Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Conscience:
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ramsaroop:
Originally Posted by Conscience:

 

Again, this exposes the shameless nature of the PPP.  Any payment to a client is made to the lawyer, regardless of the terms of representation.  Moreover, this payment will be made publicly.

Ramjattan was yesterday 'privately' badgering the AG to release the cheque to him during a side discussion in the lobby of parliament.

 

The victim in this matter was apparently paid off and left the jurisdiction so my question to you is; why is Ramjattan who claimed to have offered his services pro bono still interested in obtaining this cheque?

 

Could it be that he has been instructed by his client to do so?

If that's the case why didn't Ramjattan urge his client who was absent on 17 occasions, causing the case to be dismissed, to go to court?

Did Ramjattan facilitate the 'paying off' of his client by the tow accused?

All that you have said here amounts to conjecture, which you yourself have made clear by the use of words such as "apparently" and "could it be", all framed as questions.  Nothing you have said negates the fact that it is the lawyer who is paid.  That Ramjattan is enquiring into the payment simply means he is doing his job on behalf of his client.

FM

 

All that you have said here amounts to conjecture, which you yourself have made clear by the use of words such as "apparently" and "could it be", all framed as questions.  Nothing you have said negates the fact that it is the lawyer who is paid.  That Ramjattan is enquiring into the payment simply means he is doing his job on behalf of his client.

This is a very good attempt at dodging pertinent questions Gerhard. And what job is Ramjattan doing on behalf of which client? Ramjattan is on record as claiming that he did not know the whereabouts of his 'client' Ger..

FM
Originally Posted by Conscience:

 

All that you have said here amounts to conjecture, which you yourself have made clear by the use of words such as "apparently" and "could it be", all framed as questions.  Nothing you have said negates the fact that it is the lawyer who is paid.  That Ramjattan is enquiring into the payment simply means he is doing his job on behalf of his client.

This is a very good attempt at dodging pertinent questions Gerhard. And what job is Ramjattan doing on behalf of which client? Ramjattan is on record as claiming that he did not know the whereabouts of his 'client' Ger..

Even if that is the case, wouldn't the public handing over the cheque serve as an incentive for the client to come forward?  Yes?  No?

 

Moreover, the cheque being deposited would earn interest for the client as well, if he takes long to show up.  The Gov't holding on to it only symbolises their badmindedness.

FM
The PPP did a lot better at robbing the public hence the minority status of their gov't. Now they begging for snap elections. They should just snap out of their bad, wrongdoing habits and let the deserving Guyanese people breathe some fresh air for once. Give fairness a chance. Or is that too much to ask for? Do you really want to go down this road? Does Fip etc. ring a bell. You barefaced scamps. Originally Posted by Nehru:

I have to agree, GR is SHAMELESS to the point of no return. Guyanese beware of these Snakeoil Salesmen. All they want  to do is ROB the Guyanese people!!!

 

FM
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ramsaroop:
Originally Posted by Conscience:

 

Even if that is the case, wouldn't the public handing over the cheque serve as an incentive for the client to come forward?  Yes?  No?

 

Moreover, the cheque being deposited would earn interest for the client as well, if he takes long to show up.  The Gov't holding on to it only symbolises their badmindedness.

Using your own words "All that you have said here amounts to conjecture".

 

The known facts are:

 

1. The criminal case involving the tortured teen was dismissed after he failed to show up in court on 17 occasions. Ramjattan claimed then to be unaware of his clients' whereabouts

 

2. Yesterday this very Ramjattan was badgering the AG to have the$6M judgement obtained in the civil suit handed over to him

 

Which when examined questions his reasons for making such a request

FM
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Originally Posted by Conscience:

 

 

2. Yesterday this very Ramjattan was badgering the AG to have the$6M judgement obtained in the civil suit handed over to him

 

Which when examined questions his reasons for making such a request

Albert, Ramjattan wants the money to fix up your Monkey Mountain.

Mitwah
Originally Posted by Nehru:

The more I look at this Video the more I get sick in my stomach. Is Ramjattan a Lawyer really?? Is he the Guyana Gambino Head. Is this the man wanted to be President of Guyana??? SHAMELESS Piece of CRAP!!! Is this the bareface thief talking about transparency and accountable??? Give me a friggin break!!!!!

Nehru,

  After looking at that 7.20  minutes of  video,  I sincerely doubt that any sane,  honest and  reasonable  person would  conclude  that  there  was any wrong doing on the  part  of  the Attorney  involved. As such, it is  my reasoned  judgement, that your 'outrage' and  ' sick  in  my stomach'  denunciation  is perhaps on par with   a Lombard street   hooker  denouncing prostitution and extolling the  virtue of  her chastity.

FM
Originally Posted by Mara:
Originally Posted by Nehru:

The more I look at this Video the more I get sick in my stomach. Is Ramjattan a Lawyer really?? Is he the Guyana Gambino Head. Is this the man wanted to be President of Guyana??? SHAMELESS Piece of CRAP!!! Is this the bareface thief talking about transparency and accountable??? Give me a friggin break!!!!!

Nehru,

  After looking at that 7.20  minutes of  video,  I sincerely doubt that any sane,  honest and  reasonable  person would  conclude  that  there  was any wrong doing on the  part  of  the Attorney  involved. As such, it is  my reasoned  judgement, that your 'outrage' and  ' sick  in  my stomach'  denunciation  is perhaps on par with   a Lombard street   hooker  denouncing prostitution and extolling the  virtue of  her chastity.

Uncle Mara, you patkay de man deh 

FM
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ramsaroop:
Originally Posted by Mara:

 Nehru,

  After looking at that 7.20  minutes of  video,  I sincerely doubt that any sane,  honest and  reasonable  person would  conclude  that  there  was any wrong doing on the  part  of  the Attorney  involved. As such, it is  my reasoned  judgement, that your 'outrage' and  ' sick  in  my stomach'  denunciation  is perhaps on par with   a Lombard street   hooker  denouncing prostitution and extolling the  virtue of  her chastity.

Uncle Mara, you patkay de man deh 

Not exactly  a patkay,  but  just a  little hoonch  in de  backside   

FM
Originally Posted by Mara:
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ramsaroop:
Originally Posted by Mara:

 Nehru,

  After looking at that 7.20  minutes of  video,  I sincerely doubt that any sane,  honest and  reasonable  person would  conclude  that  there  was any wrong doing on the  part  of  the Attorney  involved. As such, it is  my reasoned  judgement, that your 'outrage' and  ' sick  in  my stomach'  denunciation  is perhaps on par with   a Lombard street   hooker  denouncing prostitution and extolling the  virtue of  her chastity.

Uncle Mara, you patkay de man deh 

Not exactly  a patkay,  but  just a  little hoonch  in de  backside   

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×