Tweet
Originally posted by Mosiah
View Post
-
Answer the question.......... or apologize for your misstatements of fraud, tief etc...... -
OK!Originally posted by Maudib View Post
Source letter by Shaw that starts this thread!
A.
B.
When I acquired the land and got permission to construct a petrol station, it was with the full knowledge and approval of the ministry of works. The then chief technical director in the ministry visited the site and undertook to have the necessary and valuation done to facilitate my acquisition of the land.
Shaw states:
First line -Last sentence above refutes statement in first line -Land acquired!Shaw above states a valuation done to facilitate my acquisition!The then chief technical director in the ministry visited the site and undertook to have the necessary and valuation done to facilitate my acquisition of the land.
The point is he never acquired! ...and he says it further on in his letter.
Permission was granted to proceed by whom? ...but even if that question is overlooked, Shaw states he proceeded. Implicit in his statement is he had possession of the lands. Lands he tells us above that a valuation was done to facilitate (his) purchase of.Deprivation
3. Permission was granted to proceed with the project in the interim, as the old main road was my only access to the property. Under the law, the ministry could not deprive me access to my land.
Shaw then goes on -
4. The valuation report and proposed sale price were presented just before the change of ownership of the petrol station, and the land was subsequently purchased by the new owners.
Seeing he had proceeded with his development and in his own words the proposed sale price was just being presented - he confirms...once more... he did not effect purchase.
...and yet again he says he did not purchase - land was purchased by the new owners - He is stating that he never purchased the lands upon which he sited his gas station and or he had otherwise developed...the same lands which he had signified he intended to purchase and had had a valuation done...and had had the valuation on completion presented to him for his purchase to take place...
...but, take note he further makes it clear that an ownership change to the third party "new owners" was being effected...i.e. a Contract of Sale duely executed, between himself and or his vehicle and the "new owners" was already in place for this land which he had never bought!
Yup - Shaw clearly states he sold lands he never bought!"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
or else?
BLACK LIVES MATTERComment
-
Where is Comment now? Frigging idiot!
BLACK LIVES MATTERComment
-
karl...it is obvious to me that 2 things are spoken of...the land with the petrol station and the land with the easement....
the land that was subsequently purchased is the right of way and the only issue who was it purchased from? it is not clear to me that they purchased it from shaw although if that is what happens some tough questions need to be answered.
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas PaineComment
-
LOL !!
One fool mek many.
Who did Audley Shaw 'STEAL' land from ?
Is this Entity aware that Audley Shaw 'STOLE' land ?
What steps did this entity take to prosecute Audley Shaw for this 'THEFT' ?
Mi warn unnuh bout bussing unnuh heartstring trying too hard...Comment
-
Once again Mo. answer the questions or apologize...........LOL!Originally posted by Maudib View PostComment
-
and Karl....mind yuh get dizzy!!
Shaw states
"When I acquired the land, it was with the full knowledge and approval of the ministry of works."
you have not attempted to disprove this statement (neither has the twit who made this seemingly baseless accusation. LOL!)Comment
-
A soon come! Hold on deh!
BLACK LIVES MATTERComment
-
reasonable assumptions if the discussion was really about two parcels of land!Originally posted by Gamma View Post
...and just as reasonable to assume what I laid out as Shaw spoke to one parcel of land!Last edited by Karl; February 22, 2008, 08:00 PM."Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
...and he stated in the same paragraph and subsequently that the land was being valued with an aim of making purchase! It is impossible for him to have acquired at the same time and subsequent to that to have acquired be engaged in acquiring!Originally posted by Comment View Post"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
what if it is 2 different but adjoining pieces of land...the one comprising the easement and the one with the petrol station...does that make a difference?
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas PaineComment
-
Shaw's letter tells us there is no need to go there. He speaks of one parcel of land! That single solitary piece of land was addressed by Buchanan and the above is Shaw's reply on that matter!Originally posted by Gamma View Post"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
Mi confused...
Which land was Stolen ?
Who was it Stolen from ?
When did the entity that was robbed realize that the land was Stolen ?
What did they do about it then ?
What are they doing about it now ?
By your interpretation, Audley Shaw has admitted to stealing land.. The Minister of Finance has admitted that he stole land..
I suspect he will brought before the relevant authorities and prosecuted.
Heh, heh.
Friday Humour at its best !!Comment
-
LOL !! WHOOEEEII !!
There is nothing reasonable about your assumptions Karl.. and if you thought about it carefully, you would realize this.Comment
Comment