Earlier today BU posted a comment which asked Barbadians to focus on national priories and remove the cloak of partisan politics to frame our thinking on almost every blasted conversation. The above elucidation of the government’s decision to appoint a CJ is shown to have been done with a basis in law.

As pointed out by Amused et al, it would have been highly irregular to learn that the late Prime Minister, former AG Fruendel Stuart and other legal beavers consulted, would not have reviewed the law to support Gibson’s appointment with eagle eyes.

Let’s move on!

Where did this “lawyer” learn law? This is, with all due respect, utter nonsense. Where did Gibson practice or teach law for a period of 15 years? This “lawyer” should return any degree he might have stolen from some online diploma factory.

@checkit-out

You need to be more detailed in your rebuttal.

I like this interpretation of the law. This guy knows his stuff. Am I hearing a Jeff C. in the background.?

I am watching this “battle” with interest it seems quite interpretive I will download the law and read before I make a definitive comment. Reminds me of common law – can be proven by both sides. Either way I know he will get the job.

@BU.David: “The lawyer who the Nation refers these matters is Ezra Alleyne.

And then the question becomes…

Is Mr. Alleyne proud of the work he is doing?

Or is he simply well paid?

I concur with the author of this opinion.

I disagree with those who think there will be a legal fight. The challenge to Chief Justice Gibson was a last-ditch attempt by legal pygmies – some of them members/officers of the Bar, some of them members of the Judiciary and a lot of them from the support organisations like the Registry – who have seen the writing on the wall and were attempting to stave off the inevitable ending of their heretofore safe, secure and utterly slovenly sinecures. All these had their attempt at derailment supported by those who stand to lose ($500,000 and/or 5 years in jail) if convicted through the proper application of the new integrity legislation – and we all know who these are likely to be. And the whole thing given voice and focus by the Nation, the agenda of which is well known.

May I take this opportunity of urging Chief Justice Gibson that, if it is his intention to hold a press conference and answer questions from the media upon his arrival in Barbados and installation, he make it known that he will address written questions from the social media and credit them to the individual blog. I think that the Chief Justice will find that the level of questions posed by the social media will greatly and impartially assist him in getting his message across, rather than the questions? of the tabloid press, such as the Nation, that cannot even take the time to obtain a high quality legal opinion before spouting forth horse manure on its front page.

Finally, it is clear to me, Chief Justice, that our own dear Bonny Peppa has every intention of offering you a night to remember (and believe me, it is a night to remember) on the back seat of her convertible bike.

correction to spelling
tried to correct before sending didnt work
yuh know how nitpicky you people are
Consensus ?
is needed in these matters

It should be obvious why the framers of the law would have placed emphasis on a CJ having an experience in Commonwealth jurisprudence. The Commonwealth was a very influential bloc of the past. However the Commonwealth’s influence on our activities/life has diminished significantly. To stay tied to an archaic position can be compared to those countries in the region who heap scorn on the institution of the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Once he is on the Roll, he is deemed to be practicing. End of argument. No loopholes in sight. He has also taught at UWI for a period of time well in excess of 15 years. End of argument. Again, not a single loophole in sight. Case closed.

David and Zion,
This is to disavow that I am the author of this piece. The Gibson fiasco is sadly becoming a partisan political issue of which I wish to stay clear.

And, for the record, I do not agree with the author’s interpretation which I find tendentious and which betrays a misuse of the principles of statutory construction.

Marston would make a fine Chief Justice of Barbados. The issue as to whether he qualifies is a purely legal one at this stage.

Amused

When has he taught @ UWI for 15 year ? I am finding no record of such so can you provide one ?

I know nothing about the law and find BU to be a refreshing and reliable source of knowledge; since I can look at all the arguments set forth and then make a decision.

Therefore, I must say that the above post written by Sargeant is the one that I agree with moreso than ever.

Long live BU!

Jef Cumberbatch worte” This is to disavow that I am the author of this piece…And, for the record, I do not agree with the author’s interpretation which I find tendentious and which betrays a misuse of the principles of statutory construction. ”

Dear Jeff:

Thanks. Written like a SCHOLAR AND A GENTLEMAN.

@He Who Chooses Not To Be Amused. If he taught law at any UWI campus during the last 15 years, occasional or otherwise, it counts whether you like it or not. The arrant stupidity of your remark is truly worthy of one D. Simmons. Because, what you are saying is that Gibson is okay to teach Barbados law to hopeful future Barbados lawyers as a guest lecturer, but not “qualified” to put that law into practice as chief justice. Have you the slightest idea, of he who is not amused, how amused the rest of us are. Man, you’re a mock stick. You are applying the sort of rubbish that Sir and Lady S applied and which got us into the terrible mess we are now in, in the first place.

However, the most important part is that he has been on the Roll and certified to practice law in Barbados for well over 15 years. Ergo, he has practiced law in Barbados for over 15 years and is therefore qualified. End of argument and no amount of red herrings, for which of course, you are already a laughing stock, is going to serve you on this.

It is clear to me that the opinion, with which I wholeheartedly agree, is written by a senior member of the bench (retired or active) which, with respect, Jeff is NOT. Without any doubt in my mind at all, I say that this opinion will prevail and the Simmons faction that now seeks to cover up the dire consequences to our justice system of the appointment of Simmons which should NEVER have taken place on the basis of political partisanship and conflict alone, will be disappointed. You can twist and turn it how you like, but that opinion is solid law and will prevail.

So therefore, you who choose not to be amused, better develope a sense of humour. FAST!!!!!

@Jeff C
When someone as you said ” betrays a misuse of the principles of statutory construction.” have they don a good or bad thing??

The law can truly be an ads.

Anonus
The point the man is making is that he has not been disbarred or struck off the register to practice law in Barbados. Having been called to the bar in Barbados and having not been disbarred he is certified to practice. He only needs to pay his registration fees.

He has already done what is necessary to be eligible to practice law in Barbados. I cant speak with authority on the law with respect to CJ.

JC
Its time that you install me in your place! Wow. You keeping me waiting to long. Time for you to bring me home. LOL

@Anonus | December 16, 2010 at 11:41 AM | In the eyes of the law, they are the same thing. I thought the writer of the legal opinion was very clear, and so was I when I concurred. Was I (and the jurist who wrote the opinion) not clear?

Let us take this highly amusing scenario to the next step.

In selecting a new CJ, the Prime Minister David Thompson (Q.C.) was required by law to consult with certain persons. Viz. the Attorney General (now PM) and the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the party in opposition (the BLP). This last was Mia Mottley (Q.C.) The meeting would have been minuted and a little bird has told me that all parties (Thompson, Stuart and Mottley) agreed the choice of Marston Gibson. At that time, Mia Mottley had the power to speak for her party and would have been required to discuss the appointment with members of her shadow cabinet. I would take a bet that that meeting was also minuted. She would then have conveyed the consent of her party to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

Since Miss Mottley’s entire background is law and the smooth administration of the justice system, why is it so hard to believe that she, a responsible Queens Council, would want to cure the almost mortal wounds inflicted on the justice system? I think we have to give her credit, not only for her style and class during recent reversals and her exemplary conduct, but also to admit that she is dedicated to the law and the justice system and to ensuring that Bajans of all walks of life have timely access to justice.

So, since the minutes of meetings allegedly show that both parties across the political divide agreed with Prime Minister Thompson, why all this manufactured issue?

Two possibilities.

First (and investigation on my part would tend to deny this) the BLP, now under a non-lawyer, wants to try to score political points. Except I am advised that the BLP has no problem with its earlier decision – my source is very good, so I have little option but to accept this. Which brings me to the second point.

At whose door must this whole exercise be put? My secondary investigation has certainly pointed me in a very distinct direction. However, absent solid proof, I leave that to the speculation of the BU family. Sorry about that. But the whole thing is a non-issue to start with and giving wing to the foetid frustrations and dreams of rewriting history to suit one’s agenda of certain parties really doesn’t deserve the coverage this is getting. But there again, we are a democratic, self-governing country and everyone has the right to air their views – and that is the way it MUST BE. Just like we have the right to timely access to JUSTICE, which currently seems not to be working too well. We do well to protect both of these rights. So I will be more tolerant of idiots who are not amused by this tempest in a teapot in the future.

Please let us not be asinine in our own arguments. The law makes a requirement that it be in a commonwealth jurisdiction; it includes aggregate years practicing in a commonwealth jurisdiction, therefore making the requirement one of familiarity and expertise in commonwealth law. As Chief Justice guiding other justices in charge of our judicial system you would want someone with competence in our brand of law.

Therefore just being admitted to the bar 15 or more years ago does not qualify, it requires practicing and practicing in a commonwealth jurisdiction. Based on this how does the gentlemen qualify?

If the writers logic follows why then hundreds of lawyers living here would qualify to be Chief Justice and in a time of economic hardship why should we should the expense of relocating someone here to be Chief Justice if the qualification is simply admitted to the bar at least 15 years ago.

@Bajan Truth

You do accept that often times off-CV qualities are factored in who eventually gets the job?

@Jeff

What is* the legal issue to which you referred earlier as you see it?

@Zion 1971
Re Schrondinger equation a.ka the particle in the 3 dimensional box exhibiting vibrational movement, rotational movement and translational movement.

As undergraduates in Physical Chemistry way back in 1974, in order to grasp the intricacies of this equation with its interesting motion we likened the particle as unto the large backteria of a sexy female colleague and considered the oscillations of her backside that accompanied her ambulations to be the physical poetry that described the hitheretofore mentioned movements of the particle in the 3 dimensional box.

I teach my biochem students that the relevant chemistry might most easily be understood by having such a most vivid imagination- particularly when it comes to bonding.

Dr. GP. You are one brilliant brother. Now as I think about it, why not apply for the CMO position. It is guys like you make me be proud to be Bajan.

Zion
I thought that you dont like men that think in the abstract ! I got it . You live guys that into bovine effluent talking LOL.

But truly though, if you cant talk some BS you wont see that stuff. Best way to learn science is BS through it with a collegue of like BS mind. LOL

When I teach the fact that phosphorylation of glucose to glucose 6 P keeps the glucose from leaving the cell. I tell them Look I have this chick I like bad called lets say JC.

But all the boys like her and want to steal her from me, so I had to keep her at home (in the cell) by giving she a baby, now the fellas dont want she no more with that baby cause i PHOSPHORYLATE HER. I GAVE HER A P!
Man they crack up.
JC done wid me now too. LOL She dont phosphorylation. Murdah

@Georgie Porgie: “Rename the equation the Zion-Halsall equation do!

Equations are not renamed.

But let me please present an algorithm in sudocode which you might resonate with:


if (ThingsAreInteresting()) {
ExpectLotsOfNoise();
}