Dave posted:
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:
 

Bhai Django, Like Kasz said, "If it's PPP it's fact; if it's PNC it's fool's gold".

Sometimes i think ,you guys need to open up little , just saying. In politics people need to hold their leaders feet to the fire ,not worshiping them.

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Django wutliss. He will never explicitly criticize the PNC or APNU or whatever they call themselves on any given day.

Django posted:
Dave posted:

Django, who has time to analyze those links . Charles Ramson, take the CCJ ruling and puts it in context.. it’s posted about.
The question is, did the brilliant lawyer said anything wrong- Djanjo 

One must not always take someone explanation as foolproof ,especially when information are available and accessible. By doing that , if the person erred you will run with it, learned that since my child hood days. One have to listen, analyze the information ,then he can see if the person erred or on target.

Saying who has the time to analyze ,are lazy bones ,they don't want to find out for themselves.

What big case did Ramson wins ,to make him a brilliant lawyer ? or is it the last name that rings the bell. You guys worship people too much.

You getting smarter by the mins bhai..

Why I must believe  your explanation over Ramson .. 

Now lets sort this out hay.. if you believe Ramson explanation is flaw, why didn't you provide a rebuttal .. instead of posting Links per links of a court judgement. 

Are you one of those " lazy bones" - you post a few links and disappear.

Since when a lawyer MUST win cases to make him brilliant .. WTF

Here is Ramson credentials 

As i said you guys worships people .One long post to show what ?  the only supporters i see does that crap are from the PPP. I have read the CCJ ruling and understand the contents clearly, don't need an explanation from any politicians.  As a matter of fact ,i explained one can used their time to read the ruling ,instead of having some one explained it to them.

Last edited by Django
Dave posted:
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:

Django, who has time to analyze those links . Charles Ramson, take the CCJ ruling and puts it in context.. it’s posted about.
The question is, did the brilliant lawyer said anything wrong- Djanjo 

One must not always take someone explanation as foolproof ,especially when information are available and accessible. By doing that , if the person erred you will run with it, learned that since my child hood days. One have to listen, analyze the information ,then he can see if the person erred or on target.

Saying who has the time to analyze ,are lazy bones ,they don't want to find out for themselves.

Bhai Django, Like Kasz said, "If it's PPP it's fact; if it's PNC it's fool's gold".

Sometimes i think ,you guys need to open up little , just saying. In politics people need to hold their leaders feet to the fire ,not worshiping them.

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

Django posted:

Lots of deflection from the intent of the thread , did the members of Congress said President Granger violate the Constitution ?

All one have to do is read  this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

The other links ,are details of the appeal.

 

Diplomats declare Guyana government in breach of constitution as first oil looms

 

(Reuters) - U.S. and European diplomats on Thursday declared Guyana's government in breach of the country's constitution until new elections are held and called on Guyanese President David Granger to "set an elections date immediately" or possibly face a cutoff of development funding.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mo...le/amp/idUSKBN1W42OG

Last edited by Dave
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

Well said Kaz. 

Dave posted:
Django posted:

Lots of deflection from the intent of the thread , did the members of Congress said President Granger violate the Constitution ?

All one have to do is read  this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

The other links ,are details of the appeal.

Diplomats declare Guyana government in breach of constitution as first oil looms

 

(Reuters) - U.S. and European diplomats on Thursday declared Guyana's government in breach of the country's constitution until new elections are held and called on Guyanese President David Granger to "set an elections date immediately" or possibly face a cutoff of development funding.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...-looms-idUSKBN1W42OG

September 19, 2019 / 2:18 PM / 5 months ago

Is that your rebuttal ? an article since last year , was any fund cut off ?

Last edited by Django
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

The two term Presidential limit to amend the the Constitution ,was not Jagdeo call ,get the facts correct.

Read this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

Then we can talk ,again on this matter.

Last edited by Django
Django posted:

Lots of deflection from the intent of the thread , did the members of Congress said President Granger violate the Constitution ?

All one have to do is read  this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

The other links ,are details of the appeal.

Here is what it say bai. Those are all ruling against the Coalition. Look how many people that fool Williams had to pay in court costs.

[9] In all the circumstances, the Court makes the following declarations and orders:

a) The provisions of Article 106(6) and (7) of the Constitution apply to a No Confidence motion; 

b) Thirty-three votes constitute a majority of the 65 member National Assembly; 

c) Mr Charrandas Persaud was ineligible to be elected to the Assembly by virtue of his citizenship of Canada but his vote on the motion of no confidence was valid; 

d) Nothing in the anti-defection regime established at Article 156(3) of the Constitution rendered Mr Persaud incapable of casting his vote on that motion in the manner in which he did; 

e) The National Assembly properly passed a motion of no confidence in the Government on 21 December 2018;

f) Upon the passage of this motion of no confidence in the Government, the clear provisions of Article 106 immediately became engaged;                                      

g) Costs are awarded to Mr Jagdeo and Mr Persaud respectively to be taxed if not agreed. In each case those costs are to be paid by the Attorney General. In the case of Mr Jagdeo those costs are certified fit for two counsel; and

h) Mr Ram is awarded 60% of his Costs to be taxed if not agreed. Those costs are to be paid by the Attorney General.
 

Here is also what the CCJ said about the caretaker government. Conditions they continue to violate even today.

By convention, the government is expected to behave during this interim period as a caretaker and so restrain the exercise of its legal authority. It is this caretaker or interim role that explains the three month deadline, in the first instance, that the Article lays down, in principle, for the holding of the fresh elections.
 

Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

Read this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

Then we can talk ,again on this matter.

I just responded to it. The CCJ bitchslapped the Coalition in that entire ruling.

ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

Read this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

Then we can talk ,again on this matter.

I just responded to it. The CCJ bitchslapped the Coalition in that entire ruling.

Read paragraph [ 5 ] and [ 7 ]

Last edited by Django

I believe the PNC executives must be laughing at Djanjo, what he is trying to do. 

The funny part of this was .. Django was the first one to post election in 3 months after the NCM, he went on to say not much work is need on the voters list , since the LGE finish a few months before this NCM .. all this is here in the archives. 

Django makes a 360 turn around after the government start their half plus one.. so Djanjo didn’t believe his own words what he posted on December 18 2018.

And tonight, this banna speaking 

One must not always take someone explanation as foolproof ,especially when information are available and accessible. By doing that , if the person erred you will run with it, learned that since my child hood days. One have to listen, analyze the information ,then he can see if the person erred or on target.

make up your mind Djanjo.. you are looking foolish with all this contradiction. 

Dave posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

Well said Kaz. 

I am really sorry for my brother Django because the burden that the PNC has placed on him is far greater than the burden placed on Jesus.

Dave posted:

I believe the PNC executives must be laughing at Djanjo, what he is trying to do. 

The funny part of this was .. Django was the first one to post election in 3 months after the NCM, he went on to say not much work is need on the voters list , since the LGE finish a few months before this NCM .. all this is here in the archives. 

Django makes a 360 turn around after the government start their half plus one.. so Djanjo didn’t believe his own words what he posted on December 18 2018.

And tonight, this banna speaking 

One must not always take someone explanation as foolproof ,especially when information are available and accessible. By doing that , if the person erred you will run with it, learned that since my child hood days. One have to listen, analyze the information ,then he can see if the person erred or on target.

make up your mind Djanjo.. you are looking foolish with all this contradiction. 

Just believe what you want, the discussion currently , did Granger violate the constitution ?

Read paragraph [ 5 ] and [ 7 ]  link to document 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

Last edited by Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

So why you didn’t hold Ganger feet to the fire ... you playing you Rass nah . 

Granger is a decent leader ,not like the rabble rouser shooting bullcrap to look impressive.

How is Granger a decent leader when he violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years?

Secondly, prior to Jagdeo becoming President, the constitution did not limit the President to only two terms. Jagdeo as President amended it so that a President can serve for only two terms. Given that Granger violated the constitution at least three times in the past 4+ years, it is reasonable to conclude that had he been President in 2000 rather than Jagdeo that constitution would still be allowing Presidents to serve more than two terms.  There is nothing decent about Granger. He is not even as decent as Jagdeo who NEVER violated the constitution.

Read this 2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf

Then we can talk ,again on this matter.

I just responded to it. The CCJ bitchslapped the Coalition in that entire ruling.

Read paragraph [ 5 ] and [ 7 ]

There is nothing in article relieving Granger from any responsibility pertaining to the constitutional demands in light of the NCV. Even GECOM was placed on notice about their responsibility pertaining to the demands of the constitution in light of the NCV. But look how the CCJ solidified their ruling in article 6. Nothing of favor for the Coalition my brother.

[5] The judiciary interprets the Constitution. But, as we intimated in our earlier judgment, these particular provisions require no gloss on the part of the Court in order to render them intelligible and workable. Their meaning is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them. Upon the passage of a vote of no confidence, the Article requires the resignation of the Cabinet including the President. The Article goes on to state, among other things, that notwithstanding such resignation, the Government shall remain in office and that an election shall be held β€œwithin three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine …” The Guyana Elections Commission (β€œGECOM”) has the responsibility to conduct that election and GECOM too must abide by the provisions of the Constitution.
 
[6] Given the passage of the no confidence motion on 21 December 2018, a general election should have been held in Guyana by 21 March 2019 unless a two thirds majority in the National Assembly had resolved to extend that period. The National Assembly is yet to extend the period. The filing of the court proceedings in January challenging the validity of the no confidence vote effectively placed matters on pause, but this Court rendered its decision on 18 June 2019. There is no appeal from that judgment. 
 

Article 7 doesn't favor the Coalition either. But why you cherry picking when even cherry picking doesn't favor the Coalition. This entire ruling was against the Coalition. Just like the one from June 18, 2019. That one clearly reprimanded Granger for violating the constitution and even after that, he and his wicked party started a campaign assailing the CCJ rather than follow the law as required by decent people. And you still suggesting that Granger is a decent leader bai? 

Kaz ,why did you not present paragraph 7, any way here it is.

[7] Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in GECOM),responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held.

It would not therefore be right for the Court, by the issuance of coercive orders or detailed directives, to presume to instruct these bodies on how they must act and thereby pre-empt the performance by them of their constitutional responsibilities. It is not, for example, the role of the Court to establish a date on or by which the elections must be held, or to lay down timelines and deadlines that, in principle,are the preserve of political actors guided by constitutional imperatives.

The Court must assume that these bodies and personages will exercise their responsibilities with integrity and in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution bearing in mind that the no confidence motion was validly passed as long ago as 21 December 2018.

Last edited by Django
ksazma posted:

Article 7 doesn't favor the Coalition either. But why you cherry picking when even cherry picking doesn't favor the Coalition. This entire ruling was against the Coalition. Just like the one from June 18, 2019. That one clearly reprimanded Granger for violating the constitution and even after that, he and his wicked party started a campaign assailing the CCJ rather than follow the law as required by decent people. And you still suggesting that Granger is a decent leader bai? 

You skipped it ,any way it's posted.

Django posted:

Kaz ,why did you not present paragraph 7, any way here it is

 

[7] Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in GECOM),responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held.

It would not therefore be right for the Court, by the issuance of coercive orders or detailed directives, to presume to instruct these bodies on how they must act and thereby pre-empt the performance by them of their constitutional responsibilities. It is not, for example, the role of the Court to establish a date on or by which the elections must be held, or to lay down timelines and deadlines that, in principle,are the preserve of political actors guided by constitutional imperatives.

The Court must assume that these bodies and personages will exercise their responsibilities with integrityand in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution bearing in mind that the no confidence motion was validly passed as long ago as 21 December 2018.

It does not relieve the Coalition of any of their responsibility pertaining to the constitution in light of the NCV. The court simply stated that the political actors know what has to be done so they should do it. No win in this entire ruling for the Coalition bai.

ksazma posted:

It does not relieve the Coalition of any of their responsibility pertaining to the constitution in light of the NCV. The court simply stated that the political actors know what has to be done so they should do it.

No win in this entire ruling for the Coalition bai.

The discussion is not win, did President Granger violate the Constitution ?

Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Article 7 doesn't favor the Coalition either. But why you cherry picking when even cherry picking doesn't favor the Coalition. This entire ruling was against the Coalition. Just like the one from June 18, 2019. That one clearly reprimanded Granger for violating the constitution and even after that, he and his wicked party started a campaign assailing the CCJ rather than follow the law as required by decent people. And you still suggesting that Granger is a decent leader bai? 

You skipped it ,any way it's posted.

Not deliberately bai. It does not offer any relief for the Coalition. See the part that I bolded especially the part in yellow. The learned judges did not only state what article 106 states but also included their ruling regarding the NCV. That last sentence gave the entire meaning to article 7 of the CCJ ruling. The Judges did not deny the President's or GECOM's role but they reminded everyone that the effects of the NCV has to be honored at all costs.

Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in GECOM), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held. It would not therefore be right for the Court, by the issuance of coercive orders or detailed directives, to presume to instruct these bodies on how they must act and thereby pre-empt the performance by them of their constitutional responsibilities. It is not, for example, the role of the Court to establish a date on or by which the elections must be held, or to lay down timelines and deadlines that, in principle, are the preserve of political actors guided by constitutional imperatives. The Court must assume that these bodies and personages will exercise their responsibilities with integrity and in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution bearing in mind that the no confidence motion was validly passed as long ago as 21 December 2018.

Django posted:
ksazma posted:

It does not relieve the Coalition of any of their responsibility pertaining to the constitution in light of the NCV. The court simply stated that the political actors know what has to be done so they should do it.

No win in this entire ruling for the Coalition bai.

The discussion is not win, did President Granger violate the Constitution ?

Yes he did. At least three times in the past 4+ years. How did you think old man Patterson was sent packing?

ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

It does not relieve the Coalition of any of their responsibility pertaining to the constitution in light of the NCV. The court simply stated that the political actors know what has to be done so they should do it.

No win in this entire ruling for the Coalition bai.

The discussion is not win, did President Granger violate the Constitution ?

Yes he did. At least three times in the past 4+ years.

How did you think old man Patterson was sent packing?

That's your take ,for your justification , the ruling clearly defines what have to be done , from then to date ,there is no violation of the Constitution.

Now go and read Patterson judgement .

Last edited by Django

Everyone understood what was required by Granger and GECOM following the CCJ ruling on June 18, 2019 (Granger should have abided by his promise made on the night of December 21, 2018). I think that even the Coalition understood what was required but Granger and his group refused to follow the law. That is not a decent leader bai. Not even as decent as Jagdeo. Had everyone not understood what was required following the June 18, 2019 CCJ ruling, the EU, UK and US reprimand of September 19, 2019 would have been unnecessary.

ksazma posted:

Everyone understood what was required by Granger and GECOM following the CCJ ruling on June 18, 2019 (Granger should have abided by his promise made on the night of December 21, 2018). I think that even the Coalition understood what was required but Granger and his group refused to follow the law. That is not a decent leader bai. Not even as decent as Jagdeo. Had everyone not understood what was required following the June 18, 2019 CCJ ruling, the EU, UK and US reprimand of September 19, 2019 would have been unnecessary.

The reprimand was Diplomatic ,this thread intent is to show that US Ambassador change her mind as stated the Congressional team that visited Guyana.

Jagdeo is no comparison to the decency of Granger ,politically and privately.

By the way who really from the PPP running for president at the upcoming elections ? all we hearing is Jagdeo.

Last edited by Django