Madame " Lawyer"  I hope you are around after APNU is out of government ( we will see). I am not a lawyer, and will wait for the CCJ ruling, there are hundreds of bicycle lawyer going around with their own views and, it has been proven on numerous occasion you err. 

I found this: A valid vote is a vote which is cast in an election which bears the official mark and where the intention of the voter (in terms of who he or she is voting for) is clear. This applies also for the recount of votes cast and is provided for in the law.
The valid votes for the 2nd March have already been determined. It was first determined by the Presiding Officer at the polling stations when the votes were counted. This is accordance with the law. The Representation of the People Act at Section 83 (4) states: “The decision of the presiding officer as to the validity or otherwise of a ballot paper shall be final, subject to review by the returning officer.”
The results of the Recount mimicked the processes used at the place of poll. Votes are deemed valid in a recount so long as they bear the official marks and are marked for a list of candidates. This is provided for under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act. The results of the recount as certified on the Statements of Recount (SORs) and as tabulated by the Returning Officers constitute the record of the valid votes cast. The Chief Elections Officer has already submitted matrices of the valid votes cast to the Commission. He is thus obligated to declare the Recount results as the valid votes, as provided for in the law.

@Former Member posted:

Madame " Lawyer"  I hope you are around after APNU is out of government ( we will see). I am not a lawyer, and will wait for the CCJ ruling, there are hundreds of bicycle lawyer going around with their own views and, it has been proven on numerous occasion you err. 

I found this: A valid vote is a vote which is cast in an election which bears the official mark and where the intention of the voter (in terms of who he or she is voting for) is clear. This applies also for the recount of votes cast and is provided for in the law.
The valid votes for the 2nd March have already been determined. It was first determined by the Presiding Officer at the polling stations when the votes were counted. This is accordance with the law. The Representation of the People Act at Section 83 (4) states: “The decision of the presiding officer as to the validity or otherwise of a ballot paper shall be final, subject to review by the returning officer.”
The results of the Recount mimicked the processes used at the place of poll. Votes are deemed valid in a recount so long as they bear the official marks and are marked for a list of candidates. This is provided for under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act. The results of the recount as certified on the Statements of Recount (SORs) and as tabulated by the Returning Officers constitute the record of the valid votes cast. The Chief Elections Officer has already submitted matrices of the valid votes cast to the Commission. He is thus obligated to declare the Recount results as the valid votes, as provided for in the law.

I am not a lawyer either but I have ready access to very good lawyers and I understand that in common law countries like Guyana the law is determined by precedents.   The law on valid votes is currently as defined by the CoA.  If as expected the CCJ decides it doesn't have jurisdiction or if it upholds the CofA decision then that will be the extant law on valid votes.   They would have to be determined by both qualitative and quantitative measures, meaning the simple recount will not suffice.  

Fortunately, civilized societies do not follow your backwards logic.  

Bicycle Lawyers are dime a dozen

@Abu Jihad posted:

Fortunately, civilized societies do not follow your backwards logic.  

Are you too dense to understand common law? There is nothing backward about my logic.  it is not my fault if you don't understand how the law works.  I believe you live in English Canada, which follows the common law that you call backward logic. Go figure.   

@Nehru posted:

Bicycle Lawyers are dime a dozen

Yes, nuff a dem dey a Freedom House.  And, jackasses all ova de place believe dem.

The Jackasses who listen to Basil????????????

Who know dat song " Who is civilized and who is the Jackass"?? PPP won all the cases, logic will tell you who the JACKASS is, but the Jackasses too dumb to know that they can Bray!!!

@Nehru posted:

The Jackasses who listen to Basil????????????

Basil dey a Freedom House?

@Nehru posted:

Who know dat song " Who is civilized and who is the Jackass"?? PPP won all the cases, logic will tell you who the JACKASS is, but the Jackasses too dumb to know that they can Bray!!!

If the PPP won all the cases, why was there an appeal to the CCJ?  Now which jackass a bray?

I do not recall any election in Canada ( or anywhere else) was held up so that the definition of a vote could be changed to suite on party.

@Totaram posted:

Basil dey a Freedom House?

But many right here listen to him. Raise Al yuh hands!!

@Nehru posted:

But many right here listen to him. Raise Al yuh hands!!

Wey Ramakant dey--e raise e hand. All two hand.

@Totaram posted:

If the PPP won all the cases, why was there an appeal to the CCJ?  Now which jackass a bray?

You call that a Court? Yuh gat to be reallt dumb. Two animals against 1 human!!

You have money to bet the CCJ will insult Basil and PNC???

@Nehru posted:

You call that a Court? Yuh gat to be reallt dumb. Two animals against 1 human!!

Call it whatever you want...if the CCJ does not overturn that decision it will be the law of the land.

@Nehru posted:

Bicycle Lawyers are dime a dozen

What would you advise Guyanese if CCJ doesn't have  jurisdiction over Guyana election? 

If shit had wings BAM yuh would feel the impact!!

@Nehru posted:

If shit had wings BAM yuh would feel the impact!!

What would you advise Guyanese if CCJ doesn't have  jurisdiction over Guyana election? 

@Former Member posted:

What would you advise Guyanese if CCJ doesn't have  jurisdiction over Guyana election? 

To follow the Rule of Law. Which means Claudette Singh will have to make a decision, it is that simple BUT not to shit heads!!

@Nehru posted:

If shit had wings BAM yuh would feel the impact!!

Well there you have it--he has reverted to his comfort zone.  

@Nehru posted:

To follow the Rule of Law. Which means Claudette Singh will have to make a decision, it is that simple BUT not to shit heads!!

For Claudette Singh to follow the rule of law she will have to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal.  

For the record. GECOM is the only organization that can declare the election result. 

@Nehru posted:

You call that a Court? Yuh gat to be reallt dumb. Two animals against 1 human!!

How many times ,you have to be asked to temper your language ? It's getting a bit tiresome to keep asking the same over and over.

@Totaram posted:

For Claudette Singh to follow the rule of law she will have to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal.  

Are you capable of following any discussion? What decision can be given if they do not have jurisdiction?? Bicycle Lawyers please answer.

@Rochelle

What irregularities are you talking about ? Please do not tell me about dead people and migrants voting, and missing documents. If you are knowledgeable about voting in Guyana, it is improbable for dead people and migrants to vote. Missing documents are the sole responsibility of the Secretariat and NOT the Guyanese voting public. 

@Totaram

What is your definition of qualitative measures ? GECOM s definition are as follows. The voters’ names must be on the OLE. The voter must show identification or swear that he/she is the person on the folio. Only then the voter is given a stamped ballot paper to vote. The voter then sticks finger in ink. Note, all of this is witnessed by GECOM officials and party representatives. The vote is counted in the presence of the Presiding Officers, GECOM staff, party counting agents and observers . SOPs are created and signed by the Presiding Officers, party representatives and observers. It is the responsibility of the Presiding Officers to put the different envelopes and documents in the assigned boxes, NOT the voters.

Allegations  made on the Observation Sheets are only allegations and must be proven in a court of law. Lowenfield and GECOM has no power and authority to act on allegations.

Long Live Democracy.

There are marked differences between Laws/Statutes and Common Law..

1. Laws/Rules are made explicitly by a legislature and are the official statutes of a country.

2. Common Law is a group of unwritten laws based on precedents. Common Law is used in unusual situations where the outcome cannot be established by existing written rules of law or statutes.

@Nehru posted:

Are you capable of following any discussion? What decision can be given if they do not have jurisdiction?? Bicycle Lawyers please answer.

They already gave a decision that is being appealed to the CCJ.  I am understanding better how the PPP fool people like you.  You know, in blind man country one eye man a king.

@BGMAN posted:

@Rochelle

What irregularities are you talking about ? Please do not tell me about dead people and migrants voting, and missing documents. If you are knowledgeable about voting in Guyana, it is improbable for dead people and migrants to vote. Missing documents are the sole responsibility of the Secretariat and NOT the Guyanese voting public. 

@Totaram

What is your definition of qualitative measures ? GECOM s definition are as follows. The voters’ names must be on the OLE. The voter must show identification or swear that he/she is the person on the folio. Only then the voter is given a stamped ballot paper to vote. The voter then sticks finger in ink. Note, all of this is witnessed by GECOM officials and party representatives. The vote is counted in the presence of the Presiding Officers, GECOM staff, party counting agents and observers . SOPs are created and signed by the Presiding Officers, party representatives and observers. It is the responsibility of the Presiding Officers to put the different envelopes and documents in the assigned boxes, NOT the voters.

Allegations  made on the Observation Sheets are only allegations and must be proven in a court of law. Lowenfield and GECOM has no power and authority to act on allegations.

Long Live Democracy.

According to the CofA it is the Gazetted Order for the recount that will determine valid votes.  That Order addresses both qualitative and quantitative considerations.

@Former Member posted:

There are marked differences between Laws/Statutes and Common Law..

1. Laws/Rules are made explicitly by a legislature and are the official statutes of a country.

2. Common Law is a group of unwritten laws based on precedents. Common Law is used in unusual situations where the outcome cannot be established by existing written rules of law or statutes.

It not as simple as this.  We'll let lawyers grapple with it--they make good money confusing the general population.  

@Former Member posted:

Madame " Lawyer"  I hope you are around after APNU is out of government ( we will see). I am not a lawyer, and will wait for the CCJ ruling, there are hundreds of bicycle lawyer going around with their own views and, it has been proven on numerous occasion you err. 

I found this: A valid vote is a vote which is cast in an election which bears the official mark and where the intention of the voter (in terms of who he or she is voting for) is clear. This applies also for the recount of votes cast and is provided for in the law.
The valid votes for the 2nd March have already been determined. It was first determined by the Presiding Officer at the polling stations when the votes were counted. This is accordance with the law. The Representation of the People Act at Section 83 (4) states: “The decision of the presiding officer as to the validity or otherwise of a ballot paper shall be final, subject to review by the returning officer.”
The results of the Recount mimicked the processes used at the place of poll. Votes are deemed valid in a recount so long as they bear the official marks and are marked for a list of candidates. This is provided for under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act. The results of the recount as certified on the Statements of Recount (SORs) and as tabulated by the Returning Officers constitute the record of the valid votes cast. The Chief Elections Officer has already submitted matrices of the valid votes cast to the Commission. He is thus obligated to declare the Recount results as the valid votes, as provided for in the law.

The foregoing assumes that the voters authenticity has been established and were entitled to cast the ballots. The recount revealed that there were ballots cast that were not authentic. So one cannot simply go by the ballot appropriately marked and evidence of selection  of a valid party as legitimate voters. 

@Former Member posted:

There are marked differences between Laws/Statutes and Common Law..

1. Laws/Rules are made explicitly by a legislature and are the official statutes of a country.

2. Common Law is a group of unwritten laws based on precedents. Common Law is used in unusual situations where the outcome cannot be established by existing written rules of law or statutes.

Hope the PPP lawyers are paying attention to these marked differences that you so aptly stated.

@Former Member posted:

The foregoing assumes that the voters authenticity has been established and were entitled to cast the ballots. The recount revealed that there were ballots cast that were not authentic. So one cannot simply go by the ballot appropriately marked and evidence of selection  of a valid party as legitimate voters. 

 While the recount reveal ballots that were not authentic, it was a accusation. I have yet to see APNU’s proof of any fraud to support their baseless allegations.

1. Election irregularities do not equate to fraud. Fraud requires proof of an intentional deceptive act by someone - a mistake or negligence by an official is not enough.

2. What Mr Mingo did was fraud. It was an intentional deceptive act meant to steal an election. There is proof of this from the many witnesses who saw it and from the documents (Mingo’s made up numbers v. the statements of recount).

Below are snippets from the Caricom report.

@Former Member posted:

Love how the 115k votes that are not part of Lowenfield's final tally somehow translates to 115k votes invalidated.

Anyway, even Claudette Singh isn't signing on to this mess. 

See you at President Granger's swearing in ceremony.

Rochelle can't see past her nose.    Lowenfield is a crook and a thief. week after week he skimmed off the top and gave the Criminalistic party the most votes and called them valid votes, then claimed that the PPP votes are not valid.  They took over 100 days to count a few votes. They said that there would be big trouble if the PNC does not win.