The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – On the Prevention of Corruption 6

As if it were not enough to file a declaration of financial affairs and, in the case of members of parliament, a statement of registrable interests, every specified person in public life other than a member or staff member of the Commission is also mandated by Clause 45 (1) to report to the Commission the receipt (offer?) of a gift worth more than $1 000. Even though it is expressly left up to the reporter to ascribe the nature of the gift, whether personal or official, the final determination is left up to the Commission itself so that the categorization of the gift by the specified person in public life is a mere preliminary assessment. The reason for this is not clear. I suppose that even though there is no penalty attached to an innocent misclassification, most will therefore seek to make use of Clause 45 (5)-

A specified person in public life who is unsure whether a gift received from a relative or friend is a personal gift or an official gift may apply to the Commission seeking its opinion as to the proper classification of the gift.

This opinion is based on the provision in Clause 47 that makes it an offence where a specified person in public life “knowingly makes a report to the Commission pursuant to section 45(1) or to the Governor-General pursuant to section 46, which is incomplete or false in any material particular.”

A gift may be retained by the individual if the Commission finds after inquiry that “a gift was given to a specified person in public life personally and

(i)  was trivial; or

(ii)  was not trivial, but was not intended to be a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in the course of the performance of his official functions or for causing any other person to do or forbear from doing anything,..”

It is sometimes said in law that the devil himself knows not the intention of man, but the Commission here will purport to divine the innocence of the intention of one who gives a gift worth more than $ 1 000 to a person in public life. Might it not be more in keeping with the spirit of the legislation not to permit the retention of any such gift in any circumstance at all?

If the Commission does not permit retention of the gift, then its disposal is prescribed in Clause 45 (7)(b)-

“…the Commission shall direct the specified person in public life in writing to deliver the gift to the Minister responsible for Finance within such period, not exceeding 30 days, as may be specified by the Commission; and the specified person in public life shall comply with the direction within the time so specified.

Members and staff members of the Commission similarly situated as to the receipt of gifts must make their report to the Governor General, although gifts to their spouses and children are also covered, a glaring omission in the case of the other specified persons in public life. –Clause 46.

Part VII of the Bill treats acts of corruption. These are catalogued at Clause 51 and covers essentially acts of bribery by both the offeror and the recipient of the bribe, although it also includes one who-

pursues, in the exercise of his functions as a public official, a course of conduct with respect to another public official which amounts to offensive sexual comments, gestures or physical contact or other conduct of a similar nature”

and one who

pursues, in the exercise of his functions as a public official, a course of conduct by which he exploits his position or authority for his sexual gratification.

 

While these forms of behaviour clearly constitute reprehensible conduct, their immediate link to corruption in public life is not made sufficiently clear since it is not expressly required that they be linked directly or at all to any act of corruption in public life. It is conceded that they may gravely implicate integrity at one level, however.

Also specifically covered as acts of corruption are bribery in procurement of goods, works or services- Clause 52 and transnational bribery –Clause 53. Again we must note the relative insignificance of the fines prescribed, especially in the context of the likely size of a worthwhile bribe, given the existence of the legislation. There seems to be no reason why the fine payable should not equate to the amount transferred as consideration for the act of corruption, where applicable.

There appears to be, in addition, a tainted property offence, although the penalty remains in personam -against the individual- rather than in rem against the property that would thereby remain susceptible to forfeiture by the state –

A person who possesses or is in control of any property knowing that the property or part of the property or proceeds from the property were obtained or derived, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an act of corruption, is guilty of an offence and is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine of $20 000 or to imprisonment for 5 years or to both;

(b)  on summary conviction to a fine of $10 000 or to imprisonment for 2 years or to both; and

(c)  to be disqualified from holding any public office for a period of 5 years from the date of conviction for the offence.

The Bill provides for a rebuttable presumption of corruption in circumstances where it is established that in seeking to obtain a public contract, a person received or gave money, a gift or other consideration. This may be rebutted by disproof to the contrary on a balance of probabilities, or that it was more likely than not that the money was not so given or so accepted.

Also worthy of mention is the proposed local equivalent to the unexplained wealth order to be found in Clause 57 although this is again made an offence in personam and does not lead to forfeiture of the property to the state.-

(1) Where a person who is or was a public official is suspected to be in possession of property or a pecuniary resource disproportionate to such person’s known sources of income, the Commission, upon a complaint or of its own motion, may summon the person to produce evidence that the property or resource was lawfully obtained.

(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) who fails to produce satisfactory evidence to prove that the possession of the property or pecuniary resource was acquired by lawful means is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine and to imprisonment for not less than 6 months or more than 3 years.

 

The fine may however be substantial and based on the value of the asset See Clause 57 (3)

In imposing a fine pursuant to subsection (2) on a person found guilty of an offence under that subsection, the court shall have regard to the value of the property or pecuniary resource in the possession of the person, which cannot be accounted for by his known sources of income or other lawful means of acquisition of property or pecuniary resources and the fine shall be equivalent to one and one half times the value of the property or pecuniary resource found to be in the possession of the person and for which no such account can be made.

 

To be continued….

 

45 comments

  • “every specified person in public life other than a member or staff member of the Commission is also mandated by Clause 45 (1) to report to the Commission the receipt (offer?”

    So are these commission members who will have no accountability to anyone, be the official money launderers, land launderers for those who are not EXEMPT from receiving bribes and practicing corruption…

    These criminals for lawmakers are already setting things up to continue the ripoff of the people and the elderly…unabated….let me guess who will be sitting on this criminal commission along with whichever fellow crook THEY choose….Simmons, Haynes, Marshall….the same shady crooks who drafted the fraud legislation. ..

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    What a waste of legislative time and resources to draft this piece of gobble- de- gook with so many escape clauses. It threatens not only to choke up the overburdened legal system but the administrative system as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff@ these crimes from the past are still killing Barbados today, We and other gave warnings and it must be seen to agree to the point that it can no longer stay hidden , Like a crack in a dam, 9/11 or Pearl Harbor We all knew it was coming, But did nothing then action surprised,. Massive Land Fraud and PONZI is the case , Clear Title is the CURE, We have a CRIME problem and NO enforcement by COP nor DPP both needs to GO,,,,, Richard L Cheltenham, CO Williams, David Simmons,Mia as AG, Owen As PM, and today At the Helm Crime Minister Mia the well know Crook , liar, and Scumbag,Vote Better Next time BFP/CUP.We have the truth that was hidden,

    Like

  • @ Vincent Codrington, all legislation in Barbados is gobble- de- gook except to members of the legal profession.

    Hopefully the “draft ” is reviewed and changed by those who can see the ” mistakes “.

    One thing that should be legislated is the ” proceeds of crime/corruption/bribery.

    Example. A drug dealer should not be allowed to pay lawer’s fees from money he obtained by selling drugs.

    Ok this is all above my level of competence so I gine lef it fuh now.

    Like

  • Have any of the indian students in Barbados committed suicide after being stranded and robbed, like those who killed themselves in Guyana..Ronald Jones want locking up…..that right there is the price of nasty government corruption. .

    What a scandal..

    https://www.guyanaguardian.com/3-more-commits-suicide-as-guyana-university-linked-to-major-scam/

    “Three more students from India who had paid monies to attend the Alexander American University in Guyana are reported to have killed themselves between Tuesday and today, after discovering that the Guyana-based offshore university was being operated by now-imprisoned scammer Venkata Rao Gopi, who was arrested last Friday in Barbados after news surfaced that he is one of India’s most wanted Fraudsters.

    This now brings the total number of students to have committed suicide as it relates to Alexander American University and its Barbados counterpart, Washington American University, to a total of 7 deaths in ten days.

    It was widely reported that Gopi had fleeced hundreds of students in India, and took their monies to set up the Alexander American University in Guyana and the Washington University in Barbados, laundering millions of scam dollars in the process.”

    Like

  • Have any of the indian students in Barbados committed suicide after being stranded and robbed, like those who REPORTEDLY killed themselves in Guyana…still trying to confirm this, because it is difficult to wrap one’s head around this.

    Like

  • Well, another article I have to read three times.

    Like

  • Let’s hope FBI hauls in Ronald Jones, let’s hear him telling them crap about he is a private citizen..

    “Admitting that they are indeed interested in an international scam involving two offshore universities in Guyana, and one in Barbados, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are now taking a closer look at the operators and operations of several offshore universities in Guyana and the Caribbean.

    A usually reliable source with connections to the FBI Field Office in New York has told the Guyana Guardian that, the investigative body automatically has an interest because of the fact that at least two of the students who are affected by the fraud, are American citizens that were residing in India with their respective parents.”

    Like

  • Shame and disgrace for the islands.

    “CaribbeanTop stories
    FBI to Take a Deeper Look Into Guyana’s Offshore Universities
    By Wonita Stephens -October 14, 2018
    342
    SHARED THIS
    Share
    Tweet
    Views: 3,486

    Admitting that they are indeed interested in an international scam involving two offshore universities in Guyana, and one in Barbados, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are now taking a closer look at the operators and operations of several offshore universities in Guyana and the Caribbean.

    A usually reliable source with connections to the FBI Field Office in New York has told the Guyana Guardian that, the investigative body automatically has an interest because of the fact that at least two of the students who are affected by the fraud, are American citizens that were residing in India with their respective parents.

    It is also part of the wider responsibility of the FBI to look into money laundering cases, where stolen or fraudulently obtained monies were directly or indirectly funnelled through the US banking system.

    Calling it a billion dollar a year fraud industry, Former FBI agent Allen Ezell estimates that half of the new PhDs issued every year in the U.S. are fake, while more than 75% of the Masters and Phd’s issued in other countries outside of the US are believed to be fake.

    Since helping to close down dozens of offshore universities outside of the US over the years, the Feds have repeatedly pointed to a network of people, ranging from Ministers of government to Diplomats of many foreign nations corruptly cashing in one way or the other, in exchange for aiding the establishment and operations of degree mills, which often parades with questionable accreditation statuses or political endorsements.

    It is believed that at least 50 new offshore universities are established every year, with more than 95% of them being set up by operatives from India or Pakistan.

    In Guyana’s case, every single offshore university that is operating here and in the rest of the Caribbean is owned by Indian citizens posing as foreign investors, and who largely recruits students from India and the African continent.

    The United States believes that corruption and a lax accreditation system have made Guyana an attractive territory for foreigners wishing to set up offshore medical universities, which is often used as a front to traffic students for a fee, and to also obtain money by fraud.”

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Hants at 12 :36 PM

    Law is made for the regulation of a society of average men. It must be reasonably clear, not written in such a way that the ordinary man is not too sure of when he has breached the law. Furthermore his rights should be clear and understandable. This law needs a QC or a professor of law to interpret it.

    Like

  • @ Mr. Vincent Codrington

    And this inability to translate the law IS PRECISELY WHAT MIA MUGABE AND HER GOONS are relying on cause if you cant understand what I have done then you cannot even start to investigate whether I have committed a crime or not…

    Like

  • For the instruction of those who think they know and for those who don’t know and those that need to know.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @pieceuhderockyeahright,

    These laws are probably being written so that no one can be seen to be cherry picking the parts that could end up in a sewage pipe.

    I am not a lawyer and would not try to understand the party of the first part or anything with words like obfuscation.

    Too besides I only got O level English and left school after 5th form. lol

    Like

  • @ Brother Hants

    Look I made a remark recently about the dufus Dale Smiley Teets Marshall our Attorney General and his misuse of the word substantive prime minister.

    For man the nuance got lost but the mere misuse of the word and its meaning show how stupid the Attorney General the man who is charged with the drafting of laws for the Mia Mugabe administration, is.

    Saying “…Mia Mugabe, IN HER SUBSTANTIVE ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER…” speaks to the fact that she has other roles.

    Saying substantive Prime Minister is such a humongous mistake that one cannot begin to show its stupidity without underscoring how ingrunt Dale is.

    TO even say that he was reporting the situation to the substantive Prime Minister Mia Mottley shows his idiocy but let de ole man say that (i) he is not a brainaic (ii) his profession are, for the most part, themselves not brainaic, present company of the Luminary excluded and (iii) putting this dufus to chair a committee of this type aided and abetted by Bunnie Haynes and the rest of these oxen, IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER.

    When you have people like Dale saying “contrary with…” you have yourself a problem because he can never understand the dative or the ablative

    De ole man sorry but when you stupid you stupid…and i ent mekking no excuses for a feller…

    Like

  • @ the Honourable Blogmaster, your assistance please with an item for Theophillus thank you

    Like

  • @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    Luminary, de ole man, being up at these hours, begs your indulgence if your computer goes bing in the night notifying you that de ole illiterati has completed the reading assignment.

    Now if Donna, in her substantive role (note that I am using the word abused by Dale Marshall) has to read this document 3 times, then the ole man has to increase my readings to 6!!

    You said and i quote

    “…A gift may be retained by the individual if the Commission finds after inquiry that “a gift was given to a specified person in public life personally and

    (i) was trivial; or

    (ii) was not trivial, but was not intended to be a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in the course of the performance of his official functions or for causing any other person to do or forbear from doing anything,..”

    I am not sure but you may recall that there was a blogger here, one 99999 or five 9’s who took a particular pleasure to gainsay all of your legal opinions here on BU. One got the impression that he was a lawyer, one who had for some reason taken a dislike for you, MAYBE HE DISLIKED YOUR HAZEL EYES that another admirer mentions regularily, heheheheheheh

    I think it was 5 9’s but de ole man may verily be wrong, and if so, i apologize.

    the reason that he comes to mind is really an oddity of the ole man’s that is based on a “concatenation”

    A concatenation of the decimally challenged former Minister of Finance, one Big Sincks (HE WHO MIA MUGABE IS THE GODFATHER sorry GOD MOTHER OF HIS 3rd child) Cris .007 or is that .7 Bonds and five 9″s

    999.99!

    So let me say that, as opposed to $1,000 de ole man was to give 5 gifts values at $999.99 cents would that exceed the threshold of “triviality” given the obviousness of the fact that the gifts, being purposely devalued would not meet the ingrunt limit that these “framers” (that word is being used in the context of a criminal framing someone) have designed this robbers law.

    Now for me, an ingrunt ole man, not versed in these things Luminary, that alone would suggest that the mere mechanics of reporting on $999.83 cents and ingenious devaluations would bring me to agree with your couched suggestion which reads and i quote…

    “…Might it not be more in keeping with the spirit of the legislation NOT TO PERMIT the retention of any such gift in any circumstance at all?”

    As usual you are kind with your articles, a trait which de ole man is hoping that I might acquire such a skill when I grow up, which many here hath confirmed that I NEVER SHALL, and that my Peter Pan youthfulness shall be “my albatross bane forevermore”

    That phrase itself is a prophetic? or is that serendipitious “concatenation” of Samuel Taylor Moore in his Rime of the Ancient Mariner and The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe

    Indeed de ole man could adjust the words of the latter to read

    “…Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
    Over the quaint and curious aspects of this pernicious Enablement Law,
    While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came understanding,
    And the warning of wise men rapping, rapping at my mind’s locked door.
    “‘Tis some Luminary,” I muttered, “crying at our collective “door” –
    Only this, and nothing more.”

    Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak october,
    And each succint vibrant blog seared its message upon my door.
    Eagerly I wished for wisdom; – certainly a scant item – missing
    From the grey matter of this cretin – incapaple of such thoughts – intellectually poor –
    Bereft the ole man was of visioning of the meaning of the Warnings –
    Six times written by the Luminary
    Missed here by the Sheeple forever
    aye and for evermore…”

    Indeed this act above o such blatant plagiarism is only superceded by the conjoint acts of the Government of Barbados now embodied in the Mia Cares administration and the parent organ of the CCJ now seeking to enveigle the Government of Grenada to join its impartial ranks.

    Will you defend de ole man when the family of the Poe authhor comes a-knocking?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ The Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    There are a few things that you mention here about the ommissions of the family of public officials and de ole man may only suggest that you “tread softly” in these pronouncements since you are exposing the purposed “loopholes” that we the SHEEPLE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE, and they the ministers and sexual predators are supposed to benefit from.

    Let me do one thing though.

    All six of your submission could best benefit from a series of condensed Stoopid cartoons.

    I really dont know how muh i can say this.

    The faces of Integrity and Honesty and doing the Right thing are few and far between.

    You alone remain of the stalwarts who are disposed to speak out agains the face of corruption that is masquerading as good government and governance.

    This is certainly not one of the grandson’s getter pieces but, even so, it promotes part of your focused observations AND the promotion of a series of IDB underwritten governance pieces.

    De ole man believes that they would most assuredly support them IF THEY AROSE FROM THE UWI as part of a regional governance awareness programme.

    That is of course if Sir Hilary still has balls cause you know nowadays he does only talk bout good governance and these things in the abstract cause he ent want to offend nobody (forgive my language but time is short and I dont thing the sheeple are aware of what is happening around them NOR DO THEY CARE)

    Like

  • Rather than ‘Laws’, these shiite edicts that are put out by politicians should be referred to as ‘political rules’.

    What LAW what??!!
    No politician can create any ‘LAW’.

    A LAW is an unwavering rule of nature that guides the spiritual, physical and social relationships between everything that exists.
    LAWS DO NOT CHANGE WILY NILY.
    LAWS are mostly not verbose, complex, contradictory or arbitrary.
    LAWS actually work…

    Gravity is a law.
    “Thou shalt not steal / kill / covet …..”.. etc
    …are LAWS.
    The LAW of entropy has been constant since time began..

    Only these shiitey ‘political rules’ need such constant and complex updates – as the scamps scramble to cover their donkeys…

    What Jeff constantly writes about is just a lotta shiite talk emanating from the dregs of society …as they try to manipulate political situations to suit their albino-centric predispositions.

    Bushie longs for the day when Jeff sees the value of turning his clearly outlier talents to the REAL LAWS that drive our world …and which are currently driving Brassbados to certain doom….
    Perhaps then HE can point the brass bowls to safety …without the need for a whacker…

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    So de ole man continues to read while trying to understand all that you have said.

    and I quote “…“…the Commission shall direct the specified person in public life in writing to deliver the gift to the Minister responsible for Finance within such period, not exceeding 30 days, as may be specified by the Commission; and the specified person in public life shall comply with the direction within the time so specified….”

    So here is the thing….

    De body who has recieved this inappropriate gift IS NOT BEING INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THE GIFT but rather the gift is now being give to Mugabe?

    Say it aint so Luminary, forsooth thou jesteth!

    So you mean that the $2,000 Mont Blanc Pen dat I bought to bribe the unbribable Minister of Housing and Lands George Payne, driven as he is in white snow AND ERMINE’s REWRITTEN WILL, has to be relinquished by George and given to the Minister of Finance?

    You cannot be serious!

    You must be writing this ingrunce yourself and trying to mek dis Commission look like female rabbits!

    So you mean dat de Minister of Finance going get my pen?

    Say it ent so, Luminary!

    Furthermore, I just wanted to know IF SAID MINISTER CAN, after a period that she decides, gift said Mont Blanc which i had engraved GP for Garrulous Pilferer to Oblong Head Kerrie ? or even back to GP and there is nothing written about this in the Law and Enabling Act.

    No wonder dem ent going give you no pick that is substantive sorry that should be substantial but I was trying to use the word dat Dale de Dufus used

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ the Honourable Blogmaster

    Your assistance please with another item for the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch thank you

    Like

  • @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    I must share with you that I suffered through your sobering list of these hodge podge laws (Bush Tea calls them edicts) and decided that i could not comment on every one of the bits of jobby.

    When I came to the last paragraph that you wrote it dawned on me that this document was really done by a group of idiots who took multiple documents and pasted them together.

    Take for example that last paragraph which reads

    “…In imposing a fine pursuant to subsection (2) on a person found guilty of an offence under that subsection, the court shall have regard to the value of the property or pecuniary resource in the possession of the person, which cannot be accounted for by his known sources of income or other lawful means of acquisition of property or pecuniary resources and the fine shall be equivalent to one and one half times the value of the property or pecuniary resource found to be in the possession of the person and for which no such account can be made…”

    That is informative insofar as it is the first time that a reasonable fine is being levied on a corrupt individual

    But it would seem as if that punishment was left in because it was figured that the bar to determine the acquisition of property or pecuniary resource was so high to achieve in the first place that the penalty was left in just to make it seem like if they were really doing something.

    I mean, even if that multiple were to have been applied across the board, it would at least mean that people would be wary of tekking a bribe when dem going get assess 1 1/2 times dat bribe on indictment

    But den again i is an ole man dat does talk nuff drivel hehehehehheh

    Liked by 1 person

  • But man cannot do without LAW to regulate his personal and private affairs, or else his passions and desires would lead him on a course that is destruction. So with that being said, without LAW to govern man’s passions and desires man is reduce to act upon his own will, and the man with the strongest will rules.

    Like

  • Then we have consider the argument as to whether or not the law is written on the mind of man, (tabular Rasa) or man is conceived with certain congenital predispositions and inclinations with point him towards wrong and right?

    Like

  • sirfuzzy (i was a sheep some years ago; not a sheep anymore)

    I guess a degree in every household was not only one of OSA objective by was shared by many others worldwide. The only issue maybe that a good portion of the degrees are considered fake becuae of institutions that are not above board in their internal dealings.

    From a USA perspective will Oxford or UWI or York Universities be seen as an offshore universities? After all they are not onshore the USA. So Do Fake students manage to navigate thru these real universities and get valid degrees? So many questions but higher education is a big billion dollar industry. Money talks and … u know the rest.

    Just my take.

    Like

  • @ lexicon
    But man cannot do without LAW to regulate his personal and private affairs,
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ya got THAT right boss…

    The problem is that brass bowls go OUT OF THEIR WAY to ignore the REAL laws prescribed by the ORIGINAL CREATORS… and substitute a bunch of shiite regulations and jobby that sounds almost (but not quite) as ridiculous as the RESULTS that they generate….

    Grass is the ONLY possible end of such brassbowlery…. grass with plimplers…

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ 909 at 14 Oct at 3:35 PM

    Thanks for sharing. It is worth listening to ,watching and is thought provoking.

    Like

  • But the LAW is only as effective as the man who seeks to obey it, because the precedent is a reminder of the consequences to be had for the man who chooses to disobey it.

    Like

  • So therefore, the LAW has within it external and internal constraints which is suppose to keep man’s behaviour in check, but isn’t it a fact that the LAW cannot deter a man when his conscience has been aroused?

    Like

  • “So here is the thing….

    De body who has recieved this inappropriate gift IS NOT BEING INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THE GIFT but rather the gift is now being give to Mugabe?”

    Yes, the final resting place for all the money laundering, tiefing, land laundering, tiefing… and if ya look really close at the fine print, ya will probably find all the proceeds from drug running and gun running also being placed in the hands of the commision….

    …same crooks who drafted the fraud legislation and are EXEMPT from being locked the hell up for being criminals …now that they are part of the commission…and are now freeing themselves even more…to continue committing more crimes against the people…

    .and who are those currently on the commission that is drafting legislation again…..Simmons, Haynes, Marshall et al…

    We could not make that up.

    No different to Grenville’s plan…none of them plan to return any ill gotten gains to the treasury or people it is stolen from, they all plan to keep it…under some pretext or the other…..

    That is one reason that the doors of former ministers have not been kicjed down yet and their illgittemn gains seized abd RETURNED to the peoole…this current government dies not plan to return ANYTHING to the people…they prefer watch the people suffer…then call them patriots.

    In any real democratic progressive society, within days of a new government who really cared about the people …and were given power by the people …the homes of all those former ministers who Mia knows and have proof that they ripped off the country…would have been RAIDED.

    Like

  • *Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak october,
    And each succint vibrant blog seared its message upon my door.
    Eagerly I wished for wisdom; – certainly a scant item – missing
    From the grey matter of this cretin – incapaple of such thoughts – intellectually poor –
    Bereft the ole man was of visioning of the meaning of the Warnings –
    Six times written by the Luminary
    Missed here by the Sheeple forever
    aye and for evermore…”

    Quoth the raven, “Evernore”

    You are a learned man, Piece…

    Liked by 1 person

  • So here is the thing….

    De body who has recieved this inappropriate gift IS NOT BEING INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THE GIFT but rather the gift is now being give to Mugabe?

    Say it aint so Luminary, forsooth thou jesteth!

    So you mean that the $2,000 Mont Blanc Pen dat I bought to bribe the unbribable Minister of Housing and Lands George Payne, driven as he is in white snow AND ERMINE’s REWRITTEN WILL, has to be relinquished by George and given to the Minister of Finance?

    You cannot be serious!

    You must be writing this ingrunce yourself and trying to mek dis Commission look like female rabbits!

    So you mean dat de Minister of Finance going get my pen?

    Say it ent so, Luminary!

    Alas, it is indeed so, Piece,

    Liked by 1 person

  • I said it before and I’ll say it again. These people aren’t serious!

    Like

  • Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

    Gives effect to the National Cooperative Scheme on Unexplained Wealth by amending the: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to: extend the scope of Commonwealth unexplained wealth restraining orders and unexplained wealth orders to territory and state offences; enable state and territory law enforcement entities to apply for production orders and issue notices to financial institutions; ensure the continued operation of state and territory confiscation regimes; provide for the equitable sharing of recovered proceeds between Commonwealth, state, territory and foreign law enforcement entities; and provide for a review after the fourth anniversary of the commencement of the national scheme; Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to facilitate information-sharing in relation to unexplained wealth investigations and proceedings between Commonwealth, territory and state law enforcement agencies; and Proceeds of Crime Regulations 2002 to clarify that the definition of ‘unexplained wealth legislation’ extends to particular provisions of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) and the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT).

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/10/uk/uk-wealth-order-hajiyeva-intl/index.html

    The submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s Inquiry into the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 was prepared by the Law Council.

    The Law Council recognises the need for the Commonwealth to develop measures to effectively combat serious and organised crime. The Law Council supports a national scheme for a single unexplained wealth order provided the scheme accords with the rule of law and enables the application for the order to occur in a location which is not unduly inconvenient for the respondent.

    However, the Law Council is not satisfied that adequate safeguards have been included to ensure consistency with the rule of law. For these reasons, the Law Council does not support the passage of the Bill in its current form.

    The Law Council does not wish to repeat its past advocacy on the general issues raised by this legislation other to state that it supports a comprehensive review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (POCA) as contemplated by the 2016 Australian Law Reform Commission’s Traditional Rights and Freedoms – Encroachments on Commonwealth Laws Report. It is particularly important that any review of the POCA ensures consistency with fundamental rule of law principles.

    https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6133_aspassed/toc_pdf/18119b01.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

    Like

  • “I said it before and I’ll say it again. These people aren’t serious!”

    Oh they are very serious, they seriously plan to rob the people on the island again, while covering their own tails..they were hoping no one would notice.

    Like

  • @ Mr. Kammie Holder

    Good morning good sir, I am somewhat confused as it relates to the video that you submitted at 10.51 pm, and I will explain what de ole man means.

    I am a black man.

    I am not Yoruba, or Ibo, or any of these sub groupings.

    This is the Hitlerian doctrine coming from a black man and speaks to the ressurgence of Rwanda.

    But even worse than this, in that under an Unexplained Wealth Order, here is a man speaking about killing out other black people in Nigeria.

    I would be grateful if could add some notes to this submission because, without any remarks, Mr. Holder, I am somewhat concerned about its context.

    After listening to this man I now am convinced that, there is no need for external races to subjugate us because it is evident why we are still slaves.

    Liked by 1 person

  • When scripts are followed, patterns become evident.
    Keep eyes fix on personal savings accounts and contractual documents.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @nine of nine at 4:32 PM

    True True. Thank you. Patterns do emerge. Thanks

    Like

  • @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    De ole man was noticing that of all the posters here on Barbados Underground neither you NOR Dr. GP attract either of the “conspiracy theory” posters!

    Though both of you post facts about the same issues that de ole man or others here post on, the fact is that not a feller does not appear on either of your posts to say a pang in contradiction to what you write.

    Now while I know that when Dr. GP writes, IF A FELLER GET SO BELLIGERENT TO respond and say anyhing bout an emergency post mortem Dr. GP ent going let him get off for saying that heheheheheheh.

    But here you have posted for the last 6 now going 7 weeks and NOT ONE FELLER be they lawyer, past judge, heheheheheheh, current partner at legal firm or past and or present politician, not one feller comes to call what you are stating fabrications!!

    So that got the ole man to thinking.

    Either it is that

    (i).your posts do not elicit enough hits that 2/3rds of the BORG dont beleive you to be a threat and have conveyed that information to ***

    (ii).the Red Council, while they read your articles EVERY WEEK, do not think that the sheeple will understand what you are saying (consistent with IF A TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?” I will break that anecdote down for the sheeple who only heard “baaaa’. What that tree item means is that , If what the Luminary is saying, is heard by you sheeple, since it cannot be understood, jeff’s trees have not made any “noise”

    and

    (iii) the strategy of this Mugabe regime will be to keep you so very far away from the sheeple, in your substantive role of dean ( i got that word substantive from the ignoramus Dale Smiley the AG) that you wont be able to interact with them in any substantial way.

    Which brings to ole man again to my suggestion about making representations to the IDB about virtual good governance advocacy by the UWI Cave Hill campus Law Faculty.

    Mia Mugabe would not be so stupid to undermine your representations with the IDB in a climate such as @ today when she isopenly claiming to be asking ALL BAJAN HANDS ON DECK heheheheheh

    De grandson sent this item for you and begs you to forgive any ascribed authorship by yourself

    He should have said “Insights from” as opposed to “insights by” or something like that

    Like

  • @ the Honourable Blogmaster

    Your assistance please with an item for the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch, thank you

    Liked by 1 person

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ the LUMINARY Jeff Cumberbatch

    As you most assuredly must see by now that de ole man is a very slow reader and MUST COME BACK TO A TOPIC TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT more times than normal. Heheheheh

    You said and I quote

    “…The Bill provides for a rebuttable presumption of corruption in circumstances where it is established that in seeking to obtain a public contract, a person received or gave money, a gift or other consideration.

    This may be rebutted by disproof to the contrary on a balance of probabilities, or that it was more likely than not that the money was not so given or so accepted…”

    De ole man shall begin with another of my hypotheticals WHICH CAN OF COURSE BE CONSIDERED EITHER (1) a fable for the purpose of developing your posit or (2) a “verisimilitude” I borrowed that word from Lexicon, and tossed it in there to sound learned.

    Let us, for the sake of argument, say that at date x, the prime minister Mugabe, is on verifiable record, at the Tax Returns offices of this country Barbados of filling a return which would suggest that, CONTRARY TO THE REPETITIVE ASSERTION OF THE HONOURABLE BLOGMASTER, she was not a millionaire at that date.

    Nor even close to a millionaire.

    Are you saying to me that (1) if such a claim was made by an overzealous commission, that “a rebuttal, based on a series of probabilities” could be submitted that could, in the face of an obvious trail of actualities, lead said Commission and Inquiry to arrive at a conclusion that she did in fact gain such unexplainable wealth by having played AND WON, sat the National Lottery, by way of knowing say the woman who called that Lotto’s numbers?

    And if one were to extrapolate from that conspiratorial submission, sorry spurious submission, is it not possible to believe that “any previous minister of the previous administration, men like *** who did not have two cents to rub together before David Thompson contrived his dream team, could, based on similar “probabilities”, EVEN IN THE FACE OF NO SUCH TAX RECORDS, be found innocent of these unexplainable wealth assets?

    Say it ain’t so oh LUMINARY say it ain’t so…

    Liked by 1 person

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ the Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please with an item here for the LUMINARY Jeff Cumberbatch thank you

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s