Chief Justice Marston Gibson
My Lord,
On this day, September 01, 2011, the day of your installation as Chief Justice, we congratulate you on your swearing in and we thank you sincerely for having accepted the appointment.
The timely administration and delivery of justice in Barbados has long been one of the primary concerns with the BU family. For too long, the Charter of Magna Carta (that celebrates its 800th Anniversary in 2015) has been flouted and ignored in Barbados. A Charter that clearly postulates that justice delayed is justice denied.
We have read your comments courtesy of the Fourth Estate and we ourselves have been linked to the New York Times blog in connection with your appointment. We are hopeful and optimistic that you are exactly the right man for the job of re-delivering Justice to Barbados.
However, my lord, we also realise that this is not a task in which you can succeed on your own. You will require the support and cooperation of the judiciary, the Bar, the Registry and the People. Last, but by no means least, Government will have to provide you with the tools to do the job, whether it be budget, the setting up of Royal Commissions to deal with unsatisfactory, incompetent or recalcitrant judges or, most importantly, having the courage and resolve to provide its backing (without political or personal bi-partisanship) to support your efforts. We urge everyone, especially Government (by both and whichever political parties) to give you full support.
Clearly we do not have enough judges and hopefully the budget will be forthcoming for you to be enabled to appoint more, in consultation with those who need to consult. Hopefully, these will include senior and experienced members of the Bar, rather than those elevated from the very systems that at are fault for the dearth of justice. The fact that the government has taken the decision to select you from outside the inner ring has created a huge expectation in the minds of long suffering Bajans.
We note the decision of the English Court of Appeal reported in The Times Law Reports of August 30, 2011 which upholds an appeal from a decision of an English QC sitting as a deputy judge. We hope that the inexcusable backlog of cases (some not heard and some part-heard and all several years delayed) before the Barbados courts may benefit from Barbados’ silks giving of their time and undoubted experience and competence in the same manner. We would not like to think that QC has been totally debased to solely a political thank you, but means superior competence. “Qualified Competence”, if you like.
We hope that judges will consult with unconflicted senior counsel and produce decisions that do not take years and are delivered in keeping with the guidelines of 90 days or, for complicated cases, six months.
We hope that most motions can be disposed of in the Canadian manner, by telephone conference calls between judge and counsel, or summarily, with judges having the full knowledge of the Rules that they now so patently lack.
We have long advocated ADR and negotiated settlements and we hope that you will encourage this and establish a working basis on which such can be entered into.
We hope that the chaotic “scheduling” of the Registry can be resolved and that, if that means appointing a new Registrar, we will not find the present incumbent or unsatisfactory future incumbents elevated to the judiciary as a reward for the chaos like that which now reigns. That would be a slap in the face for the taxpayers. The buck has to stop somewhere and it ought to stop with the department head under whose reign (and we use the word “reign” advisedly) court files are lost, scheduling of hearings of cases either ignored or made a mess of and systems and equipment provided by the taxpayers either ignored or simply not used, to the extreme detriment and, in some cases, hardship (both personal and financial) of Bajans and overseas investors who have applied to our Courts for justice.
We also hope that you will find the means at your disposal to speed up the criminal justice system, so that no longer do accused persons remain on remand for unconscionable periods of time.
Again, my lord, our congratulations and thanks and support –and prayers* – to and for you as you embark on your task. And may the CCJ never have cause to ridicule our Justice System under your watch.
Let us welcome our 13th Chief Justice.
Welcome Chief Justice.
It has not been an easy walk getting here…
And it will not be an easy walk getting further.
But we here in Barbados (or, at least, most of us) trust you have it in you to get the job done.
Do the Job well….
Kinda Weird… Today I observed the results of a man falling off his bike, and hitting his head on the ground.
I called 911. “I need an ambulance immediately. This is a true emergency” says I.
Oh, says the 911 operator, if you need an ambulance, then you need to call 511.
I then called 511 and reported my situation. And only a few minutes later the ambulance attended.
My deepest of respects to the Barbados Ambulance Service, who do their job very well.
Welcome Home Sir Marston Gibson.
And welcome to BU; there’s never a dull moment here.
Welcome.
Seems to me that it is convenient to forget that the Chief Justice was NOT selected by an independent authority … and that any political administration that is prepared to take extreme steps to fill a post with a specific person is easily accused of finally “getting THEIR man”.
What I am waiting for is an “effective” administrator, even if he is NOT independent. What we seem to be getting is a Rhode Scholar …
Sorry, no enthusiasm here (but 18 year old Tennis soon-to-be Super Star Sloan Stevens just drop lashes in an Israeli … ja ja)
Royal Commission? What’s that? Deputy Judge? Who wrote this, David?
@Jack
You need to do some research.
Welcome to the Chief Justice
The right man, in the right place, at the right time
Welcome home Mr.Justice Gibson; we have been mystified and disturbed by the rather tortuous process you have had to endure before being seated.
All the same, we wish you a successful tenure. May you be engulfed by divine wisdom as you deliberate, and may your legal training, knowledge and experience set you apart.
Your distinguished predecessor was remarkably proficient on the saxophone, and I note interestingly, that you are an above average troubadour, employing both the Guitar Chord and the Vocal Cord. I therefore look forward with grand anticipation to hearing your “Encore Performance” of “No Woman No Cry”
Marston Gibson, Chief Justice
Many congratulations on your appointment.
Dare I say it, because a man of your eminence and experience does not need advice from little Yardbroom. However, first study the terrain on which you tread before you place your foot. Note everything and say little. The task before you is great and so are the expectations, but you are the man, remember haste has its pitfalls, so move slowly with sure intent.
Good luck.
Welcome, my lord.
@Yardbroom. You are right, except that YOUR input is always of value, whether it is agreed with or not.
How can you advocate for transparency and accountability, yet support this appointment? No wonder senior CLICO managers chaired statutory boards while the company defied regulators; and even worse one now heads the FSA.
@Enuff
We don’t need the Opposition being divisive on this appointment. Let us welcome Gibson, an eminently qualified Barbadian back home.
@David | September 2, 2011 at 5:34 AM | I agree. This is not the time for political posturing. I believe that anyone who indulges in political posturing on this occasion does so to the detriment of ordinary Bajans who look to the Chief Justice to provide a greatly revitalised justice system for the benefit of the country. When Simmons was appoined, although we did not quite like it, we hoped for the best and gave him our support. We ought to do no less for Chief Justice Gibson – in fact, we ought to do more, as Simmons inherited a working system, while Gibson has inherited a mess that is openly ridiculed by the CCJ and around the world. In the extremely unlikely event that the Chief proves unequal to the task, we can deal with it then. But this, one day into Mr Gibson’s tenure, is most certainly not the time. The enormity of his task is frightening and it takes a man with the emotional fibre of a lion to have even contemplated it, far less taken it on. Encouragement and support are needed now, not discouragement and political hogwash.
As a proud Barbadian I am particularly pleased that an accomplished Barbadian is returning home to contribute to his country.
He will do his job and he will do it exceptionally well.
@ DAVID
Whoever wrote this PIECE* – if the CJ* is watching from the sidelines – he will be very impressed with the TONE, TEXTURE & TEMERITY of the call to act contra pacem regis…
WELL-THOUGHT OUT, WELL-WRITTEN, WELL-DELIVERED!!!
Can you tell me where I should start my “research”, David?
A LESS FAVORABLE SLANT ON THIS STORY IS BEING CARRIED BY THE “other” BLOG* TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT:
“IF Marston Gibson is our new Chief Justice, his appointment will be as tainted as the appointment of David Simmons. The law was changed for one man: Marston Gibson. The law was proved to be worth nothing. It was a minor inconvenience standing in the way of a government that wanted to do what it wanted to do. So, the DLP government changed the law…”
“Tomorrow it will be some other law that stands in the way of what the government in power wants to do, and another law will be changed in the middle of the night with no public debate or societal discourse on why the law is the way it is in the first place…”
..from BFP’s July 8, 2011 article re-printed below
“Inconvenient Barbados Law Changed For One Man…”
Breaking news: August 18, 2011 1:17am
http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/american-marston-gibson-announces-he-is-new-barbados-chief-justice/
@Jack Spratt
The Internet can be your Oyster!
@TB
As proud Barbadians the BU household has adjudged (no pun at all intended) that now is the time to close ranks on this issue and support the new CJ.
Perhaps those who would think otherwise need to remove clouded blinkers or check their citizenship papers.
One of the downsides to a democracy is that all views have a place.
I am amused at “amused’s” post above. Motes in one’s eyes in spades.
@ DAVID
“One of the downsides to a democracy is that all views have a place…”
I agree!!!
WISH WE COULD GET OTHERS TO SEE IT THAT WAY AS WELL…
BUT IS BARBADOSFREEPRESS WRONG IN IT’S SUMMATION OF THE FACTS?
We pride ourselves on seeing the glass as always “HALF-FULL” because we rather err on the side of OPTIMISM* – but as not to be labeled “IGNORANT” of the possible realities – “WILL ANYTHING REALLY CHANGE BASED ON THE HISTORY OF OUR POLITICS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM?”
And what about our illustrious “RHODES SCHOLAR”?
Who was Cecile Rhodes and how has the Rhodes Scholarships been used in the past and to what ends?
What is the legacy behind the Rhodes fortune and the setting up of Rhodesia?
What about the The Rhodes-Milner Group of (1891) and Rhodes’ association with THE ROTHSCHILDS?
How is our current CJ influenced by the “INDOCTRINATIONS”* of the past given that we know little about his philosophies and to what ends will his TENURE (given that he plans to be there for the next 13 years) serve?
It’s all well and good to wish a “brother” the very best and I am the 1st to say that “I AM MY BROTHER’S KEEPER” – but I am also intricately aware that all that glitters is not gold and until I have dug deep enough for myself into a matter to get to the real AGENDA* – I accept things ONLY*** on surface value waiting for that infamous slip up that will reveal the real TRUTH*…
So time will tell what’s really up and whether our POLITICIANS* and leaders REALLY* have our interests at heart – or whether it is just another exercise in smoke and mirrors based on intrigue to undermine as was stated in your piece our rights, as was enshrined in that charter called – “MAGNA CARTA”…
David:
I can join you in welcoming the new CJ, but in a system in which CJs are selected and not elected, don’t you think it would have been a better exercise, although we may have had the same result, with an open system which allowed all the aspirants to the office to be questioned by seasoned as well as interested parties who are attempting to improve our justice system. I well remember the nomination of Bourke for the US Supreme Court; at the end of that process I knew what he stood for and also had an insight to what philosophy was driving the late senator Kennedy. We know that we are operating under an archaic system in Barbados, but those who know that they can manipulated it continue with their monkey business. What does Mr. Gibson stand for. Does anyone know. What is his take on social issues, political interference. What was he exactly in New York? Was he a Judge sitting on the Federal bench or was he a judge’s clerk. How did that experience prepare him for this job. I am asking these questions for I honestly, apart from the media spin, do not know why he was selected for the job. Like Terrence Blackett, I am not blown over by the Rhodes Scholar thing. They are normally “selected” too.
@ LEMUEL
Please forgive my assault on the “WALLS” of the establishment but there are few of us who will use the necessary battering-rams to breach the almost impenetrable outer walls of political sophistry erected as bastions against all enemies both foreign and domestic who seek to peer behind these enclosures to see what alchemy is going on…
You know the shenanigans our leaders employ… They refuse to volunteer information… If any ground is gained in the PUBLIC SQUARE* it is usually done based on virulent contestation, SOCIAL UNREST* and oftentimes “ANARCHY”… And only when “FORCED” to concede do they put their hands up in disgust!!!
In our country as in all other developed and developing countries, the preservation of “FAMILY” wealth and the STATUS QUO* is the J.O.B. of the “ELITES” who own the bulk of the financial and asset resources – as well as those who manage those assets and wealth for that 1% of the population…
Barbados is no different….
If the POST* of CJ carries clout (as some would argue) – then the question is this:
“WHOSE INTERESTS WILL THE “CJ” BE LOOKING AFTER?
“WILL HE BE HIS OWN MAN OR A LACKEY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT “elite” IN MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO?”
“FINALLY, WILL THERE BE THE “legal” WILL AS WELL AS THE FREEDOM FROM “political” INTERFERENCE FOR HIM TO DO HIS JOB EFFECTIVELY – FREE FROM BIAS, DISCRIMINATION “and/or FAVOR TO ANOTHER BUT THE LAW?”
HAVE A READ:
The Fabians, the Round Table, and the Rhodes Scholars…
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=5.1#Rhodes
“My lord”!! ?? ok then
TM Blackett; Thanks for the reference to the Fabians, the round table and the Rhodes scholars. Very interesting information.
It would be even more interesting if someone could trace the trends of employment and leadership of the Barbadian, Caribbean and even Black Rhodes scholars of the last several decades. Have they been Captains of Government and Industry? Have they been clearly associated with Rhodes’ original agenda in setting up the trust? What is the pre-scholarship profile of Rhodes Scholars – Here as well as in the first world? Could there have been an agenda to expose these scholars to teachings that would likely ensure their committment to maintaining the dominance of the British and the Americans into the forseeable future? Are they Arab or Chinese or Japanese Rhodes Scholars? Could we see some strategic master plan being put in place in ensuring the current incumbent’s ascendancy into the position, given that Government had to change the law to ensure it?
I hope the new CJ lives up to BU’s expectations. Its early days yet but his first comments reported on VOB yesterday suggests that he is on the right track.
Not suprisingly, this post interests me.
@David. Spratt epitomizes the attitude of some in the Judicial System and an alarmingly high number of politicians. One might say that he is a “political jurist” – or connected or related to one. He would seek to treat Bajans as if they were mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed on shit. Therefore, the Internet would not be his oyster, but a potentially fatal threat.
@TMB. Wherefore the reference to “contra pacem regis”, which means “against the King’s peace”? I have reread the post and frankly your point, if you have one, completely escapes me. Or might it be that you believe that the use of Latin, whether appropriate or not, will give readers the impression of great scholarship? So precisely what, in the way of tort, do you find contra pacem regis in what BU has written? Please elucidate, as I, for one, am befogged and befuddled as to what in hell you are talking about. As for your question about Cecil Rhodes, I refer you to David’s answer to Spratt and suggest you go on the Internet and do a little reading – or have you already read and are now trying to make yet another impenetrable point?
Also @TMB. Since the issue with ROK added to the disclosure that BFP’s agenda is for sale for $(type unspecified)650 a week, which will ensure, not only the agenda you want to put forward is prominently and aggressively posted and detractors “moderated”. But it will also pay for the release of internet details to the “money” of anyone who comments (which, if the commenters get lucky, may be enshrined in public documents before the Canadian courts). So why would anyone wish to take seriously anything BFP posts? If I recall accurately (and I do, because I just did a search on BFP) BFP lauded the statement of Prime Minister Thompson when he indicated that the next CJ would be chosen from outside. But now it seems to have a problem that his word was kept. Why and wherefore this contradiction? Has someone stumped up the $650 per week for this u turn? Or is it simply that BU scooped all news outlets on this particular story? Or is it simply that BU and family have very largely supported the appointment of Chief Justice Gibson?
To Terrence:
I have no difficulty with your position, but at times I believe the tone is too combative. That is not saying that there are times when the combative tone will be needed. But continue to do what your are doing with measured calmness and logic. It works every time.Take a leaf from Bushie; not his beliefs though for I am still waiting on them.
@ David
Based on your response, once a person is eminently qualified and living overseas’ accountability and transparency in governance no longer applies to the appointment of such person to a senior position in our country.
My comment had nothing to do with divisive opposition politics just plain old truth, consistency and good governance as I have nothing against the CJ. However, accountability and transparency are not meant to be selectively applied.
May I remind you that Marston was denied like Jesus by members of the government in both houses of Parliament.
Welcome Mr C.J you’re elevation to the post was marred by controversy, however, that is now water under the bridge. I hope you can adjust and settle in quite swiftly as many are looking for you to fail, even though I was not please with your appointment I WISH YOU WELL..
I realise you, like me, love Bob Marley’s music, just keep this song in the back of your mind “man to man is so unjust, you don’t know who to trust.Your worst enemy can be your best friend, and your best friend your worst enenmy. Some with eat with, then behind sue sue on you.” Some of those who are now shouting your praises can be the first ones to cry you down. Just do your best SIR.
@ Lemuel
“I have no difficulty with your position, but at times I believe the tone is too combative…”
ROFL!!!!
Could it be that is matter of perspective?
Combatants are those who incite violence and mayhem at the end of a tank and a gun (governments, politicians, military & subversionists)…
The tools of my warfare are NOT* carnal my dear brother!!!
I have come to learn that the “PEN” is mightier than a sword…
So “TRUTH” needs no BARRISTER* or defense counsel!!!
@ Amused
I apologize that some things are not readily discernible with the naked eye but please try to keep up dear boy!!!
My current research work looking at medieval Europe from the 1100’s to 1300’s continues to unearth fascinating little pearls which point forward to how our system of jurisprudence, politics and economic has emerged…
In the 11th century, common domestic English laws were enforced in manorial, shire and hundred courts…
Now when Duke William II of Normandy invaded England around 1066 – killing King Harold – the Norman rule of law began to emerge from the King’s Council (Curia Regis)…
The King’s Council who held political sway carried out the [3] functions of state -EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL & LEGISLATIVE dealing with the important cases in which the King had a direct interest, namely breaches of the King’s Peace as this had direct bearing on the social cohesion of the realm – for any form if “INSURRECTION” had to be met with swift justice…
The courts however would ultimately split from the King’s Council – forming separate Common Law courts…
For example, the “Court of Exchequer” ([HMRC + the Chancellor’s office] as it is TODAY* in Britain) dealt with collecting revenues – becoming a distinct political entity during the reign of King Henry I (1100 -1135)…
Now the “Court of Common Pleas” (as it was called then – but Civil Court today) remained in Westminster Hall to handle matters of dispute between aggrieved individuals persons…
The King’s Council on the other hand would travel around the realm officiating in legal matters of importance – with the separation of the Court of King’s Bench occurring around 1230…
However, in 1195, due to a Royal Proclamation emerged JP’s (or magistrates) creating the well known – (‘Knights of the Peace’ – a copied version of the Knights Templar’s officially endorsed by the Catholic Church around 1129) to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the common law….These JP’s were later given judicial functions dealing with minor crimes…
So as you can see, the “King’s Peace” was a vital component in the consolidation and maintenance of SOVEREIGN* power and any breach of the “King’s” Peace would not be tolerated…
From this you can glean whatever “SYMBOLISM” you think I am trying to infer – and if still not clear – then I apologize AGAIN!!!
@ checkit-out
You are most welcome BRUV*…
Your questions are PIVOTAL* in keeping our politicians, leaders and OFFICIALS* accountable…
This is not the AGE* for anyone to be asleep at the wheel – far less giving FOLKS* a FREE* ride without no limits or constraints upon them…
THE DEVIL IS A LIAR!!!
I gotta’ believe those days are long gone man!!!
@TMB. Interesting and totally impenetrable reasoning. Have you considered medication? You ought to, you know. I have no intention of giving you a lecture on what the phrase contra pacem regis means or its relevance in law, but I suggest you look it up in connection with Trespass vi et armis. There, you have another bit of Latin for you to conjure with. Do me the favour of NOT explaining what it means as I already know, as does most of the readership of BU who, believe it or not, are extremely bright and well read. Once you have looked it up, you may, but only just MAY, realise why I am startled by your suggestion that BU has urged the new CJ to commit acts injurious to the property of someone else by means of force? For that is what you have stated, not suggested, STATED. In which case, perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to precisely what part of the BU report you allege that this is suggested in. Oh, sorry if you are being subtle and this subtly has escaped me – it must be because I am too literal – or should that be literate. In which case, for the sake of myself and my similarly bemused brethren, please explain to us very slowly (we would not wish to miss a single pearl of wisdom that drops from your keyboard) precisely what you mean.
Let us continue to share the views, even when we disagree, so that those who lurk may become wise to what ordinary folk maybe thinking.
Enuff, Truthman
I kno how you’re hurting inside wid jellusy but it is what it is so welcome our new C.J.
“No woman, no cry”.
Men a nuff wish dat dem could sing dah song causen de woman in dem life is jus torture dem mornin, nooon n nite n eff dah in good enuff, rob dem blind, treat dem like dogs, den ride offf into de nite wid one a dem friends.
So you could hush ya ass.
No woman no cry shoiteeeeee.
stupseeeeeeeee
@TMB. Interesting and totally impenetrable reasoning. Have you considered medication?
Amused yuh mekking muh laff out reel loud. My dogs have more intelligence than TMB.
@Bonny Peppa | September 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM |
“Enuff, Truthman, I kno how you’re hurting inside wid jellusy but it is what it is so welcome our new C.J.”
Don’t curse me Bonny Pepper. I have sincerely welcomed the new C.J. and I have wished him well. A confusing two year delay by the government, including a a change of the law in the dead of night to qualify him, does makes him a special gentleman! Much hype has been generated and much is expected of him, in what will clearly be a challenging position.
I only mentioned that “No Woman No Cry’ song because it appears to be a favourite of Mr. Gibson’s. He reportedly created quite a thrill when he sang and accompanied himself on guitar at his New York farewell party.
So why are you getting so hot under the collar?
Incidentally, BONNY PEPPA, The C.J may very well have to sing that song in his court room to several of the young ladies around here, who have been complaining that the “dead beat” dads won’t pay child support.
I doubt that Freundel will honour that promise to pay tax-payer funded child support, so don’t be surprised if the CJ sings the song regularly. That may be the only solace. lol lol lol
@Aunt Bonny Peppa… Have you considered the possibility that you’re not helping your own cause here?
Yes. Of course you have.
I really hope that new appointed CJ is not puppet on a political string. He comes highly certified with an impressive track record. Now he is in Barbados where the practice of law is not so well practice on an ethical and moral platform. I hope th CJ keeps his integrity intact and not be influence by the big bullies with monies. Mr. Chief Justice to whom much is given much is expected please deliver so that we can dispel the notion held that justice targets the no bodies and respects the some bodies
@TB
Despite your view our hope is if we had the opportunity to peer into the Marston’s heart its colour is streaked with ‘blue yellah’, Rhodes Scholar not withstanding.
Truthman
Doan pay me na mind. I doan even pay myself na mind sumtimez. I is jus a instigata.
By de way, dah got ‘dead-beat moms, too. I kno a few.
Dear Nevu Halsall
Man leff ma nah. leh dis sleepin dog lie. I kno dat I promise ya sumting but ya gottta be patient. De line long but I gun get ta you……………………….. evenshully.
Bonny
You notice that the new CJ came unencumered with a wife.I know you say you like them dark,tall and thin.
I think you may give him a pass on 2 out of 3 – wha yuh think huh?
@Bonny Peppa | September 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM |
“Truthman Doan pay me na mind. I doan even pay myself na mind sumtimez. I is jus a instigata. By de way, dah got ‘dead-beat moms, too. I kno a few.”
One thing I realise ’bout you “My Bonny lies over the ocean”, is that I have this uncanny ability to pull out your teeth, and calm you right down! You always coming back to me oh so mushy mushy and apologetic! lol lol
But tell me, cause you ain’t unpick yuh teet when I mention it! You think that your favorite boy Freundel talking through the two corners of he mouth, or will he really mek the tax payers pay child support for “dead beat dads.” You really think he gun keep that promise?
Quoting Truthman Barton “I doubt that Freundel will honour that promise to pay tax-payer funded child support”
I hope that Freundel made no such promise, and that if he did he will quickly renege on his promise. If the government supports the children of deadbeat dads we will surely get more deadbeat dads.
@Random Thoughts | September 2, 2011 at 11:16 PM. Agree completely. Look at the state that the UK is in on just this issue, with its government trying to backtrack and change an entire culture of thought. Billions of pounds every year spent, with single women deliberately having children solely for the purpose of collecting benefits and free housing. In Barbados, it would be such a drain on our resources and economy that I frankly doubt if we could afford or survive it. It also raises the issue of children supporting parents, rather than parents supporting children. A sad state of affairs when children are seen as being akin to cash crops.
In a socialist system what the welfare system has stoked a mentality of entitlement.
Now that we have DNA testing we NEED TO ATTACH EVERY CHILD TO ITS BIOLOGICAL FATHER. And if he won’t voluntarily support his child then we NEED to attach his wages. If he is dead, chronically ill, so disabled that he cannot work, or temporarily unemployed then the state can chip in a little something.
But my philosophy is that he who enjoyed the screw should support the little bastard. He didn’t call on me to help him enjoy his fcuk, so why should he call on my tax money to support his lil’ bastard?
If Freundel is planning this the DLP will NOT get my vote.
David, why can’t you simply say that you don’t know instead of pompasetting with non sequiturs such as “the internet is your oyster?” I have done the research and I can find nothing of the need for a ROYAL Commission to remove a judge in independent barbados and I am unable to find any concept of a Deputy Judge in our Law. Someone must have found a few pages out torn from a book on English Legal Systems! Hmmmm..
@jack spratt
Your strategy navigating BU is now folklore.
Throwing sprat(t)s will not work.
I take it then you do not know. Over and out!
@spratt
You should know better than that, maybe one of the legal beavers in the mainstream media will write on it 🙂
Truthman
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, I now get-up (sumting dat you in do recently,lol) from sleepin so dah is why I in see you addressment to me. Now lemma hear ya. Ya really tink dat my hard earned money should go ta support de offspring a dead-beat dads? I nevva nevva phoop a woman yet so why I should be supportin children dat in minez? Leh de same dead-beat dads dat enjoi de ‘sweets’, wuk n support dem young whuns. De same way dem cud ‘gett- up’ n fcuk, dem could get-up n wuk to support dem lil pickney. Not my money. Sorry. All my sons got young whuns n dem gotta support dem or ga up de road fa ‘cock-tax’. Not a cent a minez Mr. Freundel. We would part cumpnee.
But I still luv Freundel rale bad,Truthman, so doan mess wid he fa ma.I plannin ta prapoze ta he anyday now.Doan worry, you gun get a ‘invite’, causen we gun want sumbody ta pick up de bottles afta de big-do.
Tek dah.
mwahhhhhhhhhhh, tak dah tu, ya rebel.
E-Petition in full stride in the UK:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1090
Cuh Dear
Wait, who is dis lil ‘up-start’ dat kno me sa good? Anywayz, ya kno ma good fa tru. Man, I luv dis man Mr. Chief Justice rale bad. I tink he is so irresistible. Tall, dark, hansum, sexy n de lil ‘gap’ between he teets. ( I got one a dem lil ‘gaps’ tu) Oh my lawdyyyy, I got my eyez pun he.
Looka anudda fella dat I find really irresistible is Conde Riley. Tink I got de rite name. He’s associated wid WI cricket, I tink. Tawk bout a sexy ol boy wid the snow-head n beard.
stupseeeeeeeee, I gone man, causen my tong gettin a ‘hard-on’.
I gone man.
Cuh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Random Thoughts | September 3, 2011 at 7:38 AM. There is a saying. Maternity is a matter of fact – paternity is a matter of opinion. This, of course, predated DNA.
With equal rights for women and the pill and other forms of contraception that have to be applied (or inserted) by the woman, I suggest to you that the choice of reproduction is now that of the woman. With HIV rife, of course, it makes sense for a man to use condoms. However, if a man asks a woman if she is protected against pregnancy and she says yes, don’t you feel that this does in large measure absolve him from responsibility for subsequent pregnancy? It is, of course, a big reach and would probably not stand a chance, but is there not an element of entrapment – and misrepresentation? Devils advocate.
@Spratt. Had you used the Internet as your oyster as David suggested or had the slightest concept of the laws that govern our land, as you purport to, maybe the judicial system would not be in the mess that it is in. Of course there are provisions for the removal of judges by Royal Commission in Barbados and you will hear more about it, let me promise you. Soon. And I went online and checked the Times Law Reports reference to deputy judges – and know what? The reference by BU is 100% accurate. Indeed, today’s date all over the British press are refences to a sentencing appeal from a decision of one such, Cherie Booth Q.C., by the UK Home Secretary that has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. By the way, Cherie Booth Q.C. is the wife of the former prime minister, Tony Blair. So, as David says, use the Internet as your oyster – go on line, if you know how, and read ANY of the headlines for the UK papers today. It is front page on the Daily Mail and a few others.
Amused, I beg you only this. Could you refer me to the two relevant provisions in Barbadian law which establish your point? Insult my ignorance if you must, but could you do me that small favour…please?
@Spratt. I see you have abandoned your point about queens counsel being deputy judges. Let me therefore dispose of the question of the removal of judges from office – and that it has never been done, does not mitigate or reduce the fact that the mechanism is in place for such removal. And you can try to put whatever spin you like on it, but it most assuredly CAN be done and, in recent years, many counsel have both contemplated putting the mechanism into operation and, in some cases, threatened it. With the result that long “reserved” judgements have suddenly materialized. I quote from the Constitution, which is available online (let your fingers do the searching).
“Section 84. 3. A Judge may be removed from office only for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause*) or for misbehavior, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4).
4. A Judge shall be removed form office by the Governor General, by instrument under the Public Seal, if the question of the removal of that Judge form office has, at the request of the Governor General, made in pursuance of subsection (5), been referred by Her majesty to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council and the Judicial Committee has advised Her Majesty that the Judge ought to be removed from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehavior.
5. If the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or the Chief Justice after consultation with the Prime Minister (in the case of any other Judge) advises the Governor General that the question of removing a Judge form office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehavior ought to be investigated, then –
a. the Governor General shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members selected by the Governor General in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chief Justice) or of the Chief Justice (in the case of any other Judge) from among person who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court:
b. that tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the Governor General and advise the Governor General whether he should request that the question of the removal of that Judge should be referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee: and
c. if the tribunal so advises, the Governor General shall request that the question should be referred accordingly.”
Happy now?
This is a Royal Commission? The JCPC? Moreover, has there not been an implied repeal of this now that the JCPC is no longer our highest court?
My God, Amused, you are ignorant of that which you speak! And I have not abandoned the point about the deputy judgeship but I won’t ask you anything else again, believe me.
Implied repeal? What implied repeal? It would be far more credible to say that the matter now goes to the CCJ instead of the JCPC and not, like some little child whistling in the dark, pretend that the threat has gone away. AND we know exactly what the CCJ thinks of Barbados’ judges. Cold comfort for those members of the bench that our friend Spratt seeks to reassure.
UK Prime Minister has announced some elements of Court proceedings will be televised:
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16063466
Yesterday the CJ made some interesting disclosures:
1. the use of law interns to assist judges with research and getting experience in the process.
2. A greater use of ADR; we have people on remand for too long.
3. Ensuring that sentencing for praedial ;larceny as an example fits the serious of the crime.
@David. With respect, I don’t think Gibson CJ was thinking of criminal cases when he advocated bringing retired judges in to preside over ADR. These would be for civil cases. Criminal requires that either the accused plead guilty or be tried by a jury of their peers. Negotiations in criminal cases are between prosecution and defense counsel. Sometimes, the parties will consider it prudent to plead to and allow a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea, in which case the judge can go right on to sentencing and save the court time and the time of a jury, plus the expense of a trial. ADR relates to settling civil disputes where it is likely to the benefit of both sides – this saves a lot of time and money for the litigants and certainly avoids clogging up the courts.
Praedial larceny has become big business, is a serious crime and social problem and does need to be dealt with aggressively.
I also think that the idea of getting students to assist judges with their research is a very good one. Now, all that needs be done is to ensure that the brightest and best are chosen and that nepotism plays no part in it. Of course, there is the problem that a student may understand the law better than the judge, in some circumstances. Little things like civil procedure rules.
So far, the CJ is living up to the hype. I have no reason to suppose, other than by lack of government backing, that he will not continue to do so.
I have read with interest the English plan to introduce live TV into the courts. My understanding is that this will cover only sentencing phases in trials of public interest. Hopefully Barbados will follow this, which in its turn follows the USA. Remember the OJ trial? It would be very interesting to hear from the BU family as to whether they think criminal cases of public interest ought to be televised and their reasons for their opinions. It might kill off the audience for the Young and the Restless.
@Amused
Thanks for the clarification. Item 2 should be split in two. The CJ mentioned the need for reform to the remand setup.
My darling Amused
No, I whun like ta see dese cases televised causen when de criminals start ta sob n brek dung, I gun ga ta pieces n my heart gun soffen fa dem. So leh be n pop de bitches neck. Poppppppppp.
Ya see dem 3 in de Nation front page taday? indeed sad. dem cud be out day mekkin sum young ting(or a ol ting like me) happy. insted dem hankuff n facin some serious charges. Ent dem igrunt nah?
De fair-skin whun triceps n biceps in look bad a’tall. He coulda lock off my neck anytime wid dem. i wunt-ta complane.
Amused, but den I flip ta de back page. Oh my gawddddddddd, rite in front ma eyez, dare was de CJ. All like now de papah still rale whet. I luv dis man rale serius. Wonda wah i would gotta do ta appare befo he. Any idays? I gotta meet he;by de hook or de krook. Tell ma wah ta do nah.
@Bonny. You too bad. Just hang round the court. He gotta come out some time. Then disable the policeman by flashing your charms and the CJ is yours, cause he will see the charms too.
Amused
Which court, which courtttttttt? tawk fass, I hay dressin as we speek. wah time de court is shut?
Tell de trute, I feel dat when I cass my eyez pun he, dat de fuss ting i wood do is fainttttttttt. Nex ting ya kno he wanna kno, ‘wait, who is dis hungry woman hay layin dung pun de groun n froffin at de mout? Looka, lemme gih she mout ta mout recession, or wah evva ya is call um.”
Den is when I would mek my move. Hole on pun dah tong a his n suck um like a lolli-lollipop. A sweetttttttt thang like he. I tu luvs he.
I tinkin serius bout changin my prafesshun. I tinkin bout tekkin up law.
Greetings bloggers collective
Salutations
The Eyes of Truth are Watching You!
So Marston: Gibson is the now appointed CJ, really?
My Lord….Realy? What ignorant repulsive nonsense.
It is written that all men and women are created equal. I should also add with unalienable rights, endowed by the creator. Tell me did Marston: Gibson created you? Yet until we get back there in consciousness of knowing who you are, you my fellow being will always be a serving subject of the undeserving, and what or who you serve is indeed the question. Is it the truth? For with your eloquent rendition of political flamboyancy yet the hard valued question was evaded for a posture poise in acquiescence limbo.
As I recall when this issue came up there was a matter of stipulated criteria to qualify, notwithstanding a dead politician’s presumed wishes.
Be that as it may I am a layman. When you tell me there is a criteria to be met in such matters then that provides the bar of presumed equality for all to observe. So tell me was the criteria met by Marston: Gibson? Again not withstanding the blatant display of expediency of laws of Barbados by it’s revolving Government. But what are standards if but to be broken by the standard makers for political gain indeed. But yet I ask would that same zeal be displayed of the changing of an Act in haste for the benefit of public interest as opposed to political benefit? Believe me they (Public and political are entirely two different interest indeed.
It is no surprise to me, the world youth, vividly are completely disgusted and fed up with the double standards in practice all around them. On entering this Earth they are asked to abide by the rules and conformance of standards, only to see such standards redefined time and time again buy those who spend great energy creating and enforcing conformity except for themselves.
However, the issue I raise is not with the man Marston: Gibson. Perhaps he is an able CJ and would have my unquestionable approval but for an underlining historical omission.
Marston: Gibson did not meet with the criteria of practising of law a minimum of 15yrs a common law jurisdiction as was highlighted as a criteria in a previous blog. Now that might seem as an outrageous thing to say, but for this historical fact and I challenge those who wish to prove otherwise!
FACT:
1. The USA stop being a practising common law jurisdiction certainly at the time of Abraham Lincoln.
2, On the North becoming bankrupt at the time, the South through Congress was asked to act as surety on the behalf of and allow the North to enter into Chapter 11 bankruptcy with its then bankster creditors, but the South refused at said meeting and walked out in disgust leaving the house of congress in seni di (at rest). However, Abraham: Lincoln committed an act of treason by marching the South congress at gun point and forcefully made the South sign documents which unlawfully allow Abraham: Lincoln to create a now US corporation acting as a legal government and with it a new corporate constitution.
3. Subsequently Abraham: Lincoln was assassinated and over time the USA public was tricked unwittingly to opt out of Common Law jurisdiction into a Legal contracting jurisdiction know as Admiralty and Equity with the US corporate government. It is in direct fact that affiances were deny Common Law rights in the US courts is what led to suspicion. Subsequent investigative research brought about the discovery of this hidden history.
4. This was soon asap spread into all other presumed Common Law practising countries under the same contracting pretence. otherwise we would not have the “legal” yet blatantly unlawful system and practising violations we see today by the rule makers!
5. In Common Law there is a presumption of Innocence until proven Guilty!
In Admiralty and Equity there is a presumption of Guilty until proven Innocence!
6. In Common Law a jury of your peers is paramount of due process.
In Admiralty and Equity a judge or administrator will determine your fate; due process in limited if at all existent.
7. Common Law is not the same as Admiralty or Equity Law their are like chalk and cheese with tastes to match.
8. In the world today Contract is the Law, subject to three legally binding pillars: 1. Full disclosure. 2. Equal terms or consideration. 3. Wet ink Signatures of parties.
NB:
The omission of any one of those three pillars renders the alleged contract void ab initio.
So tell me where was Marston: Gibson when all of these events were taking placed. which court did he practice Common Law? some of you might see no relevance to Barbados. But to admit the above truths would be exposing of an even greater lie and deception that applies to the whole world. The world was hijacked and Mankind has been a participating slave of his/her destruction. Outside the protection of Common Law you are a slave!! The lacking of the acquired criteria of practising Common Law in a specified number (15) of years exposes this whole process as a big lie!
However, guess what? This above facts will remain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yet Marston: Gibson will carry on as CJ because of that cunning governance we have in Admiralty call Tacit agreement. marvellous in it not? Yes the decisive Agreement of Silence.
And where did this poison of society came from? It came from the propagating within our educational indoctrinating institutions, of the false notion of what Law, Equality and a True Government system really is.
See if you can spot True Government system; Law, and Equality. Remember now it is all about the facts.
Facts:
1. Did you know that there are five possible forms of government systems that has been the umbrella of all the isms that keeps us on the treadmill of hatred? When will we learn? Now is as good a time!
Government Systems:
1. Anarchy; total chaos, who wants that? No rules whatsoever.
2. Oligarchy; Rules yes, but by a hidden hand of a Few. Still not a beacon of equality there for all to see.
3. Monarchy; My Lord…Rule by the “One” Yep if the king/Queen as much as tell you to grunt like a pig you better. Might seem extreme no doubt but there were times where the refusal to do so could lead to unfavourable consequences like losing your head. Nope no Equality unalienable rights protection there either. The other ruse is that it rarely is rule by one but often in fact is really oligarchy behind the scenes, rule by the few
4. Democracy; Rule by the People. In other words, 51% of population can deny the other 49% of their rights. But very often it is not the majority but presumption of the majority because of that poisonous practice of Tacit Agreement of silence. No objection is the Legal approval. All you who advocate equality how can you critically accept Democracy with all the blatant flaws it has. and this too is also an oligarchy in disguise. Critically ask yourselves when is the last time you felt you were government? Democracy has been the Leap-Frog process to tyrannical Oligarchy government system worldwide. Time to wake the hell up bloggers.
5. Republican; Rule by the (Common) Law. My jaw hit the floor when I discover this fact. I asked where was this in my educational schooling. Where was this in my Criminology degree. I am past being angry now. After all for whom will be deceive let him be deceived, right?. Now there are the capitalist and Dawinist philosophy roll into one. Deception is the name of the game.
But so you don’t miss it, did you spot the Law, Equality and True system of Government? Well it is laid out like this.
There is the Creator. (sorry evolutionist, your unsubstantiated claims are partly why the Earth is in such a mess) in blessing the existence of mankind on this Earth declared all men/women Equals with Unalienable rights. With the responsibility to do no harm, commit no fraud and not to breech the peace. In other words your rights begin where my ends. When anyone of those responsibilities is violated, no tacit agreement can stand in the way of Lawful remedy. The Law in such terms doesn’t seek approval only evidence of facts. So one man can tell the whole world to Lawfully leave him alone to get on with his life in pursuit of happiness. As long as those three responsibilities are not violated then no Law is broken. Not complicated is it?
Man created government to serve his administrative needs and protect the unalienable rights which wasn’t given to man neither to be taken away from man by government. But it has proven to be in government’s best interest to collude with hidden forces to propagate the Admiralty, Equity, fake (Fiat) Democratic System because with perfection man has handed his rights over to government, whereby governments are now the master and man the slave. In a True Common Law, governments in their current form will not exist today. this is self evident!
The issue underlining Marston: Gibson is of greater importance than the appointment it self but a re-edification that the Barbados government is implicit in the continuance of the great deception the world has ever known. it is indeed wise to question the allegiance or intent of a Rhode scholar. Many of you think that little Barbados is outside of the remit of the power grab going on in the world. You will soon discover that the powers that be are already amongst you. Yes born of the soil but with a hidden loyalty until death to a force beyond its waters.
Yet with such horror remains a beacon of hope. As of the 30th of March 2010, through Lawful and Constitutional process the USA organic Lawful government was reinstalled and registered with the Hague and international court of Law. So the battle for Freedom has historically and continues to echo from the land of united States of America. Two worlds now created only must survive. Once again Common Law has found its standing in the world again but yet still denied by many.
Common Law would put George: Bush senior and junior, Dick: Cheney et al. Tony: Blair, Gordon: Brown, David: Cameron and Sarkozy et. al and all the other politician entities that implicitly threw a wrench into the checks and balances of the public’s constitutional protection, behind bars -everyone of them. The worldly political action of transferring of the world’s private debt into the world’s public responsibility is by far the most treasonous action against manity of post generations of this era. We did not walk out in disgust and with strength told our governments no. Instead we tacit went along in silence and now the world is facing financial melt-down with unjustifiable debt.
@Amused
If there is one person’s writing that I dont have a problem with is yours. In every profession there is a procdeure for removing professionals frome the regiter, Similary, there would have to be procedures in place to remove magistrate, jusdges etc. Any how, thanks for educting those persons who dont have to deal with the Laws of Barbdos, like you and I.
@Bonny
Why dont you behave?Every man in public life you want, you soon will get some lashes. But any body lay the hans on you I gun getm ma drone aircraft and sting dah with some missiles. I hear fah yuh, so dont fear yah hear.
@David
I join with you and those BU members who mean well in welcoming our CJ and hope that he will bring some meaningful change and improvement to the the judiciary. I am proud that he is a graduate of UWI, and we UWI gradutes welcome him back home and will support him, knowing that the race is not for the swift, but he that endure will endure to the end.