Have you ever gotten any of Jeromes' e-mails CG?
Here is one that just recently landed in my inbox :p
Well, Delroy! I read them. Now I have a headache! They remind me of the last letter I got from my lawyer.

I cannot tell if this guy is for or against, whatever it is he is talking about.

Have you ever gotten any of Jeromes' e-mails CG?
Here is one that just recently landed in my inbox :p
[/i][/b]

And before that:







Whoever cracks these messages will be nominated Member of the Month. :gi:


Hmmm, sounds like a foriegn language to me, grammer etc is all back and forward, many words not even in the english dictionary,nothing makes sense.

Delroy! I got it! He is a follower (or maybe not) of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY. In view of that I will post him this message:-

"You, a person(s), have given us/we/them conundrums - of unknown quality/s. Please elucidate in alphabetical consistency with the in depth meaning of the said scribed enigmatic epistles causing confusions with and among the 'inhabitancy' of this electronic offering."

Delroy! I got it! He is a follower (or maybe not) of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY. In view of that I will post him this message:-

"You, a person(s), have given us/we/them conundrums - of unknown quality/s. Please elucidate in alphabetical consistency with the in depth meaning of the said scribed enigmatic epistles causing confusions with and among the 'inhabitancy' of this electronic offering.":bigmouth: LOL!

Due to the recent criticism of the leadership of the PLP government and recent events that have taken place in this country I have been moved to ask these questions:

Do you feel Leaderless? Absolutley
Who is running this country? The prophetic Christian Bahamian values
Do you trust your Government? No
Are we going backwards or forward? We doing the electric slide right now. To the left, right, forward the all the way back.
Has anything changed since May 2nd 2002?Yes. More aggravation and political animosity.


Please feel free to post your comments on this issue.

REMOVED

11-17-03mn
Oh yeah?Simplify,huh! Well all that it is wise to say right now is that the alleged pawn threw the rock, and drew the line and the entry will stand as it is until there is a real need to counteract further unrighteously judgemental nonsense concerning the alleged pawn. PEACE! For the powerful's sake!
yours ,
jeromect.I am sure you have important information to relay to us but your postings are so cryptic that on one knows what you are talking about!

Who is the "alleged pawn? What was "the rock" he threw? What "line was drawn?" What does "the entry will stand" mean? Who is the "Powerful?" You leave no clue. Are you assuming we know? I assure you we do not. Is it something to do with the teachings of L.Ron Hubbard?

If you have a point, share it with us, in simply terms. Please drop the company language.

I do not feel leaderless. The Right Honourable Prime Minister is probably working very hard. The problems in my view are institutional, political and cultural. We need to get away from the divisiveness, but unfortunately there are certain people aound the cabinet table who cannot seem to help themselves (eg the honourable minister for Housing at the opening of the clinic in South Andros) We need to move beyound the pettiness. Let us grow up, please. i do believe ZNS has gone backwards though with the blatant censorship and manipulation of the news

The problems in my view are institutional, political and cultural.

i agree. at least from what i can see those people/problems stay the same no matter what party is in government.

my 5 cents on this topic is even though i am not in the bahamas to see what is going on there. only thing i can say is that you could never please people when the FNM's was in power they had problems governing the country how the PLP's in power they had problems governing the country. and these issues are all in the eyes of the citizens living there because they always fine fault in what they see or hear but not what is going on. to me and how i see it if the governments(both parties) are doing well they are still not to well. so y are Bahamians so hard to please?......

my 5 cents on this topic is even though i am not in the bahamas to see what is going on there. only thing i can say is that you could never please people when the FNM's was in power they had problems governing the country how the PLP's in power they had problems governing the country. and these issues are all in the eyes of the citizens living there because they always fine fault in what they see or hear but not what is going on. to me and how i see it if the governments(both parties) are doing well they are still not to well. so y are Bahamians so hard to please?......


if you lived here, you would know why, especially if you are used to living in the First World!

:hot: To be honest with you , Bahamian people are some so the most ignorant set of people around. Here's why; When the FNM was the Government ,Five persons would call each of the Talk Shows everyday and complain about the State of the Country. Neither of these guys,spent much time thinking about what they talked about ,they just shot off about what ever. One of them who championed the PLP cause into the election ;just two later was saying give the CDR a chance. IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! The sad fact about it all is in the Bahamian Society once something is said more than once by two or more people ,it gains momentum. The News Media reports what they are told . How many of them investigates issues prior to or even after are reported . We are an immature society !!! The same persons that criticised and tore at the very fabric of the FNM are now telling us to stand by the government(the PLP). Felix Stubbs, Godfrey Eneas and Wendell Jones in a Sunday afternoon show spoke of the Bahamian Society suffering from a lack of leadership under Mr Ingraham prior to the election. Two years later Mr Jones said that Mr Christie's is not the leader that Mr. Ingraham was . How can the News Media swing from North to South without being questioned ??? Simple, because we are not that mature a society that persons are held accountable for what they do or say .
P.S. Felix Stubbs is an Advisor in the PMs Office , Godfrey Eneas is an Executive in a Government Ministry , let's see what else happens for these guys !!!

Uncle Bob, I would not say that the Bahamian people are ignorant. I would say we are too trusting. Alas, there are so few that are worthy of our trust. We need to keep our representative's "feet to the fire" metaphorically speaking.

I hope some of them read this site. If they do I might remind them that even if they feel that they hold exalted positions (which, perhaps some do) I would bring to their attention that they are still in the employ of the people - our "hired help" if you like! I would also remind them never to forget that as the FNM did in the last election. However, they will forget. That is why we have elections.

Yes, I feel leaderless. I always have, pretty much! Uncle Bob, I'm living in Chicago right now and watching the media circus that's formed around the U.S. presidential election this year...and I've also witnessed some of the nepotism/corruption/just plain stupidity evident in Chicago politics, and I'm convinced now that things are probably the same everywhere. I'm GLAD I don't have to choose between Bush and Kerry (though if I had the vote, I'd have to give it to Kerry because I'm becoming more convinced by the day that Bush is a loose cannon & his decision-making is flawed)--and when the next general election happens in the Bahamas I have no idea WHO I can bring myself to vote for. It's hard to keep up with what's going on in the Bahamas from way up here, and in a way I'm glad I don't have to see it. It's easier to watch another country's stupidity than endure it in your own country.

Parliament News




Ingraham Lectured AG Sears On The Law
The following are the Speaking Notes of the Right Honourable Hubert Ingraham Re Resolution to Extend theMP for Holy Cross Tenure in Parliamentin theHouse of AssemblyThursday, 23rd September, 2004:

By this resolution we, as Members of Parliament, are called upon to pass a resolution, the effect of which is an attempt to avoid a vacancy in the Parliamentary seat of the Constituency of Holy Cross. Holy Cross duly elected a member nearly 2 ½ years ago to represent it in this Chamber.

Serious questions have now arisen as to whether Holy Cross' Parliamentary seat is occupied or vacant. The resolution before us is in response to an Order by a Supreme Court Judge declaring the absent MP for Holy Cross a bankrupt. Under the Constitution, a person declared by the Supreme Court to be bankrupt cannot remain a Member of Parliament. The member's seat is vacated after 30 days. The Constitution allows the Speaker to permit a member against whom an order of bankruptcy, time to pursue an appeal. And upon application, the Speaker has allowed the absent Member, the subject of this resolution, all the time the Constitution permits the Speaker to give. An appeal against the Judge's Order in this matter was duly made to The Bahamas Court of Appeal; he was unsuccessful and the Order of the Judge in the Supreme Court stands.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no right of appeal available to the Member for Holy Cross. Reportedly, the Member for Holy Cross sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Privy Council. Reportedly, again the Court of Appeal has ruled that no appeal is open to the Member for Holy Cross.

The authority of Parliament to act to avoid/postpone the constitutional consequence of a decision of a court in bankruptcy proceedings is clear.

The Speaker, in the first instance, is empowered to cause to be postponed the result which flows from an Order of Bankruptcy against an MP for a period of up to 120 days, in increments of 30 days each. The constitutional power vested in the Speaker may only be exercised for the purpose of permitting a Member in the circumstance of the Member for Holy Cross to pursue an appeal against the decision of an Order of Bankruptcy.

Now there are good reasons for the Speaker's power to be limited to 30 days at a time - the Speaker must be satisfied that the Member is pursuing an appeal and is in fact pursuing an appeal against the decision.

I do not think anyone will proffer a view to the effect that the Speaker must approve any or all applications made. Clearly, the Constitution presumes and assumes that the Speaker will be satisfied on each occasion a request for an extension is made for time that an applicant is legally able to pursue an appeal and is in fact pursuing an appeal against the decision, before vacation of the seat is required.

Clearly, if no appeal is filed; if an appeal is not being pursued or cannot legally be pursued it would be not only within the discretion of the Speaker but required of him to withhold his approval. In this event, the affected Member's parliamentary seat would become vacant.

The serious consequence which the constitution intended against a member declared by the Court to be a bankrupt is evident from the limit in time the Speaker may approve a request. The same is evident in the relative short period of time for which the Speaker's approval may be given.

I presume that the Speaker was satisfied that the Hon. Member for Holy Cross had the legal ability to pursue an appeal and was pursuing an appeal against the Supreme Court decision and hence the grant by the Speaker of leave on 5 occasions for the Member to pursue an appeal against the decision. I must confess that I am puzzled that the Speaker could properly continue to hold the view that the Member for Holy Cross had the ability to appeal against the Bankruptcy Order after the Court of Appeal ruled that the Member for Holy Cross had no such ability.

In any event, the Speaker's authority to extend the time for the Member for Holy Cross's parliamentary seat to be declared vacant has been exhausted. In short, the Speaker can't give any further time to the Member for Holy Cross. As a consequence, in the absence of an Order of the Court or a higher court vacating or quashing the decision of the Supreme Court Judge or in the absence of a resolution passed by this House, the parliamentary seat for Holy Cross is for all practical, and in my view constitutional purpose, now vacant. An election to fill the vacant Holy Cross seat in Parliament should now be called.

This is a very serious matter; nothing of this sort has confronted us during my 27 years in this Parliament and as far as I am aware, this Parliament has not been so challenged since we achieved internal self-government in 1964.

In a democracy, electors, such as the constituents of Holy Cross, are entitled to expect that their MP of choice, their elected MP, elected in a free, fair and democratically conducted election would remain their MP for the life of the Parliament to which he/she was elected.

A political party, such as the PLP, is entitled to expect and to do all it can to hold on to that which it won on the electoral battle-field.

Notwithstanding, there are circumstances which may deny a constituency the services of its elected MP and under which a political party may have to enter the political arena earlier than upon the dissolution of the Parliament.

Today, we are faced with such a circumstance. And today we are expected to act, responsibly, constitutionally and in a manner which brings credit rather than discredit to our 275 year old Parliament - one of the oldest in the world. What are the facts which give rise to this resolution:

Following upon the initiation of Supreme Court proceedings a Judgement for a certain sum of money was awarded against the MP for Holy Cross and another. Payment of the Judgement not having been made and no agreed repayment terms having been settled, bankruptcy proceedings ensued resulting in an Order declaring the MP for Holy Cross bankrupt on 30th March, 2004. Upon the issuance of this Order, the MP for Holy Cross, in the words of the Constitution "forthwith cease to perform his functions as a member of the House". That is why the people of Holy Cross have not had a member present in this Chamber for a few days short of 6 months.

An appeal by the MP for Holy Cross to the Court of Appeal against the Bankruptcy Order was not entertained as the Court said in effect that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, if newspaper reports are accepted.

In a nutshell, the Court of Appeal it held that no appeal from that Bankruptcy Order was available to the Member for Holy Cross.

I understood, from the reports, that the Court of Appeal indicated, but did not rule however, that Holy Cross was at liberty to return to the Judge who made the Order against him in the first instance for some relief. This, in my view, cannot be considered an appeal.

The Court of Appeal will give its reasons in writing on Monday, 27th September, 2004 and I look forward to reading it. I have laboured under and in the belief that the power of our Court of Appeal to hear and review orders made by a Supreme Court Judge was fully intact; hence my bewilderment that the Court reportedly determined that the MP for Holy Cross had no right of appeal. Upon a review of the Bankruptcy Act, I can see why, however.

The Court of Appeal is saying that if the MP for Holy Cross does not obtain relief from the ordering Judge he cannot turn to the Court of Appeal for relief/review. I would have hoped that this would not be the case but alas this appears to be the case indeed. I believe a person ought to be able to appeal an Order of a Judge of the Supreme Court in bankruptcy and other matters. We must reform and update our laws; the other day it was the Habeas Corpus Act; now it's the Bankruptcy Act.

Notwithstanding the harshness of the consequence, we are all duty-bound to abide by decisions of the court even when we disagree with those decisions. This is called the rule of law.

As a Jaycee, I learnt in its creed "Governments should be of laws rather than of men". I am not aware of any appeal pending in the Privy Council against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Indeed, I am told that on the 17th September, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council; therefore, in my view no appeal by Holy Cross is being pursued. The Learned Attorney General in moving this resolution said it was to allow the Member for Holy Cross "to pursue any appeals that might be available to him in bankruptcy proceedings". Indeed, a close reading of the resolution, craftily drafted, does not even say that an appeal is pending or that additional time is needed to appeal or that the proposed extension is limited for that purpose.

It may well be that the Member for Holy Cross has the ability to ask the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, but as at today's date there is no evidence presented to this House that he has made any such application or that he intends to make such an application. The Learned Attorney General was careful in his presentation and in the resolution not to say that any such appeal was being pursued and certainly 6 months is not needed to enable an application for Special Leave to be heard. The Attorney General did refer to a hearing before the Judge that made the original order, but even he cannot say that such an application is an appeal, within the meaning of the Constitution? Clearly it is not an appeal.

The Seventh Edition of Blacks Law Dictionary defines an appeal as a noun as follows:

"A proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority; the submission of a lower court's or agency's decision to a higher court for review and possible reversal - the case is on appeal"

And as a verb as follows:

"To seek review (from a lower court's decision) by a higher court - petitioner appeals the conviction"

The Sixth Edition of Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases says inter alia:

"An appeal is one in which the question is, whether the order of the court from which the appeal is brought was right on the materials which that court had before it"

It has been determined since 1895 that:

"A motion before a judge in court to discharge or vary an order made by him in chambers is not an appeal"

This resolution calls upon us to make a difficult decision.

On the one hand, the majority party would like to hold on to the seat it won. I understand that desire.

On the other hand, the minority party would like to have a go at recapturing that which it had - Holy Cross - at the earliest possible moment. I understand that too.

As the MP for Holy Cross is not as far as I can determine pursuing an appeal against the decision of the Court and by the decision of the Court of Appeal cannot pursue an appeal, the Holy Cross parliamentary seat is now vacant.

How this House deals with this matter will speak volumes about our constitutional democracy. It will be a precedent for future Parliaments in this country that may be faced with this issue in the future.

This resolution is not the answer; the responsible answer is an election; lets get on with it. If Holy Cross is satisfied with the governing party's performance in office, then they will return a PLP member. If they are not, then the FNM is the way to go. In the bye-election in Holy Cross the 3912 registered voters will be called upon to speak and vote on behalf of tens of thousands of other Bahamians who will not be entitled to vote.

That is what democracy and the rule of law are all about.

And so advise all registered and eligible voters in Holy Cross - get ready; 'de coming'. If there are eligible voters in Holy Cross who were not registered to vote in the last election or who have not registered since then, please do so - 'de coming'.

If any voter was registered in Holy Cross but left the constituency for 6 months or more, then I recommend/advise that you transfer out to the constituency in which you now live. If on the other hand a registered voter has moved into and resided in Holy Cross for 3 months or more then I recommend/advise that you transfer your vote into Holy Cross - "de coming".

Persons desiring to register to vote or transfer their vote may go to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, Monday to Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to do so.