Lazie, yuh watch Impact last night?

[Don1]

Thats the ruling I'm talking about. Next time instead of assuming, ask nuh? Oh .. mi figet ... you know everything.

Change yuh position Don1? Nothing nuh wrong wid dat. You and yuh merrymen were all over the forum bout send it to the courts .... now yuh changing yuh tune. Note mi nuh call yuh flip flopper? Yuh nuh worried that the position yuh change tuh may be the wrong one now?

what was my position before & what is it now pray tell?? That it was essentially a strict legal matter....but now I believe it to be political??

Tek yuh meds b4 yuh ansa please

[Lazie]

what monumental nonsense.

My "tune' has always been that the issue is political not legal. It is the naive who believe this is a strict matter of law or sovereignty... well also those like you who wish to support Golding at all costs cling to that ridiculous legal/sophist position.... a complete red herring



Ruling?? The issue of Dudus is not up for a ruling before any court.... yet another device to try to fool people.

What's up for a ruling is whether the govt has the discretion to use the unauthorized passage to the US of wiretaps (legally collected) to deny the extradition request.... of course they have that power. The question has been framed in such a narrow way that the most likely ruling is YES... the govt does have that power.

The govt also has the DISCRETION to move the Dudus case forward (regardless of the illegal passage of wiretaps) and have the courts decide its merits.... Golding refuses to do so in order to protect the criminal and his conspirators ( reportedly including prominent JLP or even PNP figures) from a possible bad outcome in court.

This is a monumental example of government corruption...most Jamaicans acknowledge this.

But keep hope alive!!

Thats the ruling I'm talking about. Next time instead of assuming, ask nuh? Oh .. mi figet ... you know everything.

Change yuh position Don1? Nothing nuh wrong wid dat. You and yuh merrymen were all over the forum bout send it to the courts .... now yuh changing yuh tune. Note mi nuh call yuh flip flopper? Yuh nuh worried that the position yuh change tuh may be the wrong one now?

[Muadib]

lol !

Yuh si what yuh waan si..

Mi si Bunting almost get himself innah trouble.. almost start to stammah when Charles rough him up..

lol !

[ReggaeMike]

Well it shouldn't be hard to find out. Duh a search for all payments to the law firm. They have been paid before because they've done business on behalf of Jamaica before suh they should exist in the system.

Sure they should be in the system. But what good is looking for payments if it was by a private individual? Would those kinds of records be revealed? Plus it isn't like money laundering is a new concept (even the PNP did it).

Read yuh last paragraph again.

Why? What's wrong with stating the obvious that the whole affair is not as cut and dried as the GOJ denying Brady was a consultant and Brady confirming that? It most certainly isn't because somewhere along the line Manatt got the impression that Brady was a consultant and even when they corrected the document it wasn't to correct that impression but merely to state that the contract had been terminated.

[Don1]

Because I don't follow all cayliss argument like the rest of you makes me a tribalist? Suh you and the others aren't tribalists as well? The term politcal may be interpreted in two ways. However, if you're not seeking to score a jab against the PM with "the Dudus matter is essentially NOT a legal matter but a POLITICAL one" you have certainly changed your tune and is now taking the same position as those who is agreeing with the position of the PM.

what monumental nonsense.

My "tune' has always been that the issue is political not legal. It is the naive who believe this is a strict matter of law or sovereignty... well also those like you who wish to support Golding at all costs cling to that ridiculous legal/sophist position.... a complete red herring

Again, I'm in no position to agree or disagree what they have to say, so I'll wait for the ruling.

Ruling?? The issue of Dudus is not up for a ruling before any court.... yet another device to try to fool people in the court of public opinion.

What's up for a ruling is whether the govt has the discretion to use the unauthorized passage to the US of wiretaps (legally collected) to deny the extradition request.... of course they have that power. The question has been framed in such a narrow way that the most likely ruling is YES... the govt does have that power.

The govt also has the DISCRETION to move the Dudus case forward (regardless of the illegal passage of wiretaps) and have the courts decide its merits.... Golding refuses to do so in order to protect the criminal and his conspirators ( reportedly including prominent JLP or even PNP figures) from a possible bad outcome in court.

This is a monumental example of government corruption...most Jamaicans acknowledge this.

But keep hope alive!!

[Lazie]

So what about the US$50,000? And who actually paid it? Which private client is going to be forking over J$9 million a quarter (US$100,000) and actually paid J$4.5 million to be advised on all existing political and economic relations between Jamaica and the US including treaty relations? Most Jamaicans don't even make that much in two years.

The fact is that even if the GOJ never officially signed off on this and Brady admits that he was never a consultant there are far too many ducks lined up which makes the whole affair uncomfortable even if not a "scandal" as you would define it.

In any case why would Brady sign twice on document for which Manatt was given the impression that he was acting on behalf of the government? Why would Manatt even have the impression that Brady was acting as a consultant for the GOJ? How would such a mistake materialize in Manatt if all along Brady had been working on behalf of a private individual (as he claims)? Unless perhaps said person was in the GOJ but acting in a private capacity? Or unless the Solicitor-General and Brady and Manatt's connections simply gave Manatt the impression that Brady was a GOJ consultant?

Government claims Brady was never a consultant, Brady says he was never a consultant, yet when asked by the government to provide proof of the corrections that Manatt was supposed to make concerning that issue the government found it "unsatisfactory" and Manatt is still under firm impression that Brady was a consultant and that they were acting on behalf of the GOJ (otherwise why go through the whole FARA process?). So it isn't as simple as GOJ saying he wasn't a consultant and Brady saying he wasn't a consultant.

Well it shouldn't be hard to find out. Duh a search for all payments to the law firm. They have been paid before because they've done business on behalf of Jamaica before suh they should exist in the system.

Read yuh last paragraph again.

[ReggaeMike]

Is there anything in those documents that is tied to the gov't other that Harold Brady (Consultant)? Brady and the gov't denied that he was a consultant. Brady claimed it was corrected and the document he provided seems to dispute his claim that it was corrected. It is clear you're not too good at this treasure hunting thing.

As Karl said the fact that Manatt was involved in official meetings between Jamaica and the US and that Brady and the Solicitor-General had a hand in setting this up (Brady recommending them if my memory serves me right) is probably more than enough to give Manatt the impression that it was in some kind of working relationship with the GOJ. Have you ever been invited to a GOJ meeting just because you happened to be on the same plane? Or because someone recommended you but GOJ decided not to have anything official to do with you?

[ReggaeMike]

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.

So what about the US$50,000? And who actually paid it? Which private client is going to be forking over J$9 million a quarter (US$100,000) and actually paid J$4.5 million to be advised on all existing political and economic relations between Jamaica and the US including treaty relations? Most Jamaicans don't even make that much in two years.

The fact is that even if the GOJ never officially signed off on this and Brady admits that he was never a consultant there are far too many ducks lined up which makes the whole affair uncomfortable even if not a "scandal" as you would define it.

In any case why would Brady sign twice on document for which Manatt was given the impression that he was acting on behalf of the government? Why would Manatt even have the impression that Brady was acting as a consultant for the GOJ? How would such a mistake materialize in Manatt if all along Brady had been working on behalf of a private individual (as he claims)? Unless perhaps said person was in the GOJ but acting in a private capacity? Or unless the Solicitor-General and Brady and Manatt's connections simply gave Manatt the impression that Brady was a GOJ consultant?

Government claims Brady was never a consultant, Brady says he was never a consultant, yet when asked by the government to provide proof of the corrections that Manatt was supposed to make concerning that issue the government found it "unsatisfactory" and Manatt is still under firm impression that Brady was a consultant and that they were acting on behalf of the GOJ (otherwise why go through the whole FARA process?). So it isn't as simple as GOJ saying he wasn't a consultant and Brady saying he wasn't a consultant.

[Lazie]

Lazie you demonstrate the perils of being a tribalist...defending the indefensible and thereby looking like a puppet....or worse

My entire point is the Dudus matter is essentially NOT a legal matter but a POLITICAL one. Please google the meaning of "pretext" for clarification.

The prime minister is providing political protection to the criminal (and perhaps protecting himself from possible jeopardy) by preventing the extradition.

Most of Jamaica sees this clearly... even most JLP tribalists I imagine

Because I don't follow all cayliss argument like the rest of you makes me a tribalist? Suh you and the others aren't tribalists as well? The term politcal may be interpreted in two ways. However, if you're not seeking to score a jab against the PM with "the Dudus matter is essentially NOT a legal matter but a POLITICAL one" you have certainly changed your tune and is now taking the same position as those who is agreeing with the position of the PM.

Again, I'm in no position to agree or disagree what they have to say, so I'll wait for the ruling.

[Don1]

Karreck yuhself, I'm no legal expert to determine if the PM is correct or not, all I do is cite those that said so, hope you know the difference.

Yuh right, "Ah nuh evvybaddy ah eediot " but when there are those who have no clue insisting that others are incorrect when they can support their position, while you and yuh fellow tea party members cannot provide anything but careless talk... of course unuh a idiot. If it walk and sound like a duck ...

Lazie you demonstrate the perils of being a tribalist...defending the indefensible and thereby looking like a puppet....or worse

My entire point is the Dudus matter is essentially NOT a legal matter but a POLITICAL one. Please google the meaning of "pretext" for clarification.

The prime minister is providing political protection to the criminal (and perhaps protecting himself from possible jeopardy) by preventing the extradition.

Most of Jamaica sees this clearly... even most JLP tribalists I imagine

[Lazie]

Petty talk wen yuh prime minister ah defen criminal?? But ah wha dis faada??

Very few buy your argument that this is a 'legal" or "sovereignty" matter. The GOJ has what's called 'discretion' to act or not act in the country's best interest regardless of the petty legalisms. The legal matter is a mere pretext used to cover the defence of the criminal.... that is clear to people who like to think for themselves...for others..it's not so clear.

Suh unno cyan gwaan talk bout the PM is "right" because of this or that legal power to turn back di extradition request all unnu like...

Ah nuh evvybaddy ah eediot ...

Karreck yuhself, I'm no legal expert to determine if the PM is correct or not, all I do is cite those that said so, hope you know the difference.

Yuh right, "Ah nuh evvybaddy ah eediot " but when there are those who have no clue insisting that others are incorrect when they can support their position, while you and yuh fellow tea party members cannot provide anything but careless talk... of course unuh a idiot. If it walk and sound like a duck ...

[Don1]

Well, lets see how quickly it get nasty then because all I'm seeing is petty talk. Lets see something concrete.

Petty talk wen yuh prime minister ah defen criminal?? But ah wha dis faada??

Very few buy your argument that this is a 'legal" or "sovereignty" matter. The GOJ has what's called 'discretion' to act or not act in the country's best interest regardless of the petty legalisms. The legal matter is a mere pretext used to cover the defence of the criminal.... that is clear to people who like to think for themselves...for others..it's not so clear.

Suh unno cyan gwaan talk bout the PM is "right" because of this or that legal power to turn back di extradition request all unnu like...

Ah nuh evvybaddy ah eediot ...

[Karl]

Is there anything in those documents that is tied to the gov't other that Harold Brady (Consultant)?

Yes!
The fact that the US firm was in on official discussions between USA & JA. ...and records of those discussions.

Brady and the gov't denied that he was a consultant. Brady claimed it was corrected and the document he provided seems to dispute his claim that it was corrected. It is clear you're not too good at this treasure hunting thing.

Yuh seem tuh figet that was after he was a consultant that Brady became "not a consultant"!!!

[Lazie]

yuh wish Gwaan wait fi letterhead

yuh nuh ear seh di man dem ave audio & other evidence? dem ave witness who testify areddy?

Joke yuh ah mek... dis ting can get nasty... very quickly

Well, lets see how quickly it get nasty then because all I'm seeing is petty talk. Lets see something concrete.

[Don1]

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.

yuh wish Gwaan wait fi letterhead

yuh nuh ear seh di man dem ave audio & other evidence? dem ave witness who testify areddy?

Joke yuh ah mek... dis ting can get nasty... very quickly