Can anyone guess what this means
ඡින්වි, යොඋ අරෙ රඉසින්ග් අ ගූඩ් ඉස්සුඑ අබොඋට් අ රෙගුලර් cඅසෙ අන්ඩ් අන් ඉම්පේච්මෙන්ට්? ථන්ක්ස් ෆොර් තට්.
ඇccඔර්ඩින්ග් ටො යොඋර් ක්නොව්ලෙඩ්ගෙ
Encyclopedia of Latest news, reviews, discussions and analysis of stock market and investment opportunities in Sri Lanka
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
slstock wrote:Just for a fun/stress relief...
Can anyone guess what this means
ඡින්වි, යොඋ අරෙ රඉසින්ග් අ ගූඩ් ඉස්සුඑ අබොඋට් අ රෙගුලර් cඅසෙ අන්ඩ් අන් ඉම්පේච්මෙන්ට්? ථන්ක්ස් ෆොර් තට්.
ඇccඔර්ඩින්ග් ටො යොඋර් ක්නොව්ලෙඩ්ගෙ
Exactly that is the point.Someone can argue the parliment is bias and so on like that.......but it is the place where represents the public......Chinwi wrote:slstock wrote:Just for a fun/stress relief...
Can anyone guess what this means
ඡින්වි, යොඋ අරෙ රඉසින්ග් අ ගූඩ් ඉස්සුඑ අබොඋට් අ රෙගුලර් cඅසෙ අන්ඩ් අන් ඉම්පේච්මෙන්ට්? ථන්ක්ස් ෆොර් තට්.
ඇccඔර්ඩින්ග් ටො යොඋර් ක්නොව්ලෙඩ්ගෙ
Chinwi, you are raising a good issue about a regular case and an impeachment? Thanks for that.
According to your knowledge
By the way answer to your question is , as per my knowledge and thinking, he or she cannot and it is not necessary to appeal.
Because at that point he is a rejected person by the Parliament. What is the purpose of hanging out there ? රටක ජනතා පරමාධිපත්යයේ ඉහලම තැනින් ඉවත් කල පසු තව දුරට ඉල්ලීම් කිරීමේ තේරුමක් නැත . මෙම නිතිය ගෙනෙන විට මාසයක කල් හැරීමක් කර ඇත්තේ නම්බු පිටින් කැමැත්තෙන් යන්න දෙන්න බව කලින් අවස්තාවක JR ම කියා ඇත.
No slstock I am talking about situation even after supreme and appeal court(lack of money does not come in to this but still other causes are there.) like in this CJ case.Lay person has to agree the decision of those higher courts like wise CJ has to agree to the decision of the parliment.slstock wrote:Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )
But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.
BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.
Whitebull wrote:There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?
Whitebull wrote:No slstock I am talking about situation even after supreme and appeal court(lack of money does not come in to this but still other causes are there.) like in this CJ case.Lay person has to agree the decision of those higher courts like wise CJ has to agree to the decision of the parliment.slstock wrote:Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )
But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.
BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.
Whitebull wrote:There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?
What gurantee have we got that impartial commottee would be truely impartial ? This may be an endless matter if this is dragged.So in my opinion I think this should end at the level of parliament.If CJ do not agree to the decision made by public representatives then she should go to the decision of actual public ie an election whether to romove or keep the CJslstock wrote:As this is for educational discussion ( as citizens fo Sri lanka) and not politics let me state one thing. What is the role of the supreme court and appeal court? As far as I know they check the legality of a lower court decision after an appeal is made ( correct me here someone who know more).
There is no option here for CJ right now. Agree to what the parliament committe said or resign. No opportunity to be given chance to say her side.
Court verdict or impeachment :
do we want to be accused of things without giving us an opportunity to explain? I would not be happy. I hope you see my point here.
Atleast she should be given a hearing in front of an impartial committee and an opportunity to reply to accusations or decide to resign( which is an option)
Again , I am talking civic right in a democratic society. I really think president should revisit this to show transparency of our society to the public and world. It will be wise.
IF CJ cannot prover her innocence after an appeal/impartial hearing she should be removed. CJ also has responsibility to uphold her postion and act upon the high trust placed on it.
Whitebull wrote:No slstock I am talking about situation even after supreme and appeal court(lack of money does not come in to this but still other causes are there.) like in this CJ case.Lay person has to agree the decision of those higher courts like wise CJ has to agree to the decision of the parliment.slstock wrote:Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )
But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.
BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.
Whitebull wrote:There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?
Last edited by D.G.Dayaratne on Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:43 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : to explain more)
slstock wrote:As this is for educational discussion ( as citizens fo Sri lanka) and not politics let me state one thing. What is the role of the supreme court and appeal court? As far as I know they check the legality of a lower court decision after an appeal is made ( correct me here someone who know more).
There is no option here for CJ right now. Agree to what the parliament committe said or resign. No opportunity to be given chance to say her side.
Court verdict or impeachment :
do we want to be accused of things without giving us an opportunity to explain? I would not be happy. I hope you see my point here.
Atleast she should be given a hearing in front of an impartial committee and an opportunity to reply to accusations or decide to resign( which is an option)
Again , I am talking civic right in a democratic society. I really think president should revisit this to show transparency of our society to the public and world. It will be wise.
IF CJ cannot prover her innocence after an appeal/impartial hearing she should be removed. CJ also has responsibility to uphold her postion and act upon the high trust placed on it.
Whitebull wrote:No slstock I am talking about situation even after supreme and appeal court(lack of money does not come in to this but still other causes are there.) like in this CJ case.Lay person has to agree the decision of those higher courts like wise CJ has to agree to the decision of the parliment.slstock wrote:Whitebull, what you are saying applies mostly to a person who get a bad judgement after a trial or lack a good lawyer. Then there is appeal and supreme court. What you are stating is complex issue about inefficency of a legal system. These lapses in law can happen in any country and in any system.
(if one is persistent , I guess there are other options which I do nto want to state here. )
But the issue here is simpler. It is about parliament judgement without an appeal process.
BTW Wiki post clarifies somethings.
Whitebull wrote:There are definite shortcoming of these systems.If a lay person does not receive proper justice in judicial system due to,slstock wrote:Okay lets keep this simple. As a democracy, if a citizen of the country ( CJ) wants someone to hear his/her appeal after being tried in the parliament where will he/she go? Is there no way.
1.lack of evidences
2.False evidence
3.deliberately hidden evidences
4.lack of money to hire a good lawyer
5.......................etc
where can he go ?
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™ » DAILY CHRONICLE™ » Sri Lanka court issues notice to parliamentary committee that probed Chief Justice
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum