Manatt - 1st time in 20 yrs individual named as gov contact

[Time]

Is long time mi ah ask someone fi explain dis ting..

Did someone break a law ?
..... Yes, US laws

Yes, USA laws were broken
==> i) If Manhatt was not representing the GOV then the FARA form was filled out incorrect and if that was deliberately done is an offence under the FARA. They would still have to file one for a political party but it would have to say Jamaica Labor Party not Government of Jamaica.

==> ii) It is illegal for a person to lobby on behalf of person who has been indicted.

==> Obstruction of Justice (trying to protect Dudus.)
Who ?

==> i) The person(s) who filed the FARA form and who lobbied on behalf of an indicted person.

Wi gwine si a resignation ?

==> No, a vote of confidence after three ministers have been indicted.

When will we see charges and a Trial.. dat is di order of the day.. anyting else is a waste of time.. and paper selling..

==> Never in Jamaica, probably in New, York or Washington DC

[ReggaeMike]

throw up all the smoke screen yuh want. You people are only nitpicking selective pieces to fit unuh agenda.

So I guess you believe Nixon was innocent then simply because the US government and the Republican party were not formally involved with the CRP and their activities? Okay, it takes all kinds to make a world.

Same way you were able to provide a 'summary' of an interview with the AG, yet completely left out what she said about the legality of the evidence.

Look here you damn Jackass, I already long since said that I did not personally hear the interview but heard about it from someone else and YOU confirmed it! Now how di b***cl*t do you expect me to provide the kind of summary of something that you seemingly want but I didn't hear? How I am supposed to write about what she said on the legality of the evidence if I didn't hear that part and nobody told me about? Yu think people are psychic? Why didn't you write some more about it since you are so seemingly concerned and answer the questions I posed about what little you did give about it? And didn't I ask YOU to provide me with more info? What happen? You suffer from short-term memory loss? You ready to berate a person for not hearing the full details but yet after they ask you for further info you remained silent? What kind of warped logic going on in your head?

Did you not confirm what I said about the interview? Or were you just being lazy in your response and simply saying "yes" there was an interview but couldn't bother to confirm or deny what I had heard about the interview?

Maybe none of us are in a position to confirm if she is correct, but choosing to omit that certainly makes a statement.

This is strange coming from someone who actually heard the interview but has yet to provide any more info on it despite a polite request. Don't bother I can see you probably wouldn't do so anyway.

[Lazie]

So I guess you believe Nixon was innocent then simply because the US government and the Republican party were not formally involved with the CRP and their activities? Okay, it takes all kinds to make a world.



Look here you damn Jackass, I already long since said that I did not personally hear the interview but heard about it from someone else and YOU confirmed it! Now how di b***cl*t do you expect me to provide the kind of summary of something that you seemingly want but I didn't hear? And didn't I ask YOU to provide me with more info? What happen? You suffer from short-term memory loss?

Did you not confirm what I said about the interview? Or were you just being lazy in your response and simply saying "yes" there was an interview but couldn't bother to confirm or deny what I had heard about the interview?



This is strange coming from someone who actually heard the interview but has yet to provide any more info on it despite a polite request. Don't bother I can see you probably wouldn't do so anyway.

What you said in the summary was correct, leaving out an entire portion because it doesn't fit your agenda is what I'm calling you out on. Polite request? The response was reported on multiple newscasts during the day, kinda odd that none of you tried to listen to it.

[ReggaeMike]

What you said in the summary was correct, leaving out an entire portion because it doesn't fit your agenda is what I'm calling you out on.

Still playing the Jackass I see.

Now Lazie, in your infinite wisdom how do you expect someone who has heard about an interview from someone else to include an entire portion of the interview if the person he heard it from did not talk about said portion? Please take your time as I can now tell you must have been an extremely slow learner or an extremely lazy reader.

Oh and you do realize that you are basically calling me out for NOT having a sixth sense or superpowers right? You must believe Professor X and Superman are real.

Polite request? The response was reported on multiple newscasts during the day, kinda odd that none of you tried to listen to it.

Multiple newscasts where? And you still haven't said why you haven't actually answered the other questions I posed about the said interview. Saying that "oh it was reported elsewhere on radio and television" is a cop-out, because OBVIOUSLY if I have to be asking you the day after then I didn't catch those newscasts on that day. But I guess you don't think that far ahead. So let me spell it out for you - once a radio or television newscast is gone it is gone. It is not like the the newspapers where you can go back and read them. As I suspected you will probably not provide the answers to my other questions (could it be because those answers don't square with your position I wonder?).

[Lionpaw]

As to who paid Manatt--and on whose behalf--Tavares-Finson says, "Nobody has indicated where the money came from, but it's not the government of Jamaica. Whoever gave Brady that money to retain Manatt, that's their business. Even if it was Coke, who is subject to an extradition request by the United States, so what?"

A better dem did tek it from da angle ya from day one insteada a go round di ting and a deny it and a tell pure lie to di ppl. jus own up to it and say "so what?". dem shoulda follow lisa hype example when her picture dem leak. in fact, dem should appoint her as an advisor to the party cause she have more sense dan di whole a dem to baxfoot. how can someone deny something so frickin obvious(despite the lack of a letterhead).

[Lazie]

Still playing the Jackass I see.

Now Lazie, in your infinite wisdom how do you expect someone who has heard about an interview from someone else to include an entire portion of the interview if the person he heard it from did not talk about said portion? Please take your time as I can now tell you must have been an extremely slow learner or an extremely lazy reader.

Oh and you do realize that you are basically calling me out for NOT having a sixth sense or superpowers right? You must believe Professor X and Superman are real.



Multiple newscasts where? And you still haven't said why you haven't actually answered the other questions I posed about the said interview. Saying that "oh it was reported elsewhere on radio and television" is a cop-out, because OBVIOUSLY if I have to be asking you the day after then I didn't catch those newscasts on that day. But I guess you don't think that far ahead. So let me spell it out for you - once a radio or television newscast is gone it is gone. It is not like the the newspapers where you can go back and read them. As I suspected you will probably not provide the answers to my other questions (could it be because those answers don't square with your position I wonder?).

What I find strange is out of all that was said in the interview your source only informed you of what sounded controversial at the time, but choose either not to hear or inform you of other details of the interview.

Lets see, you're the one arguing from a point of ignorance, yet you're calling someone else a jackass? Clever.

[Bricktop]

==> Never in Jamaica, probably in New, York or Washington DC

Are you implying that it is illegal for Dudus to lobby on his own behalf and by doing so he is obstructing justice?

[Muadib]

You believe that you will see charges and a Trial of 3 Govt Ministers in New York ???

Dat sound more like a prayer and hope..

Well.. yuh nevah know.. is a new dispensation...

[Sir X]

You think Kern can use that excuse , you think he can say he stole or siphoned monies under the PNP party or official and not a governmental official ? or he stole money under his name not the party or government as an elected governmental official?

You think Bill Clinton could say he got his service from Lewinsky as Bill Clinton , not President Bill Clinton.

Yuh Dunce or wah ? Mek Maudib show yuh how fi defend alms house no shame from Ben.

Ben will tell you so what after 17 /19 years of PNP mismanagement what if the JLP screw us over for 2 more years by defending a Drug Don , the alternative according to him is much worse (the pnp), or its the price of progress..lol.

Dats why mi respect Ben , yuh neva know Ben when di site Buss, a now im calm.Man use to post something from a psychiatrist chair, you would think it was a movie , according to him is therapy fi terrorise the RBSC with im anti PNP ramblings.

I would state as fact he is the main reason we started the EVERYTHING JAMAICA FORUM and Jawge use to feed im ego wid im PNP defence.

You a move like , yuh caan deal wid the JLP alms house , yuh a wait fi letter ead...lol

[Muadib]

Who is dis Ben fellow.. sound like him was ah disruptive chap.. wheh him deh these days ?

[Muadib]

Deny ?

The only accusation I am aware of is that the Govt hired Manatt..

Any other accusations ?

[Sir X]

Di man morphed into a contented butterfly ...showa in power.Wait till dem out .......

aaah sah!

[Muadib]

maybe by the time di Comrades get back in.. dem will be showalike in dem management approach !

[Sir X]

God help us.

To be honest you might have a point , something good must come out of the quick removal of the JLP, hopefully the next party would have learned what not to do.

[Time]

Are you implying that it is illegal for Dudus to lobby on his own behalf and by doing so he is obstructing justice?

Yes, his laywers need should be talking to the prosecutor not lobbying the administration. Yes, he and others may be obstructing justice.