Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
ek4ever wrote:What d hell yuh go post in that?zoom rader wrote:We need to start an arse wari and young achievement chead
zoom rader wrote:Redman wrote:zoom rader wrote:The people that see no issue with the AG are all PNM stooges and are only toting the line.Redman wrote:Well yes his rational is logical....and having chatted about it when the AG made the statement with people that in the business, they see no issue.
So getting a PC decision on an area of law that the Jason Jones case....will settle how that and other laws that are derivative of that law....are applied.
So now you state why he is wrong.
Can you now state why you think he is wrong?
No Law is case by case.
e.g, You get catch speeding, so you get a speeding ticket according to the definition and what is set as speeding you don't use that for ID lights. You cant change this as you please to suit you
You said itRedman wrote:zoom rader wrote:Redman wrote:zoom rader wrote:The people that see no issue with the AG are all PNM stooges and are only toting the line.Redman wrote:Well yes his rational is logical....and having chatted about it when the AG made the statement with people that in the business, they see no issue.
So getting a PC decision on an area of law that the Jason Jones case....will settle how that and other laws that are derivative of that law....are applied.
So now you state why he is wrong.
Can you now state why you think he is wrong?
No Law is case by case.
e.g, You get catch speeding, so you get a speeding ticket according to the definition and what is set as speeding you don't use that for ID lights. You cant change this as you please to suit you
You are woefully uninformed.
Your simplistic example contains the fact that there is a clear cut definition of the law,a defined mechanism to measure and a defined penalty.
Industrial law,Criminal law,Business Law,Family Law, The Sedition Act , and whatever law Jason Jones was fighting all require the law to be applied in circumstances where there isnt that clarity.
Parliament passes law.
Courts interpret and apply their interpretation of these laws to the cases before them.
These decisions and judgements move a statute passed in one year along with the common ethos that prevails as time passes.
It eh new,
It eh rocket science.
You said it
"Courts interpret and apply their interpretation of these laws to the cases before them."
It is for the COURTS and NOT the AG to decide.
That's why the AG is wrong.
That his interpretation is law, his opinion is ok but it is for the courts as final say.Redman wrote:You said it
"Courts interpret and apply their interpretation of these laws to the cases before them."
It is for the COURTS and NOT the AG to decide.
That's why the AG is wrong.
What has the AG decided??
PNM ppl got their feelings hurt and it reach Rowlee, who picked up the phone and passed it on to the po po to harass Sat.Dizzy28 wrote:A pertinent question I may have missed the answer to is who decided to go after the Maha Sabha and Sat using this law as thier basis - Was it the the CoP, a rando TTPS Inspector by himself or under the guidance of a Government Minister?
It was the PNM prime MinsterDizzy28 wrote:I am only seeing where TATT said it wasn't them.
zoom rader wrote:It was the PNM prime MinsterDizzy28 wrote:I am only seeing where TATT said it wasn't them.
The ruling was delivered in the Hall of Justice this morning by Justice Frank Seepersad in the claim filed by secretary general of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) Sat Maharaj, who has since died, and SDMS media house Central Broadcasting Services Ltd.
THE constitutional claim filed by Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) leader Satnarayan Maharaj challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of certain provisions of the Sedition Act Chapter 11.04 will go to trial on December 9.
The trial date was fixed when the matter came up for hearing at a pre-trial review before Justice Frank Seepersad in the Port of Spain High Court yesterday.
Maharaj previously sought to have Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard hold his hand on laying sedition charges against him, but this was not pursued after the DPP wrote to Maharaj's attorneys, saying police had not yet asked him to consent to any charges being laid against the religious leader under the Sedition Act.
We are taking about who sent the PNM police to harass the lil injun.Redman wrote:zoom rader wrote:It was the PNM prime MinsterDizzy28 wrote:I am only seeing where TATT said it wasn't them.
No it was Sat.
Sat musbe a PNM
Ent ZR
https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/s ... 3364b.htmlThe ruling was delivered in the Hall of Justice this morning by Justice Frank Seepersad in the claim filed by secretary general of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) Sat Maharaj, who has since died, and SDMS media house Central Broadcasting Services Ltd.
https://newsday.co.tt/2019/07/08/sats-s ... -december/THE constitutional claim filed by Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) leader Satnarayan Maharaj challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of certain provisions of the Sedition Act Chapter 11.04 will go to trial on December 9.
The trial date was fixed when the matter came up for hearing at a pre-trial review before Justice Frank Seepersad in the Port of Spain High Court yesterday.Maharaj previously sought to have Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard hold his hand on laying sedition charges against him, but this was not pursued after the DPP wrote to Maharaj's attorneys, saying police had not yet asked him to consent to any charges being laid against the religious leader under the Sedition Act.
Redman wrote:So the PNM police raid the spot, SAT files the ting, PNM police and Co wait for judgement, Sat win....
What part of this is abuse...??
I gonna watch Kuch kuch hota hai.Redman wrote:who spinning?
An injun saved duke and this country from these nasty PNM pplhydroep wrote:Charge dismissed. Was there ever any doubt?...
https://newsday.co.tt/2020/01/27/sedition-charge-against-watson-duke-dismissed/
This is a free country and free speech must be maintained.Dizzy28 wrote:With the Sedition Act being rules illegal its gonna be hard for the PNM to silence people they don't like.
Feris will get more delusional
zoom rader wrote:This is a free country and free speech must be maintained.Dizzy28 wrote:With the Sedition Act being rules illegal its gonna be hard for the PNM to silence people they don't like.
Feris will get more delusional
Only clowns like Redman would defend PNM breaking laws
Trespassing laws broken in stealing people's lands.Redman wrote:zoom rader wrote:This is a free country and free speech must be maintained.Dizzy28 wrote:With the Sedition Act being rules illegal its gonna be hard for the PNM to silence people they don't like.
Feris will get more delusional
Only clowns like Redman would defend PNM breaking laws
So which law was broken by the govt?
Point it out nah-
A law is law dumb arseRedman wrote:Im sorry ZR, I thought this was a serious conversation.
My mistake.
As you were.
Stealing is not breaking the law?Redman wrote:Oh you serious?
Ok
Well you were talking about the Sedition Act.
Its a thread on the Sedition Act.
If you forget-look at the thread title.
Is there a law somewhere in your froth that is relevant to what we were actually discussing?-or are you just on your bigot rant rag time of the month?
zoom rader wrote:An injun saved duke and this country from these nasty PNM pplhydroep wrote:Charge dismissed. Was there ever any doubt?...
https://newsday.co.tt/2020/01/27/sedition-charge-against-watson-duke-dismissed/
zoom rader wrote:Stealing is not breaking the law?Redman wrote:Oh you serious?
Ok
Well you were talking about the Sedition Act.
Its a thread on the Sedition Act.
If you forget-look at the thread title.
Is there a law somewhere in your froth that is relevant to what we were actually discussing?-or are you just on your bigot rant rag time of the month?
Stealing public funds to buy wigs, weave and sperm is not breaking the law?
Public purse is not a loans account
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], SMc and 275 guests