Hewitt appeals CJ’s ruling
(CNS): Lawyers representing the petitioner who challenged the election of Tara Rivers to her West Bay seat have filed an appeal, despite indications in the constitution that the local Grand Court has the final word on challenges to elections. The lawyers pointed to what they say are at least nine “serious errors” by Chief Justice Anthony Smellie in his judgment last month. Therefore, John Hewitt, the husband of Velma Hewitt, who ran as a UDP candidate against the Coalition for Cayman member but lost, is asking the Cayman islands Court of Appeal to review the arguments. Hewitt is asking for clarity on both Rivers’ US citizenship and passport and the finding that Allen & Overy law is an “educational establishment”.
The appeal also addresses section 66 of the Constitution on the basis that the original petition challenges referred to constitutional not election law issues, calling for a need for the CICA to intervene as constitutional interpretation must remain open to appeal.
Check back to CNS later for full details of the challenge.
Category: Politics
This man needs to sit down and understand that this is not the path to prestige or having an honourable wife. On both counts he has already lost. Accept defeat sir and move on. Far away!
The legal fees for this should be something to behold in the end.
These people really need to accept their loss and get on with their lives. Based on the comments here and those I hear on the street, this action has certainly not earned Velma any points. Her political 'career' never officially started and it is unlikely it ever will, at least ntot in West Bay.
This woman (forget papa smurf…he's just a pawn…well so is she for that matter!) has dropped off the grid on my respect-o-meter…!
The things that she has done since coming onto the political scene has been appalling! XXXX
The challenge to a very valid and extremely successful win for a very capable and very deserving CAYMANIAN!…
The ridiculous appeal to a very detailed and fair judgment…
XXXX
West Bay, heed this warning. Take care when TOLD who to choose. Do not blindly follow the shepherd who is really just a wolf in sheepherder's clothing.
Velma, STOP this NOW! You were once the chairperson of an organisation which uplifted WOMEN in this country! Your reputation has been destroyed and very few can mention your name without a curl on their lips in disgust of your behaviour. END it. Try to salvage what little is left and be done.
07.32-according to the election results, they were on no-one's respectometer !
Long story short. They have a case. Until there is no more to discuss then let it go. Obviously, there is something worth appealing. They have that right. And if someone has found the ability and reason to openthe “books” again, then do so. We can only learn from it. We spent more money on other cases that STILL haven’t been settled to this day. So what’s one more of national importance?
Nope. The constitution says they DO NOT have that right. This is a waste of time and money when we should be getting on with the affairs of the country.
Double facepalm, triple & quad! Ms. Hewitt said "i am satisfied with the Chief Justices' decision!!!! It"s Maclicious who isn't satisfied isn't it? What a DISGRACE!! Is this really how we should treat our young women??? Even when they have honestly bettered themselves. What a DISGRACE!!
Ok Ok Santa Claus – Christmas is 3 months away!
Some people just hate to lose. And why isn't his wife the petitioner? This makes them both look pathetic and childish. Move on people!
On the flip side folks, had the Chief Justice ruled against the Honorable Tara Rivers, would the persons who are now supporting her, support her if she decided to appeal against the ruling? Or would you discourage her and say “The Chief Justice has spoken leave it alone? Would you guys not say that she deserves to appeal? Folks we are not the courts, if the Hewitt’s chose to appeal, it should be their right to do so. What is to be will be! Everyone should be learning a little bit of something from this petition. It’s not all bad coming out of this. Sit back relax and be educated at their expense after all we are all in an “educational environment” whether we are being paid or not.
Always as I see it!
Well said.
Never a dull moment when the reality-challenged have access to lawyers…
The ruling is good for Cayman.
Competance and world experience trumps crab-ing-the-bucket entitlement.
Velma, Big M and Gordon: GET OVER IT! If these jokers were listening to the Rooster Cross Talk show this morning and now reading the comments in this feed they would hand their heads in shame! Caymanians are fed up with this! Go volunteer somewhere and do some good for your country!
This is vexing. After all that these people just put this country though and here they are at it again! One of whom is a foreigner by the way, He had better return to the country of his birth and start exercising his legal rights there! Sick of this!
All are missing the bigger picture. And that is determining the interpretation of the Constitution. This is a very, very important challenge and should go all the way. BTW I couldn't care less who represents the constituency as I have no stake in any of this.
It has gone all the way. The constitution says the decision of the Grand Court is final and binding and not subject to any appeal. The Hewitts just need to accept that and move on.
One is a foreigner? Shame on you and your xenophobic evil heart.
These islands were founded by expats (no indigenous indians) and generations have come here to better these islands. The original families were mostly missionaries, are you going to fault those foreigners too?
Unless you can trace yourself back to Pedro I suggest you stop your expat bashing as I am SURE that this "One of Whom is a foreigner" has paid his dues in this fair land far more than YOU have ever contributed. This is not about us vs them and your small minded ways are the fuel for ignorance. This is a matter of law and not the people that ran for election….that ship has sailed, what is at stake here is our future law and how we address our children who may have been born overseas or seek work to better themselves, but may wish to come back and run for office?
This is not about expat vs local, it is about how we will look at the laws, now and in the future. We all agree this was a pretty flimsy argument,and support Tara or not, it is not about the people involved, it is now about the LAWS.
Pedro? I think you mean Old Isaacs!
You are still a foreigner!
Aarrgh……..give it up mate.
Gordon posted several comments on F/Book congratulating Tara Rivers and saying in essence that she won fair and square…..I thought that was rather manly of him to accept this and it was the end of this lunacy. Now I am wondering who really is behind this appeal since it didn't sound to me like Gordon wrote the letter he signed in the first place and if Velma is not behind it (being she was the candidate) then she should woman up and say so and try to save face…..otherwise she will have totally lost any credibility she has left by pandering to Mac, Steve, and all the other less than stellar UDP cronies. Seriously Velma I had you in higher esteem than this but you have tarnished your own record for me. Come clean and I may reconsider.
You have voiced 'bout near everything that I was thinking. Thank you!
If we wanted Velma ….we would have voted her in….but Hey we wanted Tara….NEXT TIME….MAYBE I SUPPOSE
She already lost twice. Third time's the charm?
I have to agree with many of the posters here.What exactly is this going to achieve?Hewitt was saying after the last court session that the Judge has made his mind up on all this and she basically acepted this or am I wrong?More sour grapes?Who is pushing this so hard?Its time to move along and get on with whats best for this country.Harmony with everyone working for our childrens future. and the betterment of the Cayman Islands as a whole.This certainly WILL NOT help that situation.
I say clean her out lawyers lmao! Maybe she & udp will learn then lol!
I actually support the appeal.
Not only because it is provided for within our legal system, but because the CJ's judgement does not sit well with me.
In my opinion, it creates an air of ambiguity that could very well come back to bit us all in the butt down the road. When it comes to these issues we should have no tolerance for such a reality.
Although primarily concerned therewith, greater minds realize that this case extends far beyond that of Tara vs. Velma.
May justice be served and the future of our frail democracy safeguarded.
Of course you do. Which only makes. And Whodatis, Almost everything you self worshipping Caymanians to da bone have done will most definitely bite you in da butt down da road. Justice was already served. Just not the tribal justice you are used to.
I am sorry – were you in the court room? Did you read the judgment or hear it with your own ears!? I have to keep telling people that the media could never accurately and succinctly relay to the reading public that which was a marvel to behold. Not only did the CJ fairly and comprehensively consider BOTH sides of the argument, he took most care and diligence with laying out his judgment every single step of the way. He broke it down and built it up. He most fairly considered every element, every sentence, every thought. EVEN the challengers had to comment on it. BUT whoever it REALLY driving this did not get what they wanted, so off we go again.
The CJs reputation is on the line here. He could NEVER have come to the conclusion that he did without ample and convincing back up for his judgment. He clearly put much thought in it – to the exclusion of all else I am sure!
It is good. Gooood.
Yes we should all agree on CJs judgement and take his ruleing and amend this law that Mac has made to protect himself against people like Tara which is smarter more educated than him. Look who is behind this NOT Whelma or her husband.
Shut Up. Just shut up. Next we will be hearing that the UK is setting this up and has something to do with it. Go fly a kite or something. But shut up already.
Noting sits well with you whodatis. Is the UK to blame for this one too? Anything democratic or decided through the courts is not in your faovur…I wonder why? Something to hide?
(Just read the replies to my post.)
Wth??
Can a fella not simply express his honest opinion (like everyone else here on CNS) without being so violently virtually assaulted?
Was it something I said? If so, then what exactly?
Or was the vitriolic response simply out of frustration because simple and clear points were made in my post?
Anyway, I hope you guys read your own posts and identify the hatred within yourselves because … damn!
🙂
I can understand the reasoning behind the passport issue and I beleive that Mr Smellie has clarified that issue for the future. It does not mean that Mr Christian has a right now to appeal and demand anything because frankly that judgement by the Chief Justice did not exist at the time MrChristain was given advice etc which was apparently guided by the AG's office. For the future however the matter is now clear.
On the issue of residency however, it is very hard to understand the reasoning behind the conclusion that a law firm is an educational establishment. Or at best to accept that this is in the spirit of the constitution.
I think Velma and others should probably leave this alone. But that does not make the decision by the Chief Justice correct just because it is popular and probably the most efficient thing to do at the time. Its perfectly ok for us to say "we wish Tara all the best and we prefer for her to be our leader" while at the same time acknowledging that the decision just does seems plain wrong (or for a layman definitely raises eyebrows) from a legal perspective.
Some crabs just can't stop trying to crawl out de bucket…
Sorry, Chief Justice Anthony Semelie is human and human and is not infallible. In my opinion the decision that was made has set a precedent.
a. an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequence similar instances.
b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequence similar cases -a landmark decision that set legal precedent.
c. An example on instance used to justify later similar occurrences.
This decision has opened the door for any citzen from another country to be illegible for a position in our Government Cabinet.
THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!
Clearly you don't understand the decision.This is not the effect of the decision. For someone to be eligible for election in the Cayman Islands they must be born in the Cayman Islands with at least one Caymanian parent or grandparent or if born outside the Cayman Islands they must likewise have Caymanian parentage. So pray tell how does that make someone not connected to Cayman eligible to sit in our LA ? The CJ's decision is absolutely correct !
Exactly correct. But politricks is at work.
Poster, I see your point, however bear in mind that it was also a stated prerequisite for candidates to be resident in the Cayman Islands for 7 years prior to election day.
Up until this case that was considered a straightforward concept. Clearly this is no longer the case.
Interestingly, your outline of the prerequisites for someone to be considered eligible to contest a seat in the LA appear very "straightforward" as well.
Nevertheless, we all see how "bent-backward" these concepts can become.
Therefore, I trust you appreciate why some people consider it necessary and useful to fully explore this matter i.e. refer to the highest court(s) possible to ensure thorough consideration.
Whodatis – no one really focussed on the meaning of "resides" in the Constitution before and there is plenty of case law to support the CJ's point that one may be resident in more than one jurisdiction at the same time. He did not invent that as you seem to think.
It has already been considered by the highest court that has jurisdiction to consider it under the Constitution. You of all people should be happy that we have shut out the UK Privy Council from these matters.
This dog won't hunt.
I discuss and analyze issues but my respondents steadfastly discuss and analyze Whodatis.
Your aggressive and personal stance is not befitting to what I hoped would be a reasoned and balanced debate.
He did answer properly and courtesy whodatis. You didn't like it and went on an attack with no answer yourself. Mad as a March hare.
Hogwash! The last paragraph: What an ignorant statement !
You're saying that anyone can be eligible? Sorry, don't quite follow.
Your opinion is noted. As just another opinion. As for your last sentence that seems to be the only way Cayman will EVER have competent leadership. But that is just my opinion.
Uh… the last sentence is "THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!" How exactly does that get us competent leadership? You know the old domino saying: Think long, you play wrong.
May I add another opinion? It was said that is "the only way Cayman will EVER have competent leadership." It's not the only way, but considering what we've had for leadership in the last few years, I'd say, "Yes, we HAVE NOT had competent leadership!" And another thing. What does Anonymous 14:58 mean when he says, "This decision has opened the door for any citzen from another country to be illegible for a position in our Government Cabinet."? Illegible??? Does that mean the citizen from another country can't be read?
Oh Cayman! An island of 25000 judges! Experts everyone of them!
"This decision has opened the door for any citzen from another country to be illegible for a position in our Government Cabinet".
Ummmm…no it hasn't! For goodness sakes people, please at least read the relevant section of the Constitution and the Judgment before commenting.
Section 61(2)(b) of the Constitution reads: "For the purposes of subsection (1)(d), a qualified citizen is a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of his connection with the Cayman Islands, who either
(a)…; or
(b) was born outside the Cayman Islands, has or had at least one parent or grandparent who was born in the Cayman Islands and is a Caymanian (of if deceased would if alive have been a Caymanian at the date at the date nomination for election), and who at the date of his or her nomination possesses no other citizenship save for any right he or she may have to some other citizenship by virture of his or her birth outside the Cayman Islands.
In this respect, all the Judgment decides is that "right to some other citizenship…" means a citizenship acquired as of right by virtue of the candidate's birth outside the Islands as distinct from a citizenship acquired by naturalisation or by descent. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously one must be a Caymanian, have British overseas territories citizenship and have at least one Caymanian parent or grandparent if born outside the Islands in order to qualify under this provisions. It is absolutely false to say that the decision opens the door for any citizen of another country to be eligible for a position in our Government Cabinet.
The last thing we need now is disinformation and hysteria.
They must be desperate for this salary!
Now really and truly can this BS come to an end. Is this the way Velma is displaying a vested interest into the people of this country?! There are other ways of becoming a leader within her community. There are enough problems which need to be resolved wihout her and her husband adding to them. Tara won the voters and Velma did not. Velma and her husband just need to get over it and allow Tara the opportunity to attempt to do her job. There are Caymanians out of jobs and more losing their jobs everyday. Consequently, these unemployed people are losing their homes and cannot support their children and other responsibilities. Tara needs to be focused on this and not on neverending silly childish lawsuits. The voters choose Tara and if Tara fails to do the job then the voters will not vote for her again. Until then allow Tara to fail or succeed on her own without the constant interruption! If you want to do something beneficial and constructive for your community try mentor a peace treaty between the warring gangs in West Bay or at less make an attempt to address it. FYI, someone else got shot again saturday night. Try do some community service or offer assistance to the voted members of the LA in doing this community service. It is downright shameful that in the past few years a political leader in West Bay has yet to address this ongoing issue!!!
This will be a quick one for the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal – I opine that the decision will go something like this – The Cayman Islands Constitution Order, 2009, clearly sets out in section 66(1) that the decision of an election petition by the Grand Court is "final and not subject to any appeal". To enquire into related matters of constitutional interpretation would be akin to allowing an appeal in circumstances where there is none. We, therefore, conclude that we have no jurisdiction to hear this matter. Appeal dismissed !. Next case please……..
Not so sure. The protection of constitutional rights are of paramount importance and the Privy Council has affirmed that on several occasions in recent years. The judgment is widely viewed as wrong on important on basic constitutional issues and the Court of Appeal, albeit it a statutory body, has the power to review constitutional questions. The right of citizens not to have their constitutional rights infringed is of such importance that I doubt the Court of Appeal will let a judgment stand if they think it is clearly wrong.
The judgment is not widely viewed as wrong by lawyers who have actually read the judgment.
Not by you anyway!
The Court of Appeal has no power to review constitutional issues except on appeal from the Grand Court which, in the case case of Election Petitions, has been excluded by the constitution. The CA cannot invent a jurisdiction which is not provided in the Constitution. It is creature of and subject to the Constitution.
Velma should be suing the AG because it was his incompetency in the first place that cause this issue by declaring that Mr. Christian was not eligible.
Such political hostility because of a difference of opinion, my goodness. The CJ got this wrong and the country is supposed to be run by the rule of law. If the Appeals process agrees than a by-election will no doubt occur and if not then so be it.
The vitriolic comments when people disagree need to cease. The difference of opinion is good as many people mistakenly see all Caymanians and all Expats as the same within their respective groups.
Anyone who is awake knows that this is untrue.
Most people know the election laws have been ignored in Cayman and they need to be respected and followed for the good of democracy.
I don't know how someone with a US Passport actually ran in a Cayman election as it was my understanding that it was illegal.
Read the CJ decission when it comes to the US Passport.
Lots of power and mony at stake.
THAT is why politicians are politicians. Personal gain ONLY . . . . .
I hope your lawyer clean you out! The buttom line the country didn’twant you!
Caymanian
Do you really think SHE hired the lawyer(s)? I don't. I'm looking higher up.
Cry more!
C'mon Son!
Less QQ
Hope it works Mr. Hewitt. The decision stank to the high heavens!
If you watch the Cayman27 video from the day of CJ ruling,Velma, joined by her husband, thanks the CJ for clarifying the constitution and says "we" stand by the ruling. Check it out …
It is not Velma or John but MacKeeva! Do not forget what Tara said about MacKeeva, during the General Elections campaigb of 2009. And it is not MacKeeva's money footing the legal bill! Power and greed is and the Love of money is an awful thing!
Sorry Velma Dear – if you want to have a seat in Parliament then you have to wait until NEXT-NEVER…
Enough! West Bay knew her background and voted for her. So the people chose her, and the CJ made a ruling. Move on. You will have your chance again in few years.
I am sure Steve is just looking legal fees now that he lost his cushy job with McKeeva. Hewitts cant see that????
Lets move on Cayman….if WB wanted Velma they would have voted for her. Please, its time to go away.
What I still can't get over is the argument that possession of a foreign passport shows allegiance to a foreign government… last time I checked a passport was a travel document and as with any travel document convenience is key… When I was still in my Mother’s arms my father applied for a British passport for me. It is a passport which has served me well and is virtually waived through most immigration lines! I did not sign any applications, I did not take any oaths… I couldn't read, write, nor speak at the time! I have renewed this passport at the necessary intervals as my father did before me (because it is convenient to do so… I would find it very hard to travel without my passport after all). Now, if Ms. Rivers was given a US passport as an infant, this would obviously be of great convenience when travelling to the US… something the average Caymanian does on very regular intervals… the US passport grants you access to shorter immigration lines after all. And anyone who’s been to Miami Airport would probably chew their left arm off for a short immigration line! That being said, those with US passports have to file tax returns, something I would find very inconvenient but probably still worth it when compared to lining up behind a flight from Liberia in that 4 mile long lineup in Santiago del Miami… (do they even speak English in that city anymore?!). As far as I’m concerned, the CJ’s ruling was sensible one and will be upheld… I doubt Tara Rivers can sing beyond the first line of the Star-Bangled Banner or recite the pledge of allegiance… but I’d bet my bottom dollar she can sing all of God Save the Queen and Beloved Isle Cayman!
UDP plan. If we can own the governemnt we will disrupt it.
$$$ / UDP / Steve McField
As usual, the lawyers will be the only winners here.
After this the rules need to be changed for overseas work or study to reflect that it is more important to have a time residency imposed before running for office. Perhaps a residency requirement to enable a candidate to understand their district's needs. 36 months prior to running should suffice and not impact the career of someone seeking to better themselves abroad.
Whether or not she pays taxes in the US does not constitute allegiance to the US. As a US Citizen by BIRTH she has to file and pay taxes where necessary,. Thats the law of the land – thats the price that foreigners pay when they travel to the USA for whatever reason and have their children there the are US Citizens. Sharon Roulstone was completely different she was not born in the US but chose to apply for US citizenship based on her father's US citizenship. Completely different Tara's citizenship was not a choice Sharon's was. No matter what Tara does even if she was to renounce her citizenship her birthplace will still be listed as the great old US of A. Sharon will have no record of this save the distant memory of having applied for it.
Here is the bigger question. If the ruling is upheld, wouldn’t the other candidates with similiar circumstances who withdrew be entitled to punitive damages, and how does one put a dollar figure on such? Moreover, which is more cost effictive, a bi-election or court settlements?
Punitive Damages?! You assume that someone could prove they would have won were they allowed to run? That'll be a fun day in court…
Are you kidding me? What another waste of time and money and when I say time or money I mean the publics purse!! I can only hope the Court of Appeal 1) denies the request which would save alot of time or 2) uphold the local Grand Court's ruling. Either way can we the public then sue the petitioner for wasting our valuable courts time, money and expenses. Time wasted on this appeal is time wasted on Ms. Rivers actually focusing on and doing some good with the education system now for our children. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a West Bat voter nor do I know or knew of Ms. Rivers before election…I am just tired of wasting time, money and the mentality Caymanians seem to adapt towards each other "crabs in a bucket" never wanting to see the other Caymanian succeed, rather use efforts to fight each other down. How about Mrs. Hewitt try on working with Ms. Rivers put both ideas together rather than working with against her. If we all put the good of our Islands together, this place would be much better off!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………enjoy your legal bill Velma.
You think she's paying for this?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Let's hope we all don't get to pay it out of public funds!
McField & Dabdoud are sure milking this one for all it's worth! Poor Velma, all she will end up with is a huge legal bill including the bills for government and for Tara.
As she will deserve!
Velma and Gordon not paying the bills…Suspect the UDP machine is driving this
No matter how much you like Tara and the fact that the PPM has brought on board several independents although they did not have to (both excellent news), you have to question this judgment.
Over 50% of our economy is built on clear and stable rule of law; the financial industry is at risk and with it, a big part of all the other industries. How can the AG office issue an opinion that leads to a letter to a candidate telling him he can't run because he had a US passport and now Tara is eligible with a passport plus having been out of the country? Was she on a student VISA or a WP equivalent? Did she pay income taxes in the UK? Does she pay taxes in the US? If she does isn’t this allegiance? If she doesn’t, isn’t she violating the law?
This can't go without the room for an appeal and proper analysis, there is much more at stake here.
If she was a "student" or she was "resident" then I am Michael J Mouse.
Pleased to meet you, MJM!
Hi Mickey, pleased to meet you.
"Does she pay taxes in the US?"… if you buy a pack of chewing gum in the US you pay tax on it… does that mean you have sworn allegience to a foreign government by buying a pack of gum?! If I own a house in the UK I pay council tax so that the garbage man comes round… does this mean I have sworn and allegiance? How can you possibly equate the payment of tax as allegiance? Seriously… think before you post something!
Paying taxes while you are temporarily in the jurisdiction does not of course amount to acknowledgement of allegiance. However, paying income taxes or indeed filing tax returns when you do not reside in the jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that you are a U.S. citizen may amount to an acknowledgment of obedience to a foreign state.
To become a solicitor, after qualifying you have to get a training contract with a law firm which usually lasts for 2 years in the UK. In reality, solicitors need certain levels of PQE (Post Qualified Experience) before they can undertake certain tasks. For example, a 1 year PQE solicitor is legally unable to supervise an office – they have to be 3 years PQE before they are allowed to, and also have passed a management course recognised by the Law Society. Before taking a job as an Attorney in Cayman it is recommended that you have at least 3 years PQE. I believe Ms Rivers' Counsel was probably taking this (sensible) stance.
Strangely and sadly I must agree. I find the ruling to be a real stretch of the law. For me I want Tara in there but not this way. I see it as cheating or skirting the system of law to make her fit. BUT I say this. It is time to move on. We need to get on with REBUILDING what the UDP tore down and the PPM Government will need all the time they have to make even a DENT in the destruction left behind by the lackluster, underperforming, hidden agenda driven UDP government.
In my opinion, this is nothing more than another distraction in their hope that Tara will not succeed as a result of it. However, Tara is a very, very smart individual and I have every faith that she iill succeed and do a great job for these Islands.
Why do you equate taxes and allegiance?
Tax is levied on income and on those resident, how can that imply allegiance?
The real issue is not that she earned money and paid tax, but was she earning it whilst in education. If, as I do, you believe that Caymanians must obtain experience at the highest level to stop the import of that experience, then you must accept that it is a learning process vital to the Islands' well being. The CJ may have stretched the limits of definitions in deciding that she was in education, but to my mind that is what was needed for the long term good of Caymanians.
I read the judgement all 57 pages. These comments largely suggest that few others have. We need to stop holding on to our emotions on this issue and take the time to properly understand the legal perspectives which led to the CJ's decision.
CNS posted the judgment, read it.
I am not a WB voter, nor am I aligned to Tara in anyway. This situation is NOT about Tara personally, its about a reality which faces many Caymanins who were born elsewhere. I am one so I get it. Tara did nothing wrong. By running in the recent elections, she has tested the law based on her view that she was eligible to run. You may not like her for doing this, you may not like her at all. Both perspectives are irrelevant. I seriously doubt that intelligent as she is, she set out to be at the centre of this maelstrom. That said, she as cleared the way for any other Caymanian going forward. This is how change comes about. This is how history gets written. Sadly, . our past is littered with nepotism, graft and corruption. That way writes history too, it destroys a people in the process. We went to the brink, we need to all get involved to bring our society forward to a good place.
This ruling is the first time we have had an interpretation of the intent of the constitution. This does mean that our earlier impressions were just that determinations which no longer hold true post this judgement being handed down. The framers of the constitution were right to remove the right of appeal. If not, we could see unrest dragging on forever and ever. Lets stop being so narrow minded and honour the foundational instruments of our islands. Lets start to focus on helping to rebuild a more stable society where safety, and growth of diverse industries are priority.
Now that we have this solidly researched decision, lets just turn our hearts and minds to what each of us can and should do to support a better way forward. Look at this weekend, shooting each other has now become a sport here it seems, at least in West Bay.
We have little time to revel in the quality of youth football this past weekend, we are busy focused on shootings.
Let it go, accept that there are actually learned counsel in these islands capable of producing such documents like this judgement. Let us take pride that we have real independence in our judicial system.
What a sore loser!!! When will they stop with this crap…West Bay wanted her. They rejected Velma…Velma go sit down…Enough of this already!!!
I know – what happened to her "I accept the courts decision' statement?
Woman, have some decency and sit back down and leave the competent, elected to do their job.
If you had any hopes of running in the future you have just knocked that on the head as we will all remember how you cost the country unnecessary money when it can ill afford it.
Stop listening to McKeeva and do the right thing. You will get a lot more respect.
West Bay may have preferred Bill Clinton, but he wasn't eligible either.
Gift for the Court of Appeal this one. No chance that terrible judgment can stand up to scrutiny on either the "study" or "residence" issues. I would recommend to the appellants to leave the passport questions out of the appeal.
LOL. McField & Co. are going to be thrown out on their ears and have to pay the costs of the other parties to this nonsense. While it is not a decision I might necessarily have come to it is not so unreasonable that it can be called a nullity, and you cannot use "interpretation of the constitution" as a backdoor way of overturning a decision which the constitution says is final and binding.
Oh get a life and stop wasting everyone's time and money!!! You lost, get over it.
Not only should they both get a life but they should also both get the hell of here and start moaning in the country they both decide to reisde in. Honestly, Billy no mates is determined to embarrass themselves. MOVE ON REALLY
Wow. I never saw that coming……
Some pepole are such "Sore Losers" !!! If the Court of Appeal upholds the judgement, I hope the rerspondent/defendant makes a claim for legal cost which is granted in full.
People who can't spell judgment as it is used in this context probably have nothing worthwhile to add.
And if they overturn the judgment…..? Then they would't be losers, but winners, and would have the right to their costs. Be careful what you wish for.
When they lost and came out of court to be interviewed by reporters, the Hewitt's were so humble and polite I began to see them as simply seeking clarification as they said. They congratulated Tara and indicated this was the end of the matter now that clarification had been given. I admired their mature attitude at the time… but this casts a different light – now I know they really are sore LOSERS!
Go pepole go pepole go pepole???!!!
Who cares now. get a life. move on, . not even elected and already making goverment wasting so much time and money. lets hope your kids are not afforded a chance to go away to study. Then it will be another argument when they back. Best you can do is fight to have the laws adjusted to acomodate our young educated men and women in such circumstances. Or just get back in the bucket please.
I agree that this is not about the person or the election. But point of law and it is important. Tara could have paid up her taxes for 6 years and filed to give up her passport under the rule of running for governemt in a foreign country. She intead tried to play both sides of the fence and I believe her act of renewing her passport as an adult was a plain acceptance of US citizenship by choice and not birth.
For the future, yes DO adjust the laws to accomdodate working overseas. However, that is not the question. The legal case has to be heard and judged on the facts, period. This is not about the election or the person- it is about the law.
WHAT A HOT MESS!! Personally I believe that of the two ladies Tara is much more able to hold the Ministry of Education and Velma does not stand a chance because the PPM has other choices, but this entire charade is becoming trifling. Honesty is still the best policy and the loser here is the Cayman Islands Government. The Premier should fill this vacuum and get on with the proper running of the country; freeing up Tara's time to prepare for another round in this battle This stress of this has to be a hindrance in the proper running of the Ministry!!
Don't worry, it will be over in 2 weeks and Tara will still be at her desk in the GOAB.