AG had singed on requeste similiar to Dudus phone tapping

[Time]

my only comment is that IF previous extraditions were authorised on illegal evidence, would that prevent the issue from being raised now, regardless of the perceived motive....in thers words if this was merely overlooked and the "suddenly realised" this oversight should they move to correct it or continue with that knowledge?

Also IF they always knew it was illegal and decide to raise it now, does it make the evidence any more legal?

my opinion is that issue is not really too important, what is important is the behaviour of the jlp/government/bruce in respect of the hiring of manatt phelps ...

Yes learned one, if they 'suddenly realised" that its illegal then its 'excusable' for the government to challenge it govt to govt or in court what is not ok is the wolf in sheep clothing 'behaviour of the jlp/government/bruce in respect of the hiring of manatt phelps.'

[Don1]

seeit deh... dis ting juss reveal di corruption in high places

[myYout]

Dem people yah nuh easy, any man from wi bankin couldah duh dem yah wuk yah. Him not aware ah any documentation/secret agreement between countries/govt but him sign request fi extradition. Him jus a sign a request widout even a check the legal ramifications of di request an him ah Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions dis yah mek yuh jus shake yuh head an wondah in amazement. An dem seh gully bankin people ah idiot.

[Gamma]

my only comment is that IF previous extraditions were authorised on illegal evidence, would that prevent the issue from being raised now, regardless of the perceived motive....in thers words if this was merely overlooked and the "suddenly realised" this oversight should they move to correct it or continue with that knowledge?

Also IF they always knew it was illegal and decide to raise it now, does it make the evidence any more legal?

my opinion is that issue is not really too important, what is important is the behaviour of the jlp/government/bruce in respect of the hiring of manatt phelps ...

[Lazie]

ok but nobody had a problem when wiretap evidence was used against friars. Probably if dem did ask about it the friars case then would have learn about the MOUs.

Were the wiretaps used in other cases handed over to the USA? Dude, mine yuh get giddy wid all this spinning. This was no quest for the truth for you ppl, it was simply to say dem is as corrupt as our party. Well, all I see coming out is people being criticized and their resignation demanded simply for upholding the laws of the land.

[Time]

Listen unuh can continue giving unuhselves wedgies ..... those providing legal counsel to the AG have stated at the Enquiry as well as those "Caught" documents that there was a problem with the evidence. Certainly its a legal matter, Taylor can keep his opinion as it isn't relevant here.

Leys and Robinson advise the AG and all 3 had a problem with the evidence. Since the MOU was the missing link ... clearly all this mess was because Peter Phillips thought he couldn't trust his own colleagues.

ok but nobody had a problem when wiretap evidence was used against friars. Probably if dem did ask about it the friars case then would have learn about the MOUs.

[Lazie]

No but is Taylor lying?

Its illegal for wiretatp evidence to be passed to the USA, that is why MOU2 is illegal.

Is it true that the AG has one set of wiretap rules for Dudus and another for the persons who she signed??

Listen unuh can continue giving unuhselves wedgies ..... those providing legal counsel to the AG have stated at the Enquiry as well as those "Caught" documents that there was a problem with the evidence. Certainly its a legal matter, Taylor can keep his opinion as it isn't relevant here.

Leys and Robinson advise the AG and all 3 had a problem with the evidence. Since the MOU was the missing link ... clearly all this mess was because Peter Phillips thought he couldn't trust his own colleagues.

[Time]

You do realize that in these proceedings Taylor represents the USA? Anyway, see Me help yuh out deh? Everybody a twist and turn a try save face.

No but is Taylor lying?

Its illegal for wiretatp evidence to be passed to the USA, that is why MOU2 is illegal.

Is it true that the AG has one set of wiretap rules for Dudus and another for the persons who she signed??

[Mosiah]

mi say anyting wong wid it?

[Me]

Something wrong with the man statement?

[Mosiah]

Robinson refused to answer but maintained that the wiretapping data should not have been shared with the United States.

Sure! The JCF was just about to arrest Mr. Coke when the US intervened!

[Lazie]

I dont see it yet but this is thre above article;

However, Taylor insisted that even if the evidence was obtained illegally it was not a bar to signing the request as the matter could be decided in court.
He pointed to similar cases in which extraditions were granted.

Cross examined by attorney, K.D. Knight, Taylor disclosed that Lightbourne had signed off on other cases in which intercepted evidence was used.

You do realize that in these proceedings Taylor represents the USA? Anyway, see Me help yuh out deh? Everybody a twist and turn a try save face.

[Me]

Dudus' constitutional rights were breached- Robinson
2011-02-28 17:58:34 | with audio | (0 Comments)



Drug Enforcement Administration personnel bring alleged gangster Christopher Coke to a waiting vehicle at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, New York, last year - APGary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer

The deputy solicitor general, Lackston Robinson today told the Manatt-Dudus commission of enquiry that the constitutional rights of alleged Jamaican crime lord Christopher 'Dudus' Coke were breached in the attempt to extradite him to the United States.

The deputy solicitor general who also heads the Litigation Department in the Attorney General’s Department contended that the information from the intercepted communication involving Coke was unlawfully obtained.

Robinson is the high-profile public servant described as the point man on extradition matters in the Solicitor General’s office.

He says Section 22 of the Constitution addresses the right of Jamaicans to private conversation.

According to Robinson, that right is not absolute, but the Interception of Communication Act sets out how conversations may be tapped.

He says only the Police Commissioner; the police officer in charge of internal security or the national firearms unit; the army chief and the Head of Military Intelligence Unit are empowered to apply for intercepted communication.

Robinson also says the order can only be issued by a Supreme Court judge.

He said the law also stipulates who the data can be disclosed to and that any disclosure to any other person would be unlawful.

As a result Robinson says the policeman who intercepted the call and shared it with the US authorities was in breach of the law.

Robinson also told the enquiry that he had expressed concern about the quality of the evidence contained in the extradition request.

He says he was not satisfied that the affidavits from the US authorities enabled the justice minister Dorothy Lightbourne to execute her professional responsibilities.

Under cross examination from PNP attorney Leonard Green, Robinson said he gave that opinion to the solicitor general but not an advice.

Green later asked Robinson whether Christopher Coke was wrongfully extradited.

Robinson refused to answer but maintained that the wiretapping data should not have been shared with the United States.

http://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=26833

[Time]

I dont see it yet but this is thre above article;

However, Taylor insisted that even if the evidence was obtained illegally it was not a bar to signing the request as the matter could be decided in court.
He pointed to similar cases in which extraditions were granted.

Cross examined by attorney, K.D. Knight, Taylor disclosed that Lightbourne had signed off on other cases in which intercepted evidence was used.

[Lazie]

Mi find it curious how unuh a side step what the Deputy SG said since day .....