Shaw statement on land purchase

[Karl]

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 !!

What the hell realising when you were robbed have to do with whether or no a robbery took place?

You are not suggesting that because the person or entity robbed did not immediately know of the robbery he/she or the entity was not robbed?

[Muadib]

All now yuh nuh answer none of the basic questions involving a robbery.

What land was Stolen ?

Land the Gas Station was on ?

The land allowing access ?

Who was it Stolen from ?

How was it Stolen ? Was a building erected on the land... what was the form of 'theft' ?

When was the theft discovered ?

[Comment]

LOL !! WHOOEEEII !!

There is nothing reasonable about your assumptions Karl.. and if you thought about it carefully, you would realize this.

he can't realize it. his spinning has left him dizzy and confused.

[Rockman]

I wonder if there are other instances where Shaw "purchased" land only to sell it later, and isn't he a lucky fellow, he can sell things without first paying for it.Perhaps he should tell the poor people of Jamaica the secret so they too could eat a food.





Blessed

[Muadib]

Where did you read that Audley sold any land ???

But is what really going on here ?

[Rockman]

Let see, change of ownership of the gas station, and the part that the land was subsequently sold to the new(gas station) owner.
What is the purpose of the giving a public statement if it isn't to defend oneself?
Was Shaw the middle man or not?





Blessed

[Mosiah]

Why would anyone answer your questions? Yuh ever ansa nuhbody question yet?

[Gamma]

if it is only one piece of land then what is the significance of mentioning the "old road" as a right of way to access the property with the gas station? unless you are saying that there were 2 plots of land and he owned neither.

i am suggesting that there is only 1 piece that is contrversial and that is the right of way,

[Comment]

Why would anyone answer your questions? Yuh ever ansa nuhbody question yet?

BBBOOOOOOOOOOO!!! what a cop out! look like is you a di fraud LOL!!

[Karl]

if it is only one piece of land then what is the significance of mentioning the "old road" as a right of way to access the property with the gas station? unless you are saying that there were 2 plots of land and he owned neither.

i am suggesting that there is only 1 piece that is contrversial and that is the right of way,

Why are you trying to not see?

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.

Source: Shaw's letter

...and what did he put on the land that he captured -

to construct a petrol station

?

Answer: A petrol station!

[Gamma]

ME?!!

what about this?

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

access to my land? if it was not his land he could be denied access and would have NO CASE! clearly the land had to have been his and the old main road is NOT his but is the only access.

as i said it is my belief that he owned the land with the petrol station and the "old main road" (the government land) which was the only access is the captured land. we do not even KNOW if the land that the petrol station is on was government land...he would need approval and valuation IN ANY EVENT if the land did not belong to the government.

[Karl]

ME?!!

what about this?

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

access to my land? if it was not his land he could be denied access and would have NO CASE! clearly the land had to have been his and the old main road is NOT his but is the only access.

as i said it is my belief that he owned the land with the petrol station and the "old main road" (the government land) which was the only access is the captured land. we do not even KNOW if the land that the petrol station is on was government land...he would need approval and valuation IN ANY EVENT if the land did not belong to the government.

Do you see that he said...in his own words that was trying to legally own land? ...but had already taken control of the land he was legally tryign to own?

The man was emphatic on those two points!

[Muadib]

What land was purchased by the Gas Station owner ?

You raise a good question.. people seem to be leaping to all manner of conclusions without adequate information.

I wonder why...

What is Audley Shaw being accused of ?

[Gamma]

karl.....what i posted above was also his own words.....

i firmly believe that there are 2 distinct pieces of land and that the access way is the government's land and is the use in question, otherwise why separate the 2? if it is the same piece of land then the issue of using the road for access does not arise as it would be a contiguous plot of land.

i really don't care to defend shaw but if i am to be fair about it the case for your interpretation is not really a convincing one.....you select some of his words to support your already arrived at conclusion. i don't see enough evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

i maintain that based on my own opinion of what is written by shaw...the question that needs to be ansered is whether the government was paid for the access road and by whom...and who transferred the access road to the new owners.

[Karl]

karl.....what i posted above was also his own words.....

i firmly believe that there are 2 distinct pieces of land and that the access way is the government's land and is the use in question, otherwise why separate the 2? if it is the same piece of land then the issue of using the road for access does not arise as it would be a contiguous plot of land.

i really don't care to defend shaw but if i am to be fair about it the case for your interpretation is not really a convincing one.....you select some of his words to support your already arrived at conclusion. i don't see enough evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

i maintain that based on my own opinion of what is written by shaw...the question that needs to be ansered is whether the government was paid for the access road and by whom...and who transferred the access road to the new owners.

I arrived at my conclusion after reading his letter....in other words, it was Shaw who convinced me he had done wrong!