Bruce Golding:

[Exile]

Very good, logical, sound questions. Of course you do not expect a good, logical, sound reponse? Do you really?

[Lazie]

But Lazie, mi nuh understand yuh. Everybody here who criticizing Golding can point to newspaper articles, online documents and direct quotes by Golding himself for their criticism (this is what we call "references" and "sources") and yet you call it "careless argument"? So is bere cayliss argument Bruce and him team a chat den? Like having casual meetings with Manatt folks on planes and letting them sit in on intergovernmental discussions for which they have no business apparently?

As of yet you haven't provided a smidgen of proof to counter what many have brought on the forum and despite some troubling questions you cannot provide answers (resorting to the defence that asking such questions is irrelevant as though we don't have freedom of speech). You talk about requiring government letterhead, but what about things like Brady's big, fat signature on a Manatt document? Up to now I don't see anything presented by Brady, Bruce, yuhself, Manatt, etc to substantiate the claims that Brady was acting on behalf of a private client as opposed to the government. For instance if he misrepresents himself as a government consultant, why hasn't the government prosecuted him yet for fraud/misrepresentation? Why hasn't he been kicked off whatever government agencies/committees that he is on (such as the Jamaica Railway corporation he is currently on)? How could he sign something which clearly said he was a government consult and was authorized to act on behalf of the government and yet not be prosecuted and kicked off government committees if he really wasn't a consult or authorized? What happen? Brady blind?

Providing proof to defend the gov't isn't my duty. I don't have a law degree. However, there are issues that many here mek up alot of noise about what y'all know nothing about, yet people with law degrees, people that have pass some bar exam, (easy yuhself Mosiah, not Rum Bar like you), people that have practiced law have come out taking a different position from the experts here.

I'll pay attention to the facts .... the Tea Baggers can carry on.

[Mosiah]

Providing proof to defend the gov't isn't my duty. I don't have a law degree. However, there are issues that many here mek up alot of noise about what y'all know nothing about, yet people with law degrees, people that have pass some bar exam, (easy yuhself Mosiah, not Rum Bar like you), people that have practiced law have come out taking a different position from the experts here.

I'll pay attention to the facts .... the Tea Baggers can carry on.

people that have practiced law?! yuh mean people with LLB degrees?

lazie, your defence of this issue is past ridiculous. but i am keeping on the sidelines on my chaise longue, sipping my cafe au lait! dis one must hit di fan!!!

[Lazie]

people that have practiced law?! yuh mean people with LLB degrees?

lazie, your defence of this issue is past ridiculous. but i am keeping on the sidelines on my chaise longue, sipping my cafe au lait! dis one must hit di fan!!!

defense of the issue? Wasn't aware that i was.

[Mosiah]

yuh not aware of jack!

[Lionpaw]

a real ting innuh. when a man smart and have EGO is a dangerous thing but imagine smaddy whey dunce and have EGO wid it. that's a lethal mixture if yuh ax mi.

[ReggaeMike]

Providing proof to defend the gov't isn't my duty.

Then why even bother to imply that there is no scandal? Or imply that there is no hint of one?

I don't have a law degree. However, there are issues that many here mek up alot of noise about what y'all know nothing about, yet people with law degrees, people that have pass some bar exam, (easy yuhself Mosiah, not Rum Bar like you), people that have practiced law have come out taking a different position from the experts here.

Really? That's odd because a lot of what has been discussed here is based off newspaper articles containing quotes from these same lawyers you are referring to. Not sure which papers you have been reading, but in the Gleaner, Observer and Herald there have been many lawyers (including politicians, Rowe, Robinson, letter writers, etc) who have come out with the same position as "the experts here" (in reality many are quoting the experts there) as well as different positions. That's why it called a debate. It seems though that you have only chosen to pay attention to one position.

I'll pay attention to the facts .... the Tea Baggers can carry on.

This is ironic, since the end of your sentence indicates an unwillingness to pay attention to facts that so called Tea Baggers bring up, such as the fact that Brady signed directly under the following statement:

"The undersigned, Harold Brady, Consultant to Government of Jamaica, hereby confirms that he is authorised on behalf of the Government of Jamaica to approve of the engagement of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP, as set forth in this letter.

__________________
Harold Brady, Consultant"

Given how I have been willing to acknowledge that it may not amount to an open scandal as yet, your positions seems remarkably at variance with your stated aim of paying attention to the facts since anyone who really did pay attention to the facts would at least admit that this whole affair is troubling to say the least.

[Peter R]

Before I take offense...LOL.... which of the following definitions are you referring to when you call a man "teabagger"?


teabagger 5773 up, 947 down
buy teabagger mugs, tshirts and magnets
multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see "************bag", "lamer", "noob"
Matt baseball, I can't believe he skipped our lan party to go to practice. Yeah, that kid is such a teabagger.

[Lazie]

Then why even bother to imply that there is no scandal? Or imply that there is no hint of one?




Really? That's odd because a lot of what has been discussed here is based off newspaper articles containing quotes from these same lawyers you are referring to. Not sure which papers you have been reading, but in the Gleaner, Observer and Herald there have been many lawyers (including politicians, Rowe, Robinson, letter writers, etc) who have come out with the same position as "the experts here" (in reality many are quoting the experts there) as well as different positions. That's why it called a debate. It seems though that you have only chosen to pay attention to one position.




This is ironic, since the end of your sentence indicates an unwillingness to pay attention to facts that so called Tea Baggers bring up, such as the fact that Brady signed directly under the following statement:



Given how I have been willing to acknowledge that it may not amount to an open scandal as yet, your positions seems remarkably at variance with your stated aim of paying attention to the facts since anyone who really did pay attention to the facts would at least admit that this whole affair is troubling to say the least.

Your approach is different from mine. I don't jump to conclusions and hope the facts fall in place, I reach the conclusion based on facts.

Here is a typical example,

"Really? That's odd because a lot of what has been discussed here is based off newspaper articles containing quotes from these same lawyers you are referring to"

Actually you are wrong. People are only citing those who come out saying what they agree with. Why ignore the attorneys that say the complete opposite to what the numerous legal minds on this forum have been saying?

Bert Samuels, The President of the Jamaica Bar Association and even Frank Phipps have been saying something completely different from the all of you, but because you all know the law more than them, I should take y'all more seriously?

Imagine me dictating to Mosiah about how to construct a building?

[Exile]

Whoeeeee!

[ReggaeMike]

Your approach is different from mine. I don't jump to conclusions and hope the facts fall in place, I reach the conclusion based on facts.

Here is a typical example,

"Really? That's odd because a lot of what has been discussed here is based off newspaper articles containing quotes from these same lawyers you are referring to"

Actually you are wrong. People are only citing those who come out saying what they agree with. Why ignore the attorneys that say the complete opposite to what the numerous legal minds on this forum have been saying?

But you've just proven my point that various opinions have been published in the the papers contrary to your claim that:

However, there are issues that many here mek up alot of noise about what y'all know nothing about, yet people with law degrees, people that have pass some bar exam, (easy yuhself Mosiah, not Rum Bar like you), people that have practiced law have come out taking a different position from the experts here.

I don't see any qualifier in that sentence, do you? Not "some people" or "a lot of people" or "a few people". Just a nice blanket statement which implies that only the people on this forum are taking positions which you disagree with and which are at variance with the position of legal professionals.

Now since you already quote those who hold a different view, why should everybody else quote them? And why don't you quote those who hold a different view from your own (such as a say Robinson)? What, aren't they lawyer enough for you?

Bert Samuels, The President of the Jamaica Bar Association and even Frank Phipps have been saying something completely different from the all of you, but because you all know the law more than them, I should take y'all more seriously?

So can you point out where anybody on this forum claimed at any point to know more law than either Samuels or Phipps (or anyone else)? Are you really implying that we quote from thin air and not from newspapers and people themselves?

In any case you don't have to take anybody seriously, that is up to you. However your attitude has been that anything said or quoted by others at variance with your view and the view held by some lawyers is that it is "cayliss argument" and rumour (I guess the Washington Post writer is a rumour-monger too right? and is Obama officials spreading rumours?). That isn't being open-minded and I don't see how you expect others to take you seriously if your standard retort is to dismiss everything they say out of hand and to ignore the inconvenient bits.

And for someone who claims to reach conclusions based on facts it is extremely unusual that facts such as Brady signature on a document where "consultant" and "government of jamaica" are mentioned twice in close proximity to the dotted line (or undotted line rather) are basically ignored. That indicates that you come to conclusions based on some facts. Now here is a fact for you - Brady's signature on that document is either proof that he was acting in the capacity Manatt claims he was OR it is proof that he misrepresented the government. Either of those bear serious implications (one alludes to corruption the other to fraud). As of yet, I'm unaware that you've opened your mind to either possibility and instead you basically:

Is there a scandal? How long has this been going on? Did any of the documents have a GOJ letter head? I haven't seen one. The gov't said Brady isn't a consultant, Brady admitted he was never a consultant. I guess treasure hunters looking for a scandal.

Which means I guess you aren't troubled by having a lawyer who is a member of the party and apparently sits on government committee(s) misrepresenting the government?

[Lazie]

ReggaeMike, the FACT is those who have come out taking a different position have been dismissed here. Nuh bother wid the hopscotch thing. Carry on with the speculation, I'll await the ruling in May.

[ReggaeMike]

ReggaeMike, the FACT is those who have come out taking a different position have been dismissed here. Nuh bother wid the hopscotch thing. Carry on with the speculation, I'll await the ruling in May.

Yup, no answers to the other questions or points I raised.

Perhaps though what you are considering as dismissal is merely the raising of opposing view points based on those who have come out with positions such as the illegality of evidence being admissible under some circumstances and that it is usually specific to the cases involved?

Again, if I am playing hopscotch, you are playing blind-man's bluff. All now you awaiting a ruling in May when we have Washington Post writer saying Obama officials corroborating Manatt's version of events. I guess Obama's officials and the Washington Post writer are just rumour-mongers and treasure hunters though.

[Don1]

I guess Obama's officials and the Washington Post writer are just rumour-mongers and treasure hunters though.

No... they are Teabaggers... LoL!

[Don1]

But you've just proven my point that various opinions have been published in the the papers contrary to your claim that:



I don't see any qualifier in that sentence, do you? Not "some people" or "a lot of people" or "a few people". Just a nice blanket statement which implies that only the people on this forum are taking positions which you disagree with and which are at variance with the position of legal professionals.

Now since you already quote those who hold a different view, why should everybody else quote them? And why don't you quote those who hold a different view from your own (such as a say Robinson)? What, aren't they lawyer enough for you?



So can you point out where anybody on this forum claimed at any point to know more law than either Samuels or Phipps (or anyone else)? Are you really implying that we quote from thin air and not from newspapers and people themselves?

In any case you don't have to take anybody seriously, that is up to you. However your attitude has been that anything said or quoted by others at variance with your view and the view held by some lawyers is that it is "cayliss argument" and rumour (I guess the Washington Post writer is a rumour-monger too right? and is Obama officials spreading rumours?). That isn't being open-minded and I don't see how you expect others to take you seriously if your standard retort is to dismiss everything they say out of hand and to ignore the inconvenient bits.

And for someone who claims to reach conclusions based on facts it is extremely unusual that facts such as Brady signature on a document where "consultant" and "government of jamaica" are mentioned twice in close proximity to the dotted line (or undotted line rather) are basically ignored. That indicates that you come to conclusions based on some facts. Now here is a fact for you - Brady's signature on that document is either proof that he was acting in the capacity Manatt claims he was OR it is proof that he misrepresented the government. Either of those bear serious implications (one alludes to corruption the other to fraud). As of yet, I'm unaware that you've opened your mind to either possibility and instead you basically:



Which means I guess you aren't troubled by having a lawyer who is a member of the party and apparently sits on government committee(s) misrepresenting the government?

Golding's strategy...echoed by Lazie of Chemical Ali & Associates, is to present the govt decisionmaking as a strict legal issue. When they win in court on the point that the minister has the POWER to consider the type of evidence presented in an extradition request...there will be big noise that their position is vindicated. This is of course a mere red herring.

What these people desperately wish ignored is that their handling of the Dudus affair is essentially POLITICAL... using the legalities as a pretext in their strenuous efforts to protect the criminal.... and perhaps interesting corruption within their tribe.

The only thing uncertain here is whether Lazie is that naive to consider the matter as essentially legal in nature...or if he is just a straight up tribalist looking to protect his Dear Leader.