board that is readily available for tracking by the police. such as a discount in insurance.



allyuh taking the bait and approaching the problem with the typical PNM mentality.
no, u need to move different, u need to move intelligently. and if u can't, move aside and let someone else do it.

[Redman]

so the 2011 UNC bill was not PNM mentality.
this bill slightly modified in consultation with the UNC is PNM mentality.

Thats your POV.
and you eh taking no bait.

riiiiight.

[sMASH]

I was against that and the SoE.
Actually deciding to bring in anti gang bill when it was wrong, but potential to give power to high powered people, through the police, was a bait.

It was wrong then and wrong now.

[The_Honourable]

Meanwhile Lester Henry still in the senate...

[teems1]

the US states modified their laws to address the current dynamics as they existed...in the 80s.

Planned Parenthood had more to do with curbing crime in the 80's and 90's than rewriting laws.

Go read Chapter 1 of Freakonomics.

[sMASH]

reganism and his war on drugs which made things much worse for impoverished and minority groups???? nice...

inside that anti gang bill, also has 'explain your wealth' or as it is known in america, ' civil asset forfeiture'.
that is essentially they saying ur assets are ill gotten, and they will seize it. then it is up to u to prove u bought it, and prove that the money u used to buy ur stuff was legitimately gotten.
sounds nice when u think about it appllied to the 1%, but in reality, it is rarely applied to whom they tout it to be against, but used to target the middle and lower class.

because, just like the anti gang, there is no restriction on whom they can be applied against.
so police can lock u up with little reason and no court appearance, or seize ur assets claiming ur a criminal, yet not have enough evidence ur a criminal to lock u up.


if UNC dotish for introducing antigang the first time, PNM hadda be super dotish to reintroduce it, and additional things like explain ur wealth...
nope, not dotish, just dictatorial.

[Redman]

the US states modified their laws to address the current dynamics as they existed...in the 80s.

Planned Parenthood had more to do with curbing crime in the 80's and 90's than rewriting laws.

Go read Chapter 1 of Freakonomics.

And this is relevant to the issues today how?

[zoom rader]

^^^ Redman time to stop your beat up. The PNM anti citizen bill was defeated.

[Sōsuke Aizen]

When ZR bathing he thinking about the PNM, when he in the toilet he reading about the PNM, when he sleeping he dreaming about the PNM and even when he doing it with his wife he does ramble about the PNM.

The PNM makes ZR a happy man.