Defiant NBS appealing $79M judgment in wrongfully dismissed CEO case

Aug 09, 2017 News, http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....-dismissed-ceo-case/

Mortgage lender, New Building Society (NBS), which late last month was ordered by the High Court to shell out that $70M to its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Maurice Arjoon, is refusing to pay up.

The entity, through its lawyer, Ashton Chase, has within the last few days, instead, issued a Notice of Appeal, in a move that signaled Arjoon’s battle with that institution is far from over.

Nine years have passed since the former CEO, and two of his managers, Kent Vincent and Kissoon Baldeo, were all arrested and charged with stealing over $60M.

However, the men were exonerated and an independent Ombudsman investigation raised worrying questions why Arjoon and the managers were ever charged in the first place.

Arjoon filed a High Court case seeking damages in excess of $500M and his pension and other benefits.

After the matter dragged on for more than six years, Judge Brassington Reynolds in a decision last month awarded $79M in lost pension and other benefits. There were no awards for damages.

Arjoon had long claimed that he and his managers were set up and charged, at the direction of former President Bharrat Jagdeo, after he refused to sink almost $2B of NBS money in the construction of the Berbice River Bridge.

The CEO claimed that the lending of NBS money in that manner would have been highly illegal, breaching financial laws.

NBS later still went ahead, after the men were sacked, and purchased shares in the Berbice River Bridge.

Yesterday, it was clear that the Arjoon family was frustrated by the refusal of NBS to pay the lost pension and benefits.

Acknowledging that the mortgage company has signaled its intentions to appeal the judgment, Arjoon and his family in a statement shared on social media, that NBS had provided no acceptable reason why he was dismissed, and no objection on the pension claim, during the High Court case.

FLABBERGASTED
“I was therefore very surprised when the judge “awarded” my pension due for the past 10 years and unpaid salary, but none of the $550M in damages and consequently, it is my opinion that I won the battle but NBS won the war.”

Arjoon said that he decided to accept the esteemed judge’s ruling and expected that NBS would have done likewise. He “thanked God that this would finally be over and my family and I could finally move on after such an ordeal lasting over a decade.”

However, the move by NBS to appeal the pension and other benefits he was entitled to came as a huge surprise.

“Now I am extremely flabbergasted that the NBS has appealed the judge’s decision. My pension rights can only be denied if I am involved in fraud, and it was known by the (then) Board, even before I was wrongfully charged with the two managers, that we were never involved in any fraud.”

Arjoon pointed out that his innocence was also proven during the NBS internal and external as well as Bank of Guyana investigations since 2007, and subsequently confirmed in court in 2010, and then by the late Ombudsman in 2014.

NO FRAUD HERE
“A Director (David Yhann) who has since resigned also stated publicly in 2012 in a letter to the media that the board was aware that the two managers and I were not involved in fraud but that it was the DPP (Shalimar Ali-Hack) who said there was compelling evidence (the DPP never provided any during the 4 ½ years in court).”

The former executive insisted that the Board of Directors of NBS is also aware that he has an exemplary three decades’ record with the institution with never even a warning letter.

“…and I subscribed to a pension scheme for three decades to be paid pension at age 60, yet I was illegally dismissed six months before retirement. My pension rights have therefore been illegally denied from the inception 10 years ago; a blatant violation of the Terminations and Severance Pay Act (TESPA) which is continuing with the non-payment to date!”

Arjoon said that his retirement benefits are also due to be paid by NBS as was done with his predecessors, in addition to three months paid retirement leave.

However, the officials said NBS failed.

“Further. on the morning of June 1, 2007 prior to the charge, the two managers and I were called to a meeting with the board and we were told that the police said they had evidence against us and a commitment was made by the Board to pay our salary and benefits until the conclusion of the case, and to also repay all legal fees incurred. Days later, our salary and benefits were taken away without any reason provided.”

The former CEO said that during the High Court trial, it was also proven, without a doubt, that he was illegally dismissed by the then Board, contrary to the stipulations of TESPA, as well as Rule 49 of the NBS Act.

“The latter stipulates that the Board must obtain a resolution from the NBS members before I can be dismissed, which was never done.

Documented evidence tendered in court revealed all relative withdrawal documents including the Power of Attorney, signatures of Bibi S. Khan etc., were in order, and confirmation that all procedures met.”

Arjoon said that what was even stranger was that despite no fraud being proven, NBS used its monies to pay a member who claimed to have lost monies from an account.

“Shouldn’t the NBS stop the continuation of its abuse of power and violation of laws and now abide by the esteemed Judge’s ruling and pay as stipulated?”

He said that with the outcome of this case and previously that of the wrongful charge and the Ombudsman’s findings, it is his hope that civil society as well as the Private Sector Commission, the Bankers Association, the Bar Association and other relevant organisations will speak out against the perpetrators of “heinous crimes” against the two former managers, Kent Vincent and Kissoon Baldeo, and himself, in an effort at also ensuring there is never any repetition of injustice and abuse of power.

Back in 2007, Arjoon was accused of conspiracy to defraud the NBS of $69M along with Baldeo and Vincent. The latter two said they suffered irreparable harm from the negative publicity and losses of salaries and benefits.

At the time of the charges in 2007, chairing the Board of NBS was Dr. Nanda Gopaul. He later became a Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President, under the Jagdeo administration and then the Minister of Labour. Also sitting on the board then was union leader, Seepaul Narine.
The NBS board is currently chaired by Floyd McDonald, a former Commissioner of Police.

What does antabanta have to say now? His paycheck is now short. 

Drugb posted:

What does antabanta have to say now? His paycheck is now short. 

Are you gloating because the Rat is getting away with this travesty?

Anta there is no rat involved here.  Maybe I am taking this personally, but I have been exposed to power of attorney fraud. So I may be biased in this regard.  There is no evidence that an elaborate plan by Jag to frame Arjoon after he objected to the investment in BBice bridge. 

Drugb posted:

Anta there is no rat involved here.  Maybe I am taking this personally, but I have been exposed to power of attorney fraud. So I may be biased in this regard.  There is no evidence that an elaborate plan by Jag to frame Arjoon after he objected to the investment in BBice bridge. 

Why the skunk don't you read the Ombudsman report and educate your ignorant self? Jagdeo is a malicious and vindictive rat.

Drugb posted:

Anta there is no rat involved here.  Maybe I am taking this personally, but I have been exposed to power of attorney fraud. So I may be biased in this regard.  There is no evidence that an elaborate plan by Jag to frame Arjoon after he objected to the investment in BBice bridge. 

Take off your blinds and you will see the ample evidence.

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

Anta there is no rat involved here.  Maybe I am taking this personally, but I have been exposed to power of attorney fraud. So I may be biased in this regard.  There is no evidence that an elaborate plan by Jag to frame Arjoon after he objected to the investment in BBice bridge. 

Take off your blinds and you will see the ample evidence.

This is your response? I am disappointed but not surprised. When faced with request for evidence, those looking to defame normally run an hide behind the veil of hearsay and gossip. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

Anta there is no rat involved here.  Maybe I am taking this personally, but I have been exposed to power of attorney fraud. So I may be biased in this regard.  There is no evidence that an elaborate plan by Jag to frame Arjoon after he objected to the investment in BBice bridge. 

Take off your blinds and you will see the ample evidence.

This is your response? I am disappointed but not surprised. When faced with request for evidence, those looking to defame normally run an hide behind the veil of hearsay and gossip. 

You must be joking. There is ample evidence in the public domain. In addition, just ask any investor in Guyana to whom they had to pledge a cut before investing. You have to be wearing blinds to not be aware of the corruption of Jagdeo and the PPP.

antabanta posted:

 

 

You must be joking. There is ample evidence in the public domain. In addition, just ask any investor in Guyana to whom they had to pledge a cut before investing. You have to be wearing blinds to not be aware of the corruption of Jagdeo and the PPP.

As expected, you rush to use "common knowledge"  as evidence. Do you really believe that these types of hearsay would stand up in a court of law?  There is common knowledge floating around Guyana that Jagdeo is gay? Does this mean it is true? In legal matters one should stick to the law, good or bad. You can't have it both ways where perception is your evidence. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

 

 

You must be joking. There is ample evidence in the public domain. In addition, just ask any investor in Guyana to whom they had to pledge a cut before investing. You have to be wearing blinds to not be aware of the corruption of Jagdeo and the PPP.

As expected, you rush to use "common knowledge"  as evidence. Do you really believe that these types of hearsay would stand up in a court of law?  There is common knowledge floating around Guyana that Jagdeo is gay? Does this mean it is true? In legal matters one should stick to the law, good or bad. You can't have it both ways where perception is your evidence. 

Common knowledge? Is that how you describe facts? Obviously, you have neither read the Ombudsman's report nor paid any attention to the NBS matter other than to rise up in defense of Jagdeo. Tune-in and come again.

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

 

 

You must be joking. There is ample evidence in the public domain. In addition, just ask any investor in Guyana to whom they had to pledge a cut before investing. You have to be wearing blinds to not be aware of the corruption of Jagdeo and the PPP.

As expected, you rush to use "common knowledge"  as evidence. Do you really believe that these types of hearsay would stand up in a court of law?  There is common knowledge floating around Guyana that Jagdeo is gay? Does this mean it is true? In legal matters one should stick to the law, good or bad. You can't have it both ways where perception is your evidence. 

Common knowledge? Is that how you describe facts? Obviously, you have neither read the Ombudsman's report nor paid any attention to the NBS matter other than to rise up in defense of Jagdeo. Tune-in and come again.

Ombudsman report is not evidence, merely an opinion by a pnc operative for political purposes.  I have read the media reports on the matter and have concluded that Arjoon and those who support him(hint hint) are guilty of covering up a power of attorney fraud. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

 

 

You must be joking. There is ample evidence in the public domain. In addition, just ask any investor in Guyana to whom they had to pledge a cut before investing. You have to be wearing blinds to not be aware of the corruption of Jagdeo and the PPP.

As expected, you rush to use "common knowledge"  as evidence. Do you really believe that these types of hearsay would stand up in a court of law?  There is common knowledge floating around Guyana that Jagdeo is gay? Does this mean it is true? In legal matters one should stick to the law, good or bad. You can't have it both ways where perception is your evidence. 

Common knowledge? Is that how you describe facts? Obviously, you have neither read the Ombudsman's report nor paid any attention to the NBS matter other than to rise up in defense of Jagdeo. Tune-in and come again.

Ombudsman report is not evidence, merely an opinion by a pnc operative for political purposes.  I have read the media reports on the matter and have concluded that Arjoon and those who support him(hint hint) are guilty of covering up a power of attorney fraud. 

Your comprehension is poor and your logics are warped. You have to ask yourself why you are at same job for 19 years without a promotion or raise. Seems like you are having a slow day. Deryck Rugbeer, remember you are an employee. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

 

 

You must be joking. There is ample evidence in the public domain. In addition, just ask any investor in Guyana to whom they had to pledge a cut before investing. You have to be wearing blinds to not be aware of the corruption of Jagdeo and the PPP.

As expected, you rush to use "common knowledge"  as evidence. Do you really believe that these types of hearsay would stand up in a court of law?  There is common knowledge floating around Guyana that Jagdeo is gay? Does this mean it is true? In legal matters one should stick to the law, good or bad. You can't have it both ways where perception is your evidence. 

Common knowledge? Is that how you describe facts? Obviously, you have neither read the Ombudsman's report nor paid any attention to the NBS matter other than to rise up in defense of Jagdeo. Tune-in and come again.

Ombudsman report is not evidence, merely an opinion by a pnc operative for political purposes.  I have read the media reports on the matter and have concluded that Arjoon and those who support him(hint hint) are guilty of covering up a power of attorney fraud. 

You haven't read squat. Nevertheless, if the media reports are your source for determining guilt or innocence, what do you think of the reports of Jagdeo's crime syndicate? The general public has concluded that the Rat and those who support him (hint hint) are the biggest thieves Guyana has had the misfortune to produce.

The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Not opinion. One of the directors of NBS stated clearly that Arjoon is innocent.

I hope everyone on this forum will remember your reverence for the media and not allow you to retract this sentiment.

antabanta posted:

You haven't read squat. Nevertheless, if the media reports are your source for determining guilt or innocence, what do you think of the reports of Jagdeo's crime syndicate? The general public has concluded that the Rat and those who support him (hint hint) are the biggest thieves Guyana has had the misfortune to produce.

The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Not opinion. One of the directors of NBS stated clearly that Arjoon is innocent.

I hope everyone on this forum will remember your reverence for the media and not allow you to retract this sentiment.

You are confusing media reports by journalists with opinion by columnist like Freddie.  

An ombudsman report is not held to the same scrutiny as an investigation carried out by the police. That is why such a report would never hold up in a court of law. It is an opinion based on questionable analysis. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

You haven't read squat. Nevertheless, if the media reports are your source for determining guilt or innocence, what do you think of the reports of Jagdeo's crime syndicate? The general public has concluded that the Rat and those who support him (hint hint) are the biggest thieves Guyana has had the misfortune to produce.

The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Not opinion. One of the directors of NBS stated clearly that Arjoon is innocent.

I hope everyone on this forum will remember your reverence for the media and not allow you to retract this sentiment.

You are confusing media reports by journalists with opinion by columnist like Freddie.  

An ombudsman report is not held to the same scrutiny as an investigation carried out by the police. That is why such a report would never hold up in a court of law. It is an opinion based on questionable analysis. 

I don't read opinions. I don't read Freddie. The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Why do you think it is an opinion based on questionable analysis? Why is it questionable? An ombudsman is appointed to investigate complaints of maladministration. Investigate. Not opine. Not speculate.

So are we to accept your reverence for reports by journalists?

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

You haven't read squat. Nevertheless, if the media reports are your source for determining guilt or innocence, what do you think of the reports of Jagdeo's crime syndicate? The general public has concluded that the Rat and those who support him (hint hint) are the biggest thieves Guyana has had the misfortune to produce.

The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Not opinion. One of the directors of NBS stated clearly that Arjoon is innocent.

I hope everyone on this forum will remember your reverence for the media and not allow you to retract this sentiment.

You are confusing media reports by journalists with opinion by columnist like Freddie.  

An ombudsman report is not held to the same scrutiny as an investigation carried out by the police. That is why such a report would never hold up in a court of law. It is an opinion based on questionable analysis. 

Dankey, an Ombudsman ruling is legally binding. Both parties would have agreed to it before the hearing commenced. There might be a limit to his financial award unless both parties agree to a waiver. Dankey, you know shit. Bin there done dat. Dankey you gat a loose screw which no one can fix.

[[QUOTE]]

The Ombudsman’s office is a mechanism that gives citizens a fair means of resolving problems which may crop up in dealing with the public service — and where necessary holding systems to account. In short, the Ombudsman is offering citizens a form of dispute resolution outside of the courts and also ensures public accountability.

[[UNQUOTE]]

Righting the wrongs: The role of the Ombudsman

By Iana Seales January 18, 2014, https://www.stabroeknews.com/2...ongs-role-ombudsman/

Justice Winston Moore assumes the role of Ombudsman almost a decade after the office has been vacant and largely weakened, and at a time when administrative justice is lacking in our democracy. People are frustrated by delays, discourtesy, and bias, among other things, across the public service and have for too long been denied the services of a resolute public defender.

The Ombudsman is considered one of the essential institutions that a Constitution should possess. On this score, we have been progressive–the Office of an Ombudsman was enshrined in our Constitution in 1966—albeit only on paper.* The profile of the Office has diminished to the point where the majority of citizens have no idea what an Ombudsman does. This means that Justice Moore has to engage the public and establish himself not only as a feature of our Constitution but also a feature of systems of administrative and civil justice. And judging from the lack of public awareness which reduced the impact of his predecessor’s work, it is important that he formulates a public education strategy.

The Constitution establishes that the Ombudsman may investigate any action taken by any department of government or by any other authority or by the President, Ministers, officers or members of such a department or authority. Therefore, the Office serves as an important part of ensuring good governance in our society.

But the Office of the Ombudsman here has been dormant since 2005 and even when it was operational it was underutilised. This could be for several reasons, from the lack of adequate information regarding what the Ombudsman does to doubts about whether an office which is largely without enforcement powers could really be effective in promoting justice.

There is also no public track record of the Office and what it has accomplished in the years it was functional. At the time of writing, it was difficult to access information as it relates to the complaints the last Ombudsman would have investigated and the results of those investigations, which would be critical to building confidence in the Office.

In explaining what the Ombudsman does, it would be fair to say that Justice Moore over the next four years will “right the wrongs” in our society. He is empowered to act as an independent referee who looks at both sides of a dispute and can come up with a fair solution.

The Ombudsman’s office is a mechanism that gives citizens a fair means of resolving problems which may crop up in dealing with the public service — and where necessary holding systems to account. In short, the Ombudsman is offering citizens a form of dispute resolution outside of the courts and also ensures public accountability.

The emphasis is on resolving disputes between citizens and government agencies and the services are available to every citizen. This means that if you have a complaint with a particular government agency and you’re having difficulty resolving it, you could take your complaint to the Ombudsman.

If you are not satisfied with any aspect of administration by nearly every publicly funded organisation in the country, you have a right to an independent, impartial and free investigation of your complaint by the Ombudsman’s Office.

Further, anyone can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. You can complain on your own behalf or for someone else if they are unable to make the complaint.

But as expected, not every complaint is investigated. The Constitution outlines that the Ombudsman may refuse to initiate, or may discontinue, any investigation if it appears to him that:

the complaint relates to action of which the complainant has had knowledge for more than twelve months before the complaint was received by the Ombudsman;

the subject matter of the complaint is trivial;

the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; or

the complainant has not a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint.

While there is need for real reforms to be introduced in our administrative justice system—the courts and the law—the Ombudsman provides us with an opportunity to have our complaints of maladministration addressed.

Justice Moore and is staff now has a responsibility to inform the public of the services which are available to them. People would be interested in knowing the kind of matters they could take to his office. For example, would his office investigate police beating and torture?

Would his office investigate corporal punishment administered to a child in one of our schools? Would his office investigate the complaints of prisoners on remand awaiting a hearing? Would his office investigate claims of institutional racism in the public service?

In other jurisdictions, people have gone to the Office of the Ombudsman to complain about abuse of police power, disputes relating to income tax returns, disputes about entitlement to old age and retirement pensions, and about child support payments etc.

In Europe, public defenders holding the Office of Ombudsman are meeting regularly to discuss the duties of government towards citizens. They are examining issues such as whether administrations support the interests of some citizens above others, and if so, how do they as Ombudsmen deal with this reality.

They are also exploring their boundaries and how far they are allowed to go. For example, if an Ombudsman believes that the value system that informs the political choices made, does not sufficiently protect the interests of the citizen, then how far can he or she go in pointing this out. Who is the citizen that an administration talks about looking after, supporting, and including? These are some of the questions they are addressing. These discussions are important, not just for their respective jurisdictions, but societies like ours where successive administrations have been accused of overlooking the interest of a particular group at different periods during our country’s history.

In theory, Justice Moore’s appointment is good news but the important test lies in whether the office can truly champion the rights of aggrieved citizens in our country and help to focus the attention of public officials on the needs of the people they serve.

In practice, Justice Moore and his Office will only be able to function effectively if the current administration invests in the Ombudsman idea and support it beyond the appointment.

Justice Moore’s colleagues in Europe believe that the key to succeeding in their role is the task of keeping the administration honest. During his years on the bench, he was held in high regard by his local colleagues and he built a reputation as a man of integrity. Based on his judicial profile, there is reason to believe that Justice Moore is capable of “righting the wrongs” in our society.

*Correction: A previous version of this column incorrectly stated that the of Office of the Ombudsman was enshrined in the constitution in 1996. The correct date is 1966.

antabanta posted:

I don't read opinions. I don't read Freddie. The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Why do you think it is an opinion based on questionable analysis? Why is it questionable? An ombudsman is appointed to investigate complaints of maladministration. Investigate. Not opine. Not speculate.

So are we to accept your reverence for reports by journalists?

The ombudsman's report was not compiled based on the same standards of a police investigation. It is loosely compiled on opinion.  Also let's note that this report is inherently biased as it was compiled by a known Black PNC supporter Winston Moore, who has political motives to vilify the PPP and Jagdeo. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

I don't read opinions. I don't read Freddie. The ombudsman's report is based on evidence. Why do you think it is an opinion based on questionable analysis? Why is it questionable? An ombudsman is appointed to investigate complaints of maladministration. Investigate. Not opine. Not speculate.

So are we to accept your reverence for reports by journalists?

The ombudsman's report was not compiled based on the same standards of a police investigation. It is loosely compiled on opinion.  Also let's note that this report is inherently biased as it was compiled by a known Black PNC supporter Winston Moore, who has political motives to vilify the PPP and Jagdeo. 

From where did you get this information about standards of the ombudsman's report? It seems that every accusation against the Rat is biased despite overwhelming evidence and common knowledge. But of course you are an objective observer.

antabanta posted:

From where did you get this information about standards of the ombudsman's report? It seems that every accusation against the Rat is biased despite overwhelming evidence and common knowledge. But of course you are an objective observer.

Surprise surprise, not!!!

First you hold up an ombudsman's report as evidence. Now you are asking me to prove that it is not evidence, a slippery worm you are, but you can not fool anyone with your evasive maneuvers. 

The ombudsman's only opines as to whether a charge is justified or not. It cannot be used as evidence in a court of law to convict an accused. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

From where did you get this information about standards of the ombudsman's report? It seems that every accusation against the Rat is biased despite overwhelming evidence and common knowledge. But of course you are an objective observer.

Surprise surprise, not!!!

First you hold up an ombudsman's report as evidence. Now you are asking me to prove that it is not evidence, a slippery worm you are, but you can not fool anyone with your evasive maneuvers. 

The ombudsman's only opines as to whether a charge is justified or not. It cannot be used as evidence in a court of law to convict an accused. 

What??? As said before, the ombudsman conducted an objective investigation based on the evidence. Bear in mind, the managers of NBS were cleared of any wrongdoing long before the ombudsman got involved, long before the government changed hands. It seems that every accusation against the Rat is biased despite overwhelming evidence and common knowledge. But of course you are an objective observer.

antabanta posted:

What??? As said before, the ombudsman conducted an objective investigation based on the evidence. Bear in mind, the managers of NBS were cleared of any wrongdoing long before the ombudsman got involved, long before the government changed hands. It seems that every accusation against the Rat is biased despite overwhelming evidence and common knowledge. But of course you are an objective observer.

Tell us the methodology of this investigation. Who were the investigators? Was it the police or foreign body? Who did they question and what evidence did they gather? Was it ratified in a court of law or some back office over two banks beer and cigarette? I am sorry for your loss in this matter, however I don't believe any of these folks are innocent, power of attorney fraud is too prevalent to let this one slide. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

What??? As said before, the ombudsman conducted an objective investigation based on the evidence. Bear in mind, the managers of NBS were cleared of any wrongdoing long before the ombudsman got involved, long before the government changed hands. It seems that every accusation against the Rat is biased despite overwhelming evidence and common knowledge. But of course you are an objective observer.

Tell us the methodology of this investigation. Who were the investigators? Was it the police or foreign body? Who did they question and what evidence did they gather? Was it ratified in a court of law or some back office over two banks beer and cigarette? I am sorry for your loss in this matter, however I don't believe any of these folks are innocent, power of attorney fraud is too prevalent to let this one slide. 

All those questions are answered in the report which you have no interest in. What loss? On what is your belief based? A grown man should not enter into a discussion and just spew words and phrases without substance just for emotional effect. From where did you come up with the idea of two banks and a cigarette? Is that how the Rat does things in Guyana?

antabanta posted:

All those questions are answered in the report which you have no interest in. What loss? On what is your belief based? A grown man should not enter into a discussion and just spew words and phrases without substance just for emotional effect. From where did you come up with the idea of two banks and a cigarette? Is that how the Rat does things in Guyana?

You continue to be evasive, please see below and answer the questions.

Tell us the methodology of this investigation. Who were the investigators? Was it the police or foreign body? Who did they question and what evidence did they gather? Was it ratified in a court of law or some back office over two banks beer and cigarette?

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

All those questions are answered in the report which you have no interest in. What loss? On what is your belief based? A grown man should not enter into a discussion and just spew words and phrases without substance just for emotional effect. From where did you come up with the idea of two banks and a cigarette? Is that how the Rat does things in Guyana?

You continue to be evasive, please see below and answer the questions.

Tell us the methodology of this investigation. Who were the investigators? Was it the police or foreign body? Who did they question and what evidence did they gather? Was it ratified in a court of law or some back office over two banks beer and cigarette?

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

All those questions are answered in the report which you have no interest in. What loss? On what is your belief based? A grown man should not enter into a discussion and just spew words and phrases without substance just for emotional effect. From where did you come up with the idea of two banks and a cigarette? Is that how the Rat does things in Guyana?

You continue to be evasive, please see below and answer the questions.

Tell us the methodology of this investigation. Who were the investigators? Was it the police or foreign body? Who did they question and what evidence did they gather? Was it ratified in a court of law or some back office over two banks beer and cigarette?

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

I can assure you that your comment about two beers and a cigarette might get a laugh or two but does a great job of illustrating your ignorance.

Bai Druggie nah worry with anta..thats not true, you didnt even had to say that...we,ve been convinced long time now.

Druggie running around in circles braying and farting. LHM. 

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

Been there done that, just recently had to deal with those folks last year. I saw the underhandedness that goes on there and the opportunity for greasing hands. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

Been there done that, just recently had to deal with those folks last year. I saw the underhandedness that goes on there and the opportunity for greasing hands. 

Drugb running around in circles and trying to change the topic. Ok, name the jackass from NJ that swam across the Demerara River.  KN published the name Derick Rugbeer. heehaw.

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

Been there done that, just recently had to deal with those folks last year. I saw the underhandedness that goes on there and the opportunity for greasing hands. 

Dude use your noodle,

apparently you don't comprehend the functions of the Ombudsman of Guyana.

Do a search you will find the information,some hints below,Educate your self,Bibiski can't help you.

LAWS OF GUYANACHAPTER 19:04
OMBUDSMAN ACT

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

If you read the report, you would understand how ridiculous that statement is.

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

If you read the report, you would understand how ridiculous that statement is.

Answer the question instead of wiggling like a worm. What was the investigative methodology used to compile this report. Is this report a substitute for investigation by police and can it be used to convict or vindicate in a court of law?

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

If you read the report, you would understand how ridiculous that statement is.

Answer the question instead of wiggling like a worm. What was the investigative methodology used to compile this report. Is this report a substitute for investigation by police and can it be used to convict or vindicate in a court of law?

Read the report and stop embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Please read the ombudsman's report and stop embarrassing yourself. Do you know there is a deeds and registry office in Guyana?

A report based on hearsay and not thorough investigation that would stand up in court to convict or vindicate an accused. 

If you read the report, you would understand how ridiculous that statement is.

Answer the question instead of wiggling like a worm. What was the investigative methodology used to compile this report. Is this report a substitute for investigation by police and can it be used to convict or vindicate in a court of law?

Read the report and stop embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

He lacks comprehension and logics. Well, he is wired like a dankey.

antabanta posted:

Read the report and stop embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

Why should I waste time reading a report that has no credibility? I leave that to the unemployed and those who cry that they can't get a job because their reputation was smeared. 

Drugb posted:

antabanta posted:

Read the report and stop embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

Why should I waste time reading a report that has no credibility? I leave that to the unemployed and those who cry that they can't get a job because their reputation was smeared. 

Thank you. That explains your ignorance of the issue. I was wondering if you would have the courage to admit you don't know what you're talking about.