Hypocritical PNP vs 'fraidy-fraidy' JLP gov't

[Karl]

Obviously you quoted a post you didn't read. The first witness should be the BOJ Gov and since he was involved with the IMF negotiations the hearings was postponed until Nov. Again, just tek time walk out of the room.

How was it arrived at that the first witness should have been the BOJ Governor?

OK!

...great number of witnesses with tales of how the PNP government ruined them are waiting in the wings? ...the damn inquiry just cannot get underway because the numbers are so huge? ...that one man has jammed the line? If he does not appear the poor unfortunes who the PNP destroy will not get their day in the Sun?

Let me ask you did any influential person claim being disappointed in the turn-out of those coming forward?

[Lazie]

How was it arrived at that the first witness should have been the BOJ Governor?

OK!

...great number of witnesses with tales of how the PNP government ruined them are waiting in the wings? ...the damn inquiry just cannot get underway because the numbers are so huge? ...that one man has jammed the line? If he does not appear the poor unfortunes who the PNP destroy will not get their day in the Sun?

Let me ask you did any influential person claim being disappointed in the turn-out of those coming forward?

Again ... you quoted a post without reading. KArl ... bettah yuh cool.

[Don1]

Not everybody have a solution but everybody can feel that thing not right.

It is wise if some people just buy into a solution more than try to do what they can't. Too many times I have seen these journalist try to put forward solution that doesn't make a sense.

They need to keep the pressure on and make the leaders know we are asking them to lead and perform as we expect. After all when they were looking our votes they had all the answers.

as usual i'm willing to agree to disagree with you.

if a man jus ah chat bout pure problem an nah come wid ah reasonable solution mi nuh too pay im nuh mine.

[Don1]

here lies the paradox:

"A New Leadership Model is required for Jamaica to progress.

Unfortunately JLP & PNP politicians are still too stupid to build that."

True but we have only two parties and technically Ja is a one party system (some like to fool themselves and say it's Eddie why the JLP was out to pasture). After 1980 the PNP soul searched and came remodelled (away with the lftism). Now it seems as if the populace are depending on the PNP to come remodelled again.

Why is the JLP not broken? Why is the JLP there with the same core philosophy of the 50s down? (well when you have simpletons like wignall talking about growth and hiding the facts from the young, what else to expect).

You look through the papers and you get the sense of "ah a brown man time now" In this modern age of internet and computers. I don't think the people unnderstand where the world is heading. The US has its issues but it is dragging its minority (brithers, hate groups, Limbaughs et al) kicking and screaming along.

Ja is still tied up in this class issue (master/slave,uptown/downtown, east/west, town/country, front/back, sideways and any other non progressive divisive issue) In order for Ja to progress we have to invest heavily in the development of the human resources of the island. As we speak some of Ja's best minds are walking the streets selling mangoes,trinkets or busy shooting,looting and pillaging.

I get the sense that a small group is well satisfied with what is described above. I seriously doubt if JA will make it. Our mindset is that of the 16th century. Another sad thing is that most of the so called educated on the island is unteachable. Their argument is that they know and have everything; it's only becuase the cow jump over the moon and other jack ass story. NO! "you think you have it all but you don't have it at all" (shabba on the Kette drum ) How are you gonna see change? Not gonna happen. Somalia here we come.

Yes yuh deh pon di rite track my yute..dawg ah guh kontinue fi nyam wi suppa unda di shitstem weh wi ave.

The politicians and the rich are VERY comfortable with it...they will fight any meaningful change tooth & nail....the PNP/JLP nexus backward nuh ****************.

I feel change will have to come from the outside..from the diaspora...just like the self government/independence movement germinated from the outside...NYC to be exact.

[Muadib]

heh, heh..

I repeat.. how do you reconcile you fevered imaginings with cumalative 3% growth under Omar.. employment numbers ? where are the employment numbers to match your fevered imaginings...? who was this vibrant entrepenurial class hiring ? who were the lending agencies ? what industries where they operating in ??

[Muadib]

Seaga was kicked out because he was not on a transformative path ? LOL !

You mean the transformative path the PNP pursued when they got in power.. that transformative path ?

Ah muss dat !

LOL !!!

[Don1]

Seaga was kicked out because he was not on a transformative path ? LOL !

You mean the transformative path the PNP pursued when they got in power.. that transformative path ?

Ah muss dat !

LOL !!!

Yup.....Seaga offered more of the same dead paradigm...partisanship, gunmanship, confrontation...ultimately not at all transformative.

He was businesslike though.

[Karl]

" Paul Chen-Youn, if I am not mistaken claimed he was ready to appear before the JLP any committee established to look into why his businesses disappeared. Where is Mr. Paul Chen-Young? The committee has publicly stated its disappointment over non-appearance of those who claimed 'PNP fault' for their failures."

Yet you're one of those quick to call ppl liad?

Again...where is Paul Chen-Young? You may want to consider or ignore the following Ken Chaplin article posted in the Jamaica Observer on Tuesday, June 05, 2007? Surely, not withstanding the questions leveled at the court, even to you the article suggests Mr. Chen-Young has serious questions to answer about who destroyed what?

----->

High stake, fierce battle in Chen-Young's case

Ken Chaplin


Tuesday, June 05, 2007


A great deal of interest is being shown both in Jamaica's and Florida's legal quarters in the case between the government of Jamaica and Dr Paul Chen-Young, financier. The stake is high - $1.75 billion and the battle fierce.

Solicitor General, Michael Hylton, the government's chief lawyer, issued a statement last week which said: In May, 2006 the Jamaican Supreme Court handed down judgement in favour of Eagle Merchant Bank and Crown Eagle Life, who were the plaintiffs, against their former chairman, Dr Paul Chen-Young. The plaintiffs are public companies, which are fully funded and owned by the government of Jamaica. The plaintiffs recently asked the courts of Florida to recognise the judgement, so that they will be able to enforce the judgement against Dr Chen-Young's assets in Florida. Dr Chen-Young has objected, contending that the Jamaican judgement should not be recognised because it was "rendered under a system which did not provide an impartial tribunal and which did not comply with the requirements of due process".

The contention is based on the following allegations:

. The trial judge, Mr Justice Roy Anderson, had been a "lawyer/partner" with the law firm Myers, Fletcher and Gordon, which firm had represented the plaintiffs at the time the suit was filed in 1998.

. Mr Michael Hylton had also been a partner at the firm at the time and took the matter with him when he became Solicitor General in 2001.

. Justice Anderson had been declared bankrupt by the New Jersey District Court in 1994 and failed to disclose this in his application to become a judge of the Supreme Court.

. As a result, the then partners of Myers, Fletcher and Gordon, including Mr Hylton, held "leverage" over Justice Anderson which would make it unlikely that a person sitting in the courtroom would think that Dr Chen-Young received a fair trial.

Dr Chen-Young's objection concludes that in the circumstances, the judgement "was not rendered by a competent court utilising proceedings consistent with civilised jurisprudence".

According to the statement, the facts are as follows:Mr Justice Anderson was employed by Myers, Fletcher and Gordon as a consultant in its commercial department between 1994 and 2001. He was never a partner in the firm, and while he was there he never had anything to do with the suit against Dr Chen-Young. In 2001, Justice Anderson was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court and in early 2003 the conduct of the trial was assigned to him. That assignment was made by the Registrar of the Supreme Court during a meeting in her chambers with counsel representing all parties. All parties were aware that Justice Anderson had been a consultant at Myers, Fletcher and Gordon at the relevant time and no one objected to the assignment.

Before the trial began, Justice Anderson called counsel for all the parties into his chambers. He reminded them that he had been a consultant at Myers, Fletcher and Gordon at the relevant time, and asked if anyone had any objection to his presiding over the trial. All counsel present, including Dr Chen-Young's lawyers, said that they had no objection. The trial therefore proceeded before Justice Anderson. Judgement was handed down in May 2006, and in June, 2006, Dr Chen-Young filed an appeal. The notice of appeal contained numerous grounds of appeal which did not include any complaint about the judge's prior relationship with the firm.

Hylton recalled that some time before he left Myers, Fletcher and Gordon, the firm was made aware that Justice Anderson had been involved in bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. It is Hylton's recollection that it was a voluntary bankruptcy and that the matter was fully resolved. It is also his recollection that there was no suggestion of impropriety, and it did not affect Justice Anderson's continuing to practise in the United States and elsewhere. Hylton said that in the circumstances, he did not think in 2001 or 2003 and does not now think that the bankruptcy issue affected in any way, Justice Anderson's suitability to sit as a judge of the Supreme Court or that he (Hylton) or any of his former partners had any "leverage" over Justice Anderson as a result. He added that notably, as recently as in May, 2007 and with knowledge of the bankruptcy matter, the attorneys who represented Dr Chen-Young at the trial had confirmed that they remained of the view that Justice Anderson was "excellently suited" to hear the case and that there was no impropriety.

Now as a layman who believes in the purity of justice, which incidentally has been consistently watered down in Jamaica over the past 20 years, I have certain misgivings about this case. In the first place, Justice Anderson, having regard to his past association with Myers, Fletcher and Gordon, should not have been assigned to hear the case.

It was an error of judgement by counsel representing Dr Chen-Young not to have objected to Justice Anderson being assigned, in the first place. I find it rather strange that they complained after the judgement did not go in their favour. Hylton having been a partner at Myers, Fletcher and Gordon dealing with the case before he became Solicitor General, should have excused himself from the case and handed over his brief to another lawyer at the law firm to continue with the case. There were other eminent lawyers at the firm at the time. May I pont out here that Hylton has a reputation as a professional with high integrity.

Although Justice Anderson insists that he reminded the parties that he had been a consultant at Myers, Fletcher and Gordon and no one, including Chen-Young's lawyers had any objection, his failure to inform the meeting of his bankruptcy troubles was an unfortunate omission. In a matter like this, one has to be open and prudent. The Florida Court has not recognised the judgement "for the time being". The case continues.

[Jawge]

Carlos may say : Jack ass say di wer nuh lebel at all. LOL

[Lazie]

Karl, instead of trying to take yuh foot out of yuh mouth yuh forcing it down further. You claimed the FINSAC enquiry wasn't going anywhere due to lack of witnesses when the truth is it was postponed because the BOJ Gov is involved in the IMF negotiations. Yuh coulda post the entire bible .. you were wrong.

[Muadib]

When is the case against Omar Davis going to heard.. that is the real question...

[Muadib]

Black people could not vote in America in the 60's.

Yuh si any ah dem running to come yah.. mi si di reverse.. mi si Black Jamaican all run guh Cayman, Bermuda..

Mi si black girl pickney kill by police and nuhbaddy spend one day inna prison..

It takes cash to care... Manley did not understand and you clearly don't..at least in Manley case him can seh him prefer to rule in Hell.. what is your excuse.

wheh yuh live by the way ?

LOL !! WHOEE !!

[Karl]

Karl, instead of trying to take yuh foot out of yuh mouth yuh forcing it down further. You claimed the FINSAC enquiry wasn't going anywhere due to lack of witnesses when the truth is it was postponed because the BOJ Gov is involved in the IMF negotiations. Yuh coulda post the entire bible .. you were wrong.

Lazie: When was the inquiry set up?
When were the first hearings to be held?

How is it when no 'sufferers' came forward...we suddenly at this late hour come up with BOJ Head to appear?

Next you are going to hear FINSAC officials will next appear? Right?

Then 'horse dead and cow fat' official? ...and...
mi seh - No so-called 'sufferer' has stepped forward!

The calling on the BOJ head is a ruse!

The expectation was a 'buch of people' all lined up outside the doors of the Commitee, documents in hand showing good administrative work by great managers of their enterprises who were undermined/destroyed by the evil PNP government. No such thing happened.

The Committee members are scratching their heads ed!

[Muadib]

Tell him Karl..

FINSAC was an illusion.

A temporary blip that was a correction for a few greedy business people who have long been replaced by others and have been firing away ever since under the well-guided policies of Omar Davis evidenced by more cars, cellphones and girls...

[Karl]

Tell him Karl..

FINSAC was an illusion.

A temporary blip that was a correction for a few greedy business people who have long been replaced by others and have been firing away ever since under the well-guided policies of Omar Davis evidenced by more cars, cellphones and girls...

Well why don't you JLPites tell us of the evidence you have from your Shaw mandated audit?

Such an audit would expose the 'illegal sales and illegal short-selling' of FINSCA assets you claimed occured and it would have unearthed the associated PNP malfeasance that you claimed.

Why no word about the audit - proposed and assumed carried out? ...and if you have not done the audit what would be the reason for foot dragging? ...no evidence or leads to evidence of malfeasance found?