But Brother Galvez serves Mark King for Lake I
Mark King
It wasn’t to be the last appearance of Shoman in court today. On behalf of the Martin Galvez, Shoman filed for leave to apply for an election petition regarding Mark King whom they allege did not disclose a contract for security services with the government of Belize as the law mandates. Shoman contends that the Returning Officer Noreen Fairweather was not served with the court documents and that King did not leave his house so instead, his attorney received the documents this morning. As soon as the Schakron motion was denied, Senior Counsel Denys Barrow returned to the chambers of Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin to have the two p.m. court appearance re-scheduled for early next week.
Lisa Shoman
Lisa Shoman
“At this point in time, our next task is to satisfy the Court that there is an arguable case in regards to Mark King and his personal disqualification and I think the media has every right to ask Mark King the same hard questions that you have been asking Yolanda Schakron as to the level of his disqualification, his contract and what that means in terms of his sitting as a Member of House of Representatives. Yesterday at 3:30, the papers arrived at my office for service to Mark King and Noreen Fairweather. Since yesterday we have been making very serious and concerted attempts to serve Mister Mark King; he would not come out of his home to be served, he would not authorize the police to receive on his behalf. Finally this morning, he notified that his attorney, Mister Michael Young should be served and at 8:53 this morning Mr. Michael Young was served on behalf of Mark King. Unfortunately and I have complained to Miss Perdomo, the Crown Counsel, Miss Noreen Fairweather up to eleven o’clock had not accepted service.”
Denys Barrow
Denys Barrow
“That is set for leave to come on Tuesday afternoon at two p.m.”
Jose Sanchez
“Your perspective on the case itself?”
Denys Barrow
“Like I said, I have no clue in relation to that one because I have not seen anything yet.’
Jose Sanchez
“But it is simply because he did not disclose some contract he had as security, Brint’s Security, for I believe that Mahogany Complex and some other facility in Cayo.”
Denys Barrow
“Well you notice that you are giving me the news at this stage. I will do the research and see what the law says in relation to it. I’m certain it is not all contracts which put person afoul of qualification laws, but let’s see. And I don’t know what the facts are in any case. You tell me that a contract exists. The question is: “Does that contract exist?” That’s a good starting point. It does?”
Rowland Parks, Reporter
“It expires in the year 2013.”
Denys Barrow
“No. That’s a legal question.”
Rowland Parks
“If the contract exists or doesn’t exist? It exists.”
Denys Barrow
“Well you see, you are making a ruling.”
Rowland Parks
“I am not making a ruling; I am making a determination that a contract exists.”
Denys Barrow
“I like that. I like that. And these are the things which lawyers in court raise, and can have great scope for arguing—whether legally, for instance, a contract does exists. You may have seen a contract document, but does it have legal effect? You see so all of that. If you’ve seen that document then that’s good. It means they have a starting point.”
Jose Sanchez
“And Mr. King might finish?”
Denys Barrow
“Well there we go. One never knows; one never knows.”
On Monday, the election petition of David Craig versus Herman Longsworth will be heard before Justice Michelle Arana and two additional petitions will be filed on Monday because the registry closed before noon today.
I like how Denys Barrow was very sharp in this interview. Only paralegals and lawyers will understand the correctness of his observations and responses; while the poor newsmen will feel hard done by Denys Barrow’s responses.
This is why Shakespeare said what he said about lawyers. Even in the face of a stated fact that a contract exists and expires in 2013, Mr. Barrow responds, “And these are the things which lawyers in court raise, and can have great scope for arguing—whether legally, for instance, a contract does exists.”
Even worse, it doesn’t matter. The fact that Mr. King did not disclose a conflict of interest goes directly to his integrity. God help us, we’re becoming a corrupt banana republic on every level.
Mellow Blizean above is critical of Barrow, yet it seems he is forgetting that L. Shoman is challenging our choice of representatives whomwe as the voters have elected on March 7. She is telling us that no matter whom we voted for, she has the final say as to which Party won the elections. Does the PUP intend to pursue these senseless petitions to gain power through the courts, or should they not have to win a democratic elelction? WE are opening a can of worms here and from now on after an election there will be endless court cases to answer, and the busniess of governence will be thwarted.
The section of the law Ch 4 section 59 subsection d) deals with disqualification of a House of Rep member for acts AFTER being a house of rep member.
For analogy, suppose a religion states that husband must divorce his wife if his wife shall sleep with another man. A jealous ex boyfriend openly dated the woman prior to the marriage shows the pastor of photos and evidence of their mutual carnal pleasures clearly prior to the marriage in order to destroy the marriage. Do you think the pastor should force the couple to divorce …. I think not LOL.
59.-(1) Every member of the House of Representatives shall vacate his
seat in the House at the next dissolution of the National Assembly after his
election.
(2) A member of the House of Representatives shall also vacate
his seat in the House –
(a) if he is absent from the sittings of the House for such period
and in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the Standing
Orders of the House;
(b) if he ceases to be a citizen of Belize;
(c) subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of the section, if
any circumstances arise that, if he were not a member of the
House of Representatives, would cause him to be disqualified
for election thereto by virtue of section 58 (1) of this
Constitution; or
(d) if he shall become a party to any contract with the government
for or on account of the public service, or if any firm in which
he is a partner or any company of which he is a director or
manager shall become a party to any such contract, or if he
shall become a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a
company which is a party to any such contract:
Not so fast Melinda. Shoman is challenging wrong practices especially with our rights at the polls. UDP pulled the constitution on Shakron. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The way i see it the people were denied their choice at the polls with all the going on at the polls, illegal registrations, with d sudden stepping down of certain people and the list goes on. Shoman is just looking for justice as if it was the other way around, barrow would have the people all over Belmopan right now dragging out the PUP’s and crying foul. These are not senseless petitions and yes a can of worms are being opened. Are you afraid of the outcome?