Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sam on June 16, 2010, 05:20:35 AM

Title: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on June 16, 2010, 05:20:35 AM
Ish, Ferguson in prison.
T&T Guardian Newspapers.


Now they await extradition after bail revoked

Businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson were arrested yesterday and spent last night at the Maximum Security Prison, Golden Grove.

This comes days after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused to grant the men leave to challenge their extradition to the US to face 95 charges relating to the construction of the Piarco Airport Terminal. That ruling effectively ended their bail. Ferguson and Galbaransingh have been on $1 million bail each since their arrest in 2006.

In an unprecedented move, Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls granted bail in an extradition case when in all other similar cases the wanted persons were all kept in prison.

On May 4, 2006, a grand jury in Florida returned an indictment against Galbaransingh, Ferguson and six others in relation to corrupt practices concerning two packages for the construction of the airport terminal. Months later, six Americans pleaded guilty before Judge Paul Huck in the Miami Federal Court and were sentenced to terms between six months and six years.

The case against Galbaransingh and Ferguson is still pending. Ferguson and Galbaransingh have contended they have already endured seven years of domestic criminal proceedings in respect of the same allegations made in the United States. Last week Attorney General Anand Ramlogan gave the men until tomorrow to show why they should not be extradited.

Police Commissioner James Philbert told CNC3 last night that Galbaransingh and Ferguson were arrested after warrants were executed on them. Philbert said that was done after consultation with Director or Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard.

The police boss said the two businessmen would remain in prison until they were extradited to the US. Ramlogan said last night he has “no role or function” in the matter. Under the laws of the country the Attorney General has to sign-off on the extradition.

(http://guardian.co.tt/files/imagecache/article_main_image/articles/images/ish.png)
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on June 16, 2010, 10:51:31 AM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Mr Fix-it on June 16, 2010, 11:43:24 AM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

I wah see dat  :rotfl:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on June 16, 2010, 07:13:41 PM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Conquering Lion on June 16, 2010, 07:16:54 PM
Allyuh remember this one?

http://www.youtube.com/v/W14AdRfsPoA&hl=en_US&fs=1&
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on June 16, 2010, 07:33:59 PM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

I love de selective comprehension people does adopt yes. 

This "new government" ent have nutten to do with them being in jail, the Privy Council ruled against them, in effect revoking yuh bail.  Is either yuh on bail or yuh in jail, it ent have no two ways.  In fact that "new government" yuh trumpeting went so far to give them ah extra 7 days to "show cause" why they shouldn't be extradited.  Extra 7 days despite the Privy Council ruling in effect that they need to be extradited.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Jah Gol on June 16, 2010, 07:40:26 PM
Allyuh remember this one?

http://www.youtube.com/v/W14AdRfsPoA&hl=en_US&fs=1&
One of his better compositions but he recycled the melody . 
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on June 16, 2010, 07:54:34 PM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

I love de selective comprehension people does adopt yes. 

This "new government" ent have nutten to do with them being in jail, the Privy Council ruled against them, in effect revoking yuh bail.  Is either yuh on bail or yuh in jail, it ent have no two ways.  In fact that "new government" yuh trumpeting went so far to give them ah extra 7 days to "show cause" why they shouldn't be extradited.  Extra 7 days despite the Privy Council ruling in effect that they need to be extradited.

So this case goin on 10 years now and all of a sudden man is jail, de new AG asking them to come up with a good plan (by tomorrow) which he knows they wouldn't and u questing that.

Anand will make sure they get extradited because under Manning they was free like birds. Watch and see and if he dont' fire will bun he to, its a done deal, Anand just playing with they head a lil bit.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on June 16, 2010, 08:09:44 PM

So this case goin on 10 years now and all of a sudden man is jail, de new AG asking them to come up with a good plan (by tomorrow) which he knows they wouldn't and u questing that.

Anand will make sure they get extradited because under Manning they was free like birds. Watch and see and if he dont' fire will bun he to, its a done deal, Anand just playing with they head a lil bit.

Case going on 10 years have nutten to do with anything... that is the appeals process.  Pure coincidence that the Privy Council ruling come a couple weeks after the election.  Unless yuh willing to argue that they was holding out fuh Manning tuh call he snap election all along and was in cahoots with the PP.

Of course I will question Anand and he "show cause" bullshit because there is no provision for a show cause motion in Section 16 of the Extradition Act.  He claim he juss honoring what John Jeremie did before... which is laughable.  Ish and dem was Kamla and Panday and dem people... doh act like yuh fuhgetting dat.  It very well might be that they have to end up extraditing them (because right now Ish and dem don't have a legal leg to stand on), but that ent mean the show cause request isn't itself questionable.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on June 16, 2010, 08:44:46 PM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

LOUDDDDDDD STEUPSSSSSSSSS. D PNM lock dem up and d PNM let d court deal wit d matter. D PP AG now bigger than d Privy Council. D only reason dey in jail is d people talk and say y dey eh lock up because d Privy Council say send dem packin y dey eh in jail.

So doh come here and post yuh crap dat after 2 wks dey in jail yuh chattin d same ting that fall on d Brits uniform.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Babalawo on June 16, 2010, 09:06:04 PM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

this must be a joke 
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on June 16, 2010, 09:10:47 PM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

this must be a joke 

Well it in d wrong section.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sando on June 17, 2010, 04:15:10 AM
No bail for Ish, Steve
Sascha Wilson (Guardian
)

(http://guardian.co.tt/files/imagecache/article_main_image_stretched/articles/images/no%20bail.png)

LEFT: State attorneys Michael Quamina, left, and Kelvin Ramkissoon, after the bail hearing in the San Fernando High Court yesterday.

RIGHT: Ishwar Galbaransingh’s wife, Cheryl, leaves the San Fernando High Court yesterday, after the bail hearing. PHOTOS: INNISS FRANCIS

Justice Vashiest Kokaram yesterday refused bail to businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, but ordered that they not be extradited to the United States until the outcome of their constitutional motion challenging the legality of the extradition proceedings. This means that Galbaransingh and Ferguson would have to remain behind bars at the Maximum Security Prison until the determination of their motion which is fixed for hearing at the Port-of-Spain High Court on June 24.

Minutes after the ruling, however, their attorney Fyad Hosein, SC, indicated his intention to appeal the judge’s refusal to grant bail. The businessmen were arrested on Tuesday, days after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused to grant them leave to challenge their extradition to the US to face 95 charges relating to the construction of the Piarco Airport Terminal building. They were not brought down from prison to attend their bail hearing yesterday. In giving his ruling in the San Fernando High Court, Kokaram said the court had to hold the scale of justice evenly between the claimants and the State.

He said the State, represented by attorneys Kelvin Ramkissoon and Michael Quamina, agreed that the court could exercise its discretion to grant bail in the matter but he wanted to adopt a cautious approach. He said he took into consideration, among other things, the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the penalty for such an offence and public interest in the matter. Hosein had argued that in order to make proper representation in challenging the validity of Section 16 of the Extradition Act, he needed ready access to his clients. He said their first deadline to make representation on that matter was next Monday.

He also argued that his clients were entitled to bail, were not a flight risk and had complied with the conditions of the previous bail. The judge said, however, that the personal inconvenience of attorneys was not sufficient to warrant the granting of bail at this stage. Ramkissoon argued that because of the advanced stage of the proceedings, the businessmen might become a flight risk. In granting Hosein’s request for a conservatory order preventing the men’s extradition to the US pending the outcome of the motion, the judge said the matter would be dealt with swiftly.

The motion hearing was initially set for July 22, but he brought it up to next Thursday. Kokaram said it would be wrong to extradite the men while the constitional motion was still pending. In the motion, they are contending that the proceedings are unjust and oppressive and infringe on their constitutional rights. Hosein, who was instructed by attorney Nyree Alfonso, also questioned who authorised the detention of his clients. He said that decision rests solely with the Attorney General and not with the Director of Public Prosecutions. “I don’t know who authorised their detention, but that is a matter that is to be investigated,” he said. Galbaransingh’s wife Cheryl was present in court.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on June 18, 2010, 04:14:03 AM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

LOUDDDDDDD STEUPSSSSSSSSS. D PNM lock dem up and d PNM let d court deal wit d matter. D PP AG now bigger than d Privy Council. D only reason dey in jail is d people talk and say y dey eh lock up because d Privy Council say send dem packin y dey eh in jail.

So doh come here and post yuh crap dat after 2 wks dey in jail yuh chattin d same ting that fall on d Brits uniform.

Like Manning use to f00ck yuh.... it really hurt yuh to see UNC win election eh.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on June 18, 2010, 04:18:59 AM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.

I love de selective comprehension people does adopt yes. 

This "new government" ent have nutten to do with them being in jail, the Privy Council ruled against them, in effect revoking yuh bail.  Is either yuh on bail or yuh in jail, it ent have no two ways.  In fact that "new government" yuh trumpeting went so far to give them ah extra 7 days to "show cause" why they shouldn't be extradited.  Extra 7 days despite the Privy Council ruling in effect that they need to be extradited.

I could talk with you in a decent way, unlike some people in here, but you are right, Anand have to be an ass hole to allow this, fair is fair..  its a no brainer, send them packing, them men is crooks.

But the men who hire them should also pay too, Panday.

How could they allow Panday and Manning to be free after all de corruption and thiefing that went on.

Wonder if they finish that Church Manning was building yet, maybe it was built in Brian Manning name, so de Police cant arrent Patrick.  ::)
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on June 18, 2010, 05:59:18 AM
Will do cartwheels when I c them in d company of d Marshalls.

Stop always being so negative, atleast they doing something, under de PNM gov they never did anything, now a new gov come and in 2 weeks time Ish in jail, whether he get away or not, they still doing more than what PNM did, its a start.






LOUDDDDDDD STEUPSSSSSSSSS. D PNM lock dem up and d PNM let d court deal wit d matter. D PP AG now bigger than d Privy Council. D only reason dey in jail is d people talk and say y dey eh lock up because d Privy Council say send dem packin y dey eh in jail.

So doh come here and post yuh crap dat after 2 wks dey in jail yuh chattin d same ting that fall on d Brits uniform.

Like Manning use to f00ck yuh.... it really hurt yuh to see UNC win election eh.


Such an intelligent response from an unintelligent person
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on June 18, 2010, 06:26:36 AM
Such an intelligent response from an unintelligent person

Well you is de one who dont matter what some people do you would never be pleased, tell me who was more corrupted than Manning and he government, I guess time will tell how the UNC does, but lets not be quick to condemn them and give them a fair chance.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on June 18, 2010, 06:49:52 AM
Such an intelligent response from an unintelligent person

Well you is de one who dont matter what some people do you would never be pleased, tell me who was more corrupted than Manning and he government, I guess time will tell how the UNC does, but lets not be quick to condemn them and give them a fair chance.

U comparing Maanning PNM 2 UNC. Lets c how much people in Maaning administration get charge. Lets see how much of the last UNC get charge. Since I luv 2 condem lets go wit d rumours and deal wit d present esteem members of d govt I sure that Suruj is a racist had d displeasue of being in  class ( how 2 b a UNR foreman)/ we sure JW is a krook/we sure Dooks does lie because taxshiera deposit d money/we sure Tim eh make a jail bout a technicality/we sure we still waitin on d rice from India/ we sure d new Min of Justice free a guilty man.

So these are d people I suppose 2 give a  fair chance. I will b glad if I am wrong bout dem but all signs show dat I am 115% correck.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Sam on July 09, 2010, 04:31:08 AM
Ish, Steve bail hearing continues today
T&T Guardian


Businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson are still at the Maximum Security Prison, Arouca, as the hearing of the bail application will continue today.

The matter is being heard before Justice Malcolm Holdip in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court. When the adjournment was taken around 1.30 pm yesterday, Kelvin Ramkisssoon, appearing for the State, was responding to the submissions of Pamela Elder, SC, who are representing Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Elder, who started her submissions on Tuesday, completed her case yesterday.

Ramkissoon will continue his submissions today. It is not certain whether the judge will decide today or on another occasion. Neither Galbaransingh nor Ferguson, who have been in prison since June 15, was brought to court yesterday. Both men are wanted in the United States on 95 charges relating to the Piarco Airport Terminal building project.

They have been charged in Trinidad with defrauding the T&T Government. On May 4, 2006, a grand jury in Florida returned an indictment against Galbaransingh, Ferguson and six others in relation to corrupt practices concerning two packages for the construction of the building.

Months later, six Americans pleaded guilty before Judge Paul Huck in the Miami Federal Court and were sentenced to terms between six months and six years. The case against Galbaransingh and Ferguson is still pending.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on July 09, 2010, 07:53:04 AM
Still waitin 2 do meh cartwheel
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Mr Fix-it on July 09, 2010, 08:48:39 AM
Still waitin 2 do meh cartwheel

Me 2 :devil: :angel:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on July 09, 2010, 08:54:47 AM
Still waitin 2 do meh cartwheel

Me 2 :devil: :angel:

So wait is u Manning was horning me wit?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Mr Fix-it on July 20, 2010, 12:59:07 PM
Still waitin 2 do meh cartwheel

Me 2 :devil: :angel:

So wait is u Manning was horning me wit?

Doh worry bout dat yu still owe me 2 cartwheels :beermug:
And because of cost of living, I want ah wine down now  :rotfl: :devil:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on July 28, 2010, 04:24:52 AM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: truetrini on July 28, 2010, 06:57:48 AM
hahahahahahahaha  too f**king funny.  Cover up continues to play out.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on July 28, 2010, 04:03:07 PM
Flex, the first 2 - chapters of this story started about 2 weeks ago.  Ah too lazy to dig up the relevant articles now, but like Mr. Ken Ali of the Guardian on a campaign.  Ah wonder when he goh find legal luminaries that support the view that the 2 goodly gentlemen should be extradited??  Eh Ken?  Eh? When we goh see that story hoss??.....steups!!... ::) ::)

Anand boy go ahead and keep all yuh money men here.....I want to see if all yuh that bold faced.... :waiting:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on July 28, 2010, 04:31:52 PM
Flex, the first 2 - chapters of this story started about 2 weeks ago.  Ah too lazy to dig up the relevant articles now, but like Mr. Ken Ali of the Guardian on a campaign.  Ah wonder when he goh find legal luminaries that support the view that the 2 goodly gentlemen should be extradited??  Eh Ken?  Eh? When we goh see that story hoss??.....steups!!... ::) ::)

Anand boy go ahead and keep all yuh money men here.....I want to see if all yuh that bold faced.... :waiting:

Who go stop dem from being boleface?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on July 28, 2010, 04:33:23 PM
Flex, the first 2 - chapters of this story started about 2 weeks ago.  Ah too lazy to dig up the relevant articles now, but like Mr. Ken Ali of the Guardian on a campaign.  Ah wonder when he goh find legal luminaries that support the view that the 2 goodly gentlemen should be extradited??  Eh Ken?  Eh? When we goh see that story hoss??.....steups!!... ::) ::)

Anand boy go ahead and keep all yuh money men here.....I want to see if all yuh that bold faced.... :waiting:

Who go stop dem from being boleface?

Give them enough rope they goh hang they self....ask Patrick....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on July 28, 2010, 05:05:39 PM
Flex, the first 2 - chapters of this story started about 2 weeks ago.  Ah too lazy to dig up the relevant articles now, but like Mr. Ken Ali of the Guardian on a campaign.  Ah wonder when he goh find legal luminaries that support the view that the 2 goodly gentlemen should be extradited??  Eh Ken?  Eh? When we goh see that story hoss??.....steups!!... ::) ::)

Anand boy go ahead and keep all yuh money men here.....I want to see if all yuh that bold faced.... :waiting:

Who go stop dem from being boleface?

Give them enough rope they goh hang they self....ask Patrick....


As a man said here......as much of a backside patrick was...he never had a constitutional majority....or this kinda sweeping majority in major levels. What yuh think might happen here?


Watch de play unfold. Lets see how it goes.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on July 28, 2010, 09:31:51 PM
Flex, the first 2 - chapters of this story started about 2 weeks ago.  Ah too lazy to dig up the relevant articles now, but like Mr. Ken Ali of the Guardian on a campaign.  Ah wonder when he goh find legal luminaries that support the view that the 2 goodly gentlemen should be extradited??  Eh Ken?  Eh? When we goh see that story hoss??.....steups!!... ::) ::)

Anand boy go ahead and keep all yuh money men here.....I want to see if all yuh that bold faced.... :waiting:

Who go stop dem from being boleface?

Give them enough rope they goh hang they self....ask Patrick....


As a man said here......as much of a backside patrick was...he never had a constitutional majority....or this kinda sweeping majority in major levels. What yuh think might happen here?


Watch de play unfold. Lets see how it goes.

Enjoy d  ride
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on July 28, 2010, 09:39:00 PM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.


and what has been the Attorney General response to this ?...and at what point does the Opposition party pounce on this ?..
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on July 28, 2010, 09:46:41 PM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.


and what has been the Attorney General response to this ?...and at what point does the Opposition party pounce on this ?..

He done speak ah ready.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on July 28, 2010, 09:50:45 PM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.


and what has been the Attorney General response to this ?...and at what point does the Opposition party pounce on this ?..

He done speak ah ready.

He said dem fellas getting extradited no favours !..unless you saying he changed his mind and now have the same opinion of the British luminaries above ?.. and if that is the case then why the Opposition has not exploited this ?..
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: truetrini on July 28, 2010, 10:02:41 PM
Those so called luminairies get paid for that favorable opinion!
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on July 28, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.


and what has been the Attorney General response to this ?...and at what point does the Opposition party pounce on this ?..

He done speak ah ready.

He said dem fellas getting extradited no favours !..unless you saying he changed his mind and now have the same opinion of the British luminaries above ?.. and if that is the case then why the Opposition has not exploited this ?..

When he sat dat? D man say give he dem some days 2 say y dey should not go and evybody and dey brother sayin y dey should not go. D Privy Council done say it eh dey business and d local courts say they should go but dey still here.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on July 28, 2010, 10:13:20 PM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.


and what has been the Attorney General response to this ?...and at what point does the Opposition party pounce on this ?..

He done speak ah ready.

He said dem fellas getting extradited no favours !..unless you saying he changed his mind and now have the same opinion of the British luminaries above ?.. and if that is the case then why the Opposition has not exploited this ?..

When he sat dat? D man say give he dem some days 2 say y dey should not go and evybody and dey brother sayin y dey should not go. D Privy Council done say it eh dey business and d local courts say they should go but dey still here.

I was incorrect when I said he wanted them extradited BUT i knew he had said he is not giving them any favours (check link below)..does he still have the same opinion now?..right now he seems very uncertain..

http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=21312
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on July 28, 2010, 10:19:27 PM
Flex, the first 2 - chapters of this story started about 2 weeks ago.  Ah too lazy to dig up the relevant articles now, but like Mr. Ken Ali of the Guardian on a campaign.  Ah wonder when he goh find legal luminaries that support the view that the 2 goodly gentlemen should be extradited??  Eh Ken?  Eh? When we goh see that story hoss??.....steups!!... ::) ::)

Anand boy go ahead and keep all yuh money men here.....I want to see if all yuh that bold faced.... :waiting:

Who go stop dem from being boleface?

Give them enough rope they goh hang they self....ask Patrick....

Hang?  Who?

Dem could only hang deyself if the public helping dem and right now de public just give them a brnd new mandate.  Ish and dem home free.  Anand wrangling tuh find some justification two months now to deny the extradition.  Now they find some flunky in de Guardian (Jack paper... so no real surprise dey) tuh sing de praises of two Englishmen... and Sir Ellis of course, and say they should not be extradited.  I nearly tie up mih belly in knots laughing when I read that one of these legal luminaries commenting on matters of criminal and constitutional issues, has his expertise in... wait for it.... civil litigation.

And Trinidadians so damn dotish that half ah dem wouldn't know why that should inform his opinion on the matter.  The other half won't care because PeeoNeM days done and is PeePee time now.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on July 28, 2010, 10:23:32 PM
I was incorrect when I said he wanted them extradited BUT i knew he had said he is not giving them any favours (check link below)..does he still have the same opinion now?..right now he seems very uncertain..

http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=21312

Why he "uncertain"?  These two 'luminaries' know better than de facking Privy Council?


I really want to see how things go play out with this one... and subsequent controversies (yuh know is only a matter of time) involving this new party.  I watching de vibes in Trinidad... I watching the media... and I watching all who was bumping dey gum every other day, posting articles and crying down Manning and dem.  Not that they didn't deserve the criticism... but ah watching to see how deep de partisanship running.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on July 28, 2010, 10:39:47 PM
I was incorrect when I said he wanted them extradited BUT i knew he had said he is not giving them any favours (check link below)..does he still have the same opinion now?..right now he seems very uncertain..

http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=21312

Why he "uncertain"?  These two 'luminaries' know better than de facking Privy Council?


I really want to see how things go play out with this one... and subsequent controversies (yuh know is only a matter of time) involving this new party.  I watching de vibes in Trinidad... I watching the media... and I watching all who was bumping dey gum every other day, posting articles and crying down Manning and dem.  Not that they didn't deserve the criticism... but ah watching to see how deep de partisanship running.


Thats my point ..why does he seem uncertain now ?..Presently his stance is more neutral but fom the get go he was not like dat. I expect we will know soon know if he still have the same stance from when he made those comments in the article above..(time will tell but I will wait patiently before casting judgement)

I agree with you..just like you I do not believe them two lumanaries know more than the Privy council hence I want to know if they influencing others...(maybe time will tell i am just asking for now)

..but in my first post I ask where and when does the Opposition party pounce in all of this ?...I believe every country needs a good Opposition to keep the government in check for the benefit of all citizens, not an opposition who ready to play dead..
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on July 28, 2010, 10:43:48 PM
I was incorrect when I said he wanted them extradited BUT i knew he had said he is not giving them any favours (check link below)..does he still have the same opinion now?..right now he seems very uncertain..

http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=21312

Why he "uncertain"?  These two 'luminaries' know better than de facking Privy Council?


I really want to see how things go play out with this one... and subsequent controversies (yuh know is only a matter of time) involving this new party.  I watching de vibes in Trinidad... I watching the media... and I watching all who was bumping dey gum every other day, posting articles and crying down Manning and dem.  Not that they didn't deserve the criticism... but ah watching to see how deep de partisanship running.

I will be criticising the new party the same way..it would be no different from me..once I see shit I will criticise...and it could be shit from anyone or any party
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Deeks on July 28, 2010, 10:54:35 PM
Who says a Democracy needs good opposition. The "people" do not want opposition. That is why the vote out the PNM. They want a one party state.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on July 28, 2010, 10:59:08 PM
Who says a Democracy needs good opposition. The "people" do not want opposition. That is why the vote out the PNM. They want a one party state.

I will have to disagree here..obviously when you say "people" you are only thinking about the "people" of the winning party ?..because you cannot be referring to the people of the entire country...do you want to describe your interpration of the "people" ?...and I said a country needs good Opposition to keep teh Government in check..if you feel otherwise then elaborate
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on July 28, 2010, 11:25:36 PM
Try Ish, Steve in T&T.
Ken Ali (T&T Guardian).


Two British legal luminaries are sharing the views of Sir Ellis Clarke that businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson should face trial in Trinidad and Tobago. Andrew Mitchell, QC, and Michael Beloff, QC, have forwarded separate exhaustive legal advice to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, advocating that the businessmen not be extradited to the United States.

The legal opinions of Mitchell and Beloff mesh with that of the eminent Sir Ellis, who recently stressed that Trinidad and Tobago is “the proper forum” for the trial of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on trial with respect to public contracts for development of Piarco International Airport in the late 1990s.

The US authorities have been seeking to have the businessmen extradited to American soil to face separate trial. Beloff, named last year as one of the most influential attorneys in Britain, urged Ramlogan to refuse the extradition request of the US “on the grounds that it was not made in good faith.”

He stressed that “the correct forum for trial in this matter...is Trinidad and Tobago.” Mitchell, described as one of Britain’s pre-eminent attorneys, said “the proper forum is Trinidad and Tobago” and that the Attorney General “really has no option...”

He added: “To do otherwise would be unjust to all the accused in this case.” Such a move, he said, “would deprive the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the right to follow and have an interest in the outcome of the matter. “It is, therefore, not in the public interest to extradite,” he added. Mitchell stated that the Extradition Act “contemplates the act of ‘return,’” He added that a decision to extradite in this case “is not so much a return...to the place where the alleged conduct was carried out.”

Instead, it is a case of sending Galbaransingh and Ferguson “to the place where consequential criminal allegations dependent on the proof of the primary conduct is to be tried and thus far away from the centre of main interest in the criminal matter,” Mitchell said.

He further stated that the issue of the proper forum for the trial was determined when, in 2005, an application was made for co-accused Eduardo Hillman-Waller, an American citizen, to be extradited to T&T. He said: “If further evidence were needed of the correct answer to the forum question...it is the decision of the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to seek the extradition of Mr Hillman-Waller from the US.” Mitchell also argued that the issue “drives at the heart of the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago.”

He explained: “It is a decision which engages the right of the public to see and, if they wish, to go and visit a trial and see how the allegations play out in relation to the alleged abuse of taxpayers’ money.” He said that to deny this country the right to have the trial is “tantamount to accepting that there is no appropriate way of trying serious fraud allegations against the State in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Such a message, said Mitchell, “would send all the wrong messages at a time when the policy of the Government appears to be to bring to justice those who commit serious commercial wrongdoing.” He advised that the matter before the Attorney General should not be influenced by “political objectives or interference,” but “should be based on the principles of law and justice.”

Beloff also raised the Hillman-Waller example, saying it “must be considered as a highly material factor in making the current decision on the appropriate forum.” He stressed that “the only reasonable decision that can be reached is that Trinidad and Tobago is the appropriate forum for trial for Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh.”

About Andrew Mitchell, QC
Andrew Mitchell, QC, has a broad commercial and civil practice in Britain, with particular expertise in banking and financial services, civil fraud and commercial contracts. Mitchell has extensive courtroom experience and has won several prizes and scholarships. He has been described as “one of the UK’s most prominent fraud barristers.”

About Michael Beloff, QC
Michael Beloff, QC, has been dubbed the British bar’s “renaissance man” for his professional successes, hefty workload and work in academia. Beloff boasts a long and varied history of legal work, with more than 400 cases reported in legal reports, and has undertaken many lectures and written a number of publications. In 2008, Lord Bingham described him as “a most accomplished and much-sought-after advocate.” He was president of Trinity College at Oxford University for ten years.


and what has been the Attorney General response to this ?...and at what point does the Opposition party pounce on this ?..

He done speak ah ready.

He said dem fellas getting extradited no favours !..unless you saying he changed his mind and now have the same opinion of the British luminaries above ?.. and if that is the case then why the Opposition has not exploited this ?..

When he sat dat? D man say give he dem some days 2 say y dey should not go and evybody and dey brother sayin y dey should not go. D Privy Council done say it eh dey business and d local courts say they should go but dey still here.

I was incorrect when I said he wanted them extradited BUT i knew he had said he is not giving them any favours (check link below)..does he still have the same opinion now?..right now he seems very uncertain..

http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=21312

Honey /Sweet Heart D AG eh plannin 2 sent dem peeps a place.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on July 31, 2010, 05:51:21 AM
No back down on extraditions
By ANDRE BAGOO (NEWSDAY).


WITH high-profile extradition proceedings against two Trinidadians who are wanted in the United States, still pending, US Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Arturo Valenzuela yesterday re-affirmed that America will not back down from enforcing extradition treaties with this country and others in the region, including Jamaica.

Valenzuela made this clear as he spoke at a media roundtable at the Hyatt Regency, Port-of- Spain, one day after businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson lost a challenge to quash provisions of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act 1985, which is the framework via which TT and the US cooperate in extradition matters.

“We will continue to implement our extradition treaties with Jamaica and other countries,” Valenzuela said when questioned over US policy on extradition in light of recent conflicts in the region stemming from the issue. “It’s important that these treaties be implemented according to the letter of the law.”

“The treaties are the function of the law. Under these treaties, the United States can ask for the extradition of officials for committing crimes in the United States. At the same time the countries can also request extradition from the US, so these are the cooperative arrangements,” Valenzuela said. “They are subject very much to the law, to the evidence.”

Galbaransingh and Ferguson were indicted by a US grand jury on November 29, 2005. The two are wanted in the US to answer charges of wire fraud, money laundering, bid-rigging and conspiracy in relation to the Piarco International Airport project.

The US extradition requests have triggered debate over whether they impinge on sovereignty and on constitutional rights throughout the region.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Conquering Lion on July 31, 2010, 12:05:11 PM
While I believe Ish and co. have to answer to their charges, I wonder if the same stance applies when US citizens are to be extradited to Trinidad to face charges? If so, then :applause:

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: truetrini on August 10, 2010, 10:52:18 PM
Case for extradition
Stay could end proceedings against Ferguson, Galbaransingh
By Donstan Bonn donstan.bonn@trinidadexpress.com

Story Created: Aug 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM ECT

(Story Updated: Aug 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM ECT )

A stay of extradition could spell the end of criminal proceedings against local businessmen Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh.

In order to avoid duplication of the charges laid in the United States, former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson discontinued the local charges against both men. So, failure to process their extradition request may see Ferguson and Galbaransingh avoid facing criminal charges both locally and in the US.

DPP Roger Gaspard believes the local charges that were discontinued by his predecessor could be reinstated.

However, Senior Counsels Israel Khan and Dana Seetahal, and a third legal expert who requested anonymity do not agree.

“That does not happen,” says Seetahal. “It is protected under the constitution. If any attempt is made to reinstate the discontinued charges it would amount to an abuse of process.”

Ferguson, former CEO of Maritime General, and Galbaransingh, Northern Construction Limited executive chairman, were indicted by a US grand jury on November 29, 2005, to answer alleged corruption-related charges stemming from the construction of the $1.6 billion Piarco International Airport Terminal building.

The charges, 95 in total, arose from allegations of wire fraud, money laundering, bid-rigging, kickbacks, and conspiracy carried out with their associates, one of them being Raul J. Gutierrez Jr, the owner of the Miami-based Calmaquip Engineering Corporation, one of the major suppliers to the Piarco Airport project.

The businessmen lost one of their two battles to avoid extradition when on June 7, 2010, the Privy Council refused leave for them to appeal against the majority decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had upheld Justice Charmaine Pemberton’s dismissal of their habeas corpus application to prevent extradition.

Their only remaining hope was a constitutional motion by Fixed Date Claim filed on March 11, 2008.

This motion challenged the validity of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, 1985 on the basis that it infringes the constitutional rights of both men under section 4 (a) (e) (h) and section 5 (a) (e) (h) of the constitution.

High Court judge Vasheist Kokaram dismissed the motion on July 29, 2010, citing that the constitution did not guarantee a right not to be extradited.

He ruled that there was no breach of the claimants’ right of freedom of movement but rather a restriction of that right.

“The claimants are neither exiled nor banished from this country, but are surrendering to the requesting state in an interactive process of criminal justice”, Kokaram said.

He also stated that the extradition process was “fair”, with remedies of judicial review, habeas corpus, and challenges to the Court of Appeal and Privy Council available as safeguards.

Section 16 of the Act gives the Attorney General the discretion to order the return of the claimants unless such a return is “unjust or oppressive”.

Gaspard, Khan and Seetahal agree that, legally, there is no specified time frame in which the Attorney General should sign the extradition papers.

However, Khan believes the AG ought to act with a sense of urgency, once he has ensured “due process has taken place by Ferguson and Galbaransingh being afforded all legal recourse available to them”.

Khan says after the men have exhausted all legal avenues, the AG should consult with the Prime Minister and Cabinet before signing the extradition papers.

He believes denial of the extradition would be detrimental to the Government.

“Failure to extradite Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Galbaransingh would not only be a scandalous state of affairs but also the beginning of the end of the People’s Partnership Government.

“Patrick Manning lost the last general election on the issue of corruption and the Basdeo Panday administration (1995-2001) also lost governance on the issue of corruption.”

The ball is in Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s court.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on August 11, 2010, 05:37:24 AM
Truetrini, Om Lalla was on Power 102 on Marcia's show last week stating emphatically that the extradition cases have not been discontinued here.  Marcia challenged him on it and he said it could be easily cleared up with a phone call.  He checked his sources, came back on the air and repeated his position.

His rationale is that if the DPP had discontinued the cases and the extradition was not ordered by the AG, then the men would go free and that would not make sense.  He said WHEN the extradition order is given THEN the charges would be discontinued locally.....

So mih eh know who to believe.....cuz I read Dana Seetahal's column about 2 -3 weeks ago and she outlined the scenario in the article posted..... :-\  :-\
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: rotatopoti3 on August 11, 2010, 10:58:36 AM
dat new DPP up shit creek right now....

he aint knoe if tuh turn left or right......
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on August 11, 2010, 11:07:07 AM
Truetrini, Om Lalla was on Power 102 on Marcia's show last week stating emphatically that the extradition cases have not been discontinued here.  Marcia challenged him on it and he said it could be easily cleared up with a phone call.  He checked his sources, came back on the air and repeated his position.

His rationale is that if the DPP had discontinued the cases and the extradition was not ordered by the AG, then the men would go free and that would not make sense.  He said WHEN the extradition order is given THEN the charges would be discontinued locally.....

So mih eh know who to believe.....cuz I read Dana Seetahal's column about 2 -3 weeks ago and she outlined the scenario in the article posted..... :-\  :-\

You eh realize by now dat yuh have to take anything Om Liar have to say with ah potspoon ah salt?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on August 11, 2010, 07:33:31 PM
You eh realize by now dat yuh have to take anything Om Liar have to say with ah potspoon ah salt?

Yes Bakes ah know, he is Jack/TTFF and the UNC's lawyer soooooo......ah just selling the story like ah buy it....I have to go with Dana Seetahal on this one...she's always appeared to be impartial....and she writing in the Express on Saturdays now so mih eh have to check she in the Guardian no more....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 10, 2010, 08:35:26 AM
Ish and Steve to be extradited to the US
By NALINEE SEELAL and COREY CONNELLY.
Sunday, October 10 2010


After weeks of speculation, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday signed an extradition order granting the United States Government the permission to extradite businessmen Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh to the United States to answer fraud charges.

The men, who were UNC financiers, face a total of 95 charges relating to the construction of the controversial $1.6 billion Piarco Airport Terminal building.

The decision by the AG came following recommendations for the extraditions by both the US Government and this country’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard.

On September 23, the AG received a list of recommendations from the US Government, which had clearly stated reasons why the two men should face trial in that country.

Six days later, Gaspard also sent his advice to the AG which effectively paved the way for the extraditions of Ferguson and Galbaransingh.

Attorneys for the two men are expected to visit them at the Golden Grove Prison in Arouca today to inform them of Ramlogan’s decision.

The People’s Partnership Government had come under fire from several quarters for its perceived hesitance in decisively addressing the longstanding matter.

Ramlogan, who is constitutionally charged with the responsibility and statutory duty to decide extradition requests, had said, though, that the matter was delicate and could not be rushed.

Sources yesterday revealed that the extradition could take place as early as today.

The two men were incarcerated following a decision by then acting Police Commissioner James Philbert to take them into custody and place at the Golden Grove Prison on grounds that the terms and conditions of their bail had come to an end.

Yesterday, in a brief statement issued by the AG, he noted that the allegations against both Ferguson and Galbaransingh were “complex and serious.”

“The Chief Magistrate has found that there is evidence supporting a prima facie case against them both on the conduct alleged in the American request. “That decision has been upheld by our High Court and Court of Appeal and the Privy Council dismissed an application to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision,” the AG said in the release.

Ramlogan said both the US and Trinidad and Tobago had carried out extensive investigations into the alleged criminal conduct of Ferguson and Galbaransingh.

“The alleged criminal conduct has affected and may have occurred in both the United States of America and Trinidad and Tobago. Whilst all countries have a right to try persons accused of conduct that affects their individual country, there is a discretionary power in the AG to extradite accused persons in certain circumstances in the interest of justice,” he said.

Extensive written representations were submitted to the AG, at his request, on behalf of the two accused. Further representations were then solicited from the US government and the DPP, the statement said.

It added that the last set of representations were received from the DPP on September 29, 2010 “and there has hence been no delay by the AG in arriving at a decision in this matter.”

The release said: “The AG, having carefully considered all the representations submitted to him in this extradition matter, has decided that the USA is the more appropriate and convenient forum for these charges.

“He is convinced that Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh will receive a fair trial in the United States of America and the interest of justice is best served by their extradition to the USA.

It is important that these serious allegations be tried as soon as possible. In all the circumstances the AG has therefore decided that it is right that they be tried in the United States of America where they will be either acquitted or convicted,” it added.

Ferguson and Galbaransingh were among several former public officials who were charged in 2002 with various offences, including conspiracy to defraud the Government of TT, arising out of the construction of the Piarco Airport Terminal building
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on October 10, 2010, 09:15:10 AM
Oh Boy!
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on October 10, 2010, 02:47:07 PM
What flight dey on?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: sammy on October 10, 2010, 05:06:03 PM
What flight dey on?

not yet...US authorities say how they cant make arrangements to fly them out as yet
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on October 10, 2010, 05:22:18 PM
What flight dey on?

not yet...US authorities say how they cant make arrangements to fly them out as yet

So d US stickin now?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Babalawo on October 10, 2010, 06:50:16 PM
What flight dey on?

not yet...US authorities say how they cant make arrangements to fly them out as yet

So d US stickin now?
they sending for the on the 13th
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1391278550028
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: sammy on October 10, 2010, 06:52:52 PM
What flight dey on?

not yet...US authorities say how they cant make arrangements to fly them out as yet

So d US stickin now?

yes
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 10, 2010, 07:07:36 PM
What flight dey on?

not yet...US authorities say how they cant make arrangements to fly them out as yet

So d US stickin now?
they sending for the on the 13th
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1391278550028

This video cleared up the High Court thing.  I did catch this earlier and thought that they had applied to the High Court (which they did) but apparently the High Court blanked them (which I didn't catch earlier)....good....

When the jail doors slam behind dem, den I goh celebrate....but good going AG.  Not sure what took yuh so long.  Ah guess yuh had to show that yuh really did EVERYTHING in yuh power to help the boys but even you MUST know that they had to go eventually.....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on October 10, 2010, 07:23:11 PM
What flight dey on?

not yet...US authorities say how they cant make arrangements to fly them out as yet

So d US stickin now?
they sending for the on the 13th
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1391278550028

This video cleared up the High Court thing.  I did catch this earlier and thought that they had applied to the High Court (which they did) but apparently the High Court blanked them (which I didn't catch earlier)....good....

When the jail doors slam behind dem, den I goh celebrate....but good going AG.  Not sure what took yuh so long.  Ah guess yuh had to show that yuh really did EVERYTHING in yuh power to help the boys but even you MUST know that they had to go eventually.....

Whem I C dem like Dudus ind US Igo b happy like pappy.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on October 11, 2010, 05:32:48 AM
This video cleared up the High Court thing.  I did catch this earlier and thought that they had applied to the High Court (which they did) but apparently the High Court blanked them (which I didn't catch earlier)....good....

When the jail doors slam behind dem, den I goh celebrate....but good going AG.  Not sure what took yuh so long.  Ah guess yuh had to show that yuh really did EVERYTHING in yuh power to help the boys but even you MUST know that they had to go eventually.....

He eh do one damn ass other than to stall with ah setta unnecessary grandstanding.  Them was all set for extradition until he step in and stop in when the PP came to power.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 11, 2010, 06:18:50 AM
Galbaransingh and Ferguson’s legal battles
T&T Newsday Reports.


FORMER UNC FINANCIERS Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson are wanted in the United States to face some 84 charges of wire fraud, money laundering, bid-rigging and conspiracy, among others, after they were indicted by a US grand jury on November 29, 2005.

Already, six foreign nationals have been convicted and sentenced in the US for defrauding the TT Government, and some have agreed to make restitution. On December 13, 2007 Galbaransingh and Ferguson lost a challenge at the Court of Appeal where they sought to review the decision that then Attorney General John Jeremie, made on July 20, 2006, to issue the authority to proceed, as well as the decision of the then Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls to issue a warrant for their arrest pursuant to the authority to proceed.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson claimed there were similarities in the offences alleged in the charges laid against them locally, and on the US grand jury indictment. They also argued that to prosecute them in the American courts would be oppressive since there existed an overlap in proceedings locally. The ruling handed down by Justice of Appeal Margot Warner paved the way for the start of the extradition proceedings, which came to an end on July 14, 2008.

On July 25, 2008, they challenged the extradition order and over the next two years the duo would continue to challenge the proceedings, even taking the matter to the Court-of-Appeal and the London Privy Council. The bail for the two men expired on June 7, following the Privy Council decision not to grant an order to block their extradition to the US. On June 11, attorneys for the two businessmen wrote to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan seeking the continuation of the duo’s bail “under existing conditions”.

They previously filed for judicial review of then Attorney General John Jeremie’s decision to commence the extradition proceedings, claiming, among other things, that they would not get fair trials in the United States, and that Jeremie had been politically biased against them.

However, before Ramlogan could officially respond, the duo were arrested on June 15, when they were detained in the Point Lisas area.

They were taken to the Arouca prison where they are being kept in a cell at the infirmary section.

Since then, applications for bail for the two businessmen have been dismissed by a High Court Judge, on two separate occasions.

The two businessmen also challenged the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Extradition Act and on Saturday, the Attorney General signed off on the extradition warrant to have the two answer the charges in the US.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 12, 2010, 04:12:23 AM
Ish and Steve to challenge AG’s decision
Indarjit Seuraj (Guardian).


Lawyers representing accused businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson are expected to return before a High Court judge later this week to challenge the decision of Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to order their extradition to the United States.

A source said yesterday a team of lawyers, which included Fyard Hosein, SC, Nyree Alfonso and Rajiv Persad, worked overnight Sunday and yesterday to prepare filing documents.The lawyers received written confirmation of the AG’s decision on Sunday and that would form the basis for the latest court action.

They intend to file for judicial review of Ramlogan’s decision on Saturday to order the extradition of the businessmen.Ramlogan exercised his administrative function in signing off the extradition, pursuant to Section 16 of the Extradition Act.

His decision came after weeks of consideration, following High Court Justice Vasheist Kokaram’s decision on July 29 to dismiss a constitutional motion challenging the legality of the Extradition Act.

Late last Saturday, the team of lawyers went before the same judge on an ex-parte hearing to have the extradition stayed.Kokaram dismissed the application just after 12.30 am Sunday, stating he could not act on the news release which purported to be the decision of the AG.

Lawyers yesterday indicated they would be moving expeditiously to file the review action, despite Ramlogan’s undertaking that the US marshals would not be ready to extradite the businessmen from Trinidad until next Monday.The businessmen are wanted in the US on a total of 95 charges arising out of the construction of the $1.6 billion Piarco Airport terminal building.

They remained in remand at prison since they were arrested on June 15 at Galbaransigh’s Pt Lisas, Couva, office.Ferguson, former CEO of Maritime General, and Galbaransingh, Northern Construction Ltd executive chairman, are wanted in the United States to answer charges of wire fraud, money-laundering, bid-rigging and conspiracy, after they were indicted by a Florida grand jury on November 29, 2005.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 12, 2010, 05:26:42 AM
<cue Kurt Allen>  ".....dem fellas too bright"....

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/US_surprised_by_AG_s_extradition_order-104747284.html (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/US_surprised_by_AG_s_extradition_order-104747284.html)

US surprised by AG's extradition order
By Denyse Renne denyse.renne@trinidadexpress.com

Caught by surprise.
This is how United States Department of Justice officials, in Washington described the decision by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to extradite businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.
Speaking with the Express yesterday on the condition of anonymity, a US official said the United States Government was only informed of the decision on Saturday, moments before an e-mail press release was issued by the Attorney General's office to the local media.

"This is the first time this has happened. Normally we (US) would be informed a day or two before of the decision to extradite.
"What happened over the weekend was unexpected. We did not receive any correspondence and therefore were in no position to make arrangements," the source said.


Admitting that yesterday's holiday (Columbus Day) placed a pause on administrative functions within the US, the source said Ramlogan's action "has indirectly given them (Galbaransingh and Ferguson) a stay".

"It looks more like a calculated error," the source said.

Ramlogan on Sunday issued the written reasons for his decision. Lawyers representing the two incarcerated men rushed to the High Court on Saturday seeking an injunction to block the extradition but their application was refused by Justice Vashiest Kokaram shortly after 1 a.m.

Ramlogan has also given an assurance that the two men will not be extradited before October 18.

This latest extension will now see the businessmen's attorneys approaching the High Court tomorrow in a bid to challenge Ramlogan's decision.

Legal sources close to the businessmen say Ramlogan's reasons were only made available to them on Sunday afternoon and since then attorneys have been working around the clock in a bid to "ensure documents are ready when we approach the High Court".

The legal source added the contents of their case are voluminous and if they are denied at the High Court then the option of the Appeal Court and Privy Council remains open.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted in Florida where they were indicted on fraud charges relating to financial transactions during the construction of the Piarco International Airport.

They had filed for judicial review of the then attorney general John Jeremie's decision to commence the extradition proceedings, claiming, among other things, that they would not get fair trials, that they should only be put on trial in a local court, and that Jeremie had been politically biased against them.

Their initial lawsuit was dismissed by then High Court judge Nolan Bereaux who ruled on April 5, there was no indication on the evidence of bias, nor did the two men have a right to be put on trial locally, and that the lawsuit was premature.


De Pee Pee apologists goh tell mih this government just doing things in a different way.....that dey "innovative".... ::) ::)  Steups!!!  People playing smart with dotishness yes!!....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: daryn on October 12, 2010, 06:00:41 AM
"It looks more like a calculated error," the source said.

anyone with knowledge of the legalities say how this affects the probability of them being in the States by, say, next week?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 12, 2010, 07:16:06 AM
"It looks more like a calculated error," the source said.

anyone with knowledge of the legalities say how this affects the probability of them being in the States by, say, next week?

It appears as though Ish and Steve's lawyers would have an opportunity to file for some kind of legal redress in the courts this week.  Maybe, just maybe, if the US had been given notice they wouldn't have had that chance.....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Jah Gol on October 12, 2010, 07:32:58 AM
Trini real smart.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on October 12, 2010, 08:01:42 AM
Trini real smart.

So dey feel.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: daryn on October 12, 2010, 08:03:47 AM
that would truly be a disgrace if dem fellas get outta dat.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on October 12, 2010, 08:10:08 AM
"It looks more like a calculated error," the source said.

anyone with knowledge of the legalities say how this affects the probability of them being in the States by, say, next week?

Once extradition is granted arrangements are made behind the scene, marshalls are sent on board a US flight to pick up the suspects and they are transported.  Anand and dem chose to announce it via email on a Sunday afternoon knowing full well that no administrative proceedings will take place until the following day.  Of course the following day just so happened to be a US Government holiday... so they end up getting a two-day stay.  That two-day stay buys enough time for them to appeal yet again.  They cannot be extradited pending the appeal.  Hence it won't be until at least a week before they start packing dey grip.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: daryn on October 12, 2010, 08:40:23 AM
"It looks more like a calculated error," the source said.

anyone with knowledge of the legalities say how this affects the probability of them being in the States by, say, next week?

Once extradition is granted arrangements are made behind the scene, marshalls are sent on board a US flight to pick up the suspects and they are transported.  Anand and dem chose to announce it via email on a Sunday afternoon knowing full well that no administrative proceedings will take place until the following day.  Of course the following day just so happened to be a US Government holiday... so they end up getting a two-day stay.  That two-day stay buys enough time for them to appeal yet again.  They cannot be extradited pending the appeal.  Hence it won't be until at least a week before they start packing dey grip.

and in this case they are appealing against the specific act of the papers being signed?

I guess what I'm asking is: is this appeal that they had been saving?  or something that only becomes available with a calculated mistake like this?

well, hopefully it won't matter by this time next week or so.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on October 12, 2010, 11:25:36 AM
and in this case they are appealing against the specific act of the papers being signed?

I guess what I'm asking is: is this appeal that they had been saving?  or something that only becomes available with a calculated mistake like this?

well, hopefully it won't matter by this time next week or so.

Dem eh saving nutten, they know they out of legal arguments.  All them doing is stalling and throwing thing against the wall hoping something will stick.  Is like they take a page from Jack and Om and dem with the WC dispute.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 12, 2010, 12:05:13 PM
Dem eh saving nutten, they know they out of legal arguments.  All them doing is stalling and throwing thing against the wall hoping something will stick.  Is like they take a page from Jack and Om and dem with the WC dispute.

Birds of a feather....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 15, 2010, 05:03:40 AM
Ish and Steve’s plan to block extradition to be heard today
By Jada Loutoo Friday, October 15 2010


THE LATEST attempt by businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to stave off their extradition to the United States to face criminal charges of bid-rigging and money laundering, has hit a snag.

Justice Andre Des Vignes who was assigned to hear the application for judicial review after it was filed at the Civil Registry of the Supreme Court in Port-of-Spain at about 8.18 am yesterday, recused himself from the matter, at about 1.30 pm, after he realised that he had previously appeared as one of the attorneys on record in a case involving fraud charges in the Piarco 1 inquiry in the local courts.

The case has now gone to Justice Joan Charles, who returned from Tobago yesterday.

Hearing of the application has been scheduled for this morning in POS 4 at the Hall of Justice.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson sought the court’s intervention to review the decision of Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, made on October 9, to sign the extradition warrant.

The two have previously challenged, unsuccessfully, their extradition, seeking to stop the proceedings against them.

They are now seeking a stay of their extradition; an injunction preventing the AG from removing them from the country until their lawsuit is heard and determined; a declaration that the AG’s decision to extradite was unlawful and null and void; a declaration that the AG’s notification via e-mail that he will not permit any stay of execution of the extradition was unlawful and orders quashing the AG’s decision to extradite, and prohibiting him from extraditing them.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are arguing that the decision to extradite them was arrived at unfairly, and in breach of the requirements of natural justice, and that the AG intentionally solicited and received submissions from third parties whose interests were adverse to them and these submissions appeared to have caused the AG to misdirect himself as to the meaning and effect of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. They have also claimed as parties affected by the executive decision of the AG, they are entitled to a process which is fair. They also said they requested, but did not receive copies of the representations received by the AG on their matter.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson have so far refused to appear in the US courts after they were indicted by a US grand jury on November 29, 2005, on 95 charges of bid-rigging, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud and wire fraud, arising from the Piarco Airport development construction project.

The charges alleged that the acts took place in the United States and elsewhere between 1996 and 2001.

On Saturday last, shortly after the decision was made by Ramlogan, the men’s attorneys approached the courts seeking a stay of the extradition, but it was refused by Justice Vashiest Kokaram.

On Monday, Ramlogan, at a press briefing at his Cabildo Chambers, St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain, said the ball was now in the court of the United States Government in relation to the men’s extradition.

He said the US authorities indicated that the earliest possible date they can arrive in Trinidad for the two was on Monday.

Ramlogan also admitted that the two were entitled like any other citizen under the Constitution, to access the local courts, when asked about the fact that the lag between his announcement on Saturday and the date for extradition allowed the men time to turn to the courts.

Ramlogan said he could not deprive the men of their rights or give them a basis for filing a judicial review.

The AG’s reasons for ordering the extradition were outlined in a letter sent to Fyard Hosein, SC, lead counsel for the two men, on Sunday last.

According to Ramlogan, he exercised his power under the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act 1985 and pointed out that while he was not under any statutory duty to provide reasons for his decision to order the extradition, he was doing so as a matter of fairness.

He said he considered the representations made by the men received in June 2006 and June of this year.

He also received opinions from several persons including three British Queen’s Counsel, Sir Ellis Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the United States Government.

Ramlogan also saw no basis for their argument that to have them tried in the American courts would be wrong, unjust or oppressive — an argument which has already been shot down in local courts.

He also said he saw no overlap between previous domestic proceedings relating to the Piarco 1 inquiry — which was discontinued by the DPP in favour of the American prosecution — and the criminal proceedings in the US.

Ramlogan also said he found the reasons of Assistant United States Attorney Richard Gregorie as it related to the issue of the correct forum for which the two should be prosecuted, to be more compelling than what Galbaransingh and Ferguson argued.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 15, 2010, 06:03:56 AM
aaaaahhhhhh yeeeessss......Stevie Wonder saw this coming.... ::)  Anand you sneaky fella you.....we watching dis one real close Anand, real close....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on October 15, 2010, 09:07:39 AM
aaaaahhhhhh yeeeessss......Stevie Wonder saw this coming.... ::)  Anand you sneaky fella you.....we watching dis one real close Anand, real close....

Ray Charles as well and he blind and deadddd.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: AirMan on October 16, 2010, 10:15:33 AM
Ish, Ferguson make last ditch effort to prevent extradition

http://www.youtube.com/v/vA2s6TOTZ7w
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 16, 2010, 06:08:48 PM
So de judge rule yet??

And on another note, dey cyar arrange to power wash de court exterior??....oh geez and ages the building look nasty, nasty!!....steups!!
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Babalawo on October 16, 2010, 06:48:20 PM
Ish and Steve get to stay.  http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/___Anand__Let_the_courts_decide-105117774.html
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 17, 2010, 05:41:57 AM
Reprieve for Ish, Steve
Judges block extradition...for now
By Denyse Renne


United National Congress financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson were yesterday granted a a conservatory order blocking their extradition to the US to face charges of money laundering and fraud.

The order means that the planned extradition, which was to take place tomorrow, October 18, has been stayed until the Appeal Court hears and determines the case being made by the men.

The Appeal panel which comprised Justices Wendell Kangaloo, Paula Mae-Weeks and Alan Mendonca held a special sitting yesterday morning to hear submissions from attorneys seeking the interest of the men.

Queen's Counsel Andrew Mitchell, appearing on behalf of Galbaransingh and Ferguson, told the court the businessmen will be appealing two decisions—the refusal of leave for a judicial review application before Justice Joan Charles and Justice Vasheist Kokaram's decision on the validity of the extradition legislation.

Senior Counsel Avery Sinanan, who is leading the case for the State, said the granting of the stay raises several concerns, one of which is Section 17 of the Extradition Act.

"Our very serious concern is if this matter is dragged on. I do not want to cast aspersions, but Under Section 17 (B), one month from October 9, the men will now have a chance to apply to have the charges against them discharged," Sinanan said.

Sinanan said following the signing of the warrant on October 9 by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, the way was paved for the men to be extradited to the United States. The action by the lawyers for Galbaransingh and Ferguson has prompted the clock to start ticking, argued Sinanan.

Sinanan noted that if the men were refused leave at the Appeal Court, then they have the option of going to the Privy Council and it would be during that period that the timeline can close.

"While we appreciate your view (the Appeal panel), in relation to the refusal of the stay by the Attorney General, it is my insistence that as such there will be international and diplomatic implications and repercussions and this is why the AG felt constrained not to issue a stay," Sinanan said.

Kangaloo interjected saying he did not believe Section 17 (B) was applicable in this instance.

"The timetable we have set out will not be extended to the end of November. I do not think Section B applies here," Kangaloo said.

The matter was adjourned to October 27 when the appeal is expected to be heard and a decision made soon after.

...Anand: Let the courts decide
By —Denyse Renne


Following the decision by the Appeal Court to grant a stay in the matter involving businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan in a brief interview with Sunday Express yesterday reiterated that the ball was now in the judiciary's court to deal with the matter.

"I think, having made my decision, the ball is now in the court of the judiciary. I am happy with the priority and sense of urgency afforded to this matter.

"The High Court was able to hear and dismiss the matter within 24 hours and the Court of Appeal has given a time management deadline and I expect before the end of the month, the matter will be disposed of," Ramlogan said.

Asked whether his office will be calling upon the Privy Council to expedite a hearing in the event that the businessmen are denied by the Appeal Court and the matter goes to the Privy Council, Ramlogan said:

"I would suspect, based on my personal experience, the Privy Council will treat it as a matter of urgency.

"The fact is that this matter has a history before the Privy Council and I believe the Privy Council will assist in this regard, since this is not something new."

On the issue of the State expressing concern over Section 17(B) of the Extradition Act, Ramlogan said it would be improper for him to explain this Act, especially since the matter is engaging the attention of the courts.

"I will refrain from making any statement regarding that," he said.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on October 17, 2010, 06:11:30 AM
Reprieve for Ish, Steve
Judges block extradition...for now
By Denyse Renne



Senior Counsel Avery Sinanan, who is leading the case for the State, said the granting of the stay raises several concerns, one of which is Section 17 of the Extradition Act.

"Our very serious concern is if this matter is dragged on. I do not want to cast aspersions, but Under Section 17 (B), one month from October 9, the men will now have a chance to apply to have the charges against them discharged," Sinanan said.

Sinanan said following the signing of the warrant on October 9 by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, the way was paved for the men to be extradited to the United States. The action by the lawyers for Galbaransingh and Ferguson has prompted the clock to start ticking, argued Sinanan.

Sinanan noted that if the men were refused leave at the Appeal Court, then they have the option of going to the Privy Council and it would be during that period that the timeline can close.




 :whistling:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on October 17, 2010, 06:46:33 AM
Anand goh turn me into a psychic....here's mih next prediction.....Ish and Steve eh going a blasted place!!

Sammy whey yuh??....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on October 17, 2010, 09:39:42 AM
Reprieve for Ish, Steve
Judges block extradition...for now
By Denyse Renne


On the issue of the State expressing concern over Section 17(B) of the Extradition Act, Ramlogan said it would be improper for him to explain this Act, especially since the matter is engaging the attention of the courts.

"I will refrain from making any statement regarding that," he said.

Are you serious?? LOL  :rotfl:

I could only imagine what the local Bar is saying about this clown behind his back.  He sitting on he facking hands at every turn and failing to be proactive at prosecuting their extradition... it is apparent for all with any common sense to see.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Babalawo on October 17, 2010, 10:31:18 PM
US: No loophole to save Ish, Steve
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/US__No_loophole_to_save_Ish__Steve-105152204.html
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on October 18, 2010, 07:35:47 AM
Quote from: Trinidad Express Article Reads
US: No loophole to save Ish, Steve
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/US__No_loophole_to_save_Ish__Steve-105152204.html

"They (Galbaransingh and Ferguson) are the ones who appealed. So therefore, the one month would also have been stayed until the court's have made their decision," the source said. The source noted that the men would have a legal ground to argue if the requesting State (US) was at fault in not coming for them during the one-month period following the signing of their warrants.

In hits case, the source said the US are not the ones causing delays and as such the Section 17(B) cannot apply.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on December 07, 2010, 06:09:05 AM
Steve, Ish judgment Dec 17
T&T Guardian Reports.


After deliberating for weeks and remaining silent on its decision on two appeals brought by fraud accused businessmen Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh, the Court of Appeal yesterday gave notice of judgment. In a notice published yesterday, Appeal Court judges Wendell Kangaloo, Paula Mae Weekes and Allan Mendonca stated judgment on the appeals would be delivered on December 17.

They are expected to rule on a constitutional point before them, regarding the constitutionality of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act 1985. They also are expected to determine if the decision by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to order the appellants’ extradition should in fact be examined by a High Court judge.

The businessmen filed appeals against the decision by Justice Vasheist Kokaram to dismiss a constitutional motion challenging the legality of the Extradition Act. The also are challenging the decision by Justice Joan Charles to refuse judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision to order their extradition. Ramlogan, on October 9, this year, signed off on warrants for the businessmen’s extradition to the United States, where they are wanted on fraud charges in relation to the construction of the $1.6 billion Piarco Airport terminal building.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on December 18, 2010, 07:24:24 AM
Ish, Steve get stay
AG’s decision to be reviewed by High Court judge
By: Indarjit Seuraj (Guardian).


United National Congress financiers Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh will not be extradited—at least not this year.  Yesterday, the Court of Appeal stayed the men’s extradition until the procedure which Attorney General (AG) Anand Ramlogan adopted before signing the extradition warrants, is reviewed by a High Court judge. The businessmen, who watched from the prisoners’ dock at the appellate court, made their first appearance at court since their arrest in June.

Galbaransingh entered the courtroom with his face drawn and his hair full of grey. Ferguson looked as composed as ever.  Appeal Court Judges Wendell Kangaloo, Allan Mendonca and Paula Mae Weekes unanimously agreed that the appellants had “a realistic prospect of success” and ordered that the AG’s decision be reviewed by a High Court judge, who is yet to be appointed. But in an immediate response, attorneys for the AG served notice of appeal, to challenge the decision at the Judicial Committee of the London Privy Council.

There was some success for the State, however, as the panel dismissed a second appeal challenging Justice Vasheist Kokaram’s dismissal of a constitutional motion brought by the businessmen and challenging the legality of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act 1985. In a written judgment yesterday, Kangaloo was critical of Justice Joan Charles’ handling of the application for judicial review. He suggested that it was hurried and decided without careful consideration, especially as it was arguable whether the AG had acted “irrationally.”

“A court exercising its powers of judicial review must, in the general scheme of things, afford itself every opportunity to ensure that it properly disposes of the arguments on a permission application,” Kangaloo said. He said notwithstanding the extradition date of October 18, which had been stated by the AG, due care should have been taken in hearing the application. “However, this fact is not by itself sufficient to justify any undue haste in the hearing of the permission application.

“Expedition, efficiency and excellence must always operate in tandem,” he said. On October 15, Justice Joan Charles refused leave for the businessmen to judicially review the AG’s decision to order their extradition. Her decision came late into the night, after hearing over ten hours of legal arguments.
The businessmen were seeking review of the AG’s decision six days earlier, when he signed warrants for their extradition to the United States where they are wanted to answer a total of 95 fraud charges arising from the Piarco Airport development project.

Kangaloo said if Charles felt she was under any time constraint due to the AG’s indications, she “erred.”
He said the judge had the power to stay the decision of the AG for her sufficient consideration of the matter. He noted, too, that deficiencies in the administration of justice in T&T, and in particular, the length of time which criminal trials take to be concluded, could not on its own be a basis for extraditing a person.
“However, these factors cannot be a reason, whether consciously or subconsciously, to order the extradition of our nationals to other jurisdictions where the criminal justice system is allegedly more efficient and effective,” Kangaloo said.

“We cannot be seen as shirking our responsibility to our society to ensure that justice is obtained locally, by circumventing our difficulties in the administration of justice by the extradition of the appellants.”
He said it was even more contentious when other developed nations blatantly refuse to extradite their nationals. “Even more so, when many developed countries flatly refuse to extradite their own citizens under any circumstance regardless of the consequences which may follow.” The panel had reserved its ruling on the appeals since October 28.

An application for bail brought before the panel yesterday was dismissed after the appellate judges said they had no jurisdiction to hear such an application. Lawyers for the businessmen will now go before a judge in chambers for bail on Monday. The two men had been in custody since June 15, eight days after they lost an action at the Judicial Committee of the London Privy Council.
ISH, STEVE SEEK BAIL
By Jada Loutoo Saturday, December 18 2010


FORMER United National Congress financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson will spend the weekend in jail and will seek their freedom on Monday when they are expected to petition a High Court judge for bail.

The two yesterday scored a partial victory in the Appeal Court, which affirmed one of their two appeals and has, again, effectively forestalled their extradition to the United States on bid-rigging and money laundering charges arising out of the Piarco Airport expansion project in 2001.

Justice Andre Mon Desir is expected to hear the bail application and may have done so yesterday since the Appeal Court agreed with the State that it did not have jurisdiction to hear such an application. A much thinner, greyer Galbaransingh, dressed in a pink polo jersey with blue stripes and blue trousers, smiled to his relatives in the courtroom and so too did Ferguson, who wore a white shirt with red stripes, with its sleeves rolled up to his elbows, and black pants.

Both men looked tired and aged. They have been incarcerated since June. The judges said the two had demonstrated arguable grounds for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success and were entitled to be granted leave to apply for judicial review of Attorney General (AG) Anand Ramlogan’s October 9 decision to order their extradition to the United States to face criminal prosecution.

The court, comprising of Justices of Appeal Wendell Kangaloo, Allan Mendonca and Paula Mae Weekes, also ordered a stay of the AG’s decision to extradite.

The men’s judicial review application was sent back to the Registrar of the High Court for a judge to be assigned the case.

And in an immediate reaction, the State has indicated its intention to approach the London-based Privy Council to appeal the appellate court’s decision to allow the appeal.

In a unanimous decision, the local appeals court while agreeing that the men had demonstrated arguable grounds for judicial review, also found that they did not show that the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act was unconstitutional. One of the judges hearing the men’s appeals described the men’s legal battle as one of “epic proportions” which has “engaged the attention of the courts at every level of our legal system.”

In the latest chapter of the litigation, Galbaransingh and Ferguson challenged the constitutionality of the Extradition Act; also a High Court judge’s refusal to grant leave to have reviewed Ramlogan’s decision, on October 9, to have them extradited to the United States.

In their ruling in favour of the appeal which sought leave of the courts to review the AG’s decision to extradite, Kangaloo said, “It must be remembered that these appellants are citizens of Trinidad and Tobago whose extradition to the United States was requested while the prosecution against them was still ongoing in the local courts.”

He acknowledged that these were matters which must have weighed heavily in the mind of the AG in coming to his decision on whether to order the surrender of these appellants, saying that at the permission stage, it was certainly arguable whether the AG’s decision to order the appellants’ return was irrational.

“In Trinidad and Tobago we are all fully aware of the deficiencies in the administration of justice and in particular the length of time which criminal trials take to be concluded.

“However these factors cannot ever be a reason, whether consciously or subconsciously, to order the extradition of our nationals to other jurisdictions where the criminal justice system is allegedly more efficient and effective. We cannot be seen as shirking our responsibility to our society to ensure that justice is obtained locally, by circumventing our difficulties in the administration of justice, by the extradition of the appellants. Even more so when many developed countries flatly refuse to extradite their own citizens under any circumstances regardless of the consequences which may follow,” he said in a strongly worded ruling which he gave separately.

Mendonca and Weekes also agreed that there were arguable facts based on the issue of the appropriate jurisdiction in which to prosecute the men.

Mendonca said an explanation from the AG was required to show how the US was the favourable forum and jurisdiction to prosecute the men and his approach to coming to his decision could give rise to an argument that his decision “was irrational or unreasonable.”

He also cited other arguments submitted by the men’s lawyers on the AG’s disregard to several pertinent factors in the case, adding that the two had “an arguable case on the ground of irrationality and unreasonableness and the judge ought not to have refused leave in that regard also.”

“The judge was therefore wrong to refuse the application for leave to apply for judicial review,” he said. Justice Joan Charles, who immediately refused to grant the men leave to apply for judicial review after a marathon session on October 15, was criticised for doing so, with Kangaloo saying that to the extent that she felt she was constrained by the AG’s announcement that the two were to be extradited on October 18, she erred.

“This fact was not by itself sufficient to justify any undue haste in the hearing of the permission application.

“Expedition, efficiency and excellence must always operate in tandem. A court exercising its powers of judicial review must, in the general scheme of things, afford itself every opportunity to ensure that it properly disposes of arguments on a permission application.

“It was always open to the learned judge to grant an interim stay of the AG’s order for return and give herself sufficient time to properly receive and digest the appellants’ arguments for permission,” he said.

“The purpose of judicial review is to keep the executive in check and to prevent the citizen from arbitrary, unwarranted and unlawful executive action. Such protections are part of the wider concept of the rule of law which lies at the foundation of any democratic society,” he said, as he suggested that the Rules Committee of the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago look at adopting similar rules and procedures in the UK on judicial review applications to streamline the process locally.

“It was once said of judicial review that it is galloping jurisprudence. In my view it is now jurisprudence which has past the stage of galloping and is now at racing pace. As such the procedural rules applicable to judicial review proceedings must keep pace with this rapid expansion and growth,” he said.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and bid- rigging in relation to two construction packages for the Piarco Airport construction project.

The charges indicated the alleged acts took place in the United States and elsewhere between 1996 and 2001.

Ferguson alone is wanted on an 82-count indictment, including charges of laundering US$3,255,345 ($20,508,673) between the period November 24, 2000 and March 28, 2002.

Galbaransingh is wanted on a 13-count indictment, including charges of laundering US$1million ($6.3 million) between the period June 19, 2001 and December 10, 2001.

They are charged in accordance with Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000.

A United States grand jury returned the indictment against the two on November 29, 2005.

Charges against Galbaransingh and Ferguson in the local courts were discontinued, in favour of prosecution in the American courts.

Six foreign nationals have already been sentenced for their roles in the bid-rigging scheme.

The men benefitted from an almost 50 percent reduction of the penalties as part of a plea bargain arrangement with the US officials, and received jail time, were house arrested and were ordered to pay fines and atonement to the TT Government.

Appearing for Ferguson were Fyard Hosein, SC, Rishi Dass, Sasha Bridgemohansingh instructed by Nyree Alfonso while Andrew Mitchell, QC, Rajiv Persad, also instructed by Nyree Alfonso represented Galbaransingh.

The State was represented by Avery Sinanan, SC, instructed by Kelvin Ramkissoon.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on December 19, 2010, 01:03:37 AM
 :whistling:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: rotatopoti3 on December 19, 2010, 10:56:55 AM
if dey guilty..den stop uckking around...

if dey innocent...call ah spade ah spade
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on December 19, 2010, 11:52:05 AM
if dey guilty..den stop uckking around...

if dey innocent...call ah spade ah spade

Well we cant find out either if dey doh get extradited ent?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on December 19, 2010, 02:05:36 PM
if dey guilty..den stop uckking around...

if dey innocent...call ah spade ah spade

Well we cant find out either if dey doh get extradited ent?


That's the thing... I read them two posts by Flex yesterday and decide I not even bothering with ah response b/c I really not understanding the basis (legal, factual, logical... whatever) why these men have been able to duck extradition for so long.  You'd swear is ah homosexuality charge we was extraditing them tuh Saudi Arabia for.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: g on December 20, 2010, 08:29:34 AM
This real sad yes, these men continue with charges hanging over their head while they seek to escape extradition constantly challenging constitutional law and international treaties. Simply becuase they have the financial resources to do so.

My question is, at what point really will these men exhaust every available legal recourse?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on December 20, 2010, 11:14:44 AM
This real sad yes, these men continue with charges hanging over their head while they seek to escape extradition constantly challenging constitutional law and international treaties. Simply becuase they have the financial resources to do so.

My question is, at what point really will these men exhaust every available legal recourse?


Yet men who suspected to be gang members could be held up to 5 days by police without a charge according to proposed legislation.


All animals equal yes.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on December 21, 2010, 08:08:13 PM
This real sad yes, these men continue with charges hanging over their head while they seek to escape extradition constantly challenging constitutional law and international treaties. Simply becuase they have the financial resources to do so.

My question is, at what point really will these men exhaust every available legal recourse?


Yet men who suspected to be gang members could be held up to 5 days by police without a charge according to proposed legislation.


All animals equal yes.

ENTTTTTTTTTT
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on December 23, 2010, 04:49:00 AM
Which chapter we on??.....ah cyar keep track no more.... ::)

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Ish__Steve_denied_bail-112356559.html (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Ish__Steve_denied_bail-112356559.html)

Ish, Steve denied bail
Christmas in jail for businessmen


By Denyse Renne denyse.renne@trinidadexpress.com

Attorneys seeking the interest of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson yesterday failed to convince High Court Judge Andre Mon Desir that the men should be granted bail. As a result of this, the businessmen may possibly be spending the Yuletide season in jail.
Mon Desir, in a 39-page ruling, said the arguments presented by the businessmen's attorneys that circumstances have changed, warranting that the issue of bail be considered, were dismissed.
"The leave merely crosses the threshold stage and there were no radical changes. There are no new changes of circumstances, the application for a change in circumstances is dismissed, bail refused and the status quo remains as is," Mon Desir said.

Immediately following the ruling, Queens Counsel Andrew Mitchell told the court of his intention to appeal Mon Desir's decision.  Legal sources said yesterday the appeal would likely be filed as early as today, since attorneys representing the businessmen indicated yesterday that they were awaiting Mon Desir's written reasons to file their grounds.
In his ruling, Mon Desir described the matter as " time-consuming and undulating" with various twists and turns. He said the core argument used by the businessmen's attorneys centred around the change in circumstances following their June 15 incarceration.

Mon Desir said on this issue "it is not every new event which will trigger an application for bail, since most changes do not have to do with applications for bail".
Making reference to a series of legal authorities, Mon Desir said although new material was presented to the court the material presented must bear some relevance to bail. He said attorneys also argued that the men have been jailed for the past six months and this time may become extended after the State indicated its intention to petition the Privy Council, following the decision of Appeal Court Justices Wendell Kangaloo Allan Mendonca and Paula Mae Weekes, who ruled the judicial review application of the men be remitted to the High Court.

Attorneys had argued that due to the heavy workload of judges the men will not receive a hearing anytime soon. This ground was also dismissed, as Mon Desir explained that "a judge has already been appointed to hear the judicial review application and it is now up to them (businessmen) to see what pace the matter should proceed".  Mitchell questioned Mon Desir's decision, saying that throughout the bail hearing the Office of the Attorney General, which was represented by Senior Counsel Avery Sinanan, had indicated they were neutral in the matter. Mitchell said this could only mean the State did not object to the bail application and as such that matter should be addressed.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on December 23, 2010, 07:46:37 AM
Which chapter we on??.....ah cyar keep track no more.... ::)

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Ish__Steve_denied_bail-112356559.html (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Ish__Steve_denied_bail-112356559.html)

Ish, Steve denied bail
Christmas in jail for businessmen


By Denyse Renne denyse.renne@trinidadexpress.com

Attorneys seeking the interest of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson yesterday failed to convince High Court Judge Andre Mon Desir that the men should be granted bail. As a result of this, the businessmen may possibly be spending the Yuletide season in jail.
Mon Desir, in a 39-page ruling, said the arguments presented by the businessmen's attorneys that circumstances have changed, warranting that the issue of bail be considered, were dismissed.
"The leave merely crosses the threshold stage and there were no radical changes. There are no new changes of circumstances, the application for a change in circumstances is dismissed, bail refused and the status quo remains as is," Mon Desir said.

Immediately following the ruling, Queens Counsel Andrew Mitchell told the court of his intention to appeal Mon Desir's decision.  Legal sources said yesterday the appeal would likely be filed as early as today, since attorneys representing the businessmen indicated yesterday that they were awaiting Mon Desir's written reasons to file their grounds.
In his ruling, Mon Desir described the matter as " time-consuming and undulating" with various twists and turns. He said the core argument used by the businessmen's attorneys centred around the change in circumstances following their June 15 incarceration.

Mon Desir said on this issue "it is not every new event which will trigger an application for bail, since most changes do not have to do with applications for bail".
Making reference to a series of legal authorities, Mon Desir said although new material was presented to the court the material presented must bear some relevance to bail. He said attorneys also argued that the men have been jailed for the past six months and this time may become extended after the State indicated its intention to petition the Privy Council, following the decision of Appeal Court Justices Wendell Kangaloo Allan Mendonca and Paula Mae Weekes, who ruled the judicial review application of the men be remitted to the High Court.

Attorneys had argued that due to the heavy workload of judges the men will not receive a hearing anytime soon. This ground was also dismissed, as Mon Desir explained that "a judge has already been appointed to hear the judicial review application and it is now up to them (businessmen) to see what pace the matter should proceed".  Mitchell questioned Mon Desir's decision, saying that throughout the bail hearing the Office of the Attorney General, which was represented by Senior Counsel Avery Sinanan, had indicated they were neutral in the matter. Mitchell said this could only mean the State did not object to the bail application and as such that matter should be addressed.

ENT CYAH CHECK DAT HIGH
Title: Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
Post by: Die_Hard on January 02, 2011, 08:45:30 PM
Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
.by Phillip Edward Alexander on Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 1:18pm.

Having dinner at my parents' house over the Christmas season, I was informed by my mother that my aunt (one of her sisters) is very upset at my published articles on the issue of Ish & Steve and their pending on again/off again extradition to the United States to face criminal prosecution for the crimes that they committed in that jurisdiction.

You see, it turns out that my aunt and her family are apparently very close with the Galbaransingh family and they (the Galbaransingh clan) know of my aunt's (unfortunate) relationship to me; they apparently expressed dismay to her that I would take such a strong position on the issue, obviously not taking into account that these are husbands and fathers of wives and children who miss them terribly and would miss them more if they were jailed in the United States for their crimes.

To be quite honest I hadn't even thought about the thing from that perspective, and now that it has been pointed out to me I feel rather ashamed that I was supporting a system of justice that would separate criminals from the rest of society at the expense of their families and loved ones.

Aghast at the revelation, I want to apologize not only to my aunt, the Galbaransinghs and the Fergusons, but to the families of each and every single prisoner behind bars anywhere in Trinidad & Tobago.

I am ashamed of our cold hearted system of justice that demands that the responsibility for crime against the people could result in punishment.

I want to apologize on behalf of our Prime Minister who ought to know or have known the implications of her borrowed 'If you do the crime, you will do the time' speech.

I want to apologize to criminals and ne'er do wells everywhere for our apparent insensitivity.

Had I known then what I know now I would surely have supported our Attorney General in his obvious position on the matter earlier and resisted writing on numerous occasions that, because they OUGHT to have known better, Ish & Steve need to be made examples of.


Based on this new way of looking at the thing it is quite obvious I was wrong in my earlier assessment and conclusions, and it is appearing patently obvious that we need to find better ways of punishing our officials who, having been appointed to National Office by dint of connections and contributions and who find themselves unable to resist the urge to steal and plunder, find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

I suggest that we start over.

We should open the jails and let all but the family-less go, tear up all case files of people with relatives, remove all existing laws from the books that would punish those guilty parties that have families and write new laws just for them.


Perhaps the Attorney general might want to look at consequences like bed without supper for a week on each count for white collar crimes, and for capital crimes like murder and rape, no dessert for two weeks enforceable by the police.


It is noteworthy to note that this would in no way affect the cases of ghetto people and black head chickens as they usually cannot tell who is related to who in the first place, and the general public need not be unnecessarily concerned; what is it they say about the heights of confusion being father's day  in Laventille?

Anyway, I am sure that it is not too late to right these wrongs, and I would like to thank everyone who helped me to see this the right way finally.

Can someone get in touch with Calder and let him now that it's safe to come back?
Title: Re: Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
Post by: elan on January 02, 2011, 10:08:50 PM
Kaiso, Kaiso!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
Post by: Disgruntled_Trini on January 02, 2011, 10:43:45 PM
This is the best sh!t I read in a long time.

Thread of the year and the year now start.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Babalawo on January 18, 2011, 12:30:11 AM
Ish, Ferguson still await bail
Published: Tue, 2011-01-18 21:08
Indarjit Seuraj
Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson
http://guardian.co.tt/beta/news/2011/01/18/ish-ferguson-still-await-bail
The Court of Appeal, over the next few days, will consider an application for bail for the release of businessmen Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh. But as Chief Justice Ivor Archie stated, the application involved the question of whether the Appeal Court had the “jurisdiction” to grant bail for the men.
The application followed a decision by High Court judge Andre Mon Desir on December 22, 2010 to deny the bail.

Yesterday, a panel, comprising Justices Archie, Paula Mae Weekes and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, reserved its ruling on whether Mon Desir was wrong to refuse bail. If that question is answered in the affirmative, the appellate judges will themselves contemplate on the granting of bail. Ferguson, former Maritime General CEO, and Galbaransingh, chairman of Northern Construction Ltd Group of Companies, are wanted in the USA to answer 95 fraud charges arising from the $1.6 billion Piarco Airport terminal project. Lawyers representing Attorney General (AG) Anand Ramlogan said if bail was to be granted, there should be “conditions” attached to it.

Avery Sinanan, SC, leading Kelvin Ramkissoon, informed the panel the AG was maintaining a “neutral” position, a position which Ramlogan took when the application was before Mon Desir last month. British Queen’s Counsel Andrew Mitchell, meantime, contended that primacy of the Constitution and the applicant’s right to liberty were ensured by the granting of bail. Mitchell, who is instructed by Rajiv Persad and Nyree Alfonso for Galbaransingh, said that placed an onus on the court. “This is a meritorious application and the court should bend over backwards,” Mitchell said. Fyard Hosein, SC, Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Rishi Dass and Karel Douglas represent Ferguson. Alfonso also instructs Hosein. (IS)
Title: Re: Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
Post by: Jah Gol on March 31, 2011, 12:47:56 PM
I just see a tweet that they get bail. Can anyone confirm ?
Title: Ish and Steve get bail
Post by: Tallman on March 31, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
I just see a tweet that they get bail. Can anyone confirm ?

Ish and Steve get bail
ctntworld.com

 
Businessmen, Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Fergusson have been granted bail after spending close to 10 months in prison.
 
Their application for bail was heard in the Port of Spain High Court before Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh who ordered an interim instant release.
 
However, the bail for the men have been increased from $1 million to $2 million.
 
Justice Boodosingh referred to previous arguments made in the Appeal Court including the length of time the judicial review of the Attorney General's decision to extradite both men will take.

The State did not object to bail.
 
However both men have been ordered to surrender their passports and report to the Four Roads Police Station on Mondays and Thrusdays between 6am and 6pm.
 
Both Mr. Galbaransingh and Mr. Fergusson are wanted in the United States on charges of money laundering and bid rigging stemming from the construction of the Piarco International Airport.
Title: Re: Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
Post by: Jumbie on March 31, 2011, 03:57:13 PM
FINALLY, some justice.
Title: Re: Free Ish & Steve!!! Free Ish & Steve!!! (I smell tee shirt sales...)
Post by: grimm01 on March 31, 2011, 07:45:14 PM
well T&T sweet too bad yes...

when Uncle Sam wanted Dudus, the JA government didn't go after him until Uncle Sam started turning the screws and businessmen started getting their visas canceled.

The moneyed class of sweet T&T enjoys doing their shopping in New York and Miami, ah wonder if they willing to part with a vee-zay so Ish and Steve can galavant back home.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on April 02, 2011, 07:17:24 AM
Ish and Steve now out of jail, return to court on May 10
By ALEXANDER BRUZUAL Saturday, April 2 2011


After nine months in custody, businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson were all smiles yesterday as they left the Maximum Security Prison in Arouca, to the arms of waiting relatives outside the prison.

Although smiling and looking in good physical condition, their stay in prison seemed to have taken a harder toll on Galbaransingh, than on his colleague. He left the prison yesterday with a full head of grey hair, from which he appeared older than usual.

The two former UNC financiers were granted bail Thursday morning at $2 million each by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh in the Port-of-Spain Assizes. The surety of the businessmen’s bail was secured by properties owned by family members, and friends.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson were originally expected to be released Thursday afternoon.

However, apparent inconsistencies between documents from the court, and those in possession by the prison administration, had to be resolved first.

Unfortunately, the inconsistencies were discovered late in the afternoon while the men were being processed. Then it was too late for them to leave the prison, because at that time, the Registrar’s office at the High Court was closed. As a result, there was little that the attorneys for the two businessmen could do.

The attorneys for the two accused men had to wait until the opening of the court yesterday before their documents could have been properly processed.

At about 11.55 am, both Galbaransingh and Ferguson were seen exiting the Maximum Security Prison with a contingent of prison officers and family members.

They were then escorted into a waiting black Land Rover vehicle and driven off the compound.

Galbaransingh looked as if he had lost some weight, in addition to carrying a full head of grey hair.

The two men will next appear before Boodoosingh on May 10, during proceedings for judicial review against a decision by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan for the extradition of the two businessmen to the United States to face criminal prosecution.

Thursday was the first time that bail applications made by attorneys for the two men had succeeded since their arrest on June 15, 2010, after losing another lawsuit before the Privy Council. Previous applications, made in June, July and December of last year, were all shot down by the presiding judges — Justice Vasheist Kokaram; Justice Malcom Holdip; and Justice Andre Mon Desir respectively.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson, are wanted in the United States on bid-rigging and money laundering charges related to the Piarco Airport expansion project in 2001.

Attorneys Andrew Mitchell QC and Rajiv Persad appeared on behalf of Galbaransingh, while attorneys Fyard Hosein SC and Rishi Dass appeared on behalf of Ferguson. Nyree Alfonso is heading the instructing attorneys for the two parties.
Title: Ish and Steve win case to get State docs
Post by: truetrini on May 23, 2011, 09:27:15 PM
Ish and Steve win case to get State docs
Monday 23rd May, 2011

Businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson won a victory in court today on their fight to block their extradition to the United States on fraud charges.

Both men are facing charges arising out of building of new terminal at the Piarco International Airport.

Their attorneys previously filed an application on their behalf seeking the disclosure of documents that may have contributed to the Attorney General's decision to sign the order for their extradition to the United States.

The State had objected.

However, today, a High Court judge ordered the State to disclose the documents.

The two businessmen, who are out on $2 million bail, were indicted by a US Grand Jury in Florida on several counts of fraud relating to the $1.6 billion Airport Terminal Project.

A legal source described today's ruling in the High Court as a victory for the two former United National Congress financiers, since it could prove to be an important factor in their case against their extradition.

Last October, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan signed the extradition order.

Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbarsingh have challenged the Attorney General's decision, arguing that they were already facing criminal proceedings in Trinidad and Tobago over the same project and should not be tried in the United States on the same charges.

That matter is to be heard in July.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on May 24, 2011, 05:10:14 AM
Steups!!!  I fed up......
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on May 24, 2011, 08:28:25 AM
Steups!!!  I fed up......

U very patient. I FED UP LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG TIME.

I just read d US take away a Govt Min  and he wife visa in JA allegedly becasue of d DUDUS saga. Cousin Obama eh ready 4 we yet wit d Ish saga.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: zuluwarrior on May 24, 2011, 06:35:21 PM
give dem rope enough rope to hang them high in the sun to dry .
Title: Ish bids for airport contracts
Post by: Flex on October 23, 2011, 05:28:07 AM
Ish bids for airport contracts
By Anika Gumbs-Sandiford (Guardian)

 
Businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh More than seven years after businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh was committed to stand trial for the Piarco Airport Inquiry, his company—Singh’s Auto Rentals Company Ltd— is attempting to win the bid for the $9 million car-leasing airport contracts. The contracts are to provide rented cars for the Piarco International Airport and the Arthur Napoleon Raymond Robinson Airport (formerly Crowne Point Airport). The contracts were tendered for six to eight weeks ago, Amrit Maharaj confirmed.

Tendering has been closed.Galbaransingh confirmed to Sunday Guardian yesterday that his company submitted tenders for both bids at the Airports Authority of T&T (AATT). “Yes, Singh’s Auto Rental Company Ltd is a tenderer. The company has been in business for the last 43 years. We submitted a two-envelope tender: one on technical specifications and one on pricing. In relation to Tobago, similarly we tendered for the vehicle leasing contract also and we submitted our tenders complying with every single requirement on the document,” Galbaransingh said yesterday. He indicated, however, that the company was being run by his children since he is facing charges.   

Sunday Guardian learnt that both contracts are for the leasing of 55 cars over a three-year period at a cost of $225,000 monthly. The Piarco International Airport contract is valued at $8.127 million for 44 cars while the Arthur Napoleon Raymond Robinson Airport (formerly Crowne Point Airport) contract is for ten cars at a cost of  $1.194 million. On March 30, Galbaransingh was granted bail with businessman Steve Ferguson after being incarcerated for nine months. It was Attorney General Anand Ramlogan who signed the extradition order granting the United States Government permission to extradite them in connection with fraud charges. Both men face a total of 95 charges relating to the construction of the controversial $1.6 billion Piarco Airport Terminal building. Both men have since appealed the extradition.

No-confidence motion against AATT chairman

Meanwhile, contention is brewing between the AATT’s Chairman Vaman Bajnath and board members. This became evident on Friday. Copies of the authority’s board minutes obtained by Sunday Guardian revealed that six board members moved a motion of no-confidence against Bajnath. According to the minutes, board member Gary Kalliecharan expressed no confidence in Bajnath to run the board effectively. Voting in favour of the motion were other board members—Dyanand Maharaj, Suresh Ramdial, Emile Baptiste, Diane Hadad and Ian Gomez. The other members—Felix Hernandez, Clyde Adams and Ruth van Lare voted against the motion.

Bajnath: I will give up my job for my integrity

When contacted yesterday, Bajnath refused to comment on whether a no-confidence motion was moved against him. Asked if he was going to step down as chairman, Bajnath replied: “I would not allow anything to come in my way that I think is unlawful. If I stand for something that I know is right I would maintain my stance. I would walk away from any job or anyone if my integrity is being comprised or if I know I am being taken for a ride. I would step down if I have to. “My integrity in life is most important to me and I always uphold throughout my life good business principles, and I uphold strong business ethical values and I am always working for the good of any company beyond the job I do.”

Asked if he was being pressured to make certain decisions, Bajnath only said: “My job is service to my country. My employees and a management team see me as a person to lead them with integrity. I am a very independent man. My goals are much higher in life than to get involved in foolishness. “The thesis that I am currently writing on is to improve the aviation in the Caribbean. I am not going to sacrifice my research for foolishness; I am definitely not going to do that. My integrity is first and foremost in my life and I would not surrender it for anything else.”

Devant: I thought Ish is in prison

Maharaj, when contacted by Sunday Guardian yesterday said: “I thought the airport authority deals with airports I did not know they renting cars. I have to investigate this. I asked the board to inform me what they are dealing with but I have any information as yet. “I know about the tension on the board and I am trying to guide them. I know nothing about the airport dealing with renting cars. Ish still around I thought he is in prison in the United States or Canada,” the Minister quipped.
Title: Ish and Steve to be tried locally
Post by: truetrini on November 07, 2011, 12:51:07 PM
S I understand there will be no extradition.  More to follow I am sure
Title: Ishwar and Steve will not be extradited to the US.
Post by: truetrini on November 07, 2011, 06:22:58 PM
http://www.wintvworld.com/e-news/?p=9913

Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson will not be extradited to the US.

The decision came from High Court Judge Ronnie Boodoosingh

This after Attorney General Anand Ramlogan had called for the men to be extradited

 The decision was handed down this afternoon in the POS High Court.

 The judge in a 57 page ruling said it would be “unjust, oppressive and unlawful.”

The judge also ordered that the State pay costs to the businessmen.\

Attorney Avory Sinanan who sought the interest of the State asked that a 28 day stay be made on the decision, since he needed time to speak with the AG.

 The businessmen had filed an application challenging the October 9, 2010, decision of Ramlogan to extradite them.

 Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted in the United States on a series of charges arising out of the construction of the Piarco Airport project.

Galbaransingh faces 13 charges, among them wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money and engaging in unlawful transactions

Ferguson faces a total of 82 charges, which include wire fraud and conspiracy to launder money.

The offences are alleged to have occurred in the US,T&T, The Bahamas and elsewhere between September 1,1996 and December 31,2005.
Title: Re: Ish and Steve to be tried locally
Post by: Bourbon on November 07, 2011, 06:29:21 PM
All animals equal.
Title: Re: Ish and Steve to be tried locally
Post by: weary1969 on November 07, 2011, 07:57:54 PM
All animals equal.

ENTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Title: Re: Ish and Steve to be tried locally
Post by: Bakes on November 07, 2011, 10:32:54 PM
LOLLLLL


Wheyyyyy... nah!
Title: Re: Ish and Steve to be tried locally
Post by: Flex on November 08, 2011, 05:45:06 AM
Extradition quashed
By ALEXANDER BRUZUAL (Newsday).
Tuesday, November 8 2011


After a year of legal battles, yesterday businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson won their judicial review hearing against the decision of Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to sign extradition warrants against them on October 9, 2010.

The decision was delivered yesterday by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh in the Port-of-Spain Assizes Third Court.

In a 57-page ruling, Justice Boodoosingh quashed Ramlogan’s decision saying that it was “unjust and oppressive.”

“The decision of the Attorney General to order the extradition of the claimants (Galbaransingh and Ferguson) to the United States of America is quashed. It is declared that the appropriate forum to try the claimants in relation to the award of contracts for the construction of the Piarco Airport is Trinidad and Tobago.

“It is declared that it would be unjust, oppressive and unlawful to order the extradition of the claimants and that (the) extradition is debarred by the operation of section 16(3) of the Extradition Act. Having regard to my clear finding on this issue I do not think it necessary to make an order of prohibition. The effect ought to be the same,” Boodoosingh informed the court.

When contacted by Newsday yesterday, the Attorney General indicated that he was aware of the judgment, however, at the time he was unable to say what his office’s next move would be.

“As of this moment, I have not seen the reasons of the learned judge as we have only just finished our National Security meeting. However, the Government respects the judge’s decision and shall act in a manner which is consistent with the judgment of the court.

But I also intend to speak to our legal advisers on the matter to analyse and discuss the decision to determine the way forward,” Ramlogan said.

Section 16(3) of the Act states that “The Attorney General shall not make an order under this section in the case of a person if it appears to the Attorney General, on the grounds mentioned in section 13(3), that it would be unjust or oppressive to return that person.”

As the decision was being read, both Galbaransingh and Ferguson could be seen smiling broadly at their lawyers — evidently happy at the fact that the decision had been in their favour.

Galbaransingh was represented by attorneys Andrew Mitchell QC and Rajiv Persad.

Ferguson was represented by Edward Fitzgerald QC, Fyard Hosein SC, Rishi Dass, Sasha Bridgemohan, and Annette Mamchan.

The legal teams for both businessmen were instructed by attorney Nyree Alfonso.

The State was represented by Avory Sinanan SC, Kelvin Ramkissoon, Sunita Harrikissoon and Deowattee Dilraj-Battoosingh. They were instructed by attorney Janelle John.

Following the decision, Sinanan requested from the court a stay of execution on the decision for the next 28-days so that the State could assess the ruling and then decide if they would be making an appeal.

“What the AG will now consider is whether or not to appeal the decision, so given the circumstances...we would request that a stay of execution be implemented so that we could have an opportunity to review the ruling. If an appeal is not to be pursued by the State, then we will inform the other side as such,” Sinanan explained.

After further submissions, Justice Boodoosingh granted the State its request. As a result, the High Court Judge indicated that the bail for the two men will continue as fixed (at $2 million each). However, the condition that they report to the Four Roads Police Station would be removed.

Orders for costs by the claimants for the proceedings need to be filed on or before December 15. The responding submissions by the defence (the State) need to be filed by January 16, 2012.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and bid- rigging in relation to two construction packages for the Piarco Airport construction project.

The charges indicated the alleged acts took place in the United States and elsewhere between 1996 and 2001.

Ferguson alone is wanted on an 82-count indictment, including charges of laundering US$3,255,345 ($20,508,673) between the period November 24, 2000 and March 28, 2002.

Galbaransingh is wanted on a 13-count indictment, including charges of laundering US$1million ($6.3 million) between the period June 19, 2001 and December 10, 2001.

They are charged in accordance with Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000. A United States grand jury returned the indictment against the two on November 29, 2005.

Charges against Galbaransingh and Ferguson in the local courts were discontinued, in favour of prosecution in the American courts.

Six foreign nationals have already been sentenced for their roles in the bid-rigging scheme.

The men benefitted from an almost 50 percent reduction of the penalties as part of a plea bargain arrangement with the US officials, and received jail time, were house arrested and were ordered to pay fines and atonement to the TT Government.

However, despite the ruling, the two businessmen will return to court on Friday as the Piarco II preliminary inquiry continues at the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court before Magistrate Ejenny Espinet.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are charged along with former Finance Minister Brian Kuei Tung, former Works and Transport minister, Sadiq Baksh, former chairmen of the Airport’s Authority, Tyrone Gopee and Ameer Edoo, Peter Cateau and Amrith Maharaj.

On June 15, 2010, both Galbaransingh and Ferguson were arrested after the State had learned that their bail had expired. Following this, attorneys for the two men spent the next nine months making bail applications. On March 30, 2011, at their third attempt, the attorneys were able to secure bail before Justice Boodoosingh.

Previous applications, made in June, July and December of last year, were all shot down by the presiding judges — Justice Vasheist Kokaram, Justice Malcom Holdip, and Justice Andre Mon Desir respectively.

They were expected to be released on the same day, however, administrative problems led to their release on the following day.

(http://newsday.co.tt/galeria/2011-11-08-5-1a_ish_&Steve_free_of_Extradition_(2).jpg)
Steve Ferguson, leaving court being freed of extradition charges yesterday.
Author: KEITH MATTHEWS
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on November 09, 2011, 06:40:19 PM
When contacted by Newsday yesterday, the Attorney General indicated that he was aware of the judgment, however, at the time he was unable to say what his office’s next move would be.

“As of this moment, I have not seen the reasons of the learned judge as we have only just finished our National Security meeting. However, the Government respects the judge’s decision and shall act in a manner which is consistent with the judgment of the court.

But I also intend to speak to our legal advisers on the matter to analyse and discuss the decision to determine the way forward,” Ramlogan said.

Section 16(3) of the Act states that “The Attorney General shall not make an order under this section in the case of a person if it appears to the Attorney General, on the grounds mentioned in section 13(3), that it would be unjust or oppressive to return that person.”


Following the decision, Sinanan requested from the court a stay of execution on the decision for the next 28-days so that the State could assess the ruling and then decide if they would be making an appeal.

“What the AG will now consider is whether or not to appeal the decision, so given the circumstances...we would request that a stay of execution be implemented so that we could have an opportunity to review the ruling. If an appeal is not to be pursued by the State, then we will inform the other side as such,” Sinanan explained.



aaaaaahhhhh yesss Anand, the ball is back in your court now......well yes!!!   So uuuummm if this is not appealed, would it stand as precedent so that no other persons could be sent to foreign countries on extradition??  Or this just relates to these two??  And can the judgement be obtained by ordinary folks like myself??  I curious to see what makes circumstances in this particular matter so "unjust and oppressive"....

Ah next thing.   If they never get extradicted, the US would just have to dismiss the case and call that George??  Enquiring minds want to know.... ???  :-\
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on November 10, 2011, 06:01:10 AM
Rowley in contempt?
Law body concerned about extradition remarks
Thu, 2011-11-10
Richard Lord (Guardian).


Dr Keith Rowley The Law Association will hold an emergency meeting today to discuss a comment made by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley on the Ish Galbaransingh/Steve Ferguson extradition matter. Sources said yesterday that the Law Association was very concerned about Rowley’s claim that the ruling was a defeat for justice in T&T. During a news conference at his Charles Street, Port-of-Spain, office on Tuesday, Rowley was asked if the ruling was a defeat for Attorney General Anand Ramlogan.

Rowley said: “I wouldn’t term it a defeat for the Attorney General...if there is any defeat, it would be for justice in Trinidad and Tobago.” Ramlogan responded yesterday, saying with respect to the extradition matter he has pursued and executed his professional and statutory duties in accordance with the laws and Constitution of T&T.

He said in a press release that he sought the opinion and views of external leading counsel in T&T and the UK before deciding whether to issue the extradition warrants. Ramlogan said he respected the judgment of the courts of T&T and any suggestion that he had acted for his own or for any other purpose inconsistent with his role as Chief Law Officer was “not only irresponsible but is an outrageous suggestion.”

He said he was seeking independent legal advice from senior counsel in London “to examine whether the comments made by Dr Rowley amount to defamation.” Ramlogan further stated that Rowley’s comments “may well constitute contempt of court in so far as his comments ‘scandalise the court’ with the intention of interfering with the administration of justice and upon which the Attorney General is seeking further advice.”

Ramlogan said these were matters for the consideration of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the Law Association. He said he intended “to formally bring these matters to their attention for immediate action.” He stressed the judicial process in T&T  “is wholly independent of the executive and beyond reproach.” The extradition order for businessmen Galbaransingh and Ferguson was quashed by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh on Monday. They are wanted in the US to answer money laundering charges.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Jah Gol on November 10, 2011, 06:37:47 AM
Wow, defamation ? Well yes !
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on November 11, 2011, 05:08:40 AM
ROWLEY UNDER FIRE
By Jada Loutoo (Newsday)
Friday, November 11 2011


THE JUDICIARY has strongly condemned statements attributed to Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley for his response to the ruling of a High Court judge who quashed the decision to extradite former UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.

In a strongly worded statement, the Judiciary expressed “its abhorrence of the innuendos by the Leader of the Opposition of collusion between the judge and by extension, the Judiciary, and the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago in the decision which was arrived at and handed down in the court.” Noting it was gravely concerned by the statements, the Judiciary said since there has not been any denial, to date, by Rowley, one can only conclude that the assertions were accurate.

At a media briefing at the Office of the Opposition Leader in Port-of-Spain on Tuesday, Rowley, when asked to comment on Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh’s decision to quash extradition proceedings against the two men, which occurred on the same day Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, announced the lifting of the curfew order imposed during the current state of emergency, said he found “the intervention to be timely.”

Rowley also made reference to Attorney General (AG) Anand Ramlogan, alleging it was Ramlogan who facilitated the whole process.

“The Judiciary respects the right of every citizen to express disagreement with and even criticise the rulings of the courts.

However, the imputations of motive and even wrongdoing on the part of the judge in Dr Rowley’s statements are not only outside of the bounds of respect and objectivity that should attend the exercise of those rights, but also represent an unwarranted and unjustified attack on the judge and are additionally potentially injurious to the administration of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago. This is even more disturbing when such comments emanate from an official who is pledged to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the country,” the Judiciary said.

In its statement, the Judiciary gave the assurance of its “continuing commitment of the institution and its judges to a fiercely independent judicial system in Trinidad and Tobago.

It also said it “will not be sidetracked from this mission by unfortunate statements such as those by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday.”

Rowley has found himself in hot water over his statements on the ruling delivered on Monday by Justice Boodoosingh and angered members of the legal fraternity.

Contacted yesterday, Rowley told Newsday he would not comment until he sees the statement issued by the Judiciary and only then would he respond. The Law Association is expected to meet on the issue, according to its president Dana Seetahal SC. The Judiciary’s statement came after Ramlogan sent letters to Chief Justice Ivor Archie, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard and Seetahal calling for action to be taken. Ramlogan also said the statements attributed to Rowley gravely concerned him.

In his letter to the Chief Justice, Ramlogan said Rowley’s comments “can only be taken to mean that the court was corrupt.”

He said it was an outrageous suggestion that it was implied that the judge had been “bought or influenced extra judicially.”

“Criticism of a judgment is a fundamental right and I do not seek to curtail it. However, a statement that the court is corrupt hits at the integrity of the Constitution, the proper administration of justice and the honesty of a distinguished judge. It is the more pungent if it comes from the Leader of the Opposition, giving, as it does, an apparently authoritative platform to a scandalous and unsustainable attack,” Ramlogan said.

He added that the separation of powers was “a cornerstone of our rights, freedom and responsibilities under the Constitution.”

“The independence of the Judiciary is the lifeblood of a free society; it should never be compromised or questioned without overwhelming and compelling evidence. A judge is in public service and cannot and should not have to respond himself to the type of accusation made by Dr Rowley. Such accusation brings the court system into disrepute and affects the independence of judicial decisions and the proper execution of court orders. The integrity of the court collapses and proper justice cannot be fairly administered. That is why one of the protections in a free society is the right of a court to maintain its independence and authority through ‘contempt of court’ proceedings.

“The jurisdiction applies not only to individuals but also to the executive; the citizen’s protection from capricious government,” Ramlogan said. He noted that on any definition of contempt, he has been advised that the nature of Rowley’s comments satisfied “the tests of scandal and seeking to both influence and interfere in the judicial process.”

“They stab at the very heart of the Judiciary’s independence, integrity, repute and effectiveness. They are of a type that constitutes criminal contempt, a matter that the Director of Public Prosecutions should immediately examine,” he said.

Ramlogan has asked that Rowley’s comments be withdrawn and that the Opposition Leader apologise to Justice Boodoosingh.

He told the Chief Justice, if the comments are not withdrawn, the courts were entitled and should summon Rowley for contempt to enforce the retraction and apology.

The AG has also said that the Law Association “must make its condemnation clear and the learned Chief Justice make his opprobrium plain.”

He said as Attorney General, he expected and was used to political criticism, but noted that the Opposition Leader went beyond attacking him by alleging a conspiracy between the courts and his office to subvert the courts.

Ramlogan also said Rowley’s comments have also cast aspersions on the integrity of the attorneys appearing for both sides in the extradition case.

“This type of commentary has to be stopped and the legal system must show resolve in dealing with it in the ultimate interest of the people and the Constitution that protects,” he said as he called on the Chief Justice to take “appropriate action.”

In a similarly worded letter to the DPP, Ramlogan urged him to immediately examine the Opposition Leader’s comments.

“Dr Rowley’s comments infringe the very structure of the courts and its judges, seeking to manipulate their independence,” he said, adding “This type of commentary has to be stopped and the legal system must show resolve in dealing with it in the ultimate interest of the people and the Constitution that protects them.” The DPP said he had not yet seen the AG’s letter and would respond after he has read it.

This has not been the first alleged attack on the Judiciary.

In 2006, the Law Association brought a motion of no confidence against former AG John Jeremie for statements he made in an address to the nation as he weighed in on the legal issue concerning former Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma.

In 2007, the then Leader of Government Business, the late Ken Valley, had to apologise in the House of Representatives for his informal cross-talk in which he criticised a judge as being a UNC “politician.”

The publication of Valley’s remarks on Justice Amrika Tiwary-Reddy (whose ruling had criticised Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s blocking of civil servant Feroza Ramjohn’s appointment to the TT High Commission in London) incurred the condemnation of former Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Valley subsequently apologised.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on November 24, 2011, 05:13:20 AM
uuuuuuummmmm......all yuh know today is the last day for the AG to appeal the Ish and Steve case??......hhhhhhmmmm....... :thinking:  We live in interesting times......
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on November 24, 2011, 06:25:11 AM
uuuuuuummmmm......all yuh know today is the last day for the AG to appeal the Ish and Steve case??......hhhhhhmmmm....... :thinking:  We live in interesting times......

He go forget. He hadda deal with de "alleged plot on the PM life"
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Jah Gol on November 24, 2011, 07:22:02 AM
I remember a song from sesame street called 'Do you know what's going to happen next ' The picture is even clearer now.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on November 24, 2011, 07:37:11 AM
uuuuuuummmmm......all yuh know today is the last day for the AG to appeal the Ish and Steve case??......hhhhhhmmmm....... :thinking:  We live in interesting times......

He go forget. He hadda deal with de "alleged plot on the PM life"

Ah miss someting?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on November 24, 2011, 06:07:19 PM
Well the day has ended and as far as I know an appeal was not lodged with the courts....so I guess dais it then.....Uncle Sam have to haul he arse!!.....aye, well yes......

Well played Cowboy X, well played....and people still defending this government......dis same one that sooooo concerned about crime dey put we under lock down......no wait, Ish and Steve never put ah gun in nobody face so I guess de gov't really fighting crime after all........

Loud wet firetrucking steups!!!!....... :bs: :cursing: >:(
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on November 24, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
I hope Steve and Ish thank their defence team...including Anand Ramlogan.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: elan on November 26, 2011, 10:43:02 AM
Now talking to meh Father and he tell me people sit down waiting for the AG statemenet on why the Judge did not enforce the Extradition and instead they hear about some plot to assinate the PM.  :yellowcard:

They want to know if the AG mad.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on December 19, 2011, 11:37:08 PM
I hope Steve and Ish thank their defence team...including Anand Ramlogan.


Yep. I really hope they thank their defence team

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/12/20/ag-not-appealing-ish-steve-matter


Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has decided not to appeal the decision of a High Court judge to quash the extradition of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson. He made the announcement late yesterday evening in a press release, mere minutes after the deadline for the State’s appeal had lapsed. In making the announcement, Ramlogan said after consultation with international extradition expert, James Lewis, QC, he felt an appeal would not “advance the ends of justice”.

Ramlogan said: “One does not appeal for the sake of appealing. “Although there may be certain aspect of the judgment which may be open for criticism, Lewis has advised that such criticisms may not provide grounds of appeal of sufficient gravity that would lead inexorably to an overturning of his decision. “I have come to the view that the ends of justice will be served by foregoing the exercise of the undoubted right of appeal and allowing the matters currently before the local courts to be proceeded with.”

On November 7, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh in a 57-page judgment quashed the extradition orders which were signed by Ramlogan last year for both businessmen. In quashing the orders Boodoosingh noted: “It is declared that it will be unjust, oppressive and unlawful to order the extradition of Galbaransingh and Ferguson.”  Boodoosingh expressed the view that the right forum for trying both men would be in T&T.  On giving the judgment he granted the State a 42-day stay of execution to decide whether to appeal the judgment in the Court of Appeal. The period ended yesterday evening.

The document produced by Lewis, titled “Advice on Making an Appeal”, was obtained by the T&T Guardian in conjunction with Ramlogan’s press release. In the document, Lewis noted the five-and-a-half-year period of the extradition proceeding since their inception. Lewis advised: “The claimants (Galbaransingh and Ferguson) are well funded and determined to assert every possible right of appeal and have demonstrated their determination to do so at every opportunity.” In the document, Lewis predicted a further two-to-three- year period to complete appeals in the local Court of Appeal and London-based Privy Council. (But one doesnt appeal for appealing sake ent? Steups.)

 Lewis noted: “In my opinion such a timeline is unacceptable on either scenario.  “The interest of justice must be paramount and a very important question is which course of action will result in the claimants being tried in a reasonable time. “These pragmatic points in my view outweigh the merits of a successful appeal,” Lewis ended. The men, former United National Congress (UNC) financiers, were wanted in Florida on a 95-count indictment, stemming from alleged misconduct in the construction of the $1.6 billion Piarco International Airport terminal.

 Galbaransingh, owner of Northern Construction Group of Companies, is wanted on a 13-count indictment, including charges of money-laundering, involving US$1 million (TT$6.3 million) during the period June 19 to December 10, 2001. Ferguson, former Maritime General CEO, is wanted on an 82-count indictment, including money-laundering charges, involving US$3,255,345 (TT$20,508,673) alleged to have occurred from November 24, 2000 to March 28, 2002. In yesterday’s release, Ramlogan suggested it might be appropriate for the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to reconsider criminal charges arising out of the terminal’s construction, a suggestion which was also made by Boodoosingh in his judgment.

 “It is open to the DPP to consider again, an independent exercise of his discretion whether to reinstate charges in respect of conduct relating to CP 9 and CP 13 packages of the Airport Construction Project,” Ramlogan said. The duo currently face local charges of bid-rigging and conspiracy to defraud the Government of T&T, which stemmed from two inquiries (Piarco 1 and 11) currently before the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court.  In January 2007, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) discontinued some of the charges, pursuant to the US extradition request.

 In making the statement yesterday, Ramlogan stressed his statement did not seek to make pronouncements on the ongoing criminal proceedings of the men currently before the courts. Galbaransingh and Ferguson are on $2 million bail each, which was granted by Boodoosingh last March, to cover their matters which are before the courts.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on December 20, 2011, 04:44:26 AM
 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That's only because if I don't I'll either  :cursing: :cursing:  or  :'( :'(  *sigh* 

Ah was wrong like an "O" on the deadline date but the outcome is certainly not surprising......aye.  These people good yes......and dey serious bout crime......steups!!  Firetrucking jokers!!!.....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: frico on December 20, 2011, 05:41:13 AM
I will also do cartwheels when they start hanging people for murdering other innocent people,kidnapping and murdering also,then I will do cartwheels.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Football supporter on December 20, 2011, 06:44:26 AM
And they get vexed because the world ranks T&T as a money laundering haven and one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

By targeting 3 public cases, that could all have changed....Steve & Ish, Duprey and Warner.  These people responsible for $billions going missing, yet have the full protection of the government.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on December 20, 2011, 08:51:37 AM
Dog bites man no news here.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: truetrini on December 20, 2011, 07:38:19 PM
I will also do cartwheels when they start hanging people for murdering other innocent people,kidnapping and murdering also,then I will do cartwheels.

How de big house with 2 bathrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs going?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on December 21, 2011, 06:10:08 PM
US disappointed in Ish/Steve outcome
Wednesday 21st December, 2011

The United States says it is disappointed in the outcome of the Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson extradition case.

This is stated in a release issued today by the US Embassy in Port of Spain and comes following a ruling which quashed the extradition.


In the statement, the US Embassy noted that the two businessmen were first indicted in 2005 in Miami Federal Court on numerous fraud and money laundering charges stemming from alleged bid rigging between 1996 and 2005 on contracts for the Piarco International Airport.


The Embassy said the United States has pursued their extradition since 2005.


It pointed out that extradition is a powerful tool for fighting transnational crime and is used by countries all over the world including the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.


The Embassy stated that the Government of the United States and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago have had a Bilateral Extradition Treaty in place since 1996 and acknowledged that the Governments have worked together closely to extradite suspects to both countries.


http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=36614&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=tthaveyoursay (http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=36614&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=tthaveyoursay)


uuuuummmm....I heard it being said on the radio that if Ish and Steve set foot in any US territory, they could be arrested??  Any truth in that??
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on December 21, 2011, 07:11:10 PM
Well I would think that they could be. I woulda set dem up....chain dem up to go in de embassy and see wha happen.


Next ting..if they go to a country which has an extradition treaty with the USA.....can that country extradite them to the USA?
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: lefty on December 21, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Well I would think that they could be. I woulda set dem up....chain dem up to go in de embassy and see wha happen.


Next ting..if they go to a country which has an extradition treaty with the USA.....can that country extradite them to the USA?

too bad extradition by abduction is borderline unethical/illegal...............steups
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on December 21, 2011, 08:38:43 PM
Brown gyul iz a good ting we sought out we visa. Doh loose yuh passport yuh hear.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on December 22, 2011, 06:06:37 AM
Brown gyul iz a good ting we sought out we visa. Doh loose yuh passport yuh hear.

Yup. 

On a related note, how does the US normally treat with a snub like this??   For example, would they really start to move dread with VISA's and thing??
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on December 22, 2011, 09:03:39 AM
Brown gyul iz a good ting we sought out we visa. Doh loose yuh passport yuh hear.

Yup. 

On a related note, how does the US normally treat with a snub like this??   For example, would they really start to move dread with VISA's and thing??


I hope not. When my visa expire next year I go casually mention in de appointment..."yuh know....I was REAL dissapointed when Ish and dem get extradited boy.....hmmmm"
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on December 22, 2011, 02:09:40 PM
Brown gyul iz a good ting we sought out we visa. Doh loose yuh passport yuh hear.

Yup. 

On a related note, how does the US normally treat with a snub like this??   For example, would they really start to move dread with VISA's and thing??

Well judging from meh friends in JA. Some MP's visa get revoke d US alledge that involve in illegal activity. I suttin bck and waitin 2 c what happen.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on December 23, 2011, 07:50:26 AM
Brown gyul iz a good ting we sought out we visa. Doh loose yuh passport yuh hear.

Yup. 

On a related note, how does the US normally treat with a snub like this??   For example, would they really start to move dread with VISA's and thing??


I hope not. When my visa expire next year I go casually mention in de appointment..."yuh know....I was REAL dissapointed when Ish and dem get extradited boy.....hmmmm"

 :rotfl: :rotfl:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on December 24, 2011, 04:30:30 AM
MAJOR HURDLES IN PURSUING ISH AND STEVE CASE
By ANDRE BAGOO (Newsday).
Saturday, December 24 2011


MERE days after the United States expressed disappointment over the outcome of failed extradition proceedings against businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson potential hurdles have emerged.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is finding the situation very challenging in mounting renewed proceedings against the men in the local courts.

Legal questions are now being raised in relation to two major charges — which have largely been forgotten—which had once been brought against the men in relation to two contracts tied to the Piarco International Airport project.

The charges–relating to contract package 9 and contract package 13—were dropped years ago by former director of public prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson (now a judge) in the local courts, on the assumption that the extradition proceedings would move forward in the United States. That never happened.

Now, there is uncertainty as to whether the current DPP, Roger Gaspard, can mount the charges afresh. The charges arguably overlapped with similar charges under US law which the men faced, and which had been the basis of the US’s extradition request.

The issue was noted by the High Court, in its recent ruling on the extradition, handed down last month.

In a 57-page ruling, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh noted that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, in ordering the men extradited, had taken into account certain submissions made to him by Gaspard.

According to Boodoosingh, “the DPP had noted that certain specified charges were discontinued.”

“Further, the DPP’s view, which the Attorney General accepted, was that any attempt to reinstate the charges previously discontinued would be met by a challenge of abuse of process, and that such a challenge was likely to be successful.”

“Further, the DPP said, given his position as a minister of justice, he would have found it difficult to advance that the charges could be reinstated,” Boodoosingh said in the ruling. In the judgment Boodoosingh also noted that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, in arguing for the extradition to move forward, had cited the DPP’s representations.

“He (Ramlogan) then specifically referred to the DPP’s view that there was now no possibility of reinstating the discontinued CP 9 and CP 13 charges,” Boodoosingh said at paragraph 25 of the judgment.

In a short interview with Newsday yesterday, Gaspard said it was, in fact, possible for the old charges to be brought back. However, he said, that move would face certain “hurdles”.

Asked if it was possible for the CP 9 and CP 13 charges to be brought back, Gaspard said, “the answer is yes.”

Questioned over paragraph 25 of the Boodoosingh judgment which hinted that Gaspard had previously thought it was impossible to bring back the charges, Gaspard said, “that is the judge’s view. I was never of the view that it was not possible (to bring back the charges). It may face certain hurdles and might be subject of frustration. But I was always of the view that it was possible.”

Asked if he would expedite his consideration of the matter, Gaspard said, “I have too. In terms of apprising the public as to what is the way forward.” He said he was yet to determine how he will do this.

In the High Court ruling, Boodoosingh did not rule on the question of potential abuse of process claims, but argued that, “It is significant that when the then DPP, Mr Henderson, had discontinued the charges, it was expressly premised on the existing extradition proceedings. The notice of discontinuance stated this.”

Boodoosingh questioned the idea that the men could now argue abuse of process in the courts in order to block the dropped charges from being brought back.

“Throughout the history of the extradition proceedings, the claimants had advanced before several courts that the proper forum for them to be prosecuted arising from the Piarco Airport corruption scandal was Trinidad and Tobago,” he argued. “The fact that no court made a definitive finding on it is not of moment in this respect. The claimants had maintained throughout that they wished to defend any charges arising from their alleged conduct here. This is significant.”

“If what the present DPP suggested could happen, that is, that the claimants could now advance that any reinstatement of the charges would be an abuse of process, then it follows that the claimants would now have to mount a position contrary to what they had advanced throughout. For the claimants to do that, in itself, could constitute an abuse of process. It is by no means a foregone conclusion, as the DPP’s letter suggested, that a court would find a reinstatement decision to be an abuse of process.”

In the High Court ruling, Boodoosingh said the practice of charges being discontinued locally after a person was extradited, was not established. However, checks by Newsday note that at least in one case, that involving the 2008 extradition of persons charged with the murder of Balram “Balo” Maharaj, this is what reportedly happened.

The Attorney General has indicated that the state will not appeal Boodoosingh’s judgment.

In the judgment, the judge ruled that the Attorney General’s failure to entertain further representations from the men after he got representations from the US and the DPP, was unfair.

In remarks not central to his findings, Boodoosingh, however, further remarked that, “In Trinidad and Tobago we are all fully aware of the deficiencies in the administration of justice, and in particular the length of time which criminal trials take to be concluded.

However these factors cannot ever be a reason, whether consciously or subconsciously, to order the extradition of our nationals to other jurisdictions where the criminal justice system is allegedly more efficient and effective.”

The two men have already been committed to stand trial in relation to a set of charges which comprise the Piarco 1 case. However, there is as yet no indictment against them.

Some charges relating to the men, in what is known as the Piarco 2 inquiry, are currently pending in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates Court. But those charges are being challenged by the men’s lawyers who have made no-case submissions, which are due to continue on January 6, 2012.

Any renewed charges in relation to CP 9 and CP 13 could be subject to legal challenge as well, all the way to the Privy Council, lasting over a period of years.

The men were first charged in 2002.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: elan on December 24, 2011, 11:24:14 AM
And alyuh say the AG chupidy, look the man pull a master stroke.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on December 26, 2011, 07:20:36 AM
AG: My conscience is clear Prosecute them in ‘Chadee-type court’
T&T Guardian Reports.
 

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is calling on Chief Justice Ivor Archie and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system to convene a “Dole Chadee-type court” to prosecute businessmen Ishwar Galbarasingh and Steve Ferguson.

Speaking to reporters after distributing toys and school supplies in Phillipine on Christmas Eve, Ramlogan said the businessmen have not escaped prosecution because of failed extradition proceedings. In fact, Ramlogan said instead of continuing with lengthy court delays, the Government has paved the way for both men to have their day in court.

“We must respect the independence of our own court system and the administration of criminal justice. I don’t think the Government is worried in this matter. It is not that Ish and Steve have escaped. It is just that they have to be brought before a court of law in the quickest possible time,” Ramlogan said.

He added: “In fact, it is my hope that the Chief Justice and those stakeholders from the criminal justice system will convene a ‘Dole Chadee-type court’ on an ad hoc basis, having regard to the long meandering in this matter, and let the defendants have their day before a judge and jury. The time has come for that.” Ramlogan said the Government has spent more than $100 million since the businessmen were first charged in 2002.

“We would have spent more money and at the end of the day. If witnesses didn’t die there would have been fresh legal arguments on the grounds of the extent of pre-trial delay. At the end of it all, justice would not have been served,” Ramlogan said. He reiterated: “I think the criminal justice system would have taken a terrible blow and be brought into further disrepute if we had allowed this legal adventure to continue without any end in sight. The longest rope must have an end.

The defendants have not been freed. What we have done is to clear the way for them to have a fair trial before a judge and jury in a court of law and let justice take its course, according to law.” Ramlogan also denied a newspaper editorial which stated that he had allowed Ferguson and Galbaransingh time to launch a legal challenge when he made his decision on a weekend.

He said when he was appointed the defendants had already been promised, in the form of a written commitment by the former AG, time to prepare themselves for legal challenges. “Former AG John Jeremie said that they will be given seven days proper notice so that they can challenge the decision.

Our law is we must give them time to challenge before extradition, so whether I made the decision on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday, it simply did not matter,” Ramlogan said. He also denied that his refusal to appeal a high court judgment on the extradition issue had affected diplomatic relations with the United States. Ramlogan noted that T&T continues to share meaningful relations with the US. He also said that he was comfortable with his decision as he had acted in accordance with law.

“My heart is clean, my conscience is clear and my mind is satisfied because I acted in accordance with the law. It cannot make any sense to allow for legal adventures to continue in this matter where we have wasted almost a decade and spent more than $100 million in T&T with not a single day in court,” Ramlogan said.

Regarding recent comments by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard that it would be challenging to pursue a case against the businessmen, Ramlogan said he had full confidence in T&T’s legal statement and did not want to comment further on the case as it was exclusively in the domain of the DPP.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on December 26, 2011, 07:30:35 AM
No extradition to US for Ish, Steve
T&T Express Reports.


tuted a gift, there was no violation of the Integrity in Public Life Act by the Prime Minister.

"There has been no suggestion that the use of the Gopaul property was in the nature of a fee. I am also satisfied that it was not a gift," Martin Daly, one of the hired senior counsel, stated. The other attorneys in separate opinions concurring with this view were Russell Martineau, Allan Newman and Fenton Ramsahoye.

Nevertheless, the Attorney General, after a one-week review of the bid and tender documents, stopped the whole contract evaluation and award process, citing several deficiencies in the procurement process as the major reason behind his decision.

The matter was also reported to the Integrity Commission and the Prime Minister reported to the nation that the commission rejected a complaint made by People's National Movement Senator Fitzgerald Hinds and ruled that she was not in breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act when she stayed at the private home of the Gopauls following the May 2010 election.

FIU affair

The body which is designed to allow the country to treat with "big fish" in the international drug trade was at the centre of yet another controversy.

Opposition Leader Rowley contended that the appointment of Susan Francois to head the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) was "illegal and improper" because the Attorney General had gotten involved in the appointment process.

Rowley told Parliament that a panel from the Ministry of Finance interviewing persons to fill the vacancy got a call and the interview process was stopped. He added that Francois, who never applied for the job, ended up getting it. And Rowley contended that the Public Services Commission's authority to select and appoint a Director had been usurped.

The Attorney General countered that former FIU head, David West, who had previously worked under contract to the Ministry of the Attorney General John Jeremie, was improperly appointed and had signed as Director of the FIU when he was in fact not, and that the PNM had allowed all of this.

PSC chairman Christopher Thomas said the law governing the appointment of the FIU was "ambiguous".

The Government brought a bill to Parliament which, among other things, provided for the validation of the actions performed by certain officers on behalf of the FIU since its creation. Francois remained in the position while the PSC readvertised the position. Michelle Ann Austin placed first on the order of merit list by the commission, beating the incumbent Francois by almost 200 points.

But the Prime Minister vetoed the recommendation of the commission to have Austin appointed. The Prime Minister stated that it was Finance Minister Winston Dookeran who advised on this course of action. The Prime Minister said Dookeran objected to the appointment of Austin, citing the efforts of Francois in Trinidad and Tobago's removal from the dark-grey list to the light-grey list by the Financial Task Force Organisation (FATF).  "The appointment of a new director at this time will be inappropriate and will add great uncertainty to the current efforts of Trinidad and Tobago to comply with FATF requirements," Dookeran's letter stated.

"The Minister of Finance was of the view that the work of the present Acting Director was instrumental and critical. The veto was therefore exercised based on the representations made by the Minister of Finance, "Persad-Bissessar told the Parliament in September.

ISH AND STEVE

The political ramifications of the extradition matter involving UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson were evident in the latter part of this year as the two men won their long-fought battle to have the decision to extradite them to the United States quashed. Rowley saw the hand of the Attorney General guiding the process towards this conclusion, as delivered by Justice Ronald Boodoosingh's judgment. "I wouldn't term it a defeat for the Attorney General...if there is any defeat it is for justice in Trinidad and Tobago," Rowley said, commenting on the issue. Ramlogan labelled Rowley's statements  as "contempt of court". The Judiciary did not go this far, but severely chastised the Opposition Leader for what it saw as an unjustified attack on the judge.

Rowley apologised "unreservedly", saying he meant to take no issue with the learned judge and had never intended to cast any aspersion, innuendo or insinuation" on his conduct.

Rowley said his comments were directly "solely and specifically at the political directorate, particularly the Attorney General".

Rowley pointed out that the State had won every matter in this issue at the court with the attorneys hired by the former attorney general John Jeremie. He therefore questioned Ramlogan's decision to change counsel in the middle of the matter.

Ramlogan described as absurd Rowley's suggestion that his decision not to continue to retain the services of Douglas Mendes and David West in the extradition matter, and to hire new counsel, was designed to "throw away" the case. The Attorney General further stated that senior counsel Avory Sinanan and attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon were distinguished members of the bar and that the judicial review of the extradition decision was "a fresh matter".

The Attorney General last Monday announced that he had decided not to appeal the decision of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh. Rowley's response has been to suggest that  this decision with respect to the fate of the party's financiers was made a long time ago. "When did he make that decision (not to appeal)? I want the Attorney General to know that I am not fooled," he said.

COP CHANGES GUARDS

The Congress of the People (COP) had a change of leadership from Winston Dookeran to Prakash Ramadhar. While it came after a heated campaign, the transition has been smooth. Ramadhar has since acted as Prime Minister. In fact the Cabinet reshuffle had caused ripples within the COP as Persad-Bissessar felt constrained to state that she had met with the then COP leader Winston Dookeran as well as deputy leaders, Ramadhar and Seepersad-Bachan, in an attempt to assauge the fears of the COP that it was disadvantaged and treated unfairly in the reshuffle.

One week ago, Ramadhar stated that he wrote to the Prime Minister calling for a meeting of all the parties. "The time has come to assess the performance of the Partnership and the government....While all of us agree that...the People's Partnership Government has achieved much and has made great strides in righting the wrongs of the past, much of the population is nonetheless frustrated", he stated. He cited "increasing racial tensions, the perception of unacceptable levels of corruption and a non-functioning partnership structure" as factors which were "undermining the credibility of the Government".

RE-EMERGENCE of MANNING and PANDAY

The year is ending on an interesting note. Patrick Manning, former prime minister, apologised to the nation, saying that his administration may have "disenfranchised" certain sections of the national community by its policies. "The people of Trinidad and Tobago may very well have thought that in me they would have found perfection. If that were the case, I could have said from quite early on, you had the wrong man. I am not perfect," he said.

Manning, who rarely talks in Parliament, has begun holding press conferences to comment on national issues. The question is consistently being asked whether Manning is positioning himself to take back the reins of leadership of the PNM. This amidst a conflict within the party over the use of the balisier tie. Rowley who has broken with the tradition of wearing the balisier tie to Parliament, wants it to be optional while others in the party want to the party to stick to tradition.

Meanwhile, Basdeo Panday is vowing to take back the party he founded because he said the membership is upset with the leadership of Persad-Bissessar.

Panday said he wanted no elected office, but had acceded to numerous requests from party members  who asked that he lead them in the struggle.

Is he clutching at straws or are people truly dissatisfied?

We await the new year to see how these questions are answered.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: frico on December 26, 2011, 10:24:05 AM
I DONT GO BOASTING ABOUT MY HOUSE AND WHERE I LIVE BUT I RESPONDED TO A TRINI WHO THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO TELL ME I WAS LIVING IN THE ARMPITS OF ENGLAND,that was the reason for my response.If you think its funny then I cannot help you with your sense of humour,I'll say again,I'll do cartwheels when they start hanging murderers in TT,to hell with what the USA wants,there are many teefin bastards that have been let off the hook all happily living right now in TT.There are many big people all free and happily moving about although they have been teefing over many years,when they catch up with them then yall can do many more cartwheels.Have a prosperous New Year,hope yuh had a nice Crimbo.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: truetrini on December 26, 2011, 03:55:06 PM
jock strap ah Hengland...dais wha shepherds bush is...yuh damn wormwood scrubs graduate
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on December 27, 2011, 07:34:15 AM
T&T Guardian Quote (http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/12/23/pm-opposition-leader-s-toy-questions-rowley-scrooge)

"Persad-Bissessar also said she did not believe there would be any fallout in diplomatic relations with the United States over the extradition matter of Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh. “When the United States Attorney General was here a while ago, we spoke with him and he understood the situation,” Persad-Bissessar said.

She added that all matters related to the extradition matter would be handled by the AG. On Monday, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan decided not to appeal the decision of a High Court judge to quash the extradition of Galbaransingh and Ferguson. He made the announcement in a press release minutes after the deadline for the State’s appeal had lapsed."
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on December 27, 2011, 11:00:08 AM
To be quietly swept under the rug.


Nothing to see here folks...  :whistling:
Title: Piarco airport cases to be dropped
Post by: Bourbon on September 08, 2012, 11:23:02 PM
Moral of story...when yuh tiefin...tief big.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-09/piarco-airport-cases-be-dropped



The biggest fraud cases in this country’s history—which saw billions of dollars in taxpayers money allegedly being pumped into the pockets of the United National Congress (UNC) financiers—are expected to be dismissed later this week. The Piarco Airport Development Project scandal has been ongoing for more than ten years and involves several individuals affiliated with the present Government. Two weeks ago, The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 was proclaimed by President George Maxwell Richards in a move to end preliminary enquiries in the local courts.

 

 

Certain parts of the act will come into effect on January 1, 2013. The President’s proclamation was gazetted on August 30
. With the act in effect, the Preliminary Enquiry Act has been replaced and nullifies the need for a preliminary enquiry to be held in relation to matters filed indictably.

 

 

However, the act bears a controversial clause—Section 34(2), which states: “On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted, except (a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced.”


 

 

It is this clause which will see the accused people in the Piarco Airport project having their matters dismissed. Contacted on the matter, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, said he preferred not to comment, since the matter is before the courts. Several people have been charged in relation to the matter. Among those charged with fraudulent activities arising out of the construction of the airport are two ex-ministers from the UNC administration.

 

 

The accused—former finance minister Brian Kuei-Tung; former Works minister Sadiq Baksh; former chairmen of the Airports Authority Tyrone Gopee and Ameer Edoo; former client representative in the Ministry of Works at the airport project Peter Cateau; financial director Amrith Maharaj; Steve Ferguson, former Maritime Financial Group executively; and Ishwar Galbaransingh, chairman of Northern Construction Ltd; are involved in the Piarco II case.

 

 

The men are accused of conspiring between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2001, to obtain contracts and payments totaling $1.6 billion during the construction of the new airport. Another case, labelled Piarco I, is also expected to be discontinued. Those involved in this matter are Kuei Tung; Russell Huggins; Maritime executives John Smith; Ferguson and Barbara Gomes; Galbaransingh and Maharaj; and businesswoman Renee Pierre.

 

 

They are accused of conspiring to convert more than $19 million under false pretences from the Airports Authority. Also facing charges are Panday and his wife Oma who were charged with corruptly receiving $250,000 from Galbaransingh and former Minister Carlos John on December 30, 1998, in exchange for allegedly giving Northern Construction, a contract for the Piarco Airport Development Project. Millions spent Millions of dollars have been spent on legal fees and also consultancy fees by the then PNM government to investigate and represent the State in these matters.

 

 

A Commission of Enquiry was established into the circumstances surrounding the construction of the Piarco project. Following which the Commissions findings were sent to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. In fact, financial investigative expert Bob Lindquist was retained to conduct a thorough investigation in the matter and several of his findings formed part of the evidence presented to the courts. The Linquist Report found the Airport project was a fraud on the public of T&T and an abuse of public funds.

 

 

According to the Lindquist report, the Piarco project began with six contractors and expanded to 13. Linquist investigations discovered instances of fraud—price fixing and bid-rigging, duplication of payment contracts, false invoices, conflict of interest and a host of other irregularities.

 

 

Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel were also retained by the State to prosecute the matters. Apart from which, numerous applications were filed in the High Court, when decisions made by presiding Magistrate Ejenny Espinet at the Port of Spain Magistrates' Court were not favourable to the accused. Extradition proceedings and the Piarco Inquiry Ironically though, two of the people involved in the Piarco cases— businessmen Galbaransingh and Ferguson based their extradition submissions as having cases pending in the local courts, and as a result ought not be extradited to the United States.

 

 

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are wanted in the US on a series of charges arising out of the construction of the Piarco project. Galbaransingh faced 13 charges, among them wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money and engaging in unlawful transactions. Ferguson faced a total of 82 charges, which included wire fraud and conspiracy to launder money. The offences are alleged to have occurred in the US, T&T, The Bahamas and elsewhere between September 1,1996 and December 31, 2005.

 

 

On November 6, last year, High Court judge Ronnie Boodoosingh ruled that the businessmen should not be extradited to the United States. Boodoosingh, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, delivered a 57-page ruling saying that any move to have Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradited would be “unjust, oppressive and unlawful.” In his ruling, Boodoosingh said the lengthy proceedings against the businessmen have generated much public interest and comment.

 

 

The High Court judge said T&T was the correct forum to try the businessmen and quashed the October 9, 2010, decision of Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to sign the order of extradition for both men. Submissions provided by the businessmen through their attorneys contended that this country is the appropriate forum to try them, since the investigation started here in 2000.
Title: Re: Piarco airport cases to be dropped
Post by: Bourbon on September 08, 2012, 11:25:19 PM
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-09/volney%E2%80%88blame-state

James Lewis, QC, upset
On December 19 last year, Ramlogan in a media release said he came to the view that “the ends of justice” will be served by foregoing the appeal, and allowing the criminal prosecution currently before the local courts to proceed. Ramlogan said he was basing his decision on the advice given to him by Queen’s Counsel James Lewis. However, sources say the advice provided by Lewis was misinterpreted and not an accurate reflection of the legal advice given.

 

Sources close to Lewis further say that shortly after Ramlogan’s December 19 announcement (to not appeal the decision of Boodoosingh that the businessmen be tried in T&T, based on the advice of Lewis), correspondence was sent from Lewis to Ramlogan, with Lewis expressing concern about the way his advice was misconstrued.

 

Sources say Lewis, who has in the past been retained by then attorney general John Jeremie under the PNM administration, was “taken by surprise over the announcement, since the advice given by him was not thoroughly reflected” in the statement issued by Ramlogan on December 19. Attempts to obtain a copy of Lewis’ advice from the Office of the AG were unsuccessful. Sources said due to Lewis being retained by Ramlogan he could not comment on the matter due to attorney-client confidentiality.

 

During a post-Cabinet news conference at the Diplomatic Centre in St Ann’s on December 29 last year, Ramlogan maintained that he made his decision based on advice from Lewis. Ramlogan explained that had he challenged  Boodoosingh’s order, and Galbaransingh and Ferguson  were extradited to the United States to stand trial, it was possible that it would take between eight and ten years for their matter to be heard. He said given that the alleged offences took place over a decade ago, and should an appeal take place, a time frame of three to five years could be added.

 

Ramlogan said it was based on these issues he chose not to appeal the extradition and his decision “cleared the way for the trial (local) to take place in the quickest possible time frame.”

 

The AG, Volney responds
Contacted at 9.30 am by telephone yesterday and asked to comment about the implications of the act on the Piarco matters, Ramlogan said he was in Jamaica attending a Caricom seminar. The AG then directed all questions to Justice Minister Herbert Volney. “The best person to speak with is the Justice Minister, since he is the one who piloted the act.” Ramlogan was then reminded by this reporter that the local charges against the businessmen were his reasons for not contesting their extradition—the last time being December 2011.

 

The AG did not respond.
Ramlogan was then asked whether he was consulted in the decision-making process since part of his duties as AG would include advising Cabinet on legal matters, given that he in his capacity as AG told the country as well as US officials that the businessmen will face justice in the local courts. The phone connection broke. Efforts to contact Ramlogan again were unsuccessful.


 

Volney: People with charges over ten years will benefit
When Sunday Guardian contacted Volney yesterday, he said the implementation of the Act “is not personal to anyone. “Anyone who endures charges over ten years will benefit with the exclusion of those who committed blood crimes (rape, murder etc.)” Volney said the initiative was a Government one and Ramlogan who acts as the “chief Legal” was adviser to the initiative which came from his ministry.

 

Referring to the cases including that of the Piarco fraud inquiry which will be dismissed as "dead wood” cases, Volney said due to the lengthy delays of the State getting its house in order for several matters, inclusive of the Piarco preliminary inquiry, blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the State for the matters going beyond ten years.


 

“At the end of the day, the State has a duty to prosecute people in reasonable time. The Privy Council gave a five year time-frame for convicted killers to have their matters dealt with...this is ten years we are talking about." Volney further said despite the State having its limited resources this should be no excuse for lengthy adjournments which is further exasperated by “the hiring of foreign counsel who are only available two to three times a year.”
  (Who doing that doh? The average poor man from on the street?)


 

Asked whether such a statement was fair, since at several Piarco hearings the accused through its defence were the ones delaying the commencement of the case, Volney said despite this, the State had a responsibility to ensure matters were heard in a timely basis.

 

 

What the Act States
Indictable matters will now go to a Master of the High Court by way of paper committal, where all the evidence and supporting documents will be filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court. Section 34 of the Act, which addresses “discharge on the grounds of delay,” states: “(1) Where proceedings are instituted on or after the coming into force of this Act and the Master is not, within twelve months after the proceedings are instituted, in a position to order that the accused be put on trial, the Master shall discharge the accused and a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded, except—
a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court.
“After the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed:
(c) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence; or
(d) no trial shall commence in respect of that offence except,
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6;
or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court,
where—(c) proceedings have been instituted;
(d) an accused is committed to stand trial; or
(e) an order is made to put an accused on trial, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a judge shall, on an application by the accused, discharge the accused and record a verdict of not guilty if the offence is alleged to have been committed on a date that is ten years or more before the date of the application.”

 

 

The Charges

CARLOS JOHN and ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH:
On or about December 24, 1998, in the island of Trinidad and Tobago and elsewhere, being an agent, did corruptly give the sum of 25,000 pounds sterling to Basdeo Panday, an agent, as an inducement or reward for the said Basdeo Panday favouring or forbearing to disfavour the interest of Northern Construction Ltd in relation to its principal business, namely Construction Package 3 at the new terminal development project at Piarco Airport, a matter in which a public body, namely the Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago was concerned, contrary to Section 4 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Number 11 of 1987.

 

BASDEO PANDAY and OMA PANDAY:
On December  30, 1998, did corruptly receive from Carlos John and Ishwar Galbaransingh the sum of 25,000 pounds sterling as an inducement or reward in relation to Construction Package 3 of the new terminal development project at Piarco Airport, a matter in which a public body, namely the Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago was concerned, contrary to Section 4 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Number 11 of 1987.
 

THE CHARGES (March 23,2001)

BRIAN KUEI TUNG, former Finance Minister—(four counts) misbehaviour in public office; (five counts) corruption; (one count) conspiracy to defraud the TT Govt of $7M.

 

RUSSEL ORLANDO HUGGINS, former National Security Minister—(two counts) corruption; (three counts) aiding and abetting to commit misbehaviour in public office; (one count) misbehaviour in public office; (one count) money laundering.

 

ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH, businessman and UNC financier—(one count) money laundering; (two counts) corruption; (four counts) aiding and abetting to commit misbehaviour in public office; (one count) conspiracy to defraud TT Govt of $7M.

 

JOHN HENRY SMITH, CEO Maritime Group of Companies—(three counts) aiding and abetting to commit misbehaviour in public office; (two counts) corruption; (one count) conspiracy to defraud TT Govt of $7M; (one count) misbehaviour in public office; (one count) money laundering .

 

RENEE PIERRE, companion of Brian Kuei Tung—(one count) aiding and abetting to commit misbehaviour in public office; (one count) conspiracy to defraud TT Government of $7M; (two counts) corruption.

 

AMRITH MAHARAJ, Chief Corporate Secretary Northern Construction—(four counts) aiding and abetting Brian Kuei Tung to commit misbehaviour in public office; (one count) money laundering; (two counts) corruption; (one count) conspiracy to defraud TT Govt of $7M.


Title: Re: Piarco airport cases to be dropped
Post by: Bakes on September 09, 2012, 12:14:09 AM
The headline is a bit sensationalist... nothing states that the cases are to be dropped.  The Act makes it possible, maybe even likely, but not definitive.  If anyone has matter pending more than ten years and it hasn't been brought to trial then the accused can petition the court to dismiss it.  If the delay has been caused by the accused though, that stays the clock.  Pretty routine actually... in the US the statutory period is ONE year.  Ten years is slackness.
Title: Ish daughter get big contract - FAIR AND SQUARE
Post by: 1-868 on September 11, 2012, 07:13:29 AM
Fair and square

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Fair_and_square-169260366.html


Housing Minister, HDC boss defend $5m contract to Ish's daughter
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com


Neisha Galbaransingh, director of Riverside Enterprises Ltd, was awarded a $5 million contract for the rehabilitation of a car park at Maloney Gardens through a fair and square competitive bidding process, Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal and Jearlean John, Housing Development Corporation (HDC) managing director, both said yesterday.

Galbaransingh, daughter of former United National Congress (UNC) financier Ishwar Galbaransingh, is listed as one of the directors of Riverside Enterprises Ltd according to documents obtained under the Companies Act.

On Sunday, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley raised concerns over the contract as he read to the audience of the People's National Movement (PNM) San Fernando West constituency conference, the letter of award from HDC to Riverside Enterprises Ltd.

"It wasn't something that went out for tender. Somebody sent a proposal to the HDC and it accepted the proposal for a car park at Maloney Gardens for $5 million," Rowley had said.

However, both John and Moonilal told the Express yesterday in separate telephone interviews that there was in fact a tender process and the lowest bidder was issued a letter of award.

John said proposals ranging from $5 million to $14 million were received and according to HDC rules—the contract must be awarded to the lowest tenderer—which was Riverside Enterprises Ltd.

"We follow the tender rules scrupulously, there is nothing wrong with the competitive process...if someone sent us an unsolicited proposal we would send it back because we do not respond like that, we follow the rules," said John.

John said the HDC's tenders committee had oversight of the process.

Moonilal said that he does not get involved in the day-to-day operations of HDC but he does know that there was a competitive tender process.

"These matters are within the purview of the HDC, it was done by competitive tender, the contractor was the lowest bidder and it was properly authorised by the board," said Moonilal.

Asked about the company's director Neisha Galbaransingh and concerns over her family ties, Moonilal responded "I am not sure of that, I don't know the name of the company...but even if it is, the person is not debarred from work...it is morally and legally wrong that someone be denied work in Trinidad and Tobago because of any relation,".

The Express obtained a copy of the letter of award from the HDC to Riverside Enterprises Ltd.

The letter, dated August 24, stated HDC has accepted the company's proposal for the rehabilitation of a car park at Maloney Gardens.

"You are now required to enter into formal contract with the HDC for the execution of these works. You are to produce evidence that you have properly effected Contractors' All Risk and Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policies together with any other insurances in accordance with your contractual obligations," stated the letter.

The letter stated that all works must be executed in accordance with the proposal as well as the specifications and general terms and conditions outlined in the contract documents.

"You are expected to perform the services with due diligence and excellence," stated the letter, adding that on provision of the requested instrument, no later than ten working days from the date of the award letter, a meeting would be held with HDC's divisional manager estate management who will give further instructions in respect of the award.

According to documents under the Companies Act, Riverside Enterprises Ltd with the address 15 Andrew Lane, Mausica Lands, was incorporated in March this year with two listed directors- Barbara Alexander whose occupation was listed as front office manager and Fidjy Chang who was named as executive assistant.

Another document, from the Registrar General's department, dated July 20, 2012 stated that Neisha Galbaransingh was appointed director of Riverside Enterprises Ltd. Her occupation was listed as university student.

That document states further that Alexander ceased to hold the position of director thereby leaving Chang and Neisha Galbaransingh as the two directors of the company. Calls to Neisha Galbaransingh's phone yesterday were not answered.
Title: Re: Ish daughter get big contract - FAIR AND SQUARE
Post by: zuluwarrior on September 11, 2012, 06:09:11 PM
Notting this   government say or do  you can believe or trust them with the new politics .

Welcome to lagoon, mangrove politics.
Title: Re: Ish daughter get big contract - FAIR AND SQUARE
Post by: Flex on September 12, 2012, 05:51:40 AM
WHAT A MESS
Back to Parliament: Govt to repeal law 'favouring' Ish and Steve
By Ria Taitt Political Editor
 

Twelve days after the proclamation of a contentious provision of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act which allows UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to escape prosecution, Government is in retreat.

The proclamation on August 30, which came like a thief in the night, was done while the country was celebrating the golden anniversary of Independence.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar held an emergency Cabinet meeting to discuss the issue yesterday. And even before the meeting was over, Government had convened a special meeting of Parliament for today to repeal the measure.

This sharp about-turn comes in the wake of a terse statement from the US reminding the Government that Galbaransingh and Ferguson were still under indictment in the United States and that their extradition was still being sought.

It also follows a statement from Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard that he was "gravely concerned" and was considering his options.

Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley also issued an equally forceful statement, threatening demonstration outside the Prime Minister's office as a prelude to a petition to the President "seeking protection from the vulgar and corrupt actions of the Government".

Parliament would have to meet quickly—with the House of Representatives debating and passing the repeal of the provision by tonight, followed by the Senate doing the same thing tomorrow. The President would also have to proclaim the measure, following Cabinet's decision to issue such advice to him.

All this would have to be done expeditiously in the hope of battling the clock as both Galbaransingh and Ferguson have already petitioned the High Court seeking to have the corruption charges against them discharged.

They are doing so under Section 34 of the new Administration of Justice Act which allows accused persons to apply a judge to throw out a case if more than ten years have passed since the commission of the alleged offence and if the trial has not started.

The court is on vacation until next week but sources said both men could get a judge to hear the matter in an emergency session.

But is Parliament too late? There is growing consensus among the country's Senior Counsels that the Parliament may not be able to undo the damage or to fix the "mess" that has been created. A prominent Senior Counsel told the Express yesterday the two men could challenge what the Parliament is attempting to do and to argue in a court that they had vested rights which cannot be taken away retrospectively. Even within the Opposition this view was being discussed.

Five clauses of the bill were proclaimed on August 30. Four of the clauses are of little consequence. The only significant clause is Section 34.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are accused of bid-rigging and conspiracy to defraud the Government of Trinidad and Tobago during the period March 1, 1997 to December 21, 2000, under charges which arose out of the Piarco Airport Terminal construction.

They, along with several others, were initially charged when the PNM was in office.

Because of the public awareness that Galbaransingh and Ferguson were significant financiers of the ruling UNC party, there was inevitably high interest in their case.

The Opposition has suggested repeatedly that justice was not being blind in the matters involving the two financiers. And recently the Attorney General sued Rowley over statements made after the State chose not to appeal the decision of Justice Boodoosingh who ruled that the best place to try them was Trinidad and Tobago, preventing their extradition to the US.

Title: Galbaransingh & Ferguson to walk free on all criminal charges
Post by: Flex on September 13, 2012, 05:21:04 AM
Breaking News - COP - A Contempt of Parliament
By Richard Charan (Express).


Hours before the emergency convening of Parliament this afternoon, Government coalition partner, the Congress of the People (COP), has issued a statement expressing alarm over the proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice Act (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011, which allows UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to walk free on all criminal charges.

The COP today issued a statement, calling for the termination of all who acted with intentional dishonesty in relation to the "contempt of Parliament" to "not be allowed any function on behalf of the government of Trinidad and Tobago".

The press statement, signed by party chairman Joseph Toney is titled "The Saga of s34 – Blunders or Manipulation of Parliament"

and gives a timeline of how President Max Richards came to proclaim the provision on the day of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the nation's Independence (August 30), which led to the subsequent application in the High Court by Galbaransingh and Ferguson to have their matters discharged and to be declared not guilty. The men are charged with multiple offences of fraud and money laundering in relation to the Piarco Airport Terminal project.

Yesterday, several other defendants charged in connection with the project, also filed similar petition in the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain.

The defendants are relying on the proclaimed section of the Act which compels a judge to discharge cases if more than ten years have elapsed since the commission of the alleged offence and if the trial has not started.

The COP stated that the revelations " have raised the grave questions about the bona fides of the government or parts of it in this entire affair. This situation is cause for the most serious concern and alarm".

The COP stated that having examined the developments in the passage of the Act, it is "forced to conclude that in the course of its passage, section 34 has been so changed by amendment first proposed in the Senate the whole intent of the original section 34 in the Bill was annihilated.

"The effect of that amendment was that it made a non-sense of the entire legal position on indictable offences (the most serious offences) because a time limitation for prosecution for such offences was now introduced. No longer could someone be prosecuted for such an offence no matter how long after its commission sufficient evidence was obtained.

"The very cleverly-worded amended sub-section 2 and added sub-section 3 also eliminated the original intention of section 34 which was to guarantee fairness to an accused person against unwarranted delay by the state. These in themselves made nonsense of the section" the COP stated.

"The amendment, in the manner in which it was introduced and in the form of its drafting closely resembling the original language in the Bill as it left the Lower House and entered Parliament took advantage of the trust of all legislators by those who introduced it, which allowed its passage".

The COP also stated that the proclamation of section 34 also meant a breach of an undertaking to Parliament on behalf of government, that no part of the Act would be made effective until the required rules and infrastructure for the operation of the new criminal process, were all in place.

The COP stated that the breach demonstrated "the most grievous contempt of the Parliament itself" and "compromises the entire purpose of the Act which was to ensure swift justice as part of measures to improve the justice system and contribute to the fight against the horrendous crime situation affecting our society".

The House of Representatives convenes at 1.30p.m for the purpose of repealing the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley is insisting that Cabinet members explain why they agreed to have Section 34 of the Act proclaimed.

N.B - Readers can return to this story throughout the day for updates. richard.charan@trinidadexpress.com

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on September 15, 2012, 09:05:45 AM
ISH, STEVE CRY ABUSE
...Lawyers urge magistrate to stay corruption charges
By Keino Swamber (Express).


ATTORNEYS representing businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh, Steve Ferguson and six other men, charged with fraud-related offences arising out of the Piarco Development Project, have signalled their intention to argue that the proceedings should be stayed on the ground that it would be an abuse of process to continue.

When the preliminary enquiry resumed in the Port of Spain First Magistrate's Court yesterday, Ferguson's attorney, Edward Fitzgerald QC, who spoke on behalf of the defence team, asked Magistrate Ejenny Espinet to adjourn the matter to allow them time to file legal submissions for her consideration.

Fitzgerald said most of the accused have petitioned the High Court to have their matters dismissed under Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.

"Since Parliament intervened to repeal the Section, it purported to prohibit the High Court from ruling on the applications," Fitzgerald said.

"The constitutionality will have to be looked at. We would seek to put before you (arguments) that it would be unjust to these defendants for these proceedings to continue."

He said the now repealed Section 34 of the Act sought to introduce a statute of limitations in criminal matters which have been pending for ten years or more. He said it would appear that Parliament intended to not proceed with "historic matters".

"Many people have made applications to the High Court (under Section 34). It is not just about Piarco 1 and 2. It is not just about Ishwar Galbaransingh (chairman of Northern Construction Ltd) and (former) Maritime Financial Group executive Steve Ferguson."

Fitzgerald asked Espinet to adjourn the matter to November 2 by which time submissions from the defence and prosecution would have been filed.

Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, who is leading the prosecution on behalf of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, was also present in court, said the State, having discussed the matter with the defence team, agreed to accede to the request for an adjournment.

"This mainly because there is a pending application before the court," Peterson said.

"Those applications remain in the High Court but, before you, we wish for an opportunity to make submissions."

Also before Espinet are Northern Construction Ltd (NCL) financial director Amrith Maharaj, former government ministers Brian Kuei Tung and Sadiq Baksh, former chairmen of the Airports Authority Tyrone Gopee and Ameer Edoo, and Peter Cateau, former client representative in the Ministry of Works at the airport project.

They are accused of conspiring between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2001, to obtain contracts and payments totalling $1.6 billion during the construction of the new airport.

Representing Galbaransingh and Maharaj are Andrew Mitchell QC, who was absent yesterday, and Rajiv Persad.

Also on record are attorneys Sophia Chote SC, Keith Scotland, and Asha Watkins, among others

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on September 22, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/ISH-STEVE--WANT-76m-170864041.html

ISH, STEVE WANT $76m

UNC financiers claim legal costs for judicial review
By Asha Javeed asha.javeed@trinidadexpress.com

Story Created: Sep 22, 2012 at 10:20 PM ECT

Story Updated: Sep 22, 2012 at 10:21 PM ECT
UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson are seeking more than $76 million from the State.
The two businessmen, who have been before the country’s courts on fraud charges relating to the Piarco Airport construction project, filed their statement of costs to the Attorney General’s office on January 31.
Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh quashed Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s decision to extradite the businessmen to the United States on November 7 but ordered the State to pay the cost “to be assessed if not agreed” to the claimants for their judicial review hearing.
As such, Ferguson is seeking over $69 million, the majority of which is attributed to work done by Bruce Procope, QC, while Galbaransingh is seeking approximately $7 million according to their Bill of Costs.
Two weeks ago, the businessmen sought to take advantage of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, which was proclaimed on August 30 and allowed white collar crimes to be dismissed if cases had languished in the courts for over ten years. They had a window of opportunity to file papers in the courts to take advantage of the proclamation before the Parliament was convened to repeal the Act. Their applications are still before the courts.
The Sunday Express applied to the Registrar two weeks ago for a copy of the Statement of Costs submitted by the businessmen to the State.
The businessmen’s bills come from costly Queen’s Counsel including Procope, Andrew Mitchell, Edward Fitzgerald and Michael Beloff, multiple Senior Counsel, among them Fyard Hosein and attorneys who include Rishi Dass and Nyree Alfonso.
They are also claiming a total of $328,500 for prison visits from their attorneys and $622,547 for “photocopying and binding, travelling costs for Counsel and hotel accommodation”.
Yesterday, Solicitor General Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell SC, told the Sunday Express that no costs have yet been paid to the businessmen.
She said following receipt of the claim, Attorney General Ramlogan wanted to challenge it because he did not agree with their costs.
She observed that both men had filed separate claims but “what has been claimed is not what has or will be awarded”.
A decision, she said, has to be made by the court.
Donaldson-Honeywell said the State was seeking to offset the costs of the Galbaransingh and Ferguson claim with what they owed the State.
The Sunday Express also obtained the submission of the State which in turn is seeking over $15 million from the businessmen.
The State’s submission was filed on April 13.
Contacted on the matter AG Ramlogan yesterday denied rumours that he had paid millions of dollars in legal fees to both businessmen in respect of their successful case against the State.
“The claims were over grossly exaggerated and over-inflated. It is incredible that they would have paid those figures in legal fees for judicial review in the High Court. In the State’s experience, that figure is astronomical and without precedence,” he said by phone.
During the Section 34 controversy, the Sunday Express was told that the State had reimbursed significant sums of money spent by Galbaransingh and Ferguson in their legal matters.
But Ramlogan maintained that nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated that any money awarded to the businessmen by the court would be a drop in the bucket when compared to what they stated.
“There would obviously have to be an offset indicated,” he said.
Asked to estimate the State’s legal claim to the businessmen for its legal fees, Ramlogan indicated that the Solicitor General had estimated it at $15 million conservatively.
He pointed out that this figure did not take into account pending matters and work done at the Privy Council and said the claim could be as high as $25 million as the State retained an expensive British Queen’s Counsel in many of these cases.
“Not one red cent will be paid to these defendants under my watch because taxpayers have expended millions of dollars in defence of the State,” he said.
“It is clear that there is a smear campaign against me but I am very comfortable with my conduct with these matters. It is above board and can withstand public scrutiny. People seem to forget that I was the one who ordered their extradition to the US and objected to bail being granted as a result of which they were incarcerated for many months for the first time in the history of the endless legal battles against the State,” he explained.
Asked whether he thought the matter was linked to former justice minister Herbert Volney and the Section 34 fiasco, Ramlogan chuckled: “I find the timing to be somewhat curious and am amused but not perturbed.”
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Brownsugar on September 23, 2012, 06:23:39 AM
And the hits just keep on coming!!!!   :cursing: :bs: :frustrated: :banginghead:
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on September 26, 2012, 02:51:30 AM
AG: Don’t blame me for Clause 34 fiasco
By Shirvan Williams (Guardian).


Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday said the early proclamation of the controversial Section 34 was aimed at clearing the backlog of cases in the local courts. He rejected suggestions that it was designed to create a loophole for businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to escape prosecution. Ramlogan was speaking yesterday with members of the media after the opening of the new law term of the Industrial Court, St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain.

He said he did not feel that Section 34 was rushed to be proclaimed to deal with any specific case. He said the law was only to help the backlog of cases before the courts at this time. Ramlogan said because the Government had no influence on the court system, he believed the law would have helped to expedite cases that have been languishing in the judicial system.

He insisted he attended Cabinet meetings when Section 34 was being discussed, but believes the right ministry has been held accountable. This, even though Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bisessar had said in her address to the nation on September 20 on the controversial Section 34 that the Attorney General was on vacation when the decisions about the now repealed act were taking place.

“I don't think the Prime Minister’s statement ever said that I wasn’t present at the Cabinet meeting,” he said. “The point is at the Cabinet meeting you have the individual responsibility of the minister, which she stressed, who would have given the advice to Cabinet, and it was based on representations and assurances that were given to the effect that, you know, the Chief Justice had approved of the proclamation and the timeline and it is on that basis that Cabinet acted.

“The line minister with responsibility for the bill is the Minister of Justice and he said publicly, prior to his being relieved of his duties, that he accepted full responsibility for the matter. He having said as line minister that he accepted full responsibility for the matter, I think it is really now down to political gamesmanship to now call for the head of anybody else.”

Ramlogan added that the AG’s responsibility to advice the Cabinet on matters of the law usually applied to civil court matters as opposed to criminal matters. He said the Ministry of Justice was specifically designed to deal with criminal matters.

“Although the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Cabinet, bear in mind there are two branches of law,” he said.

“There is a civil branch and a criminal branch, and no lawyer should present themselves as an expert in every area of the law. In the last four or five Attorneys General we have not had an Attorney General from the criminal bar.

“I have never done a criminal case, save my first year in practice, for all my years of practice, and I make that point although the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Cabinet, when we created the Ministry of Justice, the criminal portfolio was assigned to that ministry and the gazetted allocation of ministerial responsibility placed criminal legislation and the reform of the criminal justice system under that particular ministry. That meant therefore that the staff with the expertise in criminal law will go to that ministry.” He said he did not have any criminal lawyers in his ministry.

“The Government does not control the courts, we don’t control the prosecution, but these cases should be put on a fast track and we should convene an ad hoc Dole Chadee-type court outside of the loop from the regular system to try these cases on a day-to-day basis until completion,” Ramlogan said. “I still feel that is the only way that justice will be done in these cases and it’s left to be seen but I am hopeful.”

He added that it was common to have amendments passed during debates on the floor of the Parliament without the knowledge of the Law Reform Commission (LRC). There was an oversight in the early proclamation of Section 34 by the entire Parliament and not just the Government, he said. Ramlogan said he was sure that the Government would not persuaded by any bullying tactics to call a general election.

“I think what is happening now is Dr Rowley is trying to cement his position as the political leader of a party that has three factions…the Imbert faction, the Rowley faction and Manning faction,” he said. “So what you really have is a coalition opposition that is trying to unite itself so that it can present itself as a credible alternative to the Government. That is not going to work.

“Cries for early elections are perhaps nostalgic because of his own experience under his own party…where they twice called early elections, destabilised the country and lost on both counts. "Dr Rowley has a history of bullying and behaving in a manner that his own Prime Minister described as wajang and hooligan. Such political hooliganism and wajang behaviour will not be tolerated by the People's Partnership.

“Their job is to oppose not propose. Our job is to govern and we have a mandate for five years and we will govern this country. Dr Rowley will not bully this government. This is not a PNM Cabinet where he can pelt teacups, remote controls and get on like a hooligan and that kind of wajang behaviour that former Prime Minister Patrick Manning alluded to.”He also said that PNM's march and political pressure placed on the Prime Minister had nothing to do her decision to remove Volney from office.

Timeline of the controversial clause

November 8, 2011
Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh quashes an order to extradite businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to the US on charges of misconduct arising from the Piarco Airport Project. Boodoosingh says T&T is the correct forum to try them.
November 11, 2011
Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Bill is laid in the House of Representatives.
November 18
Bill is debated in the House of Representatives with its original Section 34 provision that someone cannot be tried for an offence if seven years have elapsed since the court proceedings started. The Government proposes that this period be changed to ten years.
November 29
The bill is debated in the Senate. Justice Minister Herbert Volney moves an amendment to Section 34 for the statutory ten-year limitation to run from the date on which the offence was committed rather than from the start of criminal proceedings. 
December 16
President George Maxwell Richards assents to the act and it awaits proclamation.
December 17
Queen’s Counsel James Lewis, who was retained by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to advise on the extradition of Galbaransingh and Ferguson, is told they will receive a speedy trial in T&T. As a result of this assurance, Lewis advises against appealing.
December 19
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan says in a statement that “the ends of justice” will be served by foregoing the appeal and allowing criminal prosecution of Galbaransingh and Ferguson to proceed in the local courts. He says that decision is based on the advice given to him by Lewis.
December 20
The United States Embassy expresses disappointment at the AG’s decision  not to appeal Boodoosingh's decision not to extradite Galbaransingh and Ferguson.
July 20
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan leaves T&T on an overseas trip.
July 24
Justice Minister Herbert Volney meets with Chief Justice Ivor Archie, Minister of Public Administration Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan, acting Attorney General Ganga Singh, Minister of National Security Jack Warner and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, at the Hall of Justice to discuss Section 34.
August 4
Attorney General Ramlogan returns to T&T.
August 9
On the basis of a note presented by Justice Minister Herbert Volney, Cabinet agrees to the proclamation of Section 34 ahead of the other sections of the act.
August 28
President George Maxwell Richards signs a proclamation to bring Section 34 into effect on August 31.
August 31
Section 34 is proclaimed.
September 9
Sunday Guardian reports:  “Ish and Steve to walk free: Piarco cases to be dropped, inquiries scrapped.”
September 10
Galbaransingh and Ferguson, along with other accused charged in the Piarco Airport corruption scandal, file applications to have their cases discharged following the proclamation of Section 34.
September 12
Parliament convenes to repeal Section 34
September 13
DPP Roger Gaspard says he was stunned  to learn through the media about the proclamation of Section 34 on Independence Day.
The Senate votes to repeal Section 34.
September  19
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar meets with the CJ and the DPP, who tell her they were not consulted on Section 34’s early proclamation.
September 20
Justice Minister Herbert Volney is fired and attorney Christlyn Moore is announced as his replacement.

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 04, 2012, 02:51:23 AM
'Ish, Steve will go free'
By Asha Javeed (Express.).


Despite the repeal of the controversial Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, Independent Senator Elton Prescott SC believes those who have made applications under the Act will still walk free.

His view is also shared by Opposition senator Faris al-Rawi.

Among the applicants for freedom are financiers of the United National Congress (UNC), Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.

"It is my view that those applicants under the now repealed Section 34 are going to challenge the constitutionality of the repealed legislation and it is my view that they will do so successfully," said Prescott.

The normally reserved Prescott prefaced his comments by stating he was "not going to protect myself today." 

He was speaking at a forum titled "Section 34: Dealing with the Issues" hosted by the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) at the University of the West Indies in St Augustine yesterday.

Panellists at the forum which became heated at times were Prescott, Al-Rawi, Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal and UWI lecturer Bishnu Ragoonath.

Other people and entities who have sought to have their corruption matters dismissed under Section 34 are former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung, Ameer Edoo, Maritime Life General Insurance Co Ltd executives John Henry Smith and Barbara Gomes; Maritime Finance; Northern Construction Ltd; Fidelity Finance Leasing Company Ltd; and former government ministers Carlos John and Russell Huggins.

Prescott said that the applicants would win in any court.

"The Court of Appeal will say it is repugnant to have introduced this repeal. These men have made an application under the old law, they will say it is unconstitutionally interfering with our powers, we are going to look at the application to discharge. And if the appeal should go further to the highest court they themselves might express the view that it is ad hominem legislation, it is retrospective, it is a regrettable incursion into the judicial sphere, it is unconstitutional, it undermines the separation of powers. We cannot uphold this piece of legislation," he stated.

"So back the applicants come five years later or three years later—we have won our cases in all of the courts—you cannot use this repealed legislation to take away the right that we have to have a trial, fair trial.And then the argument starts, can we have a fair trial?" he added.

Prescott, along with four other Independent Senators did not vote for the repeal of Section 34 in Parliament last month. The controversial section would have allowed accused persons with charges more than ten years old whose trial had not yet started to walk free.

"It is my view that we were doing the wrong thing and it is not going to stand scrutiny," he said of that decision.

Further, he pointed out that the amendment to the act did not say why the act was repealed.

"The law does not tell us what its purpose is," he noted.

"We had permitted a number of people to take advantage of the law who ought not to have been given that right and we were setting out to take away those rights," he observed.

Al-Rawi said: "The horse has bolted. The constitutionality of the repealed legislation is going to be challenged. There is risk of ad hominem (directed to the man) debate prevailing. It speaks to whether legislation is going to be held to be unconstitutional for running afoul of the separation of powers principle in telling the judiciary that it must do something. The important subset of that is whether you are directing a law to affect certain people only."

Al-Rawi said that during the Parliament debate, irresponsible statements were made by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, the former minister of justice Herbert Volney and Sport Minister Anil Roberts. He said the did not adhere to the sub judice rule in the Parliament chambers and all spoke to a theory of exculcation and of a theory of conspiracy against certain gentlemen.

"Those very Hansard debates are going to be used by the courts of this land and elsewhere to argue that the repealing legislation is ad hominem cause it was designed to affect those people," he said.

Both Prescott and al Rawi disagreed with a statement made by acting President Timothy Hamel-Smith that the legislation was "flawed."

They agree that the law was a good law and in long in coming.

However, while Al-Rawi took issue with the early proclamation of the act against assurances given to the Opposition in Parliament, Prescott argued that it encroached on the rights of the judiciary.

He said it is the business of the court to interpret the law.

He explained that Section 34 gave the judge a right discharge an applicant and "judges would have judicial discretion".

Chief Whip Dr Roodal Moonilal said that he believed that the issue was migrating from an issue of governance to a competitive political issue. About the firing of the minister of justice, Moonilal said the issue of individual responsibility came before collective responsibility.

He said while errors have been made, the Government has acted responsibly in its handling of the matter.

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on October 24, 2012, 02:56:00 AM
Section 34 applicants appear before High Court judge
By JADA LOUTOO (Newsday), October 23 2012


ALMOST all of the 26 applicants who sought freedom from prosecution under the controversial and now repealed Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, yesterday appeared before Justice Mira Dean-Armorer in the High Court for the first hearing of the matter.

All but six of them are also expected to file constitutional motions challenging Parliament’s repeal of the clause. Six motions have been filed, three by former UNC financier/businessman Steve Ferguson and Maritime executives John Henry Smith and Barbara Gomes. Three additional motions were subsequently filed by three of the companies also charged in the decade-old Piarco criminal prosecutions.

Dean-Armorer is hearing both the constitutional claim and the Section 34 applications and has indicated that she intends on proceeding with the constitutional matters first.

She will also be hearing arguments on her possible recusal after she disclosed that she has represented the Office of the Attorney General in a lawsuit against businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh.

“I was in the team for the Attorney General against Mr Galbaransingh,” she said, noting also that she also recused herself from hearing one of the extradition challenges filed by the former UNC financier in 1998.

An adjournment of two weeks has been granted to allow parties to file the relevant constitutional claims.

It was a packed courtroom as attorneys seeking the interests of the 26 appeared before the judge.

Those seeking to have their decade-old cases discharged are: Russell Huggins, Renee Pierre, Anderson Meharris, Amrith Maharaj, Aman Harripersad, Collin Catlyn, Oswald Catlyn, Ishwar Galbaransingh, Northern Construction Ltd, Carlos John, Ameer Edoo, Steve Ferguson, Brian Kuei Tung, Barbara Gomes, John Henry Smith, Brent Alvarez, Carlton Roop, Dane Lewis, Montgomery Diaz, Maritime Life Caribbean, Sadiq Baksh, Fidelity Finance and Leasing Co Ltd, Basdeo and Oma Panday, Maritime General and Krishna Persad versus George Nicholas. The latter is a private complaint being heard in the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court.

The majority of yesterday’s hearing was spent going through the representations for all 26.

Among the lawyers to represent the 26 are British Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald and Andrew Mitchell and they will be joined by Fyard Hosein, SC, Sophia Chote, SC, Osbourne Charles, SC, Rajiv Persad, Ravi Rajcoomar, Rishi Dass, Michelle Solomon-Baksh, John Heath, Richard Mason, Asha Watkins-Monteserin, Raphael Morgan and Robin Otway. Keith Scotland appears for George Nicholas in the private complaint while Justin Phelps appears for Dr Krishna Persad.

Representing the State will be British Queen’s Counsel Lord Pannick and British lawyer Tom Richards, who will join Israel Khan, SC, Solicitor General Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell, Gerald Ramdeen, Wayne Sturge and Satram Persad.

Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, is expected to be represented by Ian Benjamin, who has until Thursday to file an application to join the constitutional claim lawsuit.

Hosein, speaking on behalf of the six who have filed claims so far, said they will be objecting to the DPP’s application to join, but will wait until the application to do so is filed.

“It will be interesting to see what he says,” Hosein said.

Attorneys are expected to meet and discuss the management of the case and will again appear before the judge on November 19, with their proposals as to the proper management of the case.

Of the Section 34 applications, 23 were filed in Port-of-Spain while three were filed in San Fernando and it was agreed by attorneys representing those persons who filed that one judge would hear all the cases in an effort to save judicial time. Attorneys are also expected to come to an agreement on the complex constitutional arguments to be submitted to the judge.

Despite the contentious clause being repealed and assented to by President George Maxwell Richards, those who have filed applications still pursued their claims to have their matters, all of which date back ten years or more, dismissed on the grounds of abuse. All 26 individuals who have filed applications have contended that the offences which they were alleged to have committed are ten years or more before the date of their applications and as such they met the preconditions laid down by the provisions in Section 34.

Added to the argument of abuse are arguments of infringement of the constitutional right to protection of the law with the contention that rights cannot be taken away by Parliament retrospectively. The amendment to the Act, which gave effect to the repeal of the clause, states, in part, that notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities or expectations shall be deemed to have been acquired, accrued, incurred or created under the repealed Section 34. However, to stave off any counter-claim that the repeal of the clause prohibits legal challenges, lawyers will seek to argue that a person who was entitled to benefit under a law at the time should not be deprived because of the decision to repeal the Act.

The law was intended to abolish preliminary inquiries for serious criminal cases and provided that after the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed persons will be given automatic freedom when they apply before a judge in chambers. The controversial section, which was repealed in the Parliament last month, is being challenged on the grounds it undermined the separation of powers and took away the rights of those who had filed applications to have their cases, some more than ten years old, dismissed by a High Court judge as was initially prescribed by Section 34.

Title: State picks top QC for Ish, Steve lawsuit
Post by: Flex on November 09, 2012, 03:39:50 AM
State picks top QC for Ish, Steve lawsuit
By ANDRE BAGOO Friday, November 9 2012
T&T Newsday


ATTORNEY General Anand Ramlogan has retained the services of Lord Pannick QC, a barrister and life peer who once represented the Queen, to represent the State in the lawsuit brought by Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, in the wake of the Section 34 fiasco.

Ramlogan said this week that Lord Pannick will lead a legal team for the State in the constitutional lawsuit filed by both men in September, after the State repealed Section 34 in the space of days after it emerged that the section would have had the effect of compelling a judge to order a not guilty plea in long-standing corruption charges against both. The attorney will lead a team in the case, due to come up for hearing later this month.

Born David Philip Pannick, Baron Pannick QC, 56, is described as a leading barrister in the United Kingdom, and cross-bencher in the House of Lords.

Lord Pannick was this year described by the UK’s Times Law 100 as the tenth most powerful lawyer in the UK, “Described by one judge as ‘leader of the cross-benchers’ and as having ‘incredible influence’ in Parliament, it could almost be overlooked that Lord Pannick is one of the country’s most powerful advocates”.

The fee on brief for such a QC, lawyers said, would most certainly be in excess of $1 million, adding yet another legal cost in a saga which has seen the State expend in excess of $72 million on cases involving Galbaransingh and Ferguson, all of which are linked to the $1.6 billion Piarco International Airport project.

Lawyers for the State have noted the men have brought a barrage of cases against the State, provoking public expense, while lawyers for the men have insisted that the cases represented the men exercising legal rights.

Lord Pannick, of Blackstone Chambers, has appeared in 100 cases in the House of Lords (before it was replaced by the new Supreme Court). His clients have included the Queen, winning an injunction in the High Court to restrain The Daily Mirror from publishing further allegations about her home life by a reporter who had gained employment as a footman. He has also appeared in court for Diana, Princess of Wales.

Another client was Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a former Russian oligarch and businessman once said to be the richest man in Russia. Another client was Greg Rusedski, whom he represented at a tennis tribunal in Montreal, defeating allegations that he was guilty of a doping office.

Lord Pannick also appeared for The Times in the famous Spycatcher case, where newspapers were charged with contempt after publishing the details of a memoir by a former high-ranking officer of MI5, which had been banned from publication by the British government. He also represented Tiny Rowland and Lonrho plc in the battle with Mohammed Al-Fayed concerning the take-over of Harrods, the famous London department store.

Ramlogan has been criticised for the partial proclamation of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, which was gazetted without consultation of key stakeholders, including the Chief Justice Ivor Archie. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar sacked Minister of Justice Herbert Volney, who had tabled the Cabinet Note calling for partial proclamation, in August, days before the country’s Jubilee Independence celebrations. She took no action against Ramlogan, chief legal adviser to the Cabinet.

Ramlogan has come under fire for his handling of the proclamation, but has also faced questions over his handling of the extradition case of both men – said to be financiers of the UNC – in general since he took office in 2010. The time-line of his decision to not appeal a court ruling which quashed his own extradition order, in relation to the assent and premature proclamation of the Act, has raised questions over his conduct of the case.

The United States Embassy has publicaly expressed disappointment and concern over the prospect that Galbaransingh and Ferguson will not be subject to trial. In an interview on Wednesday, Ramlogan responded to queries over Section 34 by saying he had retained Lord Pannick to ensure the State had adequate representation.

He further said, “I am committed now, as I always was, to securing justice in matters relating to Ish and Steve. Confusion has arisen because of the successful challenge of my extradition order. It has been linked to Section 34, when the irony is, had I appealed, the time under Section 34 would have continued to run to make the ten-year-mark, possibly without the trial ever taking place because the criminal proceedings were stayed.”

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bakes on November 09, 2012, 04:50:37 AM
Buy foreign...
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Michael-j on April 05, 2013, 04:38:29 PM
BREAKING NEWS: ISH AND STEVE LOSE SECTION 34 CASE
...Ish and Steve suffered no prejudice by repeal, says Court.
By DARREN BARAW - News Editor
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/High-Court-Throws-Out-Section-34-Lawsuit-201660711.html (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/High-Court-Throws-Out-Section-34-Lawsuit-201660711.html)
Story Created: Apr 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM ECT
Story Updated: Apr 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM ECT

JUSTICE Mira Dean-Armorer this afternoon dismissed all the arguments raised by the Section 34 applicants, which include businessmen Ish Galbaransingh, Steve Ferguson, and Ameer Edoo.

She also refused to grant a stay of the criminal proceedings against the men, telling their lawyers to take their case before the Appeal Court.

The judge handed down her ruling in the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain, in a 175 page judgment.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE JUDGMENT -

....see link....
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: weary1969 on April 05, 2013, 04:53:02 PM
They appealing but the AG eh appeal d decision not 2 extradite them. Games and more games
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on April 06, 2013, 04:16:40 AM
ISH,STEVE LOSE
By Jada Loutoo Saturday, April 6 2013


BUSINESSMEN Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, and 40 other persons, will face prosecution in their respective criminal trials having failed to get the courts to deem as unconstitutional the amendment to the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, which prevented the automatic dismissal of their cases under the controversial Section 34.

Justice Mira Dean-Armorer yesterday dismissed all the arguments raised by those facing trial in the courts, which included Galbaransingh, Ferguson, those charged in the Piarco 1 and 2 prosecutions, as well as several others who filed similar applications under the now repealed Section 34.

The judge also refused to grant a stay of the criminal proceedings against the men, telling their lawyers to “try their luck” in the Appeal Court.

Dean-Armorer handed down her ruling in the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, in a 175-page judgment.

While Galbaransingh and Ameer Edoo and their lawyers refused to comment on the judge’s ruling yesterday, Ferguson told reporters he was “not worried.”

“The truth will come out in the end,” he said, as he hurriedly left the courthouse and tried to avoid the large group of media personnel, as the other two had done before him.

The judge was asked to consider whether the Act which repealed Section 34, with retroactive effect, had infringed the rights of those who sought freedom from prosecution.

Three constitutional claims, those of Ferguson, Ameer Edoo, and Maritime Life (Caribbean ) Limited (Maritime General Insurance Company Limited and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Limited), were chosen as test cases and attorneys for the other applications agreed to abide by the decision of the judge.

Attorneys arguing for the applicants in the Section 34 test cases insisted that their rights were breached when Parliament repealed Section 34. They also contended that the Director of Public Prosecutions abused his power by recommending to the Attorney General (AG) that Section 34 had to be repealed to save the criminal prosecutions in the Piarco Airport fraud matters.

It was also their contention that to repeal Section 34 was an abuse and an infringement of their constitutional right to protection of the law. They argued that their rights could not be taken away by Parliament retrospectively as Section 34 gave them a guaranteed right of freedom from prosecution. They further argued that they had met the criteria set out in the clause and the amendment which repealed it went against the separation of powers as it sought to direct the courts what course of actions should be adopted when treating with the Section 34 applicants. Lawyers in the test case argued that the public’s outcry over the proclamation of Section 34 led to the repeal of the law and the three claimants asked that the judge grant them a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings against them. Arguments in the matter came to an end in February.

Dean-Armorer spent close to an hour yesterday reading through her introduction and the reasons for her decision to a courtroom packed with attorneys, as well as Galbaransingh, Ferguson and Edoo.

She said according to the uncontroverted evidence, the legislative objective which led to the enactment of the Amendment Act was the correction of an oversight on the part of the entire Parliament.

“The means employed to achieve the objective was not only a simple repeal of the section but also a provision for its retrospective operation. Parliament set out to achieve the metaphorical clean slate,” she noted. “In my view the measures designed to meet the objective cannot be described as irrational.”

According to Dean-Armorer, while Parliament’s oversight may have led to excessive expenditure of resources, its actions by repealing Section 34, did not take away the benefits of the right of presumption of innocence or a fair trial from those who filed applications.

“The benefit to which the claimant became entitled was in reality a by-product of a section which was designed to meet other needs.”

“Section 34, as with other limitation provisions, was not designed to take account of the merits of the proceedings to which it was applied, by virtue of only the time when an offence was allegedly committed or a cause of action arose, the consequence flowed automatically bringing the proceedings to an end. It was incumbent on the accused to do no more than approach the court by filing his application under Section 34,” she pointed out.

She said with the retrospective repeal of Section 34, the fair process which had earlier protected those accused remained unchanged and intact.

“He may have lost the opportunity afforded by the limitation provision (Section 34),” she said, but noted that, “he has however suffered no deprivation of the fair process which the Constitution guarantees and which the presiding magistrate is empowered to enforce.”

“It is, therefore, my view that the Amendment Act has wrought no contravention of the right of the claimant’s liberty or property and the right not to be deprived by due process of law,” Justice Dean-Armorer ruled, emphasising that the Section 34 applicants continued to “retain” the constitutional rights to which they were always entitled.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are charged with a series of criminal offences arising out of the construction of the Piarco Airport Development Project dating back to 2002.

They have already been committed to stand trial for another series of criminal proceedings in the Piarco 1 matter and indictments are expected to be filed upon the completion of the Piarco 2 proceedings which are still pending before the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court. The latter is expected to come up on April 26, before Magistrate Ejenny Espinet.

The actual Section 34 applications are expected to be called before Dean-Armorer on April 12, at which time she will give directions on how they will be dealt with.

The proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011, caused widespread outrage and condemnation from various sectors of society against the Government, and the original Act which was proclaimed by former President George Maxwell Richards on August 31, 2012, was repealed in an emergency sitting of Parliament in September and was assented to on November 14, 2012.

St Joseph MP, then justice minister, Herbert Volney, was fired by Prime Minister for allegedly “misleading the Cabinet” on the early Section 34 proclamation.

In her ruling, the judge referred to statements made by Volney in the Parliament and in the media on the rationale behind Section 34, saying he did no more than provide his opinion as to the proper interpretation of the enacted legislation.

She disagreed with lawyers for the claimants that his statements were clear and unambiguous representations that they would not stand trial “for historic offences.”

“It is clear that Minister Volney was making neither a promise or representation to the claimant or anyone else but was explaining the legislative plan of government to address endemic delays in the criminal justice system.”

On arguments that the claimants legitimately expected not to face trial for corruption offences, by virtue of the provisions of Section 34, the judge said there was none.

As she emphasised the amendment to the Act was simply the removal of a limitation provision, she said there was no effect on the merits of ongoing criminal proceedings. She also noted that the retroactive repeal was achieved expeditiously so as to minimise any detriment to the applicants.

She also cleared Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, of any impropriety, saying his actions did not fall beyond his functions to keep the AG informed so that he could account to Parliament on the affairs of his office as prescribed by the Constitution.

She said all he did was anxiously inform the AG as to the immediate effects of Section 34 and what it augured for the future.

In her lengthy ruling, the judge also dismissed claims that Parliament bowed to populist pressure, saying the function exercised by the legislature was not a quasi-judicial function but a purely legislative one and to examine its motive would be an “impermissible intrusion” as it was not proven that the repeal was not reasonably justified.

Turning her focus on whether the Amendment Act was inconsistent with the constitutional rights to liberty and not to be deprived of it except by due process of law, she said it was not, as she reiterated that repealing of the Act, retrospectively, was necessary to correct the parliamentary oversight created by the original Section 34.

She also found that the Parliament’s actions could not be construed as unlawful legislative interference in the business of the judiciary.

“As the guardian of the Constitution, the court must be concerned to uphold legislative competence of Parliament, which is invested by the Constitution with the platitude of legislative power for the peace, order and good government of the State. On the other hand, the court must be astute to stem any erosion of judicial power or to strike any legislation which causes judicial power to be wholly absorbed by the legislature and taken out of the hands of judges,” she noted.

Dean-Armorer agreed there was no mathematical formula by which the court could decide whether legislation constitutes interference, but said it had to consider the true nature of the legislation.

She said despite the alleged public furor which led to the enactment of the Amendment Act, it was not ad hominem, in that it did not specifically target any individual but was for the general application to all proceedings under Section 34 which were pending before any court.

She said the enacted Amendment Act, while a direction in substance, fell short of directing the court to dismiss proceedings.

“Having enacted the provision, the court continues to hold the power to hear submissions and place its own interpretation of the section, even if in reality there might be little room for manoeuvre.”

The judge, however, held that Section 7 of the Amended Act, which provides that persons who filled the criterion under Section 34 should be deemed to have acquired rights, privileges and obligations, was ambiguous and “may ultimately require interpretation as a provision resulting in manifest absurdity.”

But for this, she said, it did not constitute an impermissible direction to the court.

“When the deluge of the public furor has subsided, Section 34 would be seen for what it really is that is to say no more than a limitation provision providing for the dismissal of criminal proceedings not on the merits but on the ground of delay. Its repeal may have resulted in inconvenience to the claimant and to other persons who had been astute to institute applications under Section 34.

“The court continues, however, to be the guardian of the Constitution and above the din of public angst the court must keep its focus on the true import of the doctrine of separations of powers,” Dean-Armorer emphasised.

Parliament, she said, was vested with “the plentitude of legislative power for the peace, order and good government of the people of Trinidad and Tobago”; a power exercised subject to the supremacy of the Constitution, which she noted, provided for a judiciary consisting of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law.

In dismissing the constitutional claims, Dean-Armorer ordered that Ferguson, Edoo and the Maritime companies pay the State the costs associated with the lawsuit they brought.

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: boss on April 06, 2013, 07:23:21 PM
Max scolded PM over Section 34
‘Grave matter of public interest’
Trinidad Express
Story Created: Apr 6, 2013 at 8:47 PM ECT
Story Updated: Apr 6, 2013 at 8:47 PM ECT

Describing Section 34 as a “grave matter of ongoing public interest” that has shaken the confidence in the fundamental institutions of Trinidad and Tobago, then president George Maxwell Richards wrote a stern letter to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in which he alleged that he had been misled into proclaiming the legislation and lamented the fact that the Prime Minister had taken to not making herself available for their weekly meetings.

The Sunday Express obtained a copy of the letter, which was dated December 7, 2012, three months prior to his March 17 departure from office.

Richards wrote: “Prime Minister, I am constrained to express my regret that I was not advised before the fact of the undertakings given to the Parliament and which would have served to secure the support of both Houses of Parliament in their entirety (for the passage of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings Act) which contained the controversial Section 34 clause).
“I am constrained in this regard, also, albeit with regret, to record that since your assumption of office the practice of the Prime Minister having regular meetings with the President (in the course of which matters of this nature could have been discussed) has not been maintained,” Richards stated.

Richards began by quoting Section 81 of the Constitution which, ironically was referred to by his successor, President Anthony Carmona, in his inaugural address to show that the President does indeed have power under the Constitution:

Section 81 states: “The Prime Minister shall keep the President fully informed concerning the general conduct of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and shall furnish the President with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter relating to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.”

In his letter, Richards stated that he was advised by the Cabinet that it was expedient to proclaim Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings Act). He did so on August 28, 2012, bringing into operation, with effect from August 31, certain sections: Section 1, 2, 3 (1), 32 and 34 and Schedule 6 thereof.

Richards went abroad and returned on October 23, 2012.

In his letter. he said since his return he had taken cognisance of the Prime Minister's statement on the matter, made on September 20, 2012.

“I note that, among other things, you acknowledge that the Cabinet advice to the Office of the President was given in error in respect of the Section 34 proclamation and that this ought never to have occurred,” he said.

Richards said the Honourable Chief Justice and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago and the Embassy of the United States also had cause to issue statements.

He noted that the Section 34 proclamation also led to the removal from the Cabinet of then Minister of Justice, Herbert Volney; to the calling of an emergency session of the Parliament to repeal the Section 34 Proclamation; and a motion of censure laid in Parliament against the Attorney General.

“The matter has engaged the widespread attention of the general public of Trinidad and Tobago, has occasioned two public demonstrations through the streets of the nation's capital and has generated widespread commentary, on a sustained basis, in the daily print and electronic media,” Richards said.

He added: “Grave concern continues to be expressed by many, within and outside of the Parliament, that the Section 34 Proclamation may lead to the possibility of individuals avoiding criminal prosecution in several matters which are themselves the subject of great public interest.

“Prime Minister, I have given careful consideration to these matters and to the public interest implications. Particularly in so far as the President is required to discharge a role in this matter, I am concerned about the implications for the continued confidence of the public for, and the regard in which it would hold the institutions of State, to wit, the high offices of President, Parliament and the Cabinet.

“I am concerned also that public disquiet continues to exist at varying levels and in varying degrees of intensity. I am inclined to the view that the country has not settled, in so far as this matter is concerned, and that the mood remains grave,” Richards said.

He said the circumstances giving rise to the advice that it was expedient to bring Section 34 into effect and the consequential and prevailing disquiet were indisputably matters relating to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, concerning, as it does, the very fundamental of the constitutional relationship between the Executive, the Parliament and the Judiciary and, equally, the fundamentals of governance.

“Consistent therefore with the high constitutional mandate of Section 81, I am compelled, in all the circumstances, to write to you to record my own grave concerns and to encourage you, with all appropriate and due propriety, to consider a comprehensive review to enable all options for possible remedial action to be explored and to ensure that the Office of the President be furnished with all the relevant facts. I wish to be absolutely sure of the antecedents leading to the request for the early proclamation of Section 34,” Richards stated.

He said he felt compelled further to request, “respectfully”, that the Prime Minister furnish him with information concerning the intent and circumstances giving rise to the Section 34 Proclamation and, most significantly, information as to why Section 34 of the act was singled out for early proclamation.

Richards noted that in his speech at the opening of the 2013 Law Term, the Chief Justice stated unequivocally that the Judiciary never discussed or contemplated partial proclamation of the act.

He also noted in the record of Hansard that specific undertakings were given to the Parliament that the Act would not be proclaimed before all procedural and administrative mechanisms were put in place.

“This adds to the concern which I entertain,” Richards said.
He said he was advised that it has long been recognised by the Court of Appeal of Independent Trinidad and Tobago that a delay between legislation being passed into law by the Parliament and the future date when it shall become operative law was permitted to enableministries or the Rules Committee to make appropriate administrative or other arrangements or to frame and publish necessary orders or rules of court.

“I am assured that there is absolutely nothing in Section 34 that required it to be proclaimed at an earlier date by way of preparation for or as a precursor to the proclamation of the rest of the act.

He advised the Prime Minister to pay particular attention to the following in addressing the information (requested):

i) What, at the late stage at which it was introduced, was the source or origin of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Bill 2011?
Was that late amended section in any form circulated amongst the various stakeholders for comment, and when and what course did it follow before being placed before Parliament as part of the bill for debate?
By stakeholders, he was referring at minimum, to the Judiciary, the Office of the DPP, the Law Association and the Criminal Bar Association.

ii) What assurances, if any, were given to the Opposition and Independent members of Parliament by any member of the Government with respect to the coming into effect and/or proclamation into law of the act?

iii) What assurances, if any, were given to stakeholders including the Judiciary and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions by any member of the Government with respect to the coming into effect and/or proclamation into law of the act?

iv) Having regard to its stand-alone nature, what, if any, consideration was given by the Cabinet to the probable or likely impact of the Section 34 Proclamation upon prosecutions at present engaging the attention of the courts?

v) What was the rationale informing the advice of the Cabinet that it was expedient that the President should issue a proclamation in terms to fix August 31, 2012 as the date on which the act, with the exception of Sections 3 (2) , (3) 4 to 31, 33, 35, Schedules 1 to 5 and Schedules 7 and 8 should come into operation?

vi) Why was Section 34 or the sixth schedue of the act not amended during the debates in Parliament or prior to proclamation so as to guard against the possibility that persons charged with serious fraud offences would not escape prosecution?

vii) As at August 28, 2012, what steps, if any, had been initiated and completed in order to have Cabinet approval for the amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

viii) Beyond the repeal of the Section 34 Proclamation, is any consideration being given to a comprehensive review of the act in consultation with all stakeholders to address different probable scenarios which may arise on the outcome of court proceedings?

“Prime Minister, I am certain that you would agree that this is a grave matter of ongoing public interest and concern and relevant to the 'general conduct of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago'. I consider it incumbent upon me as President to make this request, particularly as it may yet not be too late for a comprehensive review to be undertaken, which may go a long way to restoring public trust and confidence in the institutions of State and the governance of Trinidad and Tobago,” said the President.
“I therefore look forward to your early attention to the matters that I have raised,” Richards concluded.

At a press conference on Friday, chairman of the Section 34 Roundtable, David Abdulah, said the Prime Minister had failed to furnish the President with a report on Section 34 as he requested.

Abdulah said notwithstanding the change in President, the matter of the President's request for an explanation remains standing.

Abdulah said he remained confident that President Carmona will address the matter under Section 81 of the Constitution, which requires the Prime Minister to provide answers to the President on such specific matters he may request.

Opposition Leader Keith Rowley, another Roundtable member, “reminded the country that the matter was still before the President for review...That issue is still in front of us, alive, well and unanswered”.

On Friday, High Court judge Justice Mira Dean-Armorer struck down every legal argument placed by Ishwar Galbaransingh, Steve Ferguson and other parties, who, through their attorneys, were attempting to stop criminal proceedings against them on the basis the repeal of Section 34 deprived them of the assurance from the State that they could have applied to have their matters dismissed.

At the time, Richards was severely criticised for sending the letter to the Prime Minister by National Security Minister Jack Warner, who labelled him as a PNM puppet.

Commentator Reginald Dumas also could not understand the point of Richards asking for an explanation for the early proclamation of Section 34, given the fact that he (Richards), acting on the advice of the Cabinet, had signed the Proclamation Order without raising any questions at the time.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on April 07, 2013, 05:51:48 AM
Ish, Steve to pay State legal costs of $7M
By SEAN DOUGLAS (NEWSDAY)
Sunday, April 7 2013


UNC financiers, Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, will have to fork out approximately $7 million to pay the State’s legal costs, after Justice Mira Dean-Armorer last Friday rejected the duo’s appeal against Parliament’s repeal of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

Section 34 proposed to throw out cases (except “blood offences”) that were not concluded a decade after the date of the alleged commission of the offence. Potential beneficiaries included Galbaransingh and Ferguson.

While the duo are likely to appeal to the Appeal Court, and maybe the Privy Council, they now face hefty legal costs for Friday’s judgment.

Yesterday, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan roughly estimated the cost of the State counsel to be “in the vicinity of $5 million to $7 million, minimum.”

“I have instructed the Solicitor-General (Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell) to commence preparation of the State’s bill of costs,” he told Sunday Newsday yesterday.

The State’s team included two British Queen’s Counsel — Lord David Pannick QC and Allan Newman QC.

Ramlogan said the State had to spend money to match the appellants’ high-powered legal team. “The claimants had retained Lord Beloff QC, Edward Fitzpatrick QC, Fyard Hosein QC, Sophie Chote QC and a battery of lawyers. If the State did not match the arms in this battle, the Government would have been accused of under-preparing, with sinister, ulterior motives. So it was, money was spent, as evidenced by the comprehensive victory,” he said.

Asked if similar legal costs would be incurred if the appellants go to the Appeal Court, he replied, “Why change a winning team?” Ramlogan also said the Dean-Armorer judgment had not only preserved the “Ish and Steve” case, but also all the other cases of alleged corruption in TT, plus any future court-cases that might arise from the two current commissions of inquiry, respectively, into the 1990 coup attempt, and into the collapse of Clico and the Hindu Credit Union (HCU).

The AG also noted that paragraphs 445, 478 and 499 of the judgment focused on evidence given by him, declaring that he is the first attorney general to give evidence on behalf of the State, as he had also done in the case of the Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs). “The reason I went on affidavits is to point out that if Section 34 were to succeed is what that means is that all those corruption probes I instituted into Petrotrin, Udecott, Eteck, TTEC, UTT and so on would have all been caught by Section 34,” said Ramlogan.

“Remember the PNM was in power for eight years and by the time Section 34 came two years of us in Government had already passed and eight and two is ten, and the object of Section 34 is that if ten years have passed from the commission of the offence and you haven’t charged anybody with it, you can’t do anything else,” said the AG. “In the judgment, she (Dean-Armorer) averted to that, and she accepted that evidence, and she paid recognition to it.”

Ramlogan said paragraph 478 of Dean-Armorer’s judgment had noted the AG’s assertion that the “Ish and Steve” case was relevant to other corruption cases.

Ramlogan said there are many ongoing probes (Petrotrin, Udecott, TTEC, UTT) that could lead to future court action, and these had now been saved by last Friday’s ruling.

Ramlogan said last Friday’s ruling now clears the way for the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to pursue criminal charges arising from evidence in the two commissions of inquiry.

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on August 24, 2013, 05:32:04 AM
AG wants swift action on extraditions
Saturday, August 24 2013
T&T Newsday


THE CENTRAL Authority – the body charged with State-to-State cooperation in law enforcement matters – has been mandated “to act swiftly on all requests” by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, his ministry yesterday said.

“Attorney General Ramlogan has mandated the Central Authority to act swiftly on all requests for extradition and legal assistance to strengthen respect for the rule of law in the context of cross border crimes and the clear need for greater international cross-border co-operation amongst countries,” the Ministry of the Attorney General stated in a press release issued on the early morning extradition of a Trinidadian wanted for a triple homicide in the United States. The Attorney General’s office made specific reference to the recent case involving a casino owner wanted for tax offences.

“The Attorney General also continues to liaise with US officials and provide legal assistance and practical cooperation in relation to David Migliore,” the release stated “Migliore is presently facing charges in the US of tax evasion and failing to file tax returns on approximately US$4 million.”

In the case of Trinidadian Keron Pierre, who was early yesterday morning extradited to Newark, New Jersey, in the company of US marshals to face trial for the 2009 murder of three people, the ministry said this was one of “the many successes” of the Central Authority.

“This is one of the many successes of the Central Authority under the direction of the Attorney General,” the release stated. “On 31st March this year, Doreen Alexander was extradited to the US to face charges relating to the kidnaping and murder of Balram ‘Balo’ Maharaj. Alexander is currently awaiting trial in the US courts.”

On August 5, Gary Govindass pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit hostage taking. Govindass was extradited to the United States in February 2012 to face charges relating to the kidnapping of Vedesh Mohan, the ministry said. The extradition process relating to his alleged co-conspirator, Hassan Atwell is currently underway.

Additionally, Andy Nelson was successfully extradited to the United Kingdom on September 14, 2012 to face two charges for conspiracy to supply and import cocaine. On February 1, 2013 Nelson pleaded guilty to both charges.

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Errol on December 11, 2014, 05:28:18 AM
Lavish wedding for Galbaransingh’s son
By By Denyse Renne

Story Created: Jan 4, 2014 at 9:22 PM ECT

The son of United National Congress financier Ishwar Galbaransingh yesterday exchanged vows with his new bride in the presence of several Government ministers in Tobago.

Married yesterday at St Joseph Roman Catholic Church in Scarborough, Tobago were Syam Galbaransingh and Melanie Moses.

The reception was held at the Le Grand Courlan resort at Stonehaven Bay. The resort and spa is owned by the Galbaransingh family.

The younger Galbaransingh is the general manager of Millennium Metal Ltd.

Several Government ministers attended the lavish wedding in the sister isle.

The ministers started arriving at the ANR International Airport shortly after 7 a.m. and stayed at the Coco Reef Resort and the Magdalena Grand Beach Resort at Lowlands.

During the wedding ceremony officiant Father Emmanuel Pierre delivered a short message from Pope Francis from the Vatican who offered blessings on the occasion of the couple’s marriage.

Among the 900 guests at the wedding and reception were former prime minister Basdeo Panday, former works minister Carlos John, former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung, Education Minister Dr Tim Gopeesingh, Trade Minister Vasant Bharath, Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, Food Production Minister Devant Maharaj, Environment Minister Ganga Singh, Transport Minister Chandresh Sharma, businessman Junior Sammy, Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner, and businessman Steve Ferguson.

The reception was elaborate and lavish with premium drinks and champagne flowing.

Sources say also in attendance were the individuals charged with corruption coming out of the Piarco International Airport project.

The senior Galbaransingh is no stranger to controversy, as he, along with Ferguson were among the recipients of the now repealed Section 34 legislation.

In 2012, the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 was proclaimed by then president George Maxwell Richards in a move to end preliminary enquiries in the local courts. Certain parts of the Act were supposed to come into effect on January 1 last year.

The president’s proclamation was gazetted on August 30, 2012. With the Act in effect, the Preliminary Enquiry Act would have been replaced and nullified the need for a preliminary enquiry to be held in relation to matters filed indictably.

However, the act bore a controversial clause-Section 34(2)-which stated that if after ten years the case wasn’t heard, the accused could apply to a judge to have the charges dismissed. This clause would have seen Galbaransingh and businessman Steve Ferguson and several other supporters of the Government escaping the law. The controversial Section 34 was subsequently repealed and then minister of justice Herbert Volney who was fired after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar accused him of “misleading Cabinet.”

Galbaransingh and Ferguson, are still wanted in the United States on a series of money laundering charges. The two were first indicted in 2005 in a Miami Federal Court on numerous fraud and money laundering charges, stemming from alleged bid rigging between 1996 and 2005 on contracts for the Piarco International Airport.

Last year High Court judge Justice Mira Dean-Armorer, in a 175-page ruling dismissed constitutional motions filed by Ferguson, Ameer Edoo and the companies regarding the repeal of Section 34.

The men appealed the ruling. That judgment is yet to be delivered.

—Additional reporting by Elizabeth Williams

Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on July 22, 2015, 02:02:42 AM
Ish’s lawyers looking at Jack’s statement
By Radhica Sookraj (Guardian).


One of the men implicated in the Section 34 fiasco, UNC financier Ishwar Galbaransingh, says his attorneys are reviewing Jack Warner's recent allegations that he gave bribes to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Speaking briefly to the T&T Guardian after the opening of the Brickfield Packing House in Tabaquite yesterday, Galbaransingh refused to reveal whether the allegations were true or not, saying he will not dignify that with a response.

It has been a week since the accusation was made but despite this, Galbaransingh said no decision has been taken to sue Warner.

Asked whether it was true that he paid bribes amounting to $8 million to Persad-Bissessar, Galbaransingh said: “I cannot dignify anybody’s nonsense with a response.”

Asked whether he was taking any action against Warner for defamation, Galbaransingh said: “My lawyers are looking at it and I will let my lawyers respond.”

Pressed further as to whether Warner could expect another lawsuit, Galbaransingh said: “I never said anything about a lawsuit. I said my lawyers are looking at it.” He declined any further questions.

During a press conference last week, Warner said he was present when Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson allegedly gave Persad-Bissessar cheques amounting to over $8 million.

Warner had said: “In the run-up to the general election of May 2010, Mrs Kamla Persad Bissessar held several discussions with me on how we could assist Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson since she felt they were both instrumental in removing the PNM from office in 1995 and had been poorly treated by the Manning administration.

“In one of those meetings which was held at the Gopaul’s residence in Tunapuna and at which I was present, Mr Galbaransingh and Mr Ferguson handed over to Mrs Persad-Bissessar a number of cheques totalling $8.3 million.”

Warner also spoke of the Section 34 amendment of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011, saying it was “exposed for the deceit that is was.”

He also alleged that Persad-Bissessar was now trying to extradite him to the US because she wanted to appease the US Government for her mishandling of the Ish and Steve extradition.

Meanwhile, Works Minister Dr Suruj Rambachan also accused the media of supporting Warner’s deceit by not investigating the allegations before publishing.

“I am not going to dignify Mr Warner in any way. Warner is feeding off a hungry media and it is unfortunate that they are not checking the facts before they publish it. Therefore, in a sense, they are party to this kind of charade,” he said.

Last week Persad-Bissessar also denied all of Warner’s allegations, saying she would speak to her “lawyers about ending his malicious actions.”

Galbaransingh and Ferguson were first indicted in a Miami Federal Court in 2005 on 95 fraud and money laundering charges.

The charges arise out of alleged bid rigging between 1996 and 2005 on contracts for the Piarco International Airport. In 2011, the US Embassy expressed disappointment with the decision by the High Court not to allow the extradition of the two businessmen to face fraud charges.

In December 2011 the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act was enacted by both Houses of Parliament and received the assent of then President George Maxwell Richards on December 16, 2011.

Included in the Act was Section 34 which prescribed a limitation period of ten years in respect of certain offences, excluding treason, murder, kidnapping rape, assault, drug trafficking and arms and ammunition possession. Both men, along with 37 others, were set to walk free with the passage of the legislation.

On September 10, 2012, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, wrote to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan indicating his concern with Section 34 and its implications for the pending Piarco prosecutions. Three days later Section 34 was repealed following a special sitting of Parliament.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Bourbon on July 22, 2015, 05:28:58 AM
http://m.guardian.co.tt/news/2015-07-22/suruj-why-should-unc-stay-away-ish

Suruj: Why should UNC stay away from Ish?

Given the political heat surrounding Ish Galbaransingh and allegations of bribery over Section 34, senior members of Government are still insisting he remains free to bid for State projects.

Galbaransingh won the bid for the construction of the $14 million Brickfield Packing House which was opened on Monday in Tabaquite. His company Aztec Asphalt Pavers Ltd was responsible for completing the facility in record time.

In an interview yesterday, Works Minister Dr Suruj Rambachan said he did not agree that the UNC should distance itself from Galbaransingh and his company in light of allegations by ILP leader Jack Warner that businessman Steve Ferguson allegedly paid $8 million in bribes to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Warner was expected to provide evidence of the alleged bribes in a press conference yesterday but it was postponed.

In an email, Warner said an additional piece of information had surfaced and needed to be verified. He also said the inclement weather would pose a difficulty for some persons who wished to attend the press conference.

Galbaransingh, in an interview, said his attorneys were reviewing Warner’s accusations.

However, Rambachan said despite the issue, Galbaransingh should not be banned from bidding for projects.

“Those were public bids and if Galbaransingh wins the bid, he cannot be denied because he is free to bid and tender for any project,” Rambachan said.

He added: “I don’t think the UNC should distance themselves from him at all. He had a company that was existing way before and after the Piarco airport project.”

Rambachan could not provide details of the tendering process and directed questions to Food Production Minister Devant Maharaj.

Contacted on his cellphone yesterday, Maharaj said he also disagreed with the notion that Galbaransingh should be sidelined because of the allegations.

He added: “As far as I am aware his company tendered like everybody else. Whatever tender rules existed he emerged as the successful bidder.

“Why should we distance ourselves? Is it that he is not allowed to do business in Trinidad? Should we terminate any projects for which he has won a bid?

“What is the basis of the discrimination against him. If we do this we can open up ourselves to litigation?” Maharaj asked.

He also denied knowledge of the tendering process, saying it was handled by the National Agricultural Marketing and Development Corporation (Namdevco).

“The details of implementation and execution was done by Namdevco. I didn’t even know Galbaransingh’s company was doing this project,” Maharaj said.

He directed questions to Namdevco’s CEO Ganesh Gangapersad, who assured that Aztec Pavers won the contract because it had the lowest bid.

He said he was out of office and could not provide details of the tenders but would do so when he got in office today.
Title: Re: Ish Galbaransingh in jail.
Post by: Flex on November 26, 2018, 01:33:30 AM
Judge blanks Ish and Steve.
By Jada Loutoo (Newsday).


ONLY 14 of the 53 cases left unfinished by former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar when she took up a position as a judge in April, last year, are left to be determined.

Justice Carol Gobin provided the update in a recent decision in which she dismissed an application by businessmen Steve Ferguson, Ishwar Galbaransingh, Brian Kuei Tung and others to join the State’s interpretation lawsuit over the short-lived judicial appointment of Ayers-Caesar.

The three businessmen, as well as Peter Cateau and Tyrone Gopee, all of whom are facing fraud charges out of the construction of the Piarco International Airport, filed the application because the magistrate hearing their case retired earlier this year leaving their preliminary inquiry incomplete.

In her decision, Gobin said to grant the applications to intervene “will inevitably result in further delay in determination of the interpretation summons which was filed just over one year ago. “This consequence is undesirable and unjustifiable,” she said.

According to Gobin, she has been cognisant of the need for the interpretation summons to be dealt with expedition “because of the understandable and undeniable claims of the several accused persons, whose part heard trials were affected by the elevation of the chief magistrate to the bench, of extreme hardship, unfairness and prejudice.”

“ I have not been insensitive to the feelings of the families of victims and other affected persons,” she said.

According to her, the Director of Public Prosecution said that of the 53 matters left unfinished, only 14 are now left to be determined.

“Given the public importance of the matter, an early resolution may go some way to restoring some measure of public confidence in the system. An outcome which gives rise to the possibility of further embarrassment to the system has to be avoided.”

She also said she was not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the Piarco accused for their reasons to intervene, saying their claim had no place in the AG’s summons before her and would add complexity to the narrow case left for her to determine.

Gobin also said she considered the prejudice to be suffered by other accused whose cases were affected by the elevation of the former chief magistrate since one of them had to be adjourned while the preliminary issue of the joinder application had to be determined.

“So far the decision in the connected matter has already been adjourned on two occasions.

The delay has been unavoidable but nonetheless embarrassing and a matter of regret. It is

not fair to the parties in the connected matter to have further postponements of that judgment to a more distant date.”

With the applications of the Piarco accused having been refused, Gobin directed that submissions be filed on the interpretation summons before December 12.

She has promised to make every effort to determine the matter before the end of the year.

In the interpretation lawsuit, the AG is seeking to determine Ayers-Caesar’s status of a magistrate when she took up a judicial appointment in April last year. She resigned after two weeks amid public furore over the 53 cases she left unfinished, when she accepted the position. The case is also seeking to determine if Ayers-Caesar could have been allowed to return to complete the cases or what measures could have been taken to resolve the issue.

Some of the accused persons directly affected have agreed to have their cases restarted by Ayers-Caesar’s successor Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle, and have since been completed.