Dem nuh ready fi Drivah !

[Mosiah]

HUH?!?

i leave you to your folly and lies. i not getting into it with you because even when facts a reach yuh, yuh going to gwaan like.

like mi say, mi busy today a prepare fi di PM visit later dis week.

[Lazie]

not a good analogy, but to answer you yes...BUT if they find evidence in your car that leads them have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed in your house and they follow that evidence...eg....there is a trail of blood from the car to the house...they have to go back and get a warrant to enter the house?

this is more akin to finding evidence in the car that a crime has been committed and then not doing anything about it, the US obtained it illegally and come to the conclusion that a crime has been committed but cannot use the same evidence because it was obtained illegally by them to begin with.

Okay yuh right ... wasn't a good analogy. Maybe yuh should reach out to a legal expert (in J'can law) and see if the gov't has a leg to stand on.

[Gamma]

the funny thing is that under jamaican law, wghat little i know of criminal evidence, the real test of the admissibility of the evidence is RELEVANCE! jamaica does not have as strident an evidentiary burden as they do in the US under Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States and related line of cases about the "fruit from the poisoned tree" doctrine. i had said originally said yick wo, but that was another principle ...my bad.

[Lazie]

us law is different from jamaica law.

feds?!? what the hell is that?!?

Suh thats why the US gov't must uphold the US laws and the J'can gov't must break the J'can laws?

[Gamma]

not a good analogy, but to answer you yes...BUT if they find evidence in your car that leads them have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed in your house and they follow that evidence...eg....there is a trail of blood from the car to the house...they have to go back and get a warrant to enter the house?

this is more akin to finding evidence in the car that a crime has been committed and then not doing anything about it, the US obtained it illegally and come to the conclusion that a crime has been committed but cannot use the same evidence because it was obtained illegally by them to begin with.

[Mosiah]

us law is different from jamaica law.

feds?!? what the hell is that?!?

[Exile]

Let's talk about violating Jamaica law - is this really the issue in a lawless, free-or-all society where rape, murder, killing of children, beheading people, robbing is par for the course??? Where politicians use their hired gunmen to intimidate, harrass and mureder people for their political beleifs?? Violation of Jamaican law - spending the people's money on everything except for the people?
Maudib - YOU know the reality - stop defending the indefensible, stop being a puppet, a stooge and a rampant apogist for less than a noble stand.

[Lazie]

huh? i guess i was absent from school that day but it appears to me that such an explanation is balderdash!

if during the course of the investigation they overhear information about, say.... an imminent assassination, the assassination would have to take place first?

If the Feds get a warrant to search yuh car, but found evidence in your house, couldn't that evidence be thrown out because it was obtained during an illegal search? Ask mi a ask boss!

[Gamma]

huh? i guess i was absent from school that day but it appears to me that such an explanation is balderdash!

if during the course of the investigation they overhear information about, say.... an imminent assassination, the assassination would have to take place first?

[Lazie]

it seems to me that the way the US acquired the evidence is illegal. OK. but MY question is, didn't the JAMAICAN authorities have this SAME information in hand BEFORE the americans got it?

If it is that the information does not suggest that a crime has been committed by the jamaican authorities (gun and drug smuggling) then how can that same information be sufficient for the US authorities? i think that in all of this those questions are not being asked. in my opinionm the authorities would have amore difficult time justifying not doing anything than claiming that the evidence was obtained illegally, which it very well may have been!

Didn't you get an answer already? The court order for the wire tap was for the investigators to LISTEN AND INVESTIGATE. Using it as evidence would be inadmissible (According to the legal experts).

[Gamma]

bwoy yuh have it een fi misslondon eh? yuh nuh get yuh bikini pics yet?

[Gamma]

it seems to me that the way the US acquired the evidence is illegal. OK. but MY question is, didn't the JAMAICAN authorities have this SAME information in hand BEFORE the americans got it?

If it is that the information does not suggest that a crime has been committed by the jamaican authorities (gun and drug smuggling) then how can that same information be sufficient for the US authorities? i think that in all of this those questions are not being asked. in my opinionm the authorities would have amore difficult time justifying not doing anything than claiming that the evidence was obtained illegally, which it very well may have been!

[Lazie]

It may well be true, its not far fetched however, had it been a different person, I don't think there would have been so much attention to detail. I think the after effects of the would-be extradition are weighing far more on Bruce's mind than the legality of the evidence.

Well I don't know about what is weighing on the PM's mind. One thing is certain, the AG is in between a rock and a hard place, as she said the other day its all politics. She the uproar because she is yet to sign the request. Flip it now, if she had signed it and it reached the courts and get thrown out because of the same evidence, the same set that mekking up noise now would be asking for her resignation, complaining that she is incompetent.

[MissLondon]

MissLondon, ever since I asked a question, I've been accused of defending criminality. However, I will ask it again, what if they are actually correct about the evidence being illegal? None of the experts here has considered that. The former AG was being interviewed and when the argument about the evidence was brought to his attention his get out of jail line was take it to the courts.

However, when there was a previous standoff with the US gov't and the previous admin, how was it handled?

It may well be true, its not far fetched however, had it been a different person, I don't think there would have been so much attention to detail. I think the after effects of the would-be extradition are weighing far more on Bruce's mind than the legality of the evidence.

[Mosiah]

hmm, some sense creeping in, i see.

give it some company. come up with others, quickly!