Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) president Reginald Armour SC and vice-president Gerry Brooks will need the support of their membership to keep their respective positions, as they attempt to stave off a vote of no confidence instigated by a faction that includes former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan SC and past and present UNC Senators Wayne Sturge, Gerald Ramdeen and Robin Montano.
The fate of Armour and Brooks will be decided at a special general meeting on Monday 25 July from 3pm at the Hall of Justice’s Convocation Hall at Knox Street, Port of Spain.
(Copyright Shaun Rambaran/forge.co.tt)
And, in his column today, prominent local attorney and former Independent Senator Martin Daly SC spoke dramatically about the stakes involved:
“The outcome of this meeting may determine the Association’s viability as an organisation with an influential voice on matters of pending legislation and civil liberties.”
The clash itself is, inescapably, a matter of partisan politics with either group pointing fingers at the other.
The dissenting attorneys argued that Armour and Brooks brought the legal body into disrepute by virtue of their interaction with Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi with regards to the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill.
The requisition, which was served to the LATT council on 30 June 2016, had two parts:
a) To call upon the President of the Law Association Mr Reginald Armour S.C. and the Vice President Mr Gerry Brooks to disclose to the members of the Law Association whether any substantive position was articulated to the Honourable Attorney General Mr Faris Al-Rawi, MP on behalf of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago regarding the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016 and if so what was articulated to the Honourable Attorney General? And if not, why not?
b) To move a motion for a vote of No Confidence in the President of the Law Association Mr Reginald Armour S.C. and the Vice President Mr Gerry Brooks for failing to consult with the membership of the Law Association to obtain its views on the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016 prior to meeting with the Honourable Attorney General being a Bill of grave public importance regarding the constitutional rights of citizens.
(Courtesy Baltimore Post Examiner)
The requisition had 30 bar numbers and signatures attached and Rule 23 of the First Schedule to the Legal Profession Act states that any 25 financial members of the LATT request a special general meeting, which the council must call within 30 days.
One of the signatories, Robin Montano, was not a financial member of the body, which brought the dissenting group down to 29.
On 5 July, five days after the requisition, Armour responded and suggested that part (a) of the group’s claim was flawed and frivolous:
“In meeting with the Attorney General in April 2016 on the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016, the President and the Vice President did so with the full authority and knowledge of the Council of the Law Association, so as to draw to the Attorney General’s attention the concerns of Council on the Bill.
“The President and Vice President immediately thereafter reported the details of this meeting with the Attorney General to the Council by email and over the course of two meetings held in April and May 2016. With the approval of Council, the President posted a report of that meeting on the website of the Law Association.
“This represents the normal convention and protocol of the Law Association and was the same approach adopted most recently on the Anti-Gang and Bail legislation.”
(Copyright Shaun Rambaran/forge.co.tt)
Two days later, the LATT took out an advertisement in the Trinidad Guardian newspaper which reproduced the requisition and listed all 30 signatories:
Robin Montano, Wayne Sturge, Alexia Romero, Joseph Sookoo, Danielle Rampersad, Kevin Lewis, Shirvani Ramkissoon, Abigail Roach-Thomas, Shanice Edwards, Adam Razack, Ravi Rajcoomar, Irshaad Ali, Indarjit Seuraj, Shivana Nath, Alisa Khan, Shivonne Francis, Collin Partap, Seana Baboolal, Jonathan Bhagan, Brent Hallpike, Devesh Ramdeo, Makeda Browne-Alfred, Jerry-Lee Ramkissoon-David, Jennifer Rogers, Alvin Pariagsingh, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Anand Ramlogan, Kent Samlal, Douglas Bayley and Gerald Ian Ramdeen.
Incidentally, Ravi Rajcoomar sat on the very Criminal Legislation Committee that helped craft the Law Association’s response to the SSA Bill, which Armour and Brooks took to Al-Rawi.
Rajcoomar abandoned the requisition on the very day of the Guardian advertisement and declared his “every confidence” in Brooks and Armour. The attorney, who claimed to be “somewhat surprised” at the no confidence motion, did not explain how his signature came to be attached to the document.
Four days later, seven more attorneys withdrew and claimed their signatures “were appended under a fundamental mistake or misapprehension on our part.” They also declared their trust and confidence in the LATT Council.
(Copyright Newsday)
Intriguingly, former People’s Partnership Minister in the Ministry of National Security and current legal advisor to the UNC, Collin Partap, was among this seven, which also included Alisa Khan, Shivana Nath, Irshaad Ali, Adam Razack, Shivonne Francis and Indarjit Seuraj. They gave a joint statement:
“We were under the impression that we were signing a petition requisitioning a meeting of the Law Association to discuss matters relating to the Strategic Services Agency (Amendment) Bill 2016.
“Regretfully, at that time, we were unaware of the full nature and background of the requisition and in the event, therefore, when we signed the signature sheet, we had no intention whatsoever to requisition a meeting to censure anyone, to call upon anyone to account for their actions and/or to move a vote of no confidence against anyone.”
By Friday 22 July, the number of back-pedalling attorneys had risen to 12 as Seana Baboolal, Brent Hallpike, Makeda Browne-Alfred and Jerry Lee Ramkissoon-David also withdrew.
On 19 July, the Law Association spelt out its position on its interaction with the PNM Attorney General in a detailed response to its members:
(Copyright Elections.TT)
- On 1 April 2016, the media first published information on the proposed SSA Bill. Three days later, Armour wrote to Al-Rawi—after obtaining a copy of the Bill from the Parliament’s website—and stated that the Law Association wished to comment on it. During that exchange, the LATT President learned that debate on the Bill would resume in the House of Representatives on 16 April, less than two weeks away.
- Armour co-opted Rajcoomar and attorney Rishi Dass who both articulated their concerns by 11 April, which were then discussed in a Council meeting on 12 April. The new Council, incidentally, had only been elected on 20 March 2016 and was not gazetted until 3 May.
- Armour and Brooks met with Al-Rawi on 13 April for a lengthy meeting. The Law Association president subsequently reported back to Council on 14 April and then officially on 10 May, which was the first meeting of the gazetted 30th Council.
On the eve of the special general meeting, there are just 17 attorneys left from the initial 30 dissenters, which would have been insufficient numbers to call the assembly in the first place. The attorneys who have not distanced themselves from the requisition are:
Wayne Sturge, Alexia Romero, Joseph Sookoo, Danielle Rampersad, Kevin Lewis, Shirvani Ramkissoon, Abigail Roach-Thomas, Shanice Edwards, Jonathan Bhagan, Devesh Ramdeo, Jennifer Rogers, Alvin Pariagsingh, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Anand Ramlogan, Kent Samlal, Douglas Bayley and Gerald Ian Ramdeen.
(Copyright Trinidad Guardian)
However, the threat to Armour and Brooks remains serious as, even if the claims against the president and vice-president are dismissed, the two attorneys could still be voted out, if Ramlogan and company turn up with enough numbers.
Fifty financial members constitute a quorum and it will take just a simple majority to remove Armour and Brooks.
One legal insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity, claimed that the Law Association—and, in particular, its president and vice-president—were being repeatedly harassed by the Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her UNC stalwarts. He claimed that the no confidence motion was part of an assault by the opposition party.
“It was dishonesty manipulated by partisan politics,” the legal source told Wired868. “From the moment Armour ran for the post [as Law Association president], he was constantly referred to as, by the Opposition Leader, as a former legal adviser to (Prime Minister Dr Keith) Rowley and business partner of Al Rawi and Brooks is repeatedly described as the ‘new Calder Hart’ in an effort to tarnish them.”
So are Armour and Brooks too close to the ruling government for comfort?
(Copyright NGC)
Armour was Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s lead attorney before he was elected LATT president. Three days later, he returned all his briefs for the PNM leader.
“I do not intend to allow partisan national politics to affect or to impact the Law Association,” said Armour, in a Guardian interview on 30 March 2015. “We are going to call a spade a spade and who the cap fits we will pull the string. I think it is important that we, myself and the council, make every effort that we can to put the stamp on the council and the Law Association as being non-partisan.
“I have been listening to people talking to me about the image of the Law Association and the need for the Law Association to re-establish itself, to command the public’s respect and I thought about (that).”
At present, Brooks sits on a half-dozen State boards though. Brooks also served as vice-president under former LATT president Jairam Seenath SC, who was criticised for supposedly being biased towards the then coalition People’s Partnership government.
Armour defeated Seenath by 323 votes to 106 on 20 March 2015.
The UNC, according to the source, sees the Law Association as a valuable potential weapon against the PNM Government.
(Courtesy News.Gov.TT)
“The Law Association is not out there commenting on everything because it needs to be doing work for its members,” said the source. “This is not a political pressure group. But the opposition wants lawyers out there criticising the government on the drop of a hat.”
Despite the exodus from the requisition, the LATT Council is said to remain cautious about tomorrow’s meeting and is calling on members to defend the sanctity of the body.
“Not all lawyers turn out for meetings because, for many, you are talking about taking an afternoon off to come to Port of Spain from San Fernando and so on,” said the source. “Maybe the withdrawals might lead people to say this meeting is a waste of time and they could stay away. And that might mean Ramlogan and Sturge and their people might come with enough numbers to push the vote through.
“They might feel they can mobilise people for political reason so they can win. A lot will depend on how many people [Armour and Brooks] can get out.”
Editor’s Note: The motion of no confidence against Law Association president Reginald Armour SC and vice-president Gerry Brooks failed.
“[…] Ever since she ran in 2015 on a leader-centric election marketing campaign that sold the virtues of Kamla The Read more
For some weeks this column had been focused on the good, the bad and the ugly of Carnival and its Read more
“A lawless, indisciplined and corrupt nation cannot fight crime.” Pastor Clive Dottin, The People’s Roundtable, January 2024. At The People’s Read more
“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” Milan Kundera, a Czech and French novelist, Read more
“[…] This feeling of always being uneducated influenced me when I became prime minister. There were always about 6,000 children Read more
“[…] Yes, Basdeo Panday was much kinder to certain individuals and organisations than PNM ever was or will be, but Read more
Replace Anand Ramlogan, Wayne Sturge, Gerald Ramdeen and Robin Montano with Leary Joseph, Peter Joseph, Sprangaland and Errol Fabien and, at least, a better group of comedians would be in place!
They have already been replaced by a bunch of jokets headed by the AG. I guess you dont mind that an institution such as the Law Ass is head by the PNM. What will be next, the Judiciary? Perhaps you will howl for joy if that happens. So much for ” independence “.
Bad choice! Can’t replace a thief with a comedian!! Lol!
So Lionel according to your jackass logic they should be controlled by skamla since you know they are independent but yet you claiming they are PNM
Nothing that anand ramlogan does could ever impress me again.He is a big crook.
Well this doesn’t look politically motivated at all…
Lol. He that hath eyes…
Let’s pretend that we don’t know they want to control the law association so there past indiscretions an present an future conduct don’t have consequences!!
Elephants about to fight, sorry for the grass …
People be weary of this diabolical plan
All an effort by Anand to stave off charges that may be coming his way. Perversion of justice at its best
Lord, is ignorance a plague in dis here country??? Sheesh
De law association cannot “stave off charges!”
And look at the three the most crooked lawyers in the country
So what ever became of Anand and the allegations of his perverting the course of justice! Irony of ironies!
Exactly
Former president Martin Daly TRIED TO RESTORE the public’s confidence by seeking to get rid of the ” bandits posing as attorneys ” but his efforts were short lived…………….as the clique ensured that he didn’t get a second term
The motion should about getting these PEN BANDITS to both UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT how much their PEN BANDITRY is ERODING peoples belief in the ” justice system ” resulting in more and more choosing to tale matters into their own hands !
UNC lawyers versus PNM lawyers. Rich versus the richer. What we doing in dat?
An important institution such as this should not be led by party hacks, whether they be PÑM or UNC. It is terrible that it is currently led by the PNM. They should be removed but only be replaced by apparent independent members.
Boy, go and audit their books.???
These people know how to hide their income good, good.
I can’t see the outright rejection of sturge anand robin and ramdeen political move as an indication that they are now PNM you real dotish to come here with your jackass logic
Paul, you seem not to understand what I wrote
Only in TandT a thief and conman could take center stage!!
dem fellas doh sleep in d night? All this maneuvering and gerrymandering…plus thriving law practices….dem doh have wife and children and ting?
Ahmm… Are you really speaking about Anand there? :-/ Lol
????
D devil does drag chain at night
True eh Kyon
Keep your eyes open citizens. These three male figures are going to try to affect this country, and I am sure it will not be in a positive way.
I believe the Law Association, if politicised, can be a cheap/free way for one political group to attack another in a manner that is almost impossible to ignore by the press and all under the cloak of independence.
The problem, even for the well-intentioned non partisan executive members of such boards, is that so much public confidence has already been lost in such bodies after the last five years.
Lasana once Anand is involved it’s certain there is political mischief in mind.
But this board has been politicised for a long time now..the last five years made it more apparent.
What about poor Robin Montano who tried to start a coup and wasn’t even financially up to date? Don’t laugh. Just now we might hear about that man selling a kidney on eBay or swinging on a pole in the Seaman or something.
If the LA becomes politicised then we would really need to ignore them as having lost all credibility or treat them as the political entity that they would have become. It is time for our journalists to ignore such organisations and people e.g. Sat.
But what gives them credibility now?
Let us see what the current council does. They may make comments on the actions of attorneys that increase people’s costs and the time for any trial. They may also deal with the excessive fees that have been paid without the requisite work being done. Lastly, they may deal with persons before them who should be disbarred. I live in hope.
I think I done with this one yes. I know that nothing of substance will come of this matter because Trinidad is wholly phony and now this topic isn’t even funny anymore.
The Law Association isn’t designed to publicly berate lawyers though. It is supposed to work for attorneys first. That might include explaining to its own membership the plus of being fair to public and operate in an ethical way.
But I don’t think it is reasonable to expect the Law Association to publicly attack attorneys. You might be thinking of a legal watchdog group there.
I wasn’t thinking of anything. I figured if their was a Law Association it would naturally have a function, but if it’s members don’t even know not to sign agreements without reading them that Law Association is clearly a waste of time.
Hah. Vernal, I am of the belief that incompetence is usually corruption in drag.
So who suppose to disbar lawyers?
It could be corruption in the nude, but if nothing is ever done about it why am I to bother?
The one way we can be sure of not having progress is to not bother eh. Literally anything but that MIGHT lead to a outcome.
But we are SURE not bothering won’t help. Lol
I agree completely Lasana, but I personally don’t get the impression enough Trinidadians care enough to demand improvements. Trinidadians care too much about Brexit, Black Lives Matter, Melania with the borrowed speech, Adolf Trump and police killings of African Americans to give two shits about Trinidad!
VDC comment applies to the TEDex post
Lol
This morning I saw in my newsfeed posts by Trinidadians about last night’s club shooting in Florida and all I could think was how many Trinidadians got sht to death last night, the night before or in the last week in Trinidad.
Not to mention the truth and information here hurts
A certain lawyer in the list who signed block me because years ago I said his letter to the papers which talked about killing bandits was nonsense
Trinidadians have among other things a serious identity crisis.
Kim kardashian life is more important here than our own lives
I’m just disgusted by it and I don’t feel like seeing it anymore.
Took you long enough Vernal, but I feel you was homesick ent?
I was hopeful for Trinidad, but I realize now the entire citizenry needs therapy!
Now I hope you don’t want to experience it
I will come home for carnival only, if I have to see people playing mas at least they’ll be dping so while in costume.
hahaha
You won’t fart on we but you will wine on we Vernal! Lol. I will put your poster on every music truck with a warning message! Haha
I take no pleasure in it you know?
It’s just that the level of interest in foreign matters shown by Trinis of late that impact us less directly than what occurs locally really began to distirb me.
It honestly looked like some sort of mass insanity.
It will begin again at 4PM when the Democratic National Convention kicks off!
Lol. Ignorance is a global phenomena though eh. Even though I agree that we have an identity crisis.
Maybe it is the fault of our local celebrities for not having exciting lives. Machel should beat up somebody else in Zen and we might be overdue a sex tape!
Lasana – I’m surprised to see you describe the Law Association as being different from a legal watchdog. This isn’t a club for lawyers. It is actually a corporate body enshrined in the Legal Profession Act. They are supposed to be the gatekeepers and the power to disbar Attorneys is vested in the Association. You are giving them a pass for not fulfilling their mandate. There is a written code of ethics that isn’t adhered to at present which I mentioned to you previously.
It seems that you all don’t fully appreciate how powerful this body should be and how badly it’s ineffectual nature is impacting the society.
Kendall, you mean how powerful IT IS
https://www.google.tt/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/alphabetical_list/lawspdfs/90.03.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi7o8utsI_OAhWKsh4KHaMoCn4QFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNHmtfPy48RK78G1JzGWdpN3JN8DwQ&sig2=CCNZkdPkWjkmajy29IATYw
No Savitri. Lasana made a specific statement that nobody clarified in this sub-thread that showed a lack of clarity on the role of the Law Association.
Or a lack of understanding?
Tull hit the nail on the head
And I said should be because it hasn’t been functioning as intended. It isn’t exercising its power.
Thanks for clarifying Kendall, but that only further reinforces my great sense of hopelessness in Trinidad’s future at present.
Every single institution in this republic is entirely ineffectual if not downright compromised by corruption, every watchdog group, every law enforcement body, everything meant to strengthen statehood is broken. These bodies all have two things in common, they are failures and they are made up of and run by Trinidadians.
Culturally we have a propensity for corruption that infects everything and until that’s addressed somehow I don’t know where we can go.
Kyon said earlier that when the Association failed to deal with persons who breached the Act, that allowed the current situation to evolve and I agree wholeheartedly. Even now with this power play, it isn’t that the current administration has been ruthlessly enforcing the rules to trigger this. So what’s the goal here? I cannot see the end game and that is worrying.
Hmmm – wondering if I said too much. Can I rescind my comments? Lol
Savitri Maharaj , he is correct depending on how you perceive their effectiveness, if one is trying to be sarcastic, it is, in reality, it isn’t…if it was, the two “DEENS” and && would have been history.
Pardon me Mervyn Skeete. Can you explain?
Simple, No need to go into detail, but if one can legally represent a deceased person two years after their demise, there is no way that could/would be justified, and if someone in a responsible position encourages corruption, perceived or real, those two situations warrant the attention of the Law Association. That’s my position.
And I agree with what you say..Im tying to see why you tagged my in the previous comment. I also agree with Kendall’s position..
Savitri Maharaj, I know, I have a fair idea how you feel about these things, that’s why in my post I said ” depending on how you perceived their effectiveness”..I interpreted your comment as being sarcastic, hence the reason for tagging you…no other reason.
You have a fair idea how I feel..ok Mervyn
Kendall, your point that the law association can debar errant attorneys is good.
But I said the law association isn’t designed to publicly berate lawyers. And should work for the benefit of attorneys first.
I ended by saying that a legal watchdog group might fulfill that role.
This is based on fact that it is a role voted on by attorneys. LATT is stronger than MATT which doesn’t have the power to discipline journalists.
But I think you have to explain to me why I was wrong to say its role isn’t primarily to berate attorneys or witch hunt.
MATT is a voluntary advocacy group. LATT is a creature of our constitution, enshrined in our laws. It is supposed to ensure the standard of conduct for lawyers and protect the public. It is the disciplinary body for lawyers not by choice but by law. It hasn’t discharged its responsibilities but that doesn’t take away its powers. Read the Act and you will see what I mean.
I understand that the motion was soundly defeated. Let’s see where we go from here.
Hope that makes it clearer Lasana.
Kendall Tull…if that is the case, shouldn’t it follow all attorneys should be financial members of the LATT?
For context Kendall, I was responding to a comment that the Law Association should essentially do more to call out and shame lawyers for things like high fees and so on.
If the Law Association was meant to act in such a manner, it would make sense if it was a body selected by the Chief Justice or the President. Not voted on by lawyers themselves.
I do take your point on the difference between MATT and LATT. And I did ask Reginald Armour specifically on the question as to what LATT does to reign in misbehaving attorneys. I will tag you.
You have to be a member to practice Nerisha. If you aren’t financial, I would imagine that your licence would be revoked.
Thanks Lasana. Fees isn’t an issue as there is a list of fees that covers quite a number services. For those not covered therein such as litigation, seniority plays the role in the fees.
Interested to see what he says Lasana. Good to note as well that there is a fee structure approved by LATT altho Im not sure of its mandatory.
LATT is derived from the UK experience Lasana. Implementation and execution of duties is the issue.
Savitri – I am told the fee structure is mandatory. It is an offence to deviate from it. Enforcement though…..
Thanks Kendall. Enforcement has always been our downfall but with ppl like && pushing the boundaries Im sure regulations will be tightened up
I am afraid that my faith in that isn’t what it used to be Savitri.
Lasana Liburd lemme see
The Disciplinary Committee of the LATT is appointed by the CJ “after consultation” with LATT
I know Kendall..being optimistic here. Tbh, I have a problem with Gerry Brooks in his role there as well. You are employed by the GORTT and VP of LATT?
I don’t see the issue with Gerry brooks
The past head of Latt had several govt briefs at the time
LATT is not an independent govt statutory commission
Obtaining briefs and being employed on 10 other Boards is a problem. Who’s interest will he represent at the Assoc discussions
?
It’s not parliament
Justin, who is authorised to propose names? The CJ or LATT?
Whose interest was some of those guys representing lol
And I should add recommendations
Kyon, the briefs held by the past LATT president was used as a suggestion that he was compromised by the government eh.
Lasana Liburd both, usually the LATT council suggest persons to the CJ though. There are qualifications- 10 years call, Pres and VP ( I think) must be members
Ok. Thanks.
Yes I knew but in relation to Savitri concerns I was showing The equivalence
Note one was corporate and the other was legal
So Kyon you seriously dont see a conflict of interest here?
Not in the corporate vs legal sense
I think the issue Kyon is whether they are being paid by the State or not. Not the type of services they were providing.
Well that’s my opinion
We live in a small society
There will always be overlap
We just have to identify which possible overlaps are not allowed
Allyuh really good yes
Savitri Maharaj If u are saying they are compromised then you are suggesting lawyers do not have clients
By the way what’s the role of the LATT that would be hampered
Jairam wasn’t really on my radar, so I can’t comment on the specifics of both cases. All I would say is we must hold all people to the same standards, regardless of party.
If we have a problem with Jairam being paid by the State while he sits on the Law Association Council, then we should have a problem with Brooks if he is being paid.
If it is that certain safeguards are put in place to protect the LATT and people are satisfied that they work without a whiff of bias, then fair enough.
But, clearly, political bias is an issue for the Law Association. In such an atmosphere, Brooks cannot reasonably expect not to be criticised.
Are we forgetting that these people are elected and not appointed?
Nope. Haven’t forgotten.
Too much lawerys and judges playing too politics in this country. ..
THIS is how “they” roll … http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/blog/?p=8195
Another set of foolishness
These people are god’s unto themselves but Pharaoh was great than them but look what happened to pharaoh
I dont think the petition will gather much traction. If they couldnt stop the election of someone whilst in Govt, its pretty certain that they wont be able to remove the President when not in Govt.
Some ppl have a very high threshold for foolishness and self embarrassment.
Democracy is Dead!
Been dead for a long time now
Now this is what the LA gets for not revoking the licences of certain unethical members
When Gd people do nuttin the bad keep rampaging
Maybe that is why there is this move now. Suppose the LA was going to act on some of its members? This is the way to stop that in its tracks.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaa; watch and learn; see the Master(s) in action
Wishing Anand away is not going to help
BET YUH HE DEEDS CATCHES UP WITH HIM GOD DONT LIKE UGLY OH PLEASE WHAT MASTER YOU TALKING BOUT THE GOATMAN
ROFLMAO! Yuh eh see he winning EVERY case? Or maybe yuh eh smart enough to see a
Misty Autumn Dey Winning what? dem fellas have snakes posing as independent judges and magistrates, who ruling in their favour, for race party and the mighty dollar. talk what yuh know. Doh feel dey smart, they are crooks, all of them.
And from d way you sounding, it seems as though you is ah crook too.
Allyuh does give allyuh mout plenty liberty, yes, oui! I talking bout what I KNOW – He winning all he cases
You could back up wha you saying? Is only one seta mischievous propaganda day in day out – with no FACTS (Dat foreign word, nah) to support
With respect to whether I am a crook as well? You apparently appear to know who de crooks are – yuh know dat saying: it takes one to know one? You do the math – if you are capable
Master of beating his wife and focking goat u mean… Look little u go and do your homework and get your facts right eh…
You an all on de propaganda train??? Bring your FACTS! I can
Why was he fired again?just asking–
Yeah he smart,dishonest,yes,but smart,as AG he create a law with loopholes,get fired,fight a case ,win using the loophole! unc type of smart!!
dat case still before de courts, eh! AND de chief witness done backing out – soooooo we will see, eh!!
He winning ALL he cases; yuh cud say wha yuh want
LOOKS LIKE THE TABLES TURNING MISTY GOD DONT LIKE UGLY YOU INCLUDED
Misty Autumn Dey http://wired868.com/2016/07/25/motion-squashed-anand-absent-sturge-and-ramdeen-capitulate-in-law-meeting/. Read that, yuh boys failed and all they succeded in doing is misleading 13 lawyers, CROOKS they are CROOKS I say.
Well,first time ,with great love,they are attempting to separate the sheepskins from the goats.
This have more drama than the CFU election
Well said.
If the Law Association’s members didn’t know what they were signing it means there is no point in having a law association.
Imagine hiring one of these idiots to fight your case. Do they still pay off judges?
So how they will ‘associate’ Verns?
Anand and purge…pure epsom salts!
Wrong, David! Not the laxative but what it produces!
Smh
See……..I knew I shouldn’t care!
Now you know why Woodford square used to be a place where the “educated” gathered to discuss high matters. I remember those days as a CIC boy who used to pass through the square back in the late 70s and early 80’s and just stand up listening to the reasoned arguments.
Vernal, you know this is not a real country right?
Yeah yeah…….ah know. Is all make believe!
Ahahahah Savitri you killing me
a scorched earth policy to gain ascendancy on important institutions to stifle any onward criticism ,the three principal actors having close ties to the former administration gives rise to suspicion that this is not a normal no confidence motion it is essentially a palace coup.will it backfire
that’s what the opposition is banking on, cause disruption and fool the people. lawyers fighting among themselves, crime versus white collar bandits in high offices . Is it the same?
the law association is not respected by the population they will be respected even less now
I’m not sure how much it matters one way or the other. Armor’s integrity is intact, and his knowledge well respected- but he may be hoping against hope here. If the latt takes any position that any political party doesn’t like the reaction would be 1. To call it political and 2. To get an opposite opinion from a legal luminary. Armor is too late- when the legitimacy of an institution is undermined, it can’t be rehabilitated without constitutional change. That was the point Rowley and I made about Sec 34. And it’s why we need to scrap the IC and many other institutions here. We’re far worse off than we know.
Really, Justin? Aren’t you overstating the case? Do you really think that the people who matter believe that Reggie is for sale? Look again the results of the election and see the size of the majority that elected him? Do you really think that in less than two years, most of these people have changed their opinion?
Frankly, I’m very sceptical about the validity of your claims.
but who is willing to make such changes when politics is in every thing. many of the institutions are non functional but when you attempt to touch it or seek reforms or event shutdown like the (IC) which has been discredited for so many reasons and serve no purpose, roadblocks and obstructions are placed. when will people stand up for what is right in this country and call a spade a spade.
Yes- precisely. Note that it doesn’t matter WHICH side undermines the legitimacy of an institution- if it’s politicized blamelessly, the job to rebuild still has to be done- which is why we should be far more outraged than we are when the efforts are made in the first place.
We have the same problem in the media with MATT. And as a former member there, I definitely wish Armour well with his efforts.
Part of the country’s problem is the gullibility of the electorate in any case. We will forever the sprinting in quicksand until the public better understands this game of politics.
I think my former Spanish teacher may have misunderstood my point. The point I tried to make is that notwithstanding his unblemished integrity, the Association has been undermined in the perception of the public. My point had nothing to do with Armour “being for sale”, as a matter of fact, I was careful to make the opposite clear.
I agree with you that the public has so little faith in these various bodies, particularly after the last five years.
But, to be fair, I fully grasp that it is not LATT’s job to be a pressure group.
this is the problem, who wants to stand up for reform or change in theses institutions. a handful of people, so there is no real lobbying for change. country does not come first but party politics which leaves them blinded or fear to stand up for what is right which is in the minority
Rajcoomar actually researched the thing for the Law Association and then signed a document which said that the President and Vice-President acted without consulting anyone else in the law body.
That one is special.
Well-you don’t know if he signed a document saying that. All you know is that he signed a document. This is what we are made of. It’s the essence of a profession that prides itself on being “officers of the court” defenders of Justice, and respectable. “We” here is inevitable due to meh certificate, but used with pain.
Lol. True. Ok. Let me say then that his signature appeared on a document which said… Blah, blah, blah…
Almost as shameful. 99 percent as bad I think.
Even worse was to see him being interviewed on TV6 about the said report and no question was asked about his alleged incompetence by Fazeer Mohammed. (if I am not mistaken)
Our interviewers are not worth their salt because they never seem to raise the important issues. Rather they want to be ‘friendly’ so that the interview is pretty much watered down.
Judy-ann Stewart…miss me some Marcia Henville…sorry…but ppl were not getting away by using PR etc to answer questions on issues.
Been saying this for years. This is why when important matters which affect our country arise, you can get a legal opinion saying yay, and one saying nay, from equally experienced lawyers. It is why for eg, Warner was able to get three legal luminaries to give written legal opinions that the Sir David Simmons FIFA ethics inquiry was wrong to condemn him. The implication is impossible to exaggerate-it’s the legal profession undermining the rule of law-which is a highly flammable thing. There you go.
Rats will always rummage for cheese. *Yawning*
But we must care beyond a yawn nonetheless! The rats will spread leptospirosis all over our jurisprudence …
Rentokil will be there on Monday afternoon.
another political bacchanal, silk unto silk and you want the Judiciary, or is this a calculated effort to make the country ungovernable’ as promised by the former silk PM
really funny……wasn’t one of those lawyers described as incompetent by Sir Anthony Colman in the Commission into CL Financial fiasco?
Not that discerning people needed the learned fellow to tell us what was patently obvious to all…
And ‘incompetent’ may well have been a deliberate euphemism…
There was no use of euphemism. Ms. Marshall hasn’t quoted the full phrase used, which I’m sure is available to those who remember these things.
Lawyers are saying that they didn’t know what they were signing. How do you respond to that statement?
That was the first thing that popped in my head too Kendall! Haha.
And they are lawyers eh?
Kendall Tull #Brexit4Lawyers.
I wonder how many of them work at the Chambers of some of dissenting lawyers and therefore signed to keep their jobs. Perhaps they would be better served by working with the DPP and getting cases up and running through the system.
Judy-ann Stewart…there is something called professional integrity (could be an oxymoron given the profession we talking about lol). Of all people, I doubt a lawyer can claim they signed something and did not know what they were signing. Unless it was just to call the Law Association out on lack of consultation. And then ‘somebody’ decide to take it further with no confidence motion. But to be honest, I have questions about the association. Why are lawyers allowed to continue to practice before the courts if there are allegations against them. I do understand allegations, charges and convictions are different things. But how can a reasonable client have confidence in an attorney if his integrity is being called into question? Does it not bring the profession into disrepute?
Nerisha stop talking sense
And that’s why I relented with those who had signed before
They wanted to discuss the SSA bill
Anand and co want to change leadership
Nerisha Mohammed these people will fit in nicely in the TEDEX discussion on the illusion of free speech in TT. As you have pointed out, lawyers and integrity are poles apart. When I think of the alledged briefs that were given for a commission/kick back, you really have to wonder. Perhaps we may actually have persons at the head of the LA who may act so it would be important to get them removed before they change the legal status quo. I am looking forward to seeing the result of the meeting later.
I always feel sorry for the pawns but these have to understand that the actions that they take now will affect their professional life in the future.
unc power play
What does the Law Association do exactly?
I’m trying to see why I should care! LOL
Lol. You want to take that Gabrielle Gellineau Emanuel?
UNC lawyers are proactive
coup?
Ha! By any means necessary, eh, Mr former AG? I am telling you that if the govt. does not find a way to put some of these former parliamentarians behind bars, life will continue to be made difficult for thsoe who support them or wish to remain neutral. Fortunately, there are good men like your source, Mr Editor, who are not prepared not to be vigilant and to keep their eyes open daily.
Daly is campaigning for the presidency!!!…this article is not balanced but seeks to tarnish one faction!…they all have history…ramlogan…ramdeen…sturge…mendes and brooks…he slyly brushes by details of some characters.