24 Sept 2009

JJ on the attack?

After reading this diatribe of JJ's, I was initially going to sit back and just let it slide. After all, some are incapable of being taught.

After carefully reading it a second time, I noticed how JJ is spreading PNM propaganda in Parliament, in an effort to fool the population.

Let me give you an example:
He said if the Prime Minister had concerns about a person who was to fill a post of chief legal officer, the PM had a right to exercise a veto.

"The Law Association president was reported to have predicted that had the veto been challenged it would have been successfully so."

Now, if I recall clearly, the Law Association never said that the Prime Minister did not have the right to veto.

What the Law Association said was that the Prime Minister ought to explain the reasons for his veto, and that if his vetoes are challenged in court for an explanation he would be forced to reveal his reasoning for such vetoes.

This country faces a crisis again of considerable proportions from white-collar crime perhaps more complex and greater than any we have faced in the past—now more than ever courage is needed in all executive positions.

I could not agree more, since the white collar crime is actually runaway under the PNM (Hart/Udecott, UTT, CEPEP, CDAP, Sunway, stadiums, etc etc etc.) Hence is more important to fill the posts as quickly as possible, and not exercise veto after veto until it appears that one is searching for a 'PNM' candidate. Let's fill the posts with the next qualified candidate, turn him/her loose and let the chips fall where they may.

“We should all be cognisant of the fact that there should be a presumption that the Prime Minister will not act capriciously in making appointments to executive positions, in particular, to key executive positions.”

Will not act capriciously? Why not? What makes him greater than any other 'leader' who rises to power and wishes to retain it at all costs? As far as I see and the entire population of Trinbago (except maybe for PNM til' I dead supporters), the Prime Minister is acting capriciously. He has not given any reasons for his vetoes, nor indicated who else would be suitable for the posts. He vetoed appointments to critical positions of the Constitution, capriciously. On a 'vaps' if you understand that word better.

By the way, JJ, Barnett's opinion is that of one man, and you should not rely on it as if it is 'gospel' (regardless of your leader's Christian stance). Any number of lawyers (and laymen) can find counter points to that infantile argument.

The affidavit was struck out for being irrelevant due to to the illegality of the Prime Minister (your boss) not having the legal power to make such an agreement in the first place. The affidavit does however exists, and was referred to by all levels of the courts.

May I point out that in a civil matter, there is not yet any ruling. As an attorney, you know Civil and Criminal matters are separate, carry a different burden of proof. Must I point out to you the fate of OJ Simpson, who won a criminal trial but lost the civil?

It is time you stop using Parliamentary privilege to indulge in a war of words, and creating and promoting PNM propaganda. As I pointed out, we know why you were brought back from London.