what i want to find out firts is

[Gamma]

1. would it have been OK for the government to hire MP&P about the extradition, given the "recently realised" concerns about the legality of the request?

2. is it ok for the JLP as party to have made the approach?

That is my starting point.

[Lazie]

1. would it have been OK for the government to hire MP&P about the extradition, given the "recently realised" concerns about the legality of the request?

2. is it ok for the JLP as party to have made the approach?

That is my starting point.

Ago get the popcarn and soda to see how the circus clowns side step these questions.

[myYout]

dem questions pertinent fi real, kah di sumpn dem nuh legal at all dem is a memo; an a memo is jus a wha memo.

[Karl]

1. would it have been OK for the government to hire MP&P about the extradition, given the "recently realised" concerns about the legality of the request?

2. is it ok for the JLP as party to have made the approach?

That is my starting point.

There is no "recently realised"!
If it is the MOUs you are thinking on - The GOJ had them long ago...as Min. of Security twist-up imself an seh!


It was not OK for the JLP to be running the show!
...as Likle Brucie claims!

[Jawge]

My answer to both is Yes. I also agree with Dorothy that there are flaws within the treaty. Now let's ask the US to send back Dudus and all the others that has been extraditied (until we can put a proper frame work on our laws and treaty).

What sayest thou?

[Gamma]

the MOU's? how could the GOJ "have them long ago" if basically only peter phillips knew about it? anyway that is beside the point for the moment.

my questions remain...again instead of answering my question yuh trying to pre-empt something..god knows what...

[Gamma]

disengage...DISENGAGE!!!

[Mosiah]

if the govt had done so it would not matter to me, really. as a matter of fact, if the party had done, big deal!

IS DI LIE DEM MI CYAAN DEAL WID!

but, more important to me is why did the govt go through all of that to protect a person like Dudus?

[Gamma]

if it is a valid point constitutional point then it matters not WHO.

bruce rogow is a fantastic lawyer and someone whom i have always had a tremendous respect for, and he is jewish...yet it was he (to the ire of virtually all of miami's jewish community) who represented some neo nazis' first amendment rights. he also represented 2 live crew against sherriff nick navarro (also on a constitutional issue) in respect of their profanity laced "nasty as they wanna be" album.

my point is, if it has merit then regardless that it is dudus the gov't should protect the constituional rights of ALL its citizens. additionally, it is HARD to imagine that the ONLY evidence that could be had was illegal obatined or used or whatever!!!!

the purpose seems to have been to obtain the evidence and then use it to obtain further admissible and usable evidence!

[Gamma]

btw dudus waived his right to an extradition hearing so it never really got tested!

[Mosiah]

and what a big sigh of relief for some of our politicians!

[Gamma]

yuh think suh? him is more of a danger to them in the us than in JA ... in JA they coulda probably get to him like how dem get to faada!

[Jawge]

I was looking for an aye or nay. Ah well.

[Time]

Of course it matters who. In our system the only entity that should have done it is the goverment. If the goverment did it and the JLP paid the expenses and was truthful about it then we could accept it.

If Bruce had stood up in parliament and said to Peter. Yes, the govt hired Manhatt because of your illegal MOUs and the JLP paid for it in order to save the taxpayer the cost then probably Peter would have found his back against the wall for the illegal MOUs. But no, the whole thing was designed as a web of lies from day one.

[Muadib]

Web of lies to who..

If Phillips nevah mentioned Mannatt.. would anyone of cared ?

Matter of fact who really cares how Mannatt fits into this issue ? Mannat could not have prevented an extradition.. neither could they have gotten the US to stall it.. sooo... what is the real deal here ?

Much ado about nothing... re: Mannatt..