Bakes, you are the lawyer not me. You will see the source of my "offline adviser" sometime today. Fortunately I sometimes have access to facts. Unfortunately, I do not always have time to study infinite details on law, which, to be fair, bores me to tears. 1
I have never ascribed to being a legal expert. I usually post opinions which I believe make good discussion points. Meanwhile, you seem determined to scrutinise and criticise peoples views as if in a court of law. This then detracts from the argument. So what if bribery isn't a law. Its wrong, at its immoral for politicians to be involved with. So what if banktuptcy doesn't have a liquidator, the point is, could TTFF become bankrupt. You seem more anxious to prove people wrong than to offer your personal opinion at times.2
Your legal knowledge is very helpful, but it should not be used on this site as a weapon to prove you are always right and posters are wrong. It would be more helpful if you just corrected errors in a polite. helpful way, otherwise you incite an unwanted reaction that detracts from the subject.3
As I said, I'm no lawyer, and I apologise if I sometimes get legal facts wrong. I also know that at times I takes scenarios to the nth degree and you may feel this is fantasy.4
However, sometimes I get near the target. Back in 2007 when most people here said Warner would never be beaten, its impossible to get him in court and FIFA would always support him, I argued differently. 5
As far as I'm concerned, bankruptcy means you can't continue in business and you only remain in existence for the benefit of the creditors, once satisfied, the business is wound up. Of course, it may be different in T&T and it certainly is in USA. I have no time or interest in reading pages of legal documents which could be broken down into short facts. I ain't going to court and if I did I'd have lawyers to explain it to me. 6
Your impression that a bankrupt TTFF would merrily continue to trade, collect FIFA money, have a happy bunch of staff working for free from a table in KFC, with no repecussions from FIFA is childish, misleading and unhelpful. Bankruptcy is the end for a business and has ongoing repercussions for the officers involved that last for years.7
I really don't know the correct legal terminology, but in my world the technical term for bankrupcy is "You're f*cked"
1 As you should have figured out by now, I am well aware of the identity of your 'offline adviser'.
2 As much as possible, I try to deal in facts, not fantasy or rumshop talk about what might could perhaps happen. I don't argue to prove I'm right... I argue because I believe I'm right and my position on legal matters is supported by my understanding of the law. So I make no apologies for rubbishing your initial assertion that Jack Warner should be arrested and charged when in fact he committed no crime.
In my opinion, it cheapens the discourse when grown men get emotional and start mouthing all manners of hysterical nonsense, driven purely by emotion and animosity towards Jack. Long before you came on the scene I (along with others) have been calling for Jack's removal, and long after you slink back to wherever you came from, we'll be here doing the same. Having apparently accepted the futility of bleating for Warner to be arrested, you've now hooked onto the "he's immoral, he should resign" talk. My only concerns with Warner as a Minister, is the job he's doing as Minister. As long as his performance and integrity in the performance of his public affairs remains unimpeachable, then his constituents who elected him deserve to have their democratic choice reflected accordingly. What I've hinted to you before I will now say directly, I find your attitude and comments towards the people to be very patronizing and borderline contemptuous. Just because a Trini says it, don't be so foolish and tone deaf as to think that you too are at liberty to make some of the statements you make from time to time. You should consider yourself warned particularly given your circumstances of actually living among the very people you so openly deride. When you and your fellow Englishmen get your moral shit together,
then you can presume to get off your colonial perch and come lecture us here on the plantation.
3 I have no patience for nonsense and if I make attempts to clarify misinformation then the information should be taken for what it's worth. All along my focus has been to build a solid case against Jack... not just throw shit at him in hopes of seeing what sticks. As I said, in my opinion that cheapens the discourse. You on the other hand love coming up with these fanciful scenarios and positing them as fact "TTFF will go bankrupt and FIFA will ban them". I asked you based on what and you essentially respond by parroting whatever is told to you offline. If that's how you prefer to operate then who am I to argue with you? You don't like my tone? Not really my concern... but the line forms around the corner.
4 See above.
5 Is that what you offline adviser is telling you? Really? I find if funny that you presume that the source of my knowledge is only US law. US law delineates among the forms of bankruptcy in a much neater way that is accessible to the average person than does the TT and English code... in general terms the issue is dealt with in pretty much the same way. But why am I wasting my time explaining that to you when you already have all the wrong info you could ever need? More on this below.
6 I doubt anyone's really interested in your personal opinions on what bankruptcy entails. Not when they can have facts instead.
7 I stated for you what the law in Trinidad is... I didn't give you "my impression". I never said anything about the TTFF having staff working for free, you must have fished that from your ass... no doubt the source of your other fantastical comments. You claim that bankruptcy will result in "repercussions" from FIFA. I appreciate that this is your opinion... but you know what they say about opinions. If you have any fact in support of that opinion we certainly haven't heard them yet... want to phone a friend?
What I said was "childish", "misleading" and "unhelpful"... did you form that opinion all by yourself (ignorant of the law as you admit to be) or was it also "explained" to you offline that my legal opinion was childish, misleading and unhelpful? Do you... or the puppeteer who has his arm up your ass moving your lips have any source that says bankruptcy is the end for a business? If not, then let me add more childish, misleading and unhelpful sources to the discussion:
I won't want you to be "bored" by referring you to "Chapters" and "Sections"... I'll use page numbers so that it's accessible for even someone like you.
Page 17
(2) The interim receiver appointed under
subsection (1) may, under the direction of the Court,
take conservatory measures and summarily dispose
of property that is perishable or likely to depreciate
rapidly in value and exercise such control over the
business of the debtor as the Court deems advisable, but
the interim receiver shall not unduly interfere with the
debtor in the carrying out of his business except as may
be necessary for conservatory purposes or to comply
with the order of the Court.
"may" means that appointment of a receiver isn't automatic upon declaration of bankruptcy... but rather it is within the court's discretion to do so, if the court deems it the appropriate course for preservation of the entity's assets. The TTFF's most valuable assets are whatever real estate it owns, along with it's FIFA franchise. Neither are perishable, and it is arguable that they will diminish in value. So appointment of a receiver in this circumstance is hardly automatic.
The activities of the receiver are proscribed by the Court... note the admonishment that only by leave of the Court can the receiver "unduly" interfere with the debtor (TTFF) running its business. Tell me where does that say the business MUST wind up? Where does that say "it is the end for the business"? Is that childish and unhelpful enough?
P. 18
An appointment of an interim receiver may be
made under subsection (1) only if it is shown to the
Court to be necessary for the protection of—
(a) the debtor’s estate; or
(b) the interests of the creditor who sent the
notice under section 13.
Again... this is self-explanatory, but let me reiterate: appointment of a receiver is not at all automatic, so that ought to rubbish your fire sale argument. Unless the assets of the TTFF are jeopardized (
should they declare bankruptcy, not even that is a given) then the Court is unlikely to appoint one. Again... nothing here, or any other chapter, verse, section or sub-section of the law states that the business MUST wind up it's affairs as you, and apparently the rest of the lunatics in your "world" are asserting. Feel free to call me ass however much it gives comfort to your soul, but in the end at least have enough grace to acknowledge that I am right... or just have your adviser move your lips for you.