ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 2743
04/11/09 12:22:17
Interact
Posts: 7000
04/11/09 13:02:20
you endorsed it when Qarase did it in 2000 - refusing to uphold the Chandrika Prasad ruling and continuing to elections - in his case the breach was blatant - it was not working wihin the legal parameters set by the Court of Appeal at all - he simply ignored the decision and forced through an election. in this case what i said is to work within that ruling - within the parameters set by that ruling. where is the conflict of interest whenthe people who would have been voted in under the reforms anyway would have gone into parliament and validated that process restrospectively - the ruling itself said this could be done - and in fact stated that all the things done by the interim regime post December 2006 could be validated retrospectively bvy parliamentary review after parliament is constituted. gdev - the ruling of the Court left huge gaps in it - a lawyersjob is to work with that. on the one hand they said the President can't appoint a Prime Minister and that the 2006 appointment of FB was thus invalid - and yet on the other hand they reccomend that he go ahead and appoint an interim Prime Minister to "take Fiji to elections" ! how can it be ? either the President can appoint a Prime Minister OR he can't. and then they sat in that Court by virtue of the Presidential Promulgation made by the President post December 2006 to regularise the anomaly of not having Chief Justice Fatiaki and the Fiji Law Society on the appointing Judicial Legal Services Commission ! so does that make their position legal or illegal when they declared illegal that the events of 2006 out of which the President claimed the Prerogative to make those Decrees, when they themselves said the President has no prerogative powers ?lol.
if there is any conflict of interest here - its with the Judges who sat on the Court of appeal by virtue of their appointments under the Presidential Decree's made by the President under Prerogative powers - and then declaring that there is no Prerogative power BUT that in their case as Judges (i.e their appointment by the Presidents Proimulgations under those very Prerogatives they said doesn't exist !) they are legal. lol. ROFL. yes don't worry gdev - the people of Fiji will take Fiji back ALL the people of Fiji regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, creed, colour etc etc etc etc they will all claim back their Fiji - the Fiji which Pope John Paul II called the "way the world should be"......yes they will get it back - with reforms.
Posts: 2744
04/11/09 14:10:16
99.5% of the guns.
I have read the court declaration and do not find anything that would allow retrospective approval of legislation, particularly legislation promulgated after the date of the court case, which is what you are claiming. The declaration is numbered so I would respectfully request then you make claims about this verdict, you quote the paragraph number you refer to.
I must say that either your knowledge of the law is very sketchy, or you are a hopeless BS artist. I do offer you a chance to redeem yourself by quoting the appropriate paragraph numbers.
You point about not appointing or appointing a PM is silly, to silly to respond to. Did it ever occur to you that the People should claim back Fiji now and make their own reforms, rather than leaving it to an unelected few criminals who have decided to play God? Why in the world should anyone make reforms for the People when they are completely capable of making them for themselves?
Posts: 7002
04/11/09 15:28:45
Posts: 2749
04/11/09 16:06:40
Posts: 7003
04/11/09 18:24:57
read the first part of that piece gdev from pargraph 163 on page 51 - don't take it in snippets - READ IT IN TOTALITY. its starts that paragraph "WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING, IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, WITH THE VALIDITY OF ANY ACTS OF THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT.....then read paragraph 164 on page 52 .....IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE ACTS OF THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT ARE LAWFUL AND VALID. that limitation applies - but it does not restrict the power to make Promulgations - the proposition is that Promulgations can be made, and are treated as valid IN SO FAR as they fall within those limitations - its not a bar against making those Promulgations, its a description of the KINDS of Promulgations which would pass the validity test - but that will depend on the issues which go before the Court at a later stage, should that have arisen.
this is why they make clear that they are not dealing with the validity of the Promulgations made AND they determine that those acts are DEEMED valid. i have underlined the word "ANY" in that first part above - thats a key word. in its common English use that word means there is NO RESTRICTION - it may mean either before or after or both, it may mean promulgtions, decrees, administrative acts, decisions etc etc etc - its unambiguously OPEN - that is the context and the language they have used in that single sentence - UNRESTRICTED - they have NOT said that it applies to Promulgations made before their decision nor have they said that it applies to Promulgations made after their decision - what they have said is that it applies to ANY promulgation AND that the promulgation is deemed valid UNLESS OTHERWISE proven at a later stage by a Court decision, and of course this is the part they have left unsaid because they cannot say it (they cannot say what Parliament should or should not do about those promulgations or acts because they are not under judicial scrutiny in this case) unless otherwise RATIFIED by Parliament duly constituted. for someone who claims to have went to Harvard and taught at QVS you seem to have a very rudimentary understanding of the English languge. even the Kiwi Foreign Minister - who by the way is a lawyer - said the same thing. he pointed out thatthere were "ways out" in that ruling. the CCF guys have now weighed in and agreed with my two cents - they also say there were ways out and they go further to say that there was a way FB could have been reappointed back as PM together with his cabinet. no point flogging a dead horse gdev - its a moot point now. the 1997 Constitution has been abrogated. the King is dead, long live the King !
Posts: 2750
04/11/09 23:59:00
Posts: 7005
04/12/09 02:32:09
"caretaker" is a misnomer gdev - there is no such thing under the Constitution. lol. its either a government or its not. lol. and again, here we go.....your lawyers need to go back to school. they can't seem to understand the Declaration. paragrapgh 162: "Whilst of course we are NOT in a position to govern the exercise by the President of his discretion, IT WOULD SEEM to us that it would be advisable for the President to overcome the present situation by appointing a distinguished person independant of the parties to this litigation as caretaker Prime Minister.." and of course Part 2 of the Declaration itself: (2) Declares that in the events that have occurred it would be lawful for the President acting pursuant to section 109(2) of the Fiji Constitution, or as a matter of necessity, appoint a caretaker Prime Minister to advise s dissolution of Parliament and the issuance of the Writs for the Election of the Members of the House of Representatives. ========================= again gdev, as i have said and the Kiwi Foreign Minister (who is a lawyer) has said and the CCF (whose lawyers on retainer are QC's) have said - it was possible for FB to have found a way out - and even have himself reinstated as PM. look at Declaration 2 - they have left it DELIBERATELY OPEN. look at paragraph 162 they said very clearly that they are not in a position to govern the exercise by the President of his discretion in the matter SO they reccomend that the President appoint an impartial party BUT THATS UPTO THE PRESIDENT TO DO OR NOT - its HIS DISCRETION. in other words: "Sir you have the discretion in this matter and we respect that but we humbly submit that you appoint an impartial person - submitted for your Excellency's due consideration, We are Sir, Yours Humbly, the Judges of the Fiji Court of Appeal. stop flogging the dead horse gdev - go flog something else. its getting boring pointing out these very elementary points to you.
Posts: 2756
04/12/09 06:06:52
It is up to the so-called "President" backed by the power of the gun. That does not make it legal. As the court pointed out, all these actions can (and will) be the subject of future court proceedings. This particular case was not asked to rule on it. Obviously no court Voreqe appoints will be valid, so it will await the return of democracy and the rule of law, whether that means the recognition of the existing Constitution or a new one. The fact of the matter is that neither this President or he sworn in Govenment have any legitimacy by any law. They could have, had they followed the recommendations of the appeals court, but they did not, and in fact they flaunted their rejectoin of that court. No surprise, Voreqe cannot accept defeat, even when it is in black and white. As I pointed out to Aloha though, what goes down in the history books is that Voraqe is illegal and PM Qarase was legal. I think that was worth confirming. With the saking of the justice system, there is no way Voreqe can legally change that now, even if there was a minute chance before that he could have won on appeal.
As for the "discretion" of the President, he had the discretion to be legal or not, that is what the court gave him, and he chose an illegal path. He did what he or someone else wanted, but that does not make it legal. His discretion came from the muzzle of a gun, not from any law. The court just recognized that with guns in the picture they had limited control, and besides that was not what they were asked to rule on. What they ruled on was that the President acted illegally in 2007, as did Voreqe. They had no power to say anything is legal or not beyond that. It would be foolish to assume that because they had no power to rule or enforce in this one case that it somehow makes anything the IG does legal in the future. You are way off base in law and in common sense. Go back to school.
Posts: 7007
04/12/09 11:24:24
Posts: 2762
04/12/09 12:04:23
Posts: 7008
04/12/09 12:55:36
Posts: 1534
04/12/09 14:02:28
Ratu
Posts: 7010
04/12/09 14:13:58
Posts: 1536
04/12/09 14:19:46
Posts: 1526
04/11/09 14:26:41
Posts: 2745
04/11/09 14:45:26
anything your feeble mind desires. Cook up whatever innuendo and lies you can dig out of the atmosphere. The facts remain: PM Qarase won the case. You may call it a "hollow victory" but it was a highly significant victory and gave PM Qarase everything he asked for. Illegal pretender Voreqe could not get any goods on PM Qarase in 2.25 years of trying and in civilized societies there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are some kind of scum for continuing to throw mud at the man when you have not a shred of evidence other than heresay to substantiate what you are saying. Apparently that does not bother your flabby head.
I appreciate your view that might makes right. Hitler would have helped you prove it or perhaps the cannibal Cakobau. Too bad that it usually conflicts with human rights.
Yes I noticed that one demonstration of what you say is that PM Qarase rolled up his sleeves and helped out in his village to the extent they wanted to make him an honorary chief. In contrast, I note that Voreqe does it for the TV cameras for the photo-ops. I understand that he is hated in his own village, so I don't know how much sleeve rolling he has done there.
Who are the trough feeders now? How much tax money has been spent by this unelected illegal government? How many houses has the Pig allocated himself? How many of his relatives have been sprung from prison after committing murder?
Posts: 1528
04/11/09 15:19:51
Posts: 2746
04/11/09 15:47:02
Not that I am an SDL supporter, but it seems to me SDL got the abrogation of the Constitution they desired, and the Puppet under Voreqe clearly takes responsibility?
Any idiot knows that the "doctrine of necessity" does not apply when there is no necessity. What necessity did you see? The "necessity" of thwarting Parliamentary procedure with respect to the Qoliqoli bill? If you were so afraid of it being debated, why? It must had some really strong points that you would worry it would be passed unamended. No one has ever pointed at any necessity for the 2006 coup, other than to save Voreqe's azz from the gallows since Hughes has the goods on him.
Who created a burden? It is the IG which has dragged the economy down for 2.25 years? It is the IG which has blatantly violated human rights. What are you trying to lay on Qarase, blame for defending the People of Fiji? You nutcase. Please be specific and talk some sense. Shall we blame Chaudhry?
Posts: 1530
04/11/09 22:20:51
Posts: 2751
04/12/09 00:49:26
Posts: 1531
04/12/09 02:36:25
Posts: 7001
04/11/09 14:45:35
gdev has amply demonstrated over here his/her view of God - they don't believe in God. its leverage they use on others when they can't make a way foward with their argument - i've noticed them pulling out the Christianity angle lately (only yesterday one of them pulled it on me - and i was reminded of that hymn we used to sing in school....au kurabui ka galu, kau sa qoroqoro ga)- it looks like its the latest tactic for these SDL guys - they know how itaukei hold religion and God - ITS VERY IMPORTANT - in an itaukei household the only important possession more important then anything else is the Holy Bible - thats why EVERY SINGLE ITAUKEI child knows his or her bible like the back of his or her hand - you learn scripture first before you learn anything else. so since gdev has started with the Christianity angle i have to laugh - seems they've pulled a new tactic out of the bag - the Christianity guilt trip. i thought gdev had already gone lower then low - but they've now gone to a new low, they've descended to using Christianity.
Posts: 1529
04/11/09 15:35:55
Posts: 2747
04/11/09 15:50:59
Share This