TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Power you feel I do not have, I have!
February 9, 2015 at 12:59pm
Dear Editor,
I write in response to Kenneth Lalla's commentary, headlined "West issue more political" and published in the Newsday on February 9th 2015 (http://newsday.co.tt/commentary/0,206706.html). The article has to be incomplete: the relevant clauses in the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) Act were omitted. Therefore, readers weren't able to verify Lalla's argument that West cannot be fired for shortchanging the President and Prime Minister. Permit me to fill in the blanks by quoting what the Act says.
"12. The President, acting in his discretion, may revoke the appointment of a person as Director or Deputy Director where he (the President) is satisfied that the person—
"(b) is unable to discharge the functions of his office, whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause, or for misbehaviour."
"In his discretion" and "any other cause" give President Carmona power some feel he doesn't have to call David West to account. Polls indicate 500,000 citizens ---maybe more--- have lost confidence in West directly as a result of his actions subsequent to being offered the post at PCA.
Citizens are waiting to see if the President will use those powers to establish the one thing Lalla seems to fear: that the principle of utmost good faith applies when someone is offered any publicly-funded job, particularly an awesome one as head of the PCA.
West was appointed by the President to the office of Director and he can only be removed by the President for the reasons set out in the Police Service Complaint Authority Act. The Act provides that the Director is not subject to the direction and control of any one. Accordingly the PM could lodge her complaint with the President but the President can only remove or dismiss West for the reasons set out in the Act
Lalla omitted some key facts, therefore his conclusion was wrong.
Submitted by Richard Wm Thomas
UML wrote:Judge: Rowley must pay Ramlogan $30,000
For failing to file witness statement in defamation suit...
By Rickie Ramdass rickie.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Feb 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM ECT
OPPOSITION Leader Dr Keith Rowley was yesterday ordered by a High Court judge to pay $30,000 in legal costs to former attorney general Anand Ramlogan after he previously failed to file his witness statement in one of five defamation lawsuits brought against him by Ramlogan.
The order was made yesterday afternoon by Justice Andre Des Vignes when the lawsuit again came up for hearing at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.
Ramlogan is seeking damages for slander allegedly contained in statements Rowley made at a public forum at City Hall in Port of Spain, on November 1, 2011, relating to the hiring of attorneys in private practice for State briefs.
At the hearing, attorneys representing Rowley also made an application to include in their defence the pending police investigation that Ramlogan allegedly attempted to pervert the course of justice in another defamation claim after he allegedly sought to have director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West withdraw his witness statement.
On January 19, when the matter was last called, Justice Des Vignes granted Rowley an extension of time to file his defence in the matter.
Both sides were given until January 26 to exchange witness statements before the matter could be set for trial.
Des Vignes yesterday set January 19, 20 and 21, 2016, as the dates on which the trial will proceed.
Ramlogan is accused of hiring attorneys from his former law firm to handle cases for the State, so as to receive reward, or pecuniary benefit, from them.
The ex-AG is represented by senior counsel Avory Sinanan, Gerald Ramdeen and Varun Dabideen, while attorneys Michael Quamina and PNM Senator Faris Al-Rawi are seeking the interest of Rowley.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Jud ... 40921.html
Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
DVSTT wrote:Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Still don't think Rowley winning though.
UML wrote:Power you feel I do not have, I have!
February 9, 2015 at 12:59pm
Dear Editor,
I write in response to Kenneth Lalla's commentary, headlined "West issue more political" and published in the Newsday on February 9th 2015 (http://newsday.co.tt/commentary/0,206706.html). The article has to be incomplete: the relevant clauses in the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) Act were omitted. Therefore, readers weren't able to verify Lalla's argument that West cannot be fired for shortchanging the President and Prime Minister. Permit me to fill in the blanks by quoting what the Act says.
"12. The President, acting in his discretion, may revoke the appointment of a person as Director or Deputy Director where he (the President) is satisfied that the person—
"(b) is unable to discharge the functions of his office, whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause, or for misbehaviour."
"In his discretion" and "any other cause" give President Carmona power some feel he doesn't have to call David West to account. Polls indicate 500,000 citizens ---maybe more--- have lost confidence in West directly as a result of his actions subsequent to being offered the post at PCA.
Citizens are waiting to see if the President will use those powers to establish the one thing Lalla seems to fear: that the principle of utmost good faith applies when someone is offered any publicly-funded job, particularly an awesome one as head of the PCA.
West was appointed by the President to the office of Director and he can only be removed by the President for the reasons set out in the Police Service Complaint Authority Act. The Act provides that the Director is not subject to the direction and control of any one. Accordingly the PM could lodge her complaint with the President but the President can only remove or dismiss West for the reasons set out in the Act
Lalla omitted some key facts, therefore his conclusion was wrong.
Submitted by Richard Wm Thomas
UML wrote:UML wrote:Judge: Rowley must pay Ramlogan $30,000
For failing to file witness statement in defamation suit...
By Rickie Ramdass rickie.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Feb 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM ECT
OPPOSITION Leader Dr Keith Rowley was yesterday ordered by a High Court judge to pay $30,000 in legal costs to former attorney general Anand Ramlogan after he previously failed to file his witness statement in one of five defamation lawsuits brought against him by Ramlogan.
The order was made yesterday afternoon by Justice Andre Des Vignes when the lawsuit again came up for hearing at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.
Ramlogan is seeking damages for slander allegedly contained in statements Rowley made at a public forum at City Hall in Port of Spain, on November 1, 2011, relating to the hiring of attorneys in private practice for State briefs.
At the hearing, attorneys representing Rowley also made an application to include in their defence the pending police investigation that Ramlogan allegedly attempted to pervert the course of justice in another defamation claim after he allegedly sought to have director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West withdraw his witness statement.
On January 19, when the matter was last called, Justice Des Vignes granted Rowley an extension of time to file his defence in the matter.
Both sides were given until January 26 to exchange witness statements before the matter could be set for trial.
Des Vignes yesterday set January 19, 20 and 21, 2016, as the dates on which the trial will proceed.
Ramlogan is accused of hiring attorneys from his former law firm to handle cases for the State, so as to receive reward, or pecuniary benefit, from them.
The ex-AG is represented by senior counsel Avory Sinanan, Gerald Ramdeen and Varun Dabideen, while attorneys Michael Quamina and PNM Senator Faris Al-Rawi are seeking the interest of Rowley.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Jud ... 40921.html
Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Don't let your blind hatred of the UNC/PP blind you to Rowley's obvious shortcomings. The man simply cannot control his outbursts and utterances.
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Don't let your blind hatred of the UNC/PP blind you to Rowley's obvious shortcomings. The man simply cannot control his outbursts and utterances.
Making informed criticisms of a party is not "blind hatred." I would vote PP if they were a viable alternative but their inability to chart a national course for the future, inability to deal with endemic corruption, failure to create new revenue streams and other issues for me justifies my view.
You however might never be persuaded about Rowley, but who cares? Every person has shortcomings, but if by "outbursts" you mean the time he put party before country and spoke out against impropriety in his own party, then I guess I can see you don't like him.
Let me also guess, you think the PM was right to fire Gary Griffith too?
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Don't let your blind hatred of the UNC/PP blind you to Rowley's obvious shortcomings. The man simply cannot control his outbursts and utterances.
Making informed criticisms of a party is not "blind hatred." I would vote PP if they were a viable alternative but their inability to chart a national course for the future, inability to deal with endemic corruption, failure to create new revenue streams and other issues for me justifies my view.
You however might never be persuaded about Rowley, but who cares? Every person has shortcomings, but if by "outbursts" you mean the time he put party before country and spoke out against impropriety in his own party, then I guess I can see you don't like him.
Let me also guess, you think the PM was right to fire Gary Griffith too?
orangefox wrote:De Dragon you talking nonsense and maybe uneducated for debate. All you refer to is the propaganda of the yesterday. You living in the past old-man. Do you not see how this can affect your children ?
Your "blind hatred" must stop. Why ? It does no good to my young educated generation. We are optimists.
Are you happy or content with your or the PM ?
The direction this pippy stocking dictator is embarking our young country ?
If you do, then I guess it is your pee frothing.
UML wrote:UML wrote:Judge: Rowley must pay Ramlogan $30,000
For failing to file witness statement in defamation suit...
By Rickie Ramdass rickie.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Feb 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 9, 2015 at 9:26 PM ECT
OPPOSITION Leader Dr Keith Rowley was yesterday ordered by a High Court judge to pay $30,000 in legal costs to former attorney general Anand Ramlogan after he previously failed to file his witness statement in one of five defamation lawsuits brought against him by Ramlogan.
The order was made yesterday afternoon by Justice Andre Des Vignes when the lawsuit again came up for hearing at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.
Ramlogan is seeking damages for slander allegedly contained in statements Rowley made at a public forum at City Hall in Port of Spain, on November 1, 2011, relating to the hiring of attorneys in private practice for State briefs.
At the hearing, attorneys representing Rowley also made an application to include in their defence the pending police investigation that Ramlogan allegedly attempted to pervert the course of justice in another defamation claim after he allegedly sought to have director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West withdraw his witness statement.
On January 19, when the matter was last called, Justice Des Vignes granted Rowley an extension of time to file his defence in the matter.
Both sides were given until January 26 to exchange witness statements before the matter could be set for trial.
Des Vignes yesterday set January 19, 20 and 21, 2016, as the dates on which the trial will proceed.
Ramlogan is accused of hiring attorneys from his former law firm to handle cases for the State, so as to receive reward, or pecuniary benefit, from them.
The ex-AG is represented by senior counsel Avory Sinanan, Gerald Ramdeen and Varun Dabideen, while attorneys Michael Quamina and PNM Senator Faris Al-Rawi are seeking the interest of Rowley.http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Jud ... 40921.html
why so late? So this allegation will be hanging over his head during elections or it may be another defeat and disappointment for Rowley and the PNM? After elections and someone else is in govt? What sense is a win FOR the AG if the PNM is in power? No one cares if he wins if PPG not in govt!!!!
De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Don't let your blind hatred of the UNC/PP blind you to Rowley's obvious shortcomings. The man simply cannot control his outbursts and utterances.
Making informed criticisms of a party is not "blind hatred." I would vote PP if they were a viable alternative but their inability to chart a national course for the future, inability to deal with endemic corruption, failure to create new revenue streams and other issues for me justifies my view.
You however might never be persuaded about Rowley, but who cares? Every person has shortcomings, but if by "outbursts" you mean the time he put party before country and spoke out against impropriety in his own party, then I guess I can see you don't like him.
Let me also guess, you think the PM was right to fire Gary Griffith too?
What I detest is hypocrisy. Rowley sat there while the PNM, himself included, raped the Treasury through Calder Hart, Landate, UTT guest house, ETeck, Guanapo etc. Only when he ran afoul of Manning, and his own space at the trough was threatened, did he suddenly "see" corruption in the PNM. This is why I wait with bated breath to see why West waited until AFTER the Express report, to run to the CoP. He is also being held up as "ethical" and "courageous" but has yet to say why he did not immediately bring the AG's alleged misconduct to the attention of the relevant authorities at the time of the incident He has not sufficiently explained this as yet. Gary Griffith paid the price for going against the PP, plain and simple, and this is wrong, as a different view should be welcomed. The reasoning of the PM is highly suspect on GG.
De Dragon wrote:orangefox wrote:De Dragon you talking nonsense and maybe uneducated for debate. All you refer to is the propaganda of the yesterday. You living in the past old-man. Do you not see how this can affect your children ?
Your "blind hatred" must stop. Why ? It does no good to my young educated generation. We are optimists.
Are you happy or content with your or the PM ?
The direction this pippy stocking dictator is embarking our young country ?
If you do, then I guess it is your pee frothing.
Educated? You? You would certainly not glean that from your puerile, attention seeking posts. Are you happy with where we are after 30 years plus of governance, mainly PNM?
. It seeking discussions and debate you hater not posts. This is a political ched.
orangefox wrote:De Dragon wrote:orangefox wrote:De Dragon you talking nonsense and maybe uneducated for debate. All you refer to is the propaganda of the yesterday. You living in the past old-man. Do you not see how this can affect your children ?
Your "blind hatred" must stop. Why ? It does no good to my young educated generation. We are optimists.
Are you happy or content with your or the PM ?
The direction this pippy stocking dictator is embarking our young country ?
If you do, then I guess it is your pee frothing.
Educated? You? You would certainly not glean that from your puerile, attention seeking posts. Are you happy with where we are after 30 years plus of governance, mainly PNM?
Blind hatred again
Yes, PNM took on all the major projects. Old Dragons are very vindictive as seen recently with Stacy,West and Gary.
Blind hatred continues in politics with the likes of old Dragons, even in academia and the successful.
The young educated ( yes I am very travelled and educated ) do not submit to your rants ; the old ways.
The rant and raves are all on a propaganda foundation.
If you have evidence on your rants and insanity. Let us see it.
Otherwise shut up curmudgeon.
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:Ramlogan still relevant? He could win all the defamation cases he wants, he still facing 20 years in jail and $100,000 fine. Rowley facing PM1 and 1 La Fantasia Road.
Don't let your blind hatred of the UNC/PP blind you to Rowley's obvious shortcomings. The man simply cannot control his outbursts and utterances.
Making informed criticisms of a party is not "blind hatred." I would vote PP if they were a viable alternative but their inability to chart a national course for the future, inability to deal with endemic corruption, failure to create new revenue streams and other issues for me justifies my view.
You however might never be persuaded about Rowley, but who cares? Every person has shortcomings, but if by "outbursts" you mean the time he put party before country and spoke out against impropriety in his own party, then I guess I can see you don't like him.
Let me also guess, you think the PM was right to fire Gary Griffith too?
What I detest is hypocrisy. Rowley sat there while the PNM, himself included, raped the Treasury through Calder Hart, Landate, UTT guest house, ETeck, Guanapo etc. Only when he ran afoul of Manning, and his own space at the trough was threatened, did he suddenly "see" corruption in the PNM. This is why I wait with bated breath to see why West waited until AFTER the Express report, to run to the CoP. He is also being held up as "ethical" and "courageous" but has yet to say why he did not immediately bring the AG's alleged misconduct to the attention of the relevant authorities at the time of the incident He has not sufficiently explained this as yet. Gary Griffith paid the price for going against the PP, plain and simple, and this is wrong, as a different view should be welcomed. The reasoning of the PM is highly suspect on GG.
Rowley spoke out against Calder Hart when the issue arose. Did you want him to speak out when the UNC first hired him? The Integrity Commission cleared Rowley of any wrong doing in Landate. The contractor Emile Elias shared material between the hospital and Landate at no extra cost to the gov't. The UTT guest house was outside his purview, in fact he was fired not to long after the lease began. Eteck was bad investment and Guanapo still has not proof of govt funding.
I respect Gary Griffith and Keith Rowley for their stance against corruption and I condemn their leaders for firing them for their stance. You however, want me to re-elect the leader who did that?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: dean_spleen09, m@x and 101 guests
