tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-244169556013330899.post7350099355508389704..comments2024-03-25T10:49:43.277-04:00Comments on The Rag: NUGGETS FROM THE COMMENTS SECTIONRobin Montanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06124205516547312381noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-244169556013330899.post-1657747862629960412020-03-05T08:58:07.721-04:002020-03-05T08:58:07.721-04:00I am continually amazed by the amount of informati...I am continually amazed by the amount of information available on this subject. What you presented was well researched and well worded in order to get your stand on this across to all your readers.<br /><a href="https://wiecejwarzyw.pl/2019/06/pieczone-nuggetsy-z-kalafiora/" rel="nofollow">pieczone nuggetsy z kalafiora przepis</a><br />lilly wisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09166764030181727276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-244169556013330899.post-59578166689011304822010-01-11T02:15:28.265-04:002010-01-11T02:15:28.265-04:00Chester,
This excerpt from the Express of Sat Jan...Chester,<br /><br />This excerpt from the Express of Sat Jan 9 tells all, I hope you did not bet too much on your position.<br /><br />At no point did Mr Solomon or anyone else submit that the evidence was untrue, nor has this subsequently been asserted. While Mr Solomon did indicate he would contend that the evidence was inadmissible, no cogent ground in support of such inadmissibility has ever been put forward,’ Uff stated in a draft affidavit filed in the High Court late yesterday.<br /><br />Uff said during a private meeting, Solomon attempted to persuade the commissioners not to put the declarations of Khan on the website at all.<br /><br />’By the end of the second meeting, it was clearer to me that we could not continue receiving submissions in private and that the declarations had to be made public,’ Uff said.<br /><br />He said that ’far from demonstrating any bias against UDeCOTT, the fact that the commissioners agreed to meet with counsel for UDeCOTT and Mr Hart in private session, was an exceptional concession in their favour’.<br /><br />In relation to the allegations of the family link, Uff said the fact that Khan was prepared to give formal evidence of his claims had potential repercussions: if they were true, Hart’s own evidence was false, and the propriety of the contract to the Malaysian firm was thrown into doubt.<br /><br />He stated that it was open to UDeCOTT and to Hart to challenge Khan’s evidence on their own or in cross-examination, but no such challenge has been made.<br /><br />Uff stated that he could not see any basis on which the evidence of Khan could be challenged as inadmissible and the contention of UDeCOTT and Hart that it was, had never been explained. He said there was nothing sensational of Khan’s evidence, as UDeCOTT and Solomon claim, but rather it ’challenged the truthfulness’ of Hart’s evidencebenjiman siohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05912038208604324399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-244169556013330899.post-64297807651119475172010-01-11T01:52:57.260-04:002010-01-11T01:52:57.260-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.benjiman siohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05912038208604324399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-244169556013330899.post-58380469669952399812009-12-10T11:34:37.724-04:002009-12-10T11:34:37.724-04:00Perhaps Mr. Montano has a better legal insight, bu...Perhaps Mr. Montano has a better legal insight, but my understanding from hearing Mr. Solomon, the lawyer for UDeCOTT speak about this on Tuesday is the following:<br /><br />1. By not challenging the Khan statutory declaration, it will go into evidence as unchallenged.<br />2. Calder Hart gave evidence in his deposition that directly opposes that claims of Mr. Kahn. So, Mr. Khan's statements have indeed, for the intents and purposes of these hearings been challenged.<br />3. Mr. Hart's lawyers ascribe so little credibility to Mr. Khan that they did not want to give him the opportunity to say anything more in public with the purported intent of smearing the Harts.<br /><br />There is a press release that addresses this specific issue on the udecott website.<br /><br />All that being said, what Chairman Uff concluded on Tuesday afternoon was that. Mr. Khan and Mr. Hart had made conflicting statements and that the commission has not (yet) chosen to accept the validity of one statement over then other.<br /><br />These are the facts. Now perhaps some brief personal opinion. I have a tough time believing the accusations of Mr. Khan. If you look at his statutory declaration (was posted in full on the guardian web-site a few days ago), it is unfathomable to me how much attention he has gotten, it is a four paragraph piece that could have been written by a smart sixth grader and has not a single shred of hard evidence attached to it...<br /><br />And since Mr. Khan's declaration has been made public, no shred of hard evidence has been found to support his allegations. No birth certificates. No genealogies. No interviews with family members, teachers or neighbors in Malaysia. No letter to the board of Sunway's Malaysian parent company, nothing... this is all about as suspicious as any rumor I have heard about the Harts. <br /><br />Then take into account the fact that Mr. Khan is Sherrine Hart's ex-husband and you have a compelling motive for him to go out and try to harm her.<br /><br />Honestly I would not be one bit shocked if the Commission even without cross-examination concludes that Mr. Khan's evidence is not credible even knowing everything you know about Calder Hart.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109926128656426759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-244169556013330899.post-30743267628928888752009-12-09T20:52:51.533-04:002009-12-09T20:52:51.533-04:00Thank you for your response.
May I point out that...Thank you for your response.<br /><br />May I point out that I am in full agreement with you, as you would recall at the beginning of the enquiry, many had called for <a href="http://www.newsday.co.tt/editorial/0,105589.html" rel="nofollow">Mr. Israel Khan SC</a> to step down. His serving on the CoE presented a real opportunity for this thing to be dismantled and thrown out the window, but it went on nonetheless inclusive of Mr. Khan. So I am agreeing with you.<br />Like you, I am convinced that all is not well with this Udecott affair, and there are too many unanswered questions, on the part of all sides. Even those who have called for this Enquiry, I am careful to not fully support any one side because what they champion may somehow resemble what I stand for. What I am saying is that before Udecott, the very complainants were very aware of all that was wrong pertaining to this sector, but at that time there was no urgent need to change anything (it served its purpose); I would say no more on that, for unlike you I have no court cloths and I definitely can’t afford you.<br />The coming weeks would be very interesting. Presently, some new developments (antics) have emerged, we see that the Harts has no intention of challenging Mr. Carl Khan’s statements, what would this mean for the validity of his statements?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com