19 Oct 2009

Dana Seetahal... P(N)M defender?

and the complainant, having had due notice of the time and place of hearing (which shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Court), does not appear in person...

It is evident then that the magistrate had the power in law to throw out the charge against the PM.

It is more evident that the conditions for dismissing the case were not met, since the complainant was not even aware the matter was transferred to the First Court. She was still waiting at the Eighth Court when the matter was called.

Even the Magistrate at the Eighth Court did not know the matter was transferred. Is this a lack of professionalism and courtesy among Magistrates, or just from Shermie? In any event, this indicates that there was a deliberate attempt to thwart the letter and intention of the law!

It is apparent that the case law quoted by Ms Seetahal do not have the conditions of this case so recently dismissed. How then can they be used to justify a decision to dismiss Ms Cumberbatch's matter?

Since I, as a Grumpy Old Man, see conspiracies in everything this Government does, I am now wondering how much Ms Seetahal was paid to proffer this 'opinion' to provide 'strength of reason' for Shermie's action?

Comments