Any one watching ? what's your thoughts ?
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I believe that it is going to be thrown out for lack of merit. Just like the USA.
@Ramakant-P posted:I believe that it is going to be thrown out for lack of merit. Just like the USA.
Did you come to this conclusion from watching today's proceedings? If so, you are a superstar.
They are dealing with matters preliminary to the preliminary matters.
@Totaram posted:Did you come to this conclusion from watching today's proceedings? If so, you are a superstar.
Fantastic!
@Ramakant-P posted:Fantastic!
Fantastically chupid!
@Totaram posted:They are dealing with matters preliminary to the preliminary matters.
My take there will be a hearing of the Petition.
@Django posted:My take there will be a hearing of the Petition.
Agreed. The CJ was given an opportunity, although a cynical one, to dispose of the petitions and did not entertain it for a second.
Former Member
Interesting presentations on the development of the Case Management Conference.
One needs to eventually see/hear the detailed presentation on the issues, should the next step be a full court hearing.
Former Member
Proceedings just ended with interesting presentations by all parties.
When submissions presented by the scheduled time, next hearings will be later this week and early December, 2020.
Preliminary hearings on elections petitions to continue on Monday
-Robertson miffed at Nandlall application to strike out matter
November 25 ,2020
Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire SC
On Monday, November 30th, the High Court will proceed with hearing objections raised on the service of the petitions filed by APNU+AFC âthis time on former president David Granger who is among the listed respondents.
The Coalition has filed two petitions challenging the results of the March 2nd General and Regional elections which saw the Peopleâs Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) winning the seat of government.
The court had initially set yesterday for commencement of arguments on the preliminary issue of service which PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeoâs attorney, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes had argued was not properly effected on his client in accordance with prescribed rules and laws.
Mendes had previously raised this as a provisional issue, but did say that his positon could change after he would have been able to completely peruse all the documents filed in the matter.
He reported to the court yesterday that having done so, he no longer takes issue with service against Jagdeo, but points out that the service on Granger, who he argues is a necessary party to the proceedings, had not been properly effected.
Though the service on Jagdeo is no longer in dispute, Mendes is contending that because Granger is a necessary party to the proceedings, late service on him can also result in both petitions being rendered a nullity.
The court will hear full arguments on this on November 30th.
Leave had previously been granted for submissions to be made on the issue of service which Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall SC had also been invited to submit.
When the matter was called yesterday before acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire SC, however, attorney Mayo Robertson who represents petitioners Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse in the second petition complained of Nandlall violating orders previously made by the court.
He said that instead of the AG only making submissions on the issue of service as the court had directed at its case management conference (CMC) on October 22nd, Nandlall went beyond and filed an application which he was not permitted either by the court, or according to law, to do.
Robertson took issue with the application filed by the AG seeking to strike out the petition filed by his clients. Robertsonâs contention is that Nandlall ought only to have made submissions and not file an entire notice of application (NOA) on this issue.
Robertson then asked the court to strike out Nandlallâs application asking for petition No.2 to be struck.
Declaring, however, that Nandlallâs application in no way adversely affects or prejudices any of the parties to the proceedings, the Chief Justice struck down the arguments advanced by Robertson.
She said that while indeed Nandlall had filed an application which he was not asked to do, the issue of service had already been laid before the court as a preliminary one to be addressed.
She said, too, that the points raised by Nandlall are also already before the court as issues to be canvassed and determined.
Robertson, however, held to his position that Nandlall had no right to file the NOA as it was in violation of the order of court and the law.
Justice George then pointed out to Robertson that he too had not rigidly followed previous orders she had made and that petitioners in both of the matters had relied on the very aspect and form of Rules he was rebuking Nandlall for having relied on.
Robertson apologized for his own violations of orders previously made by the Chief Justice, but sought to say that there was a distinction between that and Nandlall âgoing against the lawâ and filing the NOA.
In his submissions calling on the court to strike out the second petition, Nandlall argues that service of that petition had not been properly effected on either Jagdeo or Granger.
Mendes had argued that because Jagdeo was not served on time in accordance with prescribed rules, the petitions may themselves amount to a nullity. His argument is the same regarding service on Granger.
When the matter is called again next Monday at 9:30 the court will commence hearing arguments on the issue of service.
Thomasâs and Nurseâs petition contends that the elections were unlawfully conducted and/or that the results, (if lawfully conducted), were affected or might have been affected by unlawful acts or omissions.
In the first petition, the Oppositionâthrough petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick â wants the court to determine among other things, questions regarding whether the elections have been lawfully conducted or whether the results have been, or may have been affected by any unlawful act or omission and in consequence thereof, whether the seats in the National Assembly have been lawfully allocated.
The results of a national recount of all ballots cast showed that it was the PPP/C which had won the elections with 233,336 votes over the 217,920 which the coalition managed to secure.
Hire Robertson if yuh ever in trouble
@Django posted:Any one watching ? what's your thoughts ?
The case has no footing to stand on.
Grainger loosing it....he wants to be president but doesnât want to be part of the process...
Attachments
Images (1)
Decision by Judge on January 18 ,2021 at 1.30 PM
David Granger claims he signed the wrong date on the election petition. Everything is wrong with him and the people under him. Let's remember the election saga with the honest interlocutors. 
@Viper posted:David Granger claims he signed the wrong date on the election petition.
Everything is wrong with him and the people under him. Let's remember the election saga with the honest interlocutors.
Did he ?
@Django posted:Did he ?
Yes. it was in another article but I didn't want to post the whole thing.
@Viper posted:Yes. it was in another article but I didn't want to post the whole thing.
Well the person who delivered the documents to him , after realizing the proof of service was not signed on the said day ,went back few days after for a signature not paying attention of the date when the proof of serving was signed.
CJ to rule January 18 on fate of election petitions
December 2,2020
On January 18th acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire SC will deliver her ruling on whether the two election petitions filed by A Part-nership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) will be thrown out or not.
The judge made the announcement following the conclusion of arguments yesterday morning.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioners in both matters, Trinidadian senior counsel John Jeremie said that contrary to arguments made by the attorney general and attorney for PPP/C General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo, service of the petition was effected within time and so the petitions should not be dismissed.
He contended, too, that former president David Granger is not a necessary party to the petitions and so they cannot be thrown out even if service was effected on him out of timeâthough Jeremieâs contention is that Granger was served on time.
The main opposition coalition has filed two petitions challenging the results of the March 2nd General and Regional elections which saw the Peopleâs Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) winning the seat of government.
Jagdeoâs lawyer Douglas Mendes SC of Trinidad has argued that because the second petition was served late on Granger whom he contends is a key party to the proceedings in both matters, both petitions ought to be thrown own.
He has also taken issue with the manner of service on Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfiled who is also a respondent in the matters.
Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall shares Mendesâ contentions.
During his submissions yesterday, Jeremie argued that both Granger and Lowenfield were served within the prescribed time while crediting what he described as the âconfusionâ with the date of service to clerical errors.
Against this background he urged the court to rely on the affidavit of service on which he said the correct dates have been annotated as the evidence of service, and not the return-of-service document.
This prompted the Chief Justice to enquire from Jeremie whether it was not standard procedure to examine all the relevant documents as a wholeâthat is, both the affidavit of service and accompanying exhibits such as the return-of-service.
Jeremie advanced that in accordance with Rule 9 (5) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules, the law requires the affidavit to be used as evidence of service and not the document acknowledging service.
Jeremie said that in accordance with the Rules, the affidavit of service requires the manner and time of service to be stated, and that the âun-contradictedâ evidence before the court shows that this was complied with.
He said that the affidavit of service is the statutory document required to establish evidence of service and it is the contents therein on which the court must rely and not any other exhibit/document accompanying it.
Jeremie submitted that if there is a contradiction as regards the evidence, then the court must treat the exhibits as being subjected to what is contained in the actual affidavit.
The Chief Justice observed that on important issues such as those connected with an elections petition, accuracy of the dates recorded is of paramount importance. Jeremie concurred, but pointed out that human errors are sometimes made.
Also making submissions yesterday was attorney Mayo Robertsonâone of the battery of lawyers representing the petitioners in the second petition.
He sought to add to Jeremieâs arguments that Lowenfield had been properly served.
Robertson said that in relation to the CEO, it is proved that service had been effected on him within the required five-day period and so there is no issue of the effect of defective service on Lowenfield.
The lawyer said that the issue is whether the person would have been served within the five days and that in this case Lowenfield was so served. He said that what the court ought to be concerned with is the fact that service was carried out, and not the form it took in relation to that effected on the CEO.
Also making a presentation was the Attorney General who took issue with the petitionersâ non-explanation as to why they listed Granger as a respondent in their action when their contention now is that he is not key to the cases.
Nandlall contends that the petitioners cannot now just simply say that Granger was wrongly named.
On this point he argued that having made the former president a respondent, counsel for the petitioners ought to have been aware of the ramifications of that and what is required by Section 4 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.
On this issue of service, Nandlall said that having examined the record presented by the petitioners, it contains several inconsistencies which they (the respondents) are entitled to note, even as he argued that Jeremie has not advanced satisfactory explanations worthy of merit regarding the contentions raised on service.
According to Nandlall, even the subsequent affidavits filed by the petitioners in their attempt to âexplain awayâ the inconsistencies, are themselves fraught with inconsistencies. He said that based upon their record presented, it is defective and contravenes the Rules.
The AG said that the petitioners have failed dreadfully to explain away the deficiencies.
During his presentation on Monday, Mendes said that Granger as representative of the list of candidates presented for the elections by the APNU+AFC is a key party and cannot oust himself.
He then referenced Section 27 of the Act under which Granger issued the notice of his intention not to oppose the petition, stating that it speaks presumptively to respondents who are proper and necessary parties.
Mendesâ argument is that because Granger is a necessary party to the two petitions late service of the requisite documents on Granger is fatal to both petitions and they must therefore be thrown out.
Attorney Basil Williams SC who represents Granger, however, refutes that he is key to the proceedings stating further that they will abide by whatever ruling the court makes.
In the first petition, the Oppositionâthrough petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick â wants the court to determine among other things, questions regarding whether the elections have been lawfully conducted or whether the results have been, or may have been affected by any unlawful act or omission and in consequence thereof, whether the seats in the National Assembly have been lawfully allocated.
In the second petition, petitioners Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse are contending that the elections were unlawfully conducted and/or that the results, (if lawfully conducted), were affected or might have been affected by unlawful acts or omissions; but nonetheless argue that from those polls it is Granger who should be declared the duly-elected President of Guyana.
They are seeking to have the court nullify the outcome and to declare President Irfaan Ali to be illegally holding office.
The results of a national recount of all ballots cast showed that it was the PPP/C which had won the elections with 233,336 votes over the 217,920 which the coalition managed to secure.
Quite interesting one of my post here is Breaking News on Topic for discussion on another forum by a poorly educated individual ,who depends on others for an explanation. Damn there are live videos of the proceedings ,even that can't help the individual.
Poor fella ,still have an axe to grind ,not a day go by something have to be said.
Why are Nandlall, Mendes and others desperately trying to get the petitions thrown out on technicalities? Are they afraid to deal with the substance of the cases? Why would a judge throw out a petition because of a dispute over when a document was served on someone who doesn't even want to be involved in the case?
@Totaram posted:Why are Nandlall, Mendes and others desperately trying to get the petitions thrown out on technicalities? Are they afraid to deal with the substance of the cases? Why would a judge throw out a petition because of a dispute over when a document was served on someone who doesn't even want to be involved in the case?
I guess itâs the same reason why the PNC afraid to this day show their winning SOPs...
@sachin_05 posted:I guess itâs the same reason why the PNC afraid to this day show their winning SOPs...
No, it is not the same reason. I have explained the basis of the petitions to you before but you keep talking about SOPs. That's not what the petitions are about.
@Django posted:Quite interesting one of my post here is Breaking News on Topic for discussion on another forum by a poorly educated individual ,who depends on others for an explanation. Damn there are live videos of the proceedings ,even that can't help the individual.
Poor fella ,still have an axe to grind ,not a day go by something have to be said.
See, I told ya you can't close down GNI because dem guys would run outta news and Po Ray would be all alone. I wonder how ma boy D2 holdin up with dem guys?
@cain posted:See, I told ya you can't close down GNI because dem guys would run outta news and Po Ray would be all alone. I wonder how ma boy D2 holdin up with dem guys?
Grudge and karma are really bad things, without a few drinks. But women look dem best wid El Dorado gold.
I guess Gilly gone, so has Kaz and D2, then let me see who else missing and probably gone over...I'll name em by their usual posts.
Lord Shit /Jim Jones
Lord Jail dem/Karma
Lord Negroes/Negroes
Lord Solfish an bake/Javex Bleach
Lord Picthalikeapictha/Lend maHandle
Lady Lie/Lieagain
So who did I miss?
Basement cockroach aka Javex Bleach. 
Former Member
@cain posted:See, I told ya you can't close down GNI because dem guys would run outta news and Po Ray would be all alone. I wonder how ma boy D2 holdin up with dem guys?
IGH fled Backdam and all posts were deleted.
@Former Member posted:IGH fled Backdam and all posts were deleted.
What handle are you using at the Backdam?
@Former Member posted:IGH fled Backdam and all posts were deleted.
Sayyy what? Musta been a fight up. Since when posts are deleted,unless she asked, anyway, none ah my business.
@Totaram posted:Crank handle...
I did not hear those words for a long time. During the 1950's my Dad bought an arc welder from a company named Hobart in Ohio and it had to be manually cranked to start, with a CRANK HANDLE. That thing could break your arm with its kickback compression, if not careful.
Now that me think about it. Me wonda if the PPP got the kickback idea from our welder's CRANK HANDLE.
Ladies and gents - I fear the petition will go no where, or right back to the CCJ.
This entire process has taught me that politics and its game is no longer fair. Politicians are bought, and so are institutions that claim to show no prejudice. If one of the highest courts in the land - the US Supreme Court can be bought, you can bet your bottom dollar regional courts will be no different. As an attorney I myself am disillusioned of the profession. It is ripe of dishonest persons whose only purpose in life is to pillage and plunder.
Back to the polls we go in a few years, and even then I doubt we will elect a government for and by the people.
Forgive me for expressing such disdain.
@Rochelle posted:Ladies and gents - I fear the petition will go no where, or right back to the CCJ.
This entire process has taught me that politics and its game is no longer fair. Politicians are bought, and so are institutions that claim to show no prejudice. If one of the highest courts in the land - the US Supreme Court can be bought, you can bet your bottom dollar regional courts will be no different. As an attorney I myself am disillusioned of the profession. It is ripe of dishonest persons whose only purpose in life is to pillage and plunder.
Back to the polls we go in a few years, and even then I doubt we will elect a government for and by the people.
Forgive me for expressing such disdain.
Very thoughtful and constructive.
@Totaram posted:No, it is not the same reason. I have explained the basis of the petitions to you before but you keep talking about SOPs. That's not what the petitions are about.
This is how this would play out.
Court adjourned...
Judge: order.. this court is now in session...this petition is about the PNC claim that the PPP rigged the 2020 election. Attorney for the parties, present your evidence.
Nandlall: your honor I hereby submit into evidence SOPs that is witnessed and signed by all contesting parties, local and international observers and GECOM returning officers, tally shows the PPP as victorious. Subsequent recount witness by caricom team also matches our SOPs.
judge: Attorney for the APNU/AFC present your evidence to show this court that the election was rigged by the PPP.
Basil: your honor we will need wan kyard bode bax and wan bed sheet fuh Lolobai and Mingo fuh mek dis hay presentation.....lolololol[maniacal laughter]
@sachin_05 posted:This is how this would play out.
Court adjourned...
Judge: order.. this court is now in session...this petition is about the PNC claim that the PPP rigged the 2020 election. Attorney for the parties, present your evidence.Nandlall: your honor I hereby submit into evidence SOPs that is witnessed and signed by all contesting parties, local and international observers and GECOM returning officers, tally shows the PPP as victorious. Subsequent recount witness by caricom team also matches our SOPs.
judge: Attorney for the APNU/AFC present your evidence to show this court that the election was rigged by the PPP.
Basil: your honor we will need wan kyard bode bax and wan bed sheet fuh Lolobai and Mingo fuh mek dis hay presentation.....lolololol[maniacal laughter]
Another PPP mad man. Gwan daside an bray.
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
320 online (1 member
/
319 guests)