Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Soul Collector wrote:At the end of the day, if Wayne lives or dies, his hunger strike, his alleged ulterior motives, it doesn't matter. What truly matters is the hopeful outcome of this situation, the outcome he so desperately desires not for himself but for the people of this country.
3stagevtec wrote:Soul Collector wrote:At the end of the day, if Wayne lives or dies, his hunger strike, his alleged ulterior motives, it doesn't matter. What truly matters is the hopeful outcome of this situation, the outcome he so desperately desires not for himself but for the people of this country.
The significant majority of people in this country are in support of the highway. I am one of those majority because I use those roads daily and I know the extent of benefit that highway will bring.
It is clear to many at this point that he has ulterior motives, anyone with common sense can see this, but anyway, at the end of the day, can't let one bad apple spoil the bunch. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a Kublalsingh..
eliteauto wrote:what is Dr Kublalsingh's ulterior motive?
eliteauto wrote:what is Dr Kublalsingh's ulterior motive?
UML wrote:hearing a talk that no appeal to the Privy Council was filed. If so, is this hunger strike just a political gimmick? Because he lost before the courts and as a stubborn child started to the hunger strike because he didnt get his way!
Attorney General- Kublalsingh failed to file an appeal
October 8, 2014: I wish to advise that I have been informed by the Privy Council Agents for the State that they have searched the Privy Council records and no appeal has been lodged by Dr. Kublalsingh and the Highway Re-route Movement to date.
I had in fact consented to the ‘Grant of Leave’ (permission) to enable an appeal to the Privy Council. I could have objected to this application but chose not to do so as I did not want to deny Dr. Kublalsingh and the members of the Highway Re-route Movement the right to take their case to the highest court.
It was my hope that such leniency would lead to a better understanding of the state's position, highlight our overriding concern for the rule of law and the plight of Dr. Kublalsingh and his followers.
Dr. Kublalsingh and his group had been denied an injunction on three separate occasions by differently constituted courts as follows:
1. 7th May 2014 – Aboud J refused the application for a Conservatory Order on the grounds that there was unreasonable delay in pursuing the interim Conservatory Order, that there was no undertaking in damages offered, that third party commercial rights and the rights to adequate transport of those living in the area would be adversely affected- See paragraph 168 of the Judgment in CV 2012-03205.
2. 8th August 2014- Court of Appeal – Narine, Smith and Moosai JJA (Smith JA dissenting) refused Conservatory Order and upheld the decision of Aboud J not to grant the Order. The Court of Appeal also set aside certain findings of fact made by Aboud J.
3. 22nd September 2014, the Court of Appeal (Jamadar, Rajnauth-Lee and Moosai JJA) again refused a Conservatory Order and granted conditional leave to Kublalsingh and Others (by consent) to appeal to the Privy Council.
I have been instructed by the Honourable Prime Minister to ascertain the status of Dr Kublsinalgh's appeal so that we can consider the suggestion that the State should not object to an application by Dr Kublalsingh for the Privy Council to expedite the hearing of this appeal. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to give consideration to this at the moment because the Privy Council Agents for the State have confirmed that no appeal has been filed in the Privy Council to date.
I have no control over this as it is the duty of the Appellant and his lawyers to comply with the directions given by the Court of Appeal and file their client’s case in the Privy Council Registry when they are able and ready to do so. I have no control over the pace at which this is done as the State cannot prosecute an appeal on behalf of the losing party. The urgency and importance which lawyers attach to their client's case should obviously be influenced by the particular circumstances and facts in each unique case.
I have never engaged in any action to deny Dr Kublalsingh and his followers their day in court.
In fact, I consented to the grant of permission for his appeal to be taken to the highest court so that he can have the satisfaction of knowing that he did his best and explored all his legal options.
How then, can the Government consider his call for the state to "not object" to an application for an expedited and early hearing of his appeal when there is in fact no appeal.
I cannot give consideration to something that does not in fact exist.
In accordance with the directive from the Honourable Prime Minister, I would be happy consider the position of the State, vis-a-vis any request for an urgent and early hearing if and when such an appeal is filed in accordance with the order of the Court of Appeal.
The ball is however, very much in the court of Dr Kublalsingh and his lawyers as I cannot prosecute his appeal for him.
My sympathy and compassion for Dr Kublalsingh cannot justify a violation of the legal procedures that govern an appeal to the Privy Council and must be balanced against the sympathy and compassion I feel for the tens of thousands of commuters who are forced to leave and return home when it is dark while still having to suffer through hours of frustrating, distressing and depressing traffic every day.
http://www.news.gov.tt/content/attorney ... DZvjFeKUYQ
Ramesh refutes AG’s claim on HRM lawsuit
Geisha Kowlessar
Published:
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Attorney for the Highway Re-Route Movement (HRM) Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, has shot down Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s claim that the HRM has filed no application before the Privy Council to expedite a hearing of an appeal over an injunction to stop work on the Debe to Mon Desir segment of the Pt Fortin Highway. Maharaj also accused the AG of misleading the country, saying Ramlogan knew his consent was requested for an urgent hearing.
The application is being made, Maharaj said. Ramlogan, who maintained yesterday that the HRM had made no application, said:
“I was astonished to be informed that no appeal has been lodged at the Privy Council by Dr Kublalsingh and his lawyers... no papers have been filed with the Privy Council or served on the State’s Privy Council agents as of this morning (yesterday)... and that I find rather surprising, given the call for us to consider an expedited hearing.”
The AG said he had consented to the grant of leave to enable an appeal to the Privy Council. Saying he could have objected, Ramlogan said he chose not to do so as he did not want to deny Kublalsingh and the HRM the right to take their case to the highest court. “It was my hope that such leniency would lead to a better understanding of the State's position, highlight our overriding concern for the rule of law and the plight of Dr Kublalsingh and his followers,” Ramlogan said.
Saying his sympathy and compassion for Kublalsingh could not justify a violation of the legal procedures that govern an appeal to the Privy Council Ramlogan added that must be balanced against the sympathy and compassion he felt for the tens of thousands of commuters who were forced to leave and return home when dark while still having to suffer through hours of frustrating, distressing and depressing traffic daily.
But Maharaj said from the outset Ramlogan did not take the necessary steps to give an undertaking to the court for the status quo of the Debe to Mon Desir section of the highway to be maintained until the court was able to determine the substantive issues in the constitutional claim. Maharaj said the chronology showed the lawyers for the HRM, before making the application to the Privy Council, sought the AG’s consent for an expeditious hearing.
“The Highway Re-Route Movement will now inform the Privy Council that the AG has refused to consent to the expeditious hearing of the matter and would now apply to the Privy Council to have the matter determined. “It is therefore misleading for the AG to give the impression that no application is before the Privy Council,” he added.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-10- ... rm-lawsuit
HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY....literally!!!
-HRM/Armstrong committe says XYZ
GORTT has done ABC and these are the results.
Redman wrote:HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY....literally!!!
And this would be utter crap
The man has said that they want the govt to abide by the Armstrong report.
The report cites deficiencies
If the govt has truly over come the deficiencies listed by the committee created by them to investigate the process-the AG would have taken less time to list the issues and show how the govt has corrected it.
Why havent they done this in one of the bazillion ads theve taken out
1 full page add-HRM/Armstrong committe says XYZ
GORTT has done ABC and these are the results.
Simple.
I wonder why they have not done this?
Redman wrote:The courts answered the specific questions of law challenged by the HRM.
The courts also freed Abu Bakr-on a point of law.
Which is different to right and wrong.
You wondering if WK will abide by the PCs ruling-when the genesis of this is the GORTTs refusal to abide by the agreed to arbitrators findings.
Even though the GORTT convened the committee and established the terms of reference.
So they ask some one to give a ruling and then ignore it.
That alone implies vested interest
Redman wrote:Agreed.
But justify why we not following the committees advice-since we convened it.
We pay them to ignore their advice?????
That would be wastage of public funds-which you seem very comfortable with
the govt was being held for ransom and blackmailed by his last hunger strike. so they did it to please the HRM. They got the recommendations. They listened, didnt agree because the pros outweigh the cons and they govern a country and have to do what benefits the majority not a minority who seeking financial interest.
AllTrac wrote:Ramesh want de man to dead, he purposely didnt file the injunction yet, having someone give their life in protest of the government can make the best election campaign
Redman wrote:the govt was being held for ransom and blackmailed by his last hunger strike. so they did it to please the HRM. They got the recommendations. They listened, didnt agree because the pros outweigh the cons and they govern a country and have to do what benefits the majority not a minority who seeking financial interest.
So...they spent money to benefit a minority groups special interest?
And they spent it on false pretenses because they would abide only if the committee agreed with the gortt position
If you and I have an argument.
We both decide to go to XYZ to decide.
We clearly agree to be bound by the decisions of xyz.
At least in a common sense world.
Show me where this govt addressed the recommendations.
and if so they would and SHOULD have published it-like the AG and his google response.
And having done that they
Have they??
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: shake d livin wake d dead, Shannon and 42 guests