David Comissiong Has No Olive Branch to Offer on the Hyatt Case!
Submitted by David Comissiong, Citizen of Barbados SO FAR as the Hyatt Hotel is concerned, I — David Andre Comissiong – – have no “olive branch” to offer to anyone! I wish to state for the record that I have never said anything about offering the new Barbados Labour Party (BLP) government any so-called “olive…
220 responses to “David Comissiong Has No Olive Branch to Offer on the Hyatt Case!”
-
David BU and the blp yardfowls /birds were crying bloody murder when Carrington was alledge to have not carried out the court order placed against him to pay Mr.Griffith
Even after Carrington honoured the court order the voices of theft was lodged against him
But now there is open allegations levelled against FakeGeorge Walton Payne and his side kick Dale fake AG the voices by the blp yardfowls including David has become muted
with all sort of excuses to protect the fraudster in charge of running govt affairs
How low can barbados go when those on charge of prosecuting the corruptors are corrupt themselves -
Piece…we should not be hearing about any black governments in Barbados or anywhere in the Caribbean allowing british citizens to enslave, trafficking or commit any modern day slavery crimes against black people right, not with these new laws in place for UK to lock the up in any country they are accused of these crimes.
I hope the Mia government knows about this and are staying on top the new laws regarding victimizing the population…… because I know a lot of local and foreign minorities on the island carry british citizenship and can be arrested for believing they can continue the practice of playing slave master…
“A British nurse has become the first person to be convicted under new modern slavery laws, after being found guilty of trafficking five Nigerian women to Germany to work as prostitutes.
Josephine Iyamu was prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act involving victims who have no connection to the UK but have been victimised by a British national.”
-
The possibilities are endless..
We can now investigate to see which of the crooks who have been abusing the elderly, stealing their land and properties and money…rendering them paupers….and the minority business people who treat black bajans as slaves….are british nationals.
Just gather all their names and give to the home office to get the info about their british national status through diplomatic channels, problem solved, the days of these slimy, bottom feeding wannabe slave masters in Barbados will be numbered, we can finally wipe their blighted, parasitic and cursed presence off the island’s landscape and out of the lives of bajans.
-
Mariposa
You need help. lmao
-
The trouble with cutting and pasting is that there is no analysis or understanding. Once again it is a black person convicted on a dubious charge – the long reach of UK law. This is not the first time. A book can be written on how juries convict black people on these charges: the first to be convicted under the Race Relations Act; the first to be convicted under the no smoking legislation on the underground; the case that led to restrictions on challenging juries; I can go on. It is picking low hanging fruit. White juries simply convict black people. The police know this.
The same with the criminal histories of many young black people: first conviction, riding bicycles on the pavement; resisting arrest, when stopped on bogus grounds; etc. The idea is to get that first conviction.
To mis-interpret this is the idea. The communities notorious for trafficking prostitutes are the Eastern European and Chinese, through nail shops and so-called traditional Chinese massage centres which operate as fronts for prostitution. The same with so-called county line drug dealing.
It is easy dealing with the supply chain, young unemployed black boys looking for make money; but the demand is what is driving the business – young, white, professional people hooked on drugs. Stop the demand and the supply will go away.
But if copying and pasting and Googling crap is your game, plse go ahead.. -
lol..exyardfowl is limited intellect, tunnel visioned and can only focus on one useless topic at a time..lol
She has no sense of timing at all, now we know who caused the 30-0
-
Hal…ya missing the point…she got caught in shit she got convicted, her problem.
The bigger picture here is the actual existence of the law which few would have known about had she not been convicted..
That act can now be used to rein in and damn well convict those British nationals in Barbados who practice modern day slavery…which by the way is now a long list of crimes…
Now if I had to choose between believing a Guardian UK story, a world renowned credible newspaper and you….well ya know….Windrush is still world class reporting and still up for a world class award…
but you?..steuuppps
trust you, the self proclaimed journalist to miss the whole damn point.
-
Wuh loss they say Mariposa need help in the meanwhile they are worshipping a govt that have two shisters running the affairs of barbados one a fake solicitor whose certification cannot be found in the UK and another an AG who is alleged to be complict in stolen property.
Phew -
Do not forget a PM who does not have a LEC.
-
Five videos and on full blast the heat would continue the views and shares on social media would overwhelmed the deafening silence of George Walton Payne and Dale the sidekick Marshall
David where is all the transparency talk u hoisted on BU.
I dare you post all the videos that exposed George Walton Payne misdeeds against the old lady
George Walton Payne there is a bulls eye pointing in your direction
and not looking good
David ha ha .hate to see you laying in bed corruptors and trying to cover up the stained mattress -
I know the british social engineering is a real thing, but for black people to be still so blind, should be a crime.
-
David do you not feel somewhat ashamed of self by trying to distract attention from the George Payne issue when there is an old lady looking for justice for the misdeeds which were done against her by two ministers of the crown who know can perform ministerial duties in light of fradulent allegations levelled against them by a poor old lady and her daughter
David dont you not feel a liittle bit of compassion towards them
What if these misdeeds were done to your mother
Would you still be silent and used methods by way of distraction to protect the offenders
I have dare you more than once to follow up on other videos posted on fb and to repost them om Bu but to no avail
I hate to belive that all the long talk coming from your mouth about transparency was as fake as George Payne and his side kick Dale AG Marshall -
What ac who is screaming without any intelligent plan should do is find out if George Payne and Marshall are british nationals..lol
look ac…I just threw you a. bone, now stop harassing the Blogmaster and start digging for information…ask their fellow crooked lawyers in the now defunct DLP…as fellow thieves in the legal fraternity, they will know..
…get advice on how to move forward from there, because I will not tell ya…and stop being a pest and trying to act like the blog should be doing your job for you..
Ask Michael Lashley..
-
Instead of asking Lashley i would prefer to ask Mia what advice would she give the two scams in her ministry that are involved in alleged land fraud accusations
Also doesnt it bother her that those apponitments in the areas to which they have been assigned is too close for comfort to the allegations of which they have been accused and is it not as if the fox is given free acess to guarding the hen house -
The two imbeciles can run but cant hide. The campagain of alleged fradulent charges levelled against fake George Payne and fake AG Dale Marshall would keep rolling the shares on the video has doubled
Soon the campagain would be extended to Public view
These two scroundels must be held accountable they ran of the foundation of transparency and accountability
On another note Barbados Today has also questioned Fake George Payne doings as he make an unilteral decision to fire past govt workers without fair an due process when such allegations were levelled against past govt hell broke out with Unions calling out their workers to march
One can rest assured that no such actions would be called for by the Unions who now is feels comfortable to lay down with lions and be mauled at every oppirtunity
The measly 5% which the unions have accepted on behalf of their workers is only the beginning to a route of self destruction by the Unions
In the meanwhile Fake George would flip the script and act as dictator large and In charge of who gets fired without due process while the Unions look the other way with eyes wide shut -
Mariposa,
Barbadian voters had a chance to reject all lawyer/politicians and failed to. They got the political culture they nurtured.
-
“The Hyatt Centric resort, a 15-storey hotel earmarked for the Barbadian capital is a go, said the government agency marketing Barbados abroad.”
It will be opened in 2020!
-
“Proceed at your own risk.” This word of caution to Hyatt developer, Mark Maloney, comes from social activist and Ambassador to CARICOM David Commissiong, who is warning that any plans to construct the 15-storey hotel could very well result in major losses.
Following the reports surfacing this last week that construction could begin in 2019; Comissiong told Barbados TODAY this morning that he has no intention of backing off from his legal challenge to the planning permission for the US $100-million project, which was filed in 2017.
The attorney-at-law explained that while there was nothing legally preventing the hotel from being built as permission was granted by then Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, the pending court ruling on whether that permission was lawful, could result in the forced abandonment of the project midway.
“If the developer starts building then most definitely I will approach the courts to have the matter brought forward because obviously I will not sit back and allow the developer to complete the construction without the case being concluded,” Comissiong stressed.
Back in March 2017, Comissiong filed for a Judicial Review of the permissions granted by Stuart to Maloney for the construction of the hotel based on a perceived failure by Maloney to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) at the construction site.(Quote)Is Ambassador Commissiong on a collision path with the government? Could Hyatt be the cause of a split in the Mottley government? Is the proposed Hyatt building part of the Corridor of Hotels, or is that in addition? Has government pinpointed the spots for the 12 proposed hotels? Has it got planning application already or is it now going to sell planning approval? We need clarity from this the most autocratic and secretive government in recent memory.
-
What split in the Mottley government are you referring?
-
KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.
SyllabusOpinion
[ Stevens ]
Concurrence
[ Kennedy ]
Dissent
[ O’Connor ]
Dissent
[ Thomas ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF versionSyllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUTNo. 04—108.Argued February 22, 2005–Decided June 23, 2005
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.
Held: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6—20.
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.
(b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.
(c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U.S., at 26. Pp. 13—20.
268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.