Marston Gibson gun very quickly become one ah de boys … mark my words …!

I really hate it when people speak so authoritatively on the Public Service without the necessary knowledge. Seniority is not and never has been the basis for promotion in the Public Service. Up to December 31, 2007, merit was the basis for career advancement in accordance with the Service Commissions Public Service Regulations 1978. Unfortunately, lazy administrators refused and or neglected to write reports on their staff which might be able to show that the most senior person is not necessarily the most competent and suitable for promotion.
In the absence of those reports, when vacancies arise the only thing left to assess the candidates was seniority. Instead of requiring that public service managers do their duty: the Arthur Administration took advice from some of those same managers and changed the law effective December 31, 2007.
The result was the new Public Service Act which has created havoc in the Public Service. The persons who administer recruitment and promotion in the service have misinterpreted and apply the law to use one-off interviews as the basis for promotion. As a result, very competent and suitable candidates are overlooked for predetermined candidates, who either have political connections, family ties to senior managers or lodge membership.
Sometimes they go as far as changing the qualifications to exclude suitable candidates or to make the preferred choise suitable. For example, the 2001 Qualification Order required the Chief Marshal have “At least four subjects at CXC General Proficiency level, including English Language; and not less than three years’ experience in the grade of Deputy Marshal. Approved qualifications in Public Administration and Para-legal Studies”. The preferred candidate did not have any qualifications in Public Administration so the Minister changed the qualification to replace “and” with “or”. The qualification now reads, “Approved qualifications in Public Administration OR Para-legal Studies”
What do you expect when politicians and senior public service managers use every device to populate the Public Service with friends and family instead of the most suitable candidates.

If there’s nothing else he’s ashamed of, at least he is of his hair!! wha does he look like?!!!! LOL!!

I am curious as to what evidence is out there that the proposed new Chief Justice Gibson is coming to “shake up things” for the better of the legal profession and administration of justice. The previous Prime Minister was a lawyer as is the current PM. The Government seems to be adamant that Gibson should be appointed, but how do we know he is coming to sort out the current “old boy” legal network, or that he isn’t coming to create another one, this time with different operatives, with their own agenda?

Sir Frederick Smith is accustomed to being censured. With great delight I recall one of his keynote addresses to the Barbados Bar when he said that it appeared to him that judges in Barbados think they have a constitutional right to be stupid. When asked how he could say such a thing, he shrugged his shoulders, flung his arms wide and asked, “Uh wrong?”

No, Sir Frederick, you were NOT wrong then and you are even righter now!!!

@Caswell

Thanks for your comment which upholds the view that meritocracy is not a pervading culture in the civil service.

@Sargeant

Has anyone ever wondered why those members of the Bar who are so vocal now on the appointment of Gibson don’t mirror the same discuss at the many improprieties displayed by their colleagues?

@Micah

One has to try things. Should we continue selecting from the same contaminated pool i.e. old boys club or should we try a thing? They are no guarantees.

@ruth

You are entitled to your view but like everything in life it is the materiality of the change which should the final arbiter and not some hold fast view rooted in a law framed for another time..

@ruth,
i c dat nobody’s spoken to u bout paragraphs yet!! LOL!!

You know, not one of us knows how the Gibson regime will work out. No one can say that Mr Gibson will not become a member of the old boy network/fraternity – or that he will. My bet, based on his enviable record, is that he will maintain scrupulous impartiality; but that is just my bet and it is as speculative as those who say that he will not.

For those who object to Mr Gibson’s appointment, I note that not one of them has come up with the name of a suitable alternative candidate. And it begs the observation that they have done this simply because (a) they are objecting for purely political advantage; and (b) they dare not name an alternative as that alternative would be subjected to scrutiny and critical comment here on BU. So they indulge in the most dispicable sort of objection – that with no suggestions as to an alternative and that seeks simply to obstruct to the detriment of the people of Barbados and their dead and buried legal system.

Sorry, folks, you fool no one.

Amused

In response to (a)Objection for purely political advantage, it would appear that THE LAW is of no importance to you. For your information, the biggest concern is not the appointment of Me Gibson as a person but his qualifications does not fully satisfy THE LAW as stated for this office. Had the government gone ahead and rectify THE LAW before inviting Mr Gibson would have been more palatable but having place the appointment before the asjustment, it shows little respect for THE LAW, and that is the real bugbearer. This government is watering down THE LAW in this country and that is very serious and the bad boys will take advantage of this, the judiciary system in the country is at its lowest and in an attempt to improve it, this government has made the matter worse. To (b) Are you then suggesting that in case Mr Gibson refuses the office, Barbados would be without a C.J until some one is concieved to fill the post? No man is an island, did Mr Gibson drop out of the sky ?

Amused,

Apart from your weird belief that “practice” means somehow “having a licence to practice”, are you going to answer my question@10.00 before Scout answers yours?

@Anonus | March 15, 2011 at 11:12 AM. I didn’t think it merited an anwer as the record is public domain and on the internet. Just let your fingers do the walking on Google.

@David. I agree. The biggest problem the new CJ will have is with the Civil Service. Let us by all means focus on the Registry. By the way, David, it has to be said that your report is well thought out, well grounded and extremely important. I take my hat off to you. Excellent piece.

SCOUT

The Scout | March 15, 2011 at 6:03 AM

If you had said anything else I would have been the most surprise man in the world.

The Democratic Labour Party has to do what the Democratic Labour Party has to do.

Islandgal246

“What happen Carson? Tick biting you?”

No ticks biting me. They are biting you and the Barbados Labour Party.

I watch your Owen”seethru”Arthur yesterday and he reminded me of a drowning man catching at straws.

Amused
It seems that Marston Gibson is coming like the grim reaper, so lawyers are going to be cut down, SOME NEED TO BE, judges are going to be cut down. When all of this happens then the DLP would appoint new judges RIGHT, a everything would run perfectly in Barbados from then on CONGRATULATIONS, Oh I’m looking forward to that day; UTOPIA comes to Barbados. Marston Gibson the instant BARBADOS HERO>

@The Scout | March 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM. I see your voluntary absence from BU has not made you any less of an ass than you always were. Why not do a little reading of the comments I have made here – always provided you CAN read.

THE FIGHT AGAINST BAD “laws”; CORRUPT JUDICIAL PRACTICES; TAINTED JURISPRUDENCE & THE VERACITY OF “laws” TABLED AND LEGISLATED BY A SO-CALLED ELECTED MAJORITY OF POLITICIANS….

ACTIVIST MEMBERS from all walks of life in
FRANCE, FIJI, NEPAL, SRI LANKA, AUSTRALIA,
CANADA, EIRE, INDIA, GERMANY, SOUTH AFRICA, ULSTER, JORDAN, PAKISTAN, THE UNITED STATES, AND ENGLAND….

THE CAMPAIGN PHILOSOPHY is spread worldwide by its members. Campaign philosophy supported by academics, doctors and judges (U.S. & U.K.)….

Join in the Campaign by downloading and distributing the free posters and educational pamphlets…

Contact us by e-mail today for your free membership and privileges…

WHY THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANNOT DEFEND YOU….

Consider some of the following breaches of common law and Constitution to which modern government resorts, in order to enforce its money-motivated inequitable statutes:-

Today, to ensure the enforcement of whatever unjust legislation government passes, a government-contrived legal obligation bans attorneys, solicitors, lawyers and barristers from presenting evidence which exonerates defendants, if it “disputes the law.” Judges forbid the accused likewise.

In an unforgivable meretricious act of obsequious criminality, for pay, the lawyer adopts the perjury and subreption* of not presenting evidence which exonerates defendants…

*Definition. subreption: concealment of evidence; the perjurious procuring of an advantage by concealing the truth.

Over years, literally billions accrue to law firms’ personnel. In order to ply their lucrative trade (one can no longer dignify this morbid masquerade by calling it a ‘profession’), nowadays lawyers blithely abdicate responsibility and forsake honesty. For gain, lawyers perjuriously consent to this odious denial of the duty to find The Whole Truth. They compound their malfeasance by also tacitly concealing the Constitutional Jurors’ Rights and Duty to judge the law and to find the Verdict according to the Juror’s conscience.

We point out this crime, this disgrace, this contemptible species of inhumanity. There is no defence to the charge of lawyers acquiescing to the denial of their duty to find The Whole Truth and their profiting from, and being party to, the abuse and imprisonment of innumerable masses of innocent citizens. Consider the charges:

Fact 1: “Lawyers cannot present defence or evidence which exonerates defendants if it disputes the legality of the law.”

Fact 2: “Lawyers must abide by the court’s authority whenever judges rule out exonerative evidence.”

In shameful meek obedience, lawyers do not dispute the ‘law’ even when its enforcement is manifest injustice. Where the law is unjust and defendants are innocent of any crime (no mens rea), lawyers nevertheless ‘advise’ people to plead “guilty” and make plea bargains, rather than their pleading Not Guilty and electing to go to a Trial by Jury. This comprises one major reason why Trials by Jury have become so infrequent. It also results in the West’s largest prison population of all time, consisting principally of harmless citizens innocent of any crime; while the real crimes go unsolved and largely unchallenged; and the accountable progenitors of crime and their servitors, the hardened dangerous criminals, go “scot” free…

(See Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy Page 2; the section on mens rea, malice aforethought, criminal intent, “Guilty?” or “Not Guilty?” Wrongful Prosecution; Amnesty & Restitution. See: PROHIBITION: THE PROGENITOR OF CRIME; Part Six of THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204, which has a Foreword by an official Adviser to U.S. government and is endorsed by academics, doctors [of a variety of disciplines] and judges [U.S. & U.K.]).

The educated people who comprise the ‘legal profession’ are, by their acquiescence and continued participation in the unlawful, tyrannical, perverted processes of today, more to blame than any other group in society for the destruction of the Constitutional Justice System; and for all the inevitably ensuing totalitarian injustice that results therefrom: the enactment and prosecution of ex parte, money-motivated statutes; the abuse of innocent citizens; wrongful penalization; and the mass incarcerations at the highest per capita rate in history.

It is not possible for anyone who is remotely au courant with the Illegality of the Status Quo, to deem as ‘true’, and as ‘counsel’ the word of these people who collude in and profit from the widespread enforcement of injustices against innocent citizens.

In myriad cases, defendants would fare better by dismissing their lawyer and presenting a straightforward courtroom defence and the exonerative evidence for themselves, which is their right.

If a significant number of defendants were to take up this option of pleading Not Guilty, electing to go for a Trial by Jury and presenting their own defence, then the legal profession would either have to put up with losing the greater proportion of their phenomenally lucrative and easy paydays—or press hard for restoration of Constitutional Trial by Jury in which juries judge the law, and defendants and lawyers are obliged, in seeking The Whole Truth, to present such evidence as reveals an unfounded nature, inequity, venal* motive, of any modern statutes, and hence the crimes per se of the acts of their enforcement.

*Definition. venal: corruptly mercenary; (able to be) bought over; open to bribery.

With defendants presenting defence for themselves, thus withholding from lawyers a major source of income, the legal professionals would have their prime, perhaps only, motivating impulse, i.e. money, compelling them to strive—for once on the side of Truth and Justice—for RESTORATION of the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System.

In the face of extant modern tyranny, state crime and corruption, honest members must forthwith free themselves from dependence on income from, and all association with, the scribes and pharisees of the ‘legal profession’. The correct course for every man or woman of probity, the only honourable way of proceeding for members of the profession, is to resist in wrath and indignation, and to refuse to accept the gains so ill-gotten; and campaign (with us) to right the wrongs.

Insincere, gravely wrong ‘advice’ and mendacity swiftly become the inscrutable, smooth practised habit of those who, for money, accept that they cannot tell the truth. Controlled by courts (judges) under threat of penalty, and as willing, paid participants in this massive Crime Against Humanity, today’s lawyers cannot give candid counsel nor veracious defence; let alone be trusted to educate people truthfully about the principal Safeguard of Democracy: Annulment-by-Jury (or Jury Nullification) in the Trial by Jury.

The lawyer’s is the training which prepares the person for “the bench”—the judge who takes his pay from the government only as long as he or she reliably enforces the money-motivated politicians’ inequitable deceptions dissimulated under the guise of ‘law’.

Today, to ensure the enforcement of the said inequitable (and therefore illegal) ‘laws’, judges knowingly exclude exonerative evidence, including expert documentary, legal, academic, scientific, medical, philosophical, and that which is based on grounds of equity, and tell jurors to consider only that evidence which he or she (the judge) allows ! (See THE REPORT, ISBN 9781902848204.)

Thus, today, judges invalidate even their own pretence that “jurors try matters of fact.” By dictating the laws of evidence, that is, what evidence the jury may and may not hear, and by ruling how jurors should weigh such evidence as the court chooses to permit them to hear, judges corruptly arrange and dictate the conclusion, the Verdict, to which juries must arrive.

This criminal tampering by judges produces innumerable false guilty ‘verdicts’, penalization and abuse of innocent citizens, and millions of man-years’ wrongful incarceration.

Thanks to: democracydefined.org

David you should create a permanent post for Terence Blackett.
Give it a nice title like “The teachings of T.Black”. noam sain?

David wrote “Why is the Bar not as strident in its condemnation of its own kind?”

Lawyers are part of a profit centred cartel.
Why would they want to do anything to negatively affect their income and cash flow?

The Bar association is a group of Lawyers “policing” themselves.

Amused @4.21P.M
I’m amused at the level of the vocab of you DLP yardfowls, as you’re cornered you resort to abuse and/or slander. I can’t read very well, that’s why most of the crap you write I ignore. Political yardfowlism is so serious that if a DLP politician tells you to drink gramoxzone you would drink it with a smile on your face.

TMB’s post on this thread looks relevant to me. My quick scan of it suggests that it puts the problem with our lawyers in somewhat of a global perspective.

This Leroy Lynch case is intriguing to say the least.

Many are watching with a more than keen interest.

Why would Lynch, who must be filthy rich, do such as he is accused?

Why would a charge be brought if Lynch was confronted with his crime?

Would he not have done like all the others and settle with prejudice?

By the way Sargeant, do you have to get a full body cavity search when you are on remand at sixty one?

hello BU,
I wanted to know how the jury selection system works in Barbados? Do they select jurors for a case with out any alternates? Should one of the jurors take ill or could not attend the trial for some other reason, what happens with the trial? In a couple of weeks I got the answer. I read in one of the dailies a juror took ill on the tuesday and the trial was postponed until the monday the next week hoping that the juror would be well enough to come back.With the two alternates sitting in, one would have taken that place and the trial would have continued. I don`t know if Judge Gibson should take the job after all the BS. that is said. Let them select one of theirs who will let them continue to have a justice system that is mediocre and incompetent and they can do as the please with no one to answer to,one lawyer is expected to stand trial and the last I read they are over 100 complaints lodge against them for years and nothing is being done. Cases taking as long as 7 years to be heard with a population of 275000,for argument sake,say they were 550000, that would take almost 14 years, then they expect that the parties involve to give the same statements,word for word that they gave 5 or 6 years ago.
cal.

I suspect that the bank is behind the pursuit of Leroy Lynch. If I am right, it merely proves that it is money and not right that dictates the course of justice in Barbados. The other lawyers who are alleged to have stolen, did so from little people with no clout, either financial or political. So, of course a blanket was thrown over those issues. For the good of Barbados, this use of financial and political clout on the courts HAS to be stopped. Let us hope that, between them, Andrew Pilgrim and Marston Gibson can stop it. People will only put up with so much and it looks to me like a breaking point has now been reached. Also, the financial sector is suffering badly as a result of the justice system. It is very bad, you know.

@checkit-out

Here is what BU included in the blog:

Why would Mr. Lynch, who has represented First Caribbean International Bank, and before that CIBC for many years, sought to perpetrate fraud has proved to be incomprehensible to BU. It will be interesting to observe the Director of Public Prosecutor’s argument.

Doesn’t it suggest some reservation on our part?