How many of us are really interested in the truth?

[Lazie]

I noticed Xuberant posted an article yesterday and all the "legal minds" simply skipped pass it. The other an article by Gordon Robinson was posted and most of the "legal minds" agreed with the article.

Well yesterday I heard Bert Samuels agreeing with the position of the government and now here is another attorney agreeing with the gov't.


In response to Robinson

Published: Tuesday | March 16, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions




The Editor, Sir:

I refer to a contribution by attorney Gordon Robinson, captioned 'A matter for the courts' in The Sunday Gleaner of March 14, with subcaption 'Golding's action neither noble nor patriotic'.
The contribution says, among other things:
"Section 6 explicitly provides that any person "found in Jamaica" who is "accused of an extradition offence" may be arrested and returned to the requesting state (say, the United States) "as provided by this act" (not any other act: not the Evidence Act; not the Offences Against the Person Act; and definitely not the IOCA). Moving right along.
"What does 'this act' provide? Section (1) provides that a person shall not be extradited if it appears to the minister (or to the court on an application for habeas corpus)."
Question of accused
I must assume that he was replying to my assertion that if the evidence is inadmissible in the United States the indictment would be bad, and so could not be relied on to extradite Coke. His statement is obviously flawed, ill-conceived and erroneous. It is beyond me how Mr Robinson, as a lawyer, could come to such a conclusion without dealing with the question of accused of an extradited offence. How can accusation come about without admissible evidence before the minister could act? Is he saying the director of public prosecutions can wake up in the middle of the night and prepare an indictment against anyone without prima facie admissible evidence before her? Not the learned director that I know.
I shall say no more except to advise Mr Robinson, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) and all other opinion leaders who make themselves into legal tribunals in deciding that the matter should go to court when even the law Mr Robinson cites says, inter alia: "a person shall not be extradited if it appears to the minister (or to the court on an application for habeus corpeus)". Is anybody in custody to attract habeas corpus proceedings - court proceedings?
As I indicated in a previous publication, I am a citizen of both Jamaica and the United States and, as such, have no greater loyalty to either.
As an academic and professional lawyer, having been called to the Degree of Utter Barrister (Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn) knowing what is an indictment and how it is secured from I entered the Jamaica Constabulary Force in 1952 and having to draft countless indictments in the courts during the time I was assistant clerk (Grade One), acting deputy clerk of courts, deputy clerk of courts, acting clerk of courts and finally clerk of courts, I knew at all material times that all indictments, not only in Jamaica, but on this planet, are supposed to be fashioned out of prima facie admissible evidence.
In the context of the laws of evidence of Jamaica, the evidence laws of Jamaica are both by statute and the common law such as the decision of the Privy Council in Kuruma v R. (1955) A.C. 197 cited by me recently in The Gleaner and The Observer.
Agreement with gov't
For the reason I gave before that the indictment is bad and the reason the Government gave, I must repeat that I agree with the decision of the Government so far not to extradite, although I do not agree with the undiplomatic outburst of our prime minister, for which he should apologise now that his provoked temper must have cooled.
He cannot, however, be seen by any honest person in this case or at any time to be other than noble and patriotic.
What I think the Government is saying is what I said before in the press and what the United States stands and fight for and for which it is well known as the world's policeman:
"Things must be properly done, wrongs must be made right and justice must prevail."
I am, etc,
OWEN S. CROSBIE
oss@cwjamaica.com
Mandeville
Manchester
Things must be properly done, wrongs must be made right and justice must prevail.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2.../letters4.html

[Don1]

I noticed Xuberant posted an article yesterday and all the "legal minds" simply skipped pass it. The other an article by Gordon Robinson was posted and most of the "legal minds" agreed with the article.

Well yesterday I heard Bert Samuels agreeing with the position of the government and now here is another attorney agreeing with the gov't.


In response to Robinson

Published: Tuesday | March 16, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions




The Editor, Sir:

I refer to a contribution by attorney Gordon Robinson, captioned 'A matter for the courts' in The Sunday Gleaner of March 14, with subcaption 'Golding's action neither noble nor patriotic'.
The contribution says, among other things:
"Section 6 explicitly provides that any person "found in Jamaica" who is "accused of an extradition offence" may be arrested and returned to the requesting state (say, the United States) "as provided by this act" (not any other act: not the Evidence Act; not the Offences Against the Person Act; and definitely not the IOCA). Moving right along.
"What does 'this act' provide? Section (1) provides that a person shall not be extradited if it appears to the minister (or to the court on an application for habeas corpus)."
Question of accused
I must assume that he was replying to my assertion that if the evidence is inadmissible in the United States the indictment would be bad, and so could not be relied on to extradite Coke. His statement is obviously flawed, ill-conceived and erroneous. It is beyond me how Mr Robinson, as a lawyer, could come to such a conclusion without dealing with the question of accused of an extradited offence. How can accusation come about without admissible evidence before the minister could act? Is he saying the director of public prosecutions can wake up in the middle of the night and prepare an indictment against anyone without prima facie admissible evidence before her? Not the learned director that I know.
I shall say no more except to advise Mr Robinson, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) and all other opinion leaders who make themselves into legal tribunals in deciding that the matter should go to court when even the law Mr Robinson cites says, inter alia: "a person shall not be extradited if it appears to the minister (or to the court on an application for habeus corpeus)". Is anybody in custody to attract habeas corpus proceedings - court proceedings?
As I indicated in a previous publication, I am a citizen of both Jamaica and the United States and, as such, have no greater loyalty to either.
As an academic and professional lawyer, having been called to the Degree of Utter Barrister (Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn) knowing what is an indictment and how it is secured from I entered the Jamaica Constabulary Force in 1952 and having to draft countless indictments in the courts during the time I was assistant clerk (Grade One), acting deputy clerk of courts, deputy clerk of courts, acting clerk of courts and finally clerk of courts, I knew at all material times that all indictments, not only in Jamaica, but on this planet, are supposed to be fashioned out of prima facie admissible evidence.
In the context of the laws of evidence of Jamaica, the evidence laws of Jamaica are both by statute and the common law such as the decision of the Privy Council in Kuruma v R. (1955) A.C. 197 cited by me recently in The Gleaner and The Observer.
Agreement with gov't
For the reason I gave before that the indictment is bad and the reason the Government gave, I must repeat that I agree with the decision of the Government so far not to extradite, although I do not agree with the undiplomatic outburst of our prime minister, for which he should apologise now that his provoked temper must have cooled.
He cannot, however, be seen by any honest person in this case or at any time to be other than noble and patriotic.
What I think the Government is saying is what I said before in the press and what the United States stands and fight for and for which it is well known as the world's policeman:
"Things must be properly done, wrongs must be made right and justice must prevail."
I am, etc,
OWEN S. CROSBIE
oss@cwjamaica.com
Mandeville
Manchester
Things must be properly done, wrongs must be made right and justice must prevail.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2.../letters4.html

Now 2 attorneys in support of Golding!! Yay!!

Your headline is silly, naive or duplicitous in the service of partisanship (or some combination thereof)

This issue is not a matter of truth...it is a matter of interpretation of law, extreme conflict on the part of GOJ "leaders" and the criminal...and hence motive to interpret said law to their benefit...and the benefit of the criminal.

This ridiculous parsing about this legal interpretation or that only serves to obfuscate the real issue... at best the cowardice of the GOJ to have the matter adjudicated in Jamaican courts or at worst.... their fear of the exposure of members of their tribe in criminal wrongdoing.

It was Golding himself who said in Parliament in defence of Dudus and opposing the wiretapped evidence lawfully recorded but passed to the US apparently outside "normal" channels.....

"What it was me?" LoL!!

It begs the obvious question....

[Lazie]

Now 2 attorneys in support of Golding!! Yay!!

Your headline is silly, naive or duplicitous in the service of partisanship (or some combination thereof)

This issue is not a matter of truth...it is a matter of interpretation of law, extreme conflict on the part of GOJ "leaders" and the criminal...and hence motive to interpret said law to their benefit...and the benefit of the criminal.

This ridiculous parsing about this legal interpretation or that only serves to obfuscate the real issue... at best the cowardice of the GOJ to have the matter adjudicated in Jamaican courts or at worst.... their fear of the exposure of members of their tribe in criminal wrongdoing.

It was Golding himself who said in Parliament in defence of Dudus and opposing the wiretapped evidence lawfully recorded but passed to the US apparently outside "normal" channels.....

"What it was me?" LoL!!

It begs the obvious question....

Why whenever one fling stone inna pig pen there is a scream?

"This issue is not a matter of truth.." Yuh may well be right. For you its clearly a matter for scoring political points.

As far as I know there is one lawyer here suh stop with the claims bout interpretation of the law. Yuh may well fool yuhself and others, yuh not fooling me. The matter has descended to a matter of pure careless speculation round here and now its a matter of one fool (you) leading the others.

You may see yuhself as some great "legal mind" but instead of grandstanding like you, Bert Samuels made reference to the MOU in explaining why he says that the gov't is correct. How about addressing the points the man made?

Maybe you and yuh followers should take a step back and listen to those who may have an idea what they're saying? Yes they may well be wrong, who know.

I noticed no one address the article on Sunday where it was stated that if the courts made a ruling it wouldn't be binding to the USA. Again, address that nuh, instead of grandstanding with the careless speculation.

If not, maybe you need to stop believe yuh hype and listen a little more.

[Don1]

Why whenever one fling stone inna pig pen there is a scream?

"This issue is not a matter of truth.." Yuh may well be right. For you its clearly a matter for scoring political points.

As far as I know there is one lawyer here suh stop with the claims bout interpretation of the law. Yuh may well fool yuhself and others, yuh not fooling me. The matter has descended to a matter of pure careless speculation round here and now its a matter of one fool (you) leading the others.

You may see yuhself as some great "legal mind" but instead of grandstanding like you, Bert Samuels made reference to the MOU in explaining why he says that the gov't is correct. How about addressing the points the man made?

Maybe you and yuh followers should take a step back and listen to those who may have an idea what they're saying? Yes they may well be wrong, who know.

I noticed no one address the article on Sunday where it was stated that if the courts made a ruling it wouldn't be binding to the USA. Again, address that nuh, instead of grandstanding with the careless speculation.

If not, maybe you need to stop believe yuh hype and listen a little more.

LoL! Now that you see your beloved leader in a desperate position on this issue.... you have flipflopped.... using the ridiculous legalisms proposed by him and supported by a few.

Earlier you were posting that Dudus haffi get shipped out...and your concern was for the image of your beloved leader in the mess he created.

It is funny to watch you tribalists twis an tun

Di whole ah unnu ah di same...a plague pon Jamaica.

[Lazie]

LoL! Now that you see your beloved leader in a desperate position on this issue.... you have flipflopped.... using the ridiculous legalisms proposed by him and supported by a few.

Earlier you were posting that Dudus haffi get shipped out...and your concern was for the image of your beloved leader in the mess he created.

It is funny to watch you tribalists twis an tun

Di whole ah unnu ah di same...a plague pon Jamaica.

Where have you seen my position changed? I guess its an attempt to save face!

[Mosiah]

I believe the Jamaica Bar Association does not agree with Bruce. Does that count for something?

[Mosiah]

I noticed no one address the article on Sunday where it was stated that if the courts made a ruling it wouldn't be binding to the USA. Again, address that nuh, instead of grandstanding with the careless speculation.

What's there to comment on? That is a duh statement, Lazie.

[Don1]

Where have you seen my position changed? I guess its an attempt to save face!

Yes you are attempting to save face. Your recent posts have been in defence of Golding protecting the criminal....that's obvious.

It appears that although you may support the criminal being exported...you are now MORE concerned about your beloved leader's now dirty image and flagging political fortunes.
...Hence your campaign in support of the obfuscatory legalisms & sophistry

[Mosiah]

It may not have changed, but oh, how hard you appear to be holding on to it, in the face of some support for Bruce!

[Lazie]

I believe the Jamaica Bar Association does not agree with Bruce. Does that count for something?

Never said I disagree with the position of those who disagree with the PM. Personally, I disagree with the PM, but as I asked you the other day, what if the PM has a point .... and based on what Samuels said yesterday, he does.

What about the argument that the ruling of the courts wouldn't be binding for the USA? Should that be taken into consideration?

[Don1]

What's there to comment on? That is a duh statement, Lazie.

That's just another red herring.

The US has already supported the matter being adjudicated in Jamaican courts.

[Lazie]

It may not have changed, but oh, how hard you appear to be holding on to it, in the face of some support for Bruce!

... oh suh we just sweep everything else under the carpet? I've never won a popularity contest in my life ... and I'm not seeking one here. My position is clear (who wanna twist it can suit demself) however, unlike the rest of you, I have no problem looking at the issue from both sides.

[Lazie]

What's there to comment on? That is a duh statement, Lazie.

Suh why are people still arguing from a point of ignorance then?

[Mosiah]

Bruce can have no point on this, Lazie. We know what is really happening here. Forget extradition requests, forget legalisms, we know what a gwaan! WE ALL DO!

As for his less-than-enthusiastic defence of the rights of children and those who are victims of his recent pronouncements. What, fi dem rights not as important as one particular individual's??

Joke ting, Lazie. Let's stop the foolishness and recognise this for what it is. Some of us want to nit-pick di ting to some ridiculous end as the Rodney King prosecution successfully did in convincing the jury that the man was a danger to officers standing around with arms folded and having a light moment.

[Mosiah]

knock yuhself out with your both sides vantage point. there is but one side to dis ting when yuh really think about it, lazie! let's not fool ourselves!