標題: Air Max 98 Gundam Price Kissoon’s lawyer [打印本頁] 作者: god6manx63 時間: 2018-6-1 21:16 標題: Air Max 98 Gundam Price Kissoon’s lawyer
Under cross-examination in the High Court yesterday, former University of Guyana (UG) lecturer and Kaieteur News (KN) columnist Fredrick Kissoon was accused of “putting a political twist to the simple legal issue” of his termination from the UG.Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos,Air Max 97 Uk, who is representing the plaintiff, former President Bharrat Jagdeo, put it to Kissoon that his wrongful dismissal claim was not “bona fide” and that he was willfully leading the claim in a political direction.Kissoon, the National Media and Publishing Company,Cheap NFL Jerseys, publisher of KN, and Editor-in-Chief Adam Harris are being sued by the former president for over $10M, claiming libel in a KN article published more than two years ago. The matter is being heard by Justice Brassington Reynolds.Kissoon said that he “absolutely rejects” the senior lawyer’s suggestion since he was not given the “right” to a fair hearing as it relates to his dismissal from the academic institution. De Santos’s line of questioning came as the lawyer sought to show that under Kissoon’s work contract with the University, his dismissal was according to that which the contract stipulated.It was established that at the time of Kissoon’s dismissal he was 61. In response to questioning by De Santos, Kissoon said that he was not aware that the age of retirement was 60. According to UG’s statutory regulation, Kissoon said, a lecturer could be hired after the retirement age once their service is required.He continued that he was employed at the UG under a one year contract,Nike Air Max 2018 Shoes, which gave the University the right to terminate his contract at any time. The contract was entered into in September 2011 and was supposed to conclude in August 2012. But Kissoon said that his contract was terminated in 2011 and he learnt in the third week of January 2012,Cheap Air Max 90 Shoes, that his work contract would not be renewed.Kissoon said that he was not paid for the entire year he was supposed to work, but admitted to collecting money for months which he had not worked. De Santos had already established that the contract had a termination clause which Kissoon said, stated that each party (Kissoon and University) will give three months notice. Kissoon said further that in 2012, he was not paid from May to August.De Santos asked Kissoon that when he collected money for the months he had not worked whether he interpreted that as part of the termination process and Kissoon replied that he accepted money accrued under his contract.Kissoon when asked further why he had not claimed for the money which he said was not paid in May to August of 2012, replied that the contract did not allow for claims.At this point, Kissoon’s lawyer, Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes sought to ascertain from the plaintiff the direction of questions and their relevance. The court too acknowledged that the questions were bordering on the core issue, but were allowed as a matter of establishing the rules of the contract.De Santos then put it to Kissoon that the reason he had not claimed for the months he was not paid was because he received three months pay in “lieu of notice.” Hughes again objected about the legal interpretation the suggestion gave.He claimed that Kissoon already stated that the contract did not allow for claims, so difficulties that rose in court came from the suggestion that Kissoon did not claim for his pay because he took money in lieu of notice.At this time, Kissoon had been put out of court. De Santos also had a difficulty with a gentleman said to be affiliated with Kissoon leaving the courtroom to reportedly report to Kissoon what was happening in his absence. The court however noted that it could not control the movement of public persons.Kissoon told De Santos as the cross examination continued, that he was not satisfied with his dismissal under his rights in the contract, since he was not given a fair hearing in keeping with the statutes of the UG. De Santos rose that the issue was not about the UG statutes, but the rules of the work contract.Hughes was again on his feet in objection. He stated that the right of natural justice can speak to one being contracted to work at an entity and the rules of the contract being tied to the rules of the place of employment; in this case Kissoon’s termination being linked to the UG’s statutes.De Santos remained firm stating that he was not concerned with statues, but Kissoon should not have accepted the money if he felt he had the right to a fair hearing. It was then that Kissoon was accused of politicising his UG termination.Kissoon was then questioned about a Doctorate he was pursuing. Kissoon said he did not complete his Doctorate since he accepted a job as advisor to the Grenadian Government in 1983. Kissoon said he was never accused of plagiarism.Kissoon said that he had never indulged in dishonest actions at anytime, and that all that he has written is believed to be factual.Kissoon was later asked about a research paper he presented to the Guyana Historical Research Institute before he was asked about the executive body. The paper was presented to the Institute in June 2010.De Santos further asked Kissoon whether he had a morbid obsession with the plaintiff,Air Max 90 Black Leather, Bharrat Jagdeo, and whether he had not written several “disparaging” articles about Jagdeo. Kissoon however had a problem with the use of the word disparaging before disagreeing with De Santos’s subsequent claim that he (Kissoon) was extremely critical of the former president.Kissoon accepted that the paper presented to the historical institute represents sequential results of his research. He said that the paper was never published before June 2010 and he presented his piece to the historical institute about ethnicity. He said that he spoke on the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) and the Guyana Police Force (GPF). Kissoon was later asked whether he felt that Jagdeo had power to appoint persons in independent organizations with statutory bodies.He replied in the affirmative. Kissoon said he would think that the former president had the power to appoint to a statutory body since he (Kissoon) knew of one case. When asked, Kisssoon said the UG is a statutory body but Jagdeo did appoint one Lawrence Carrington as University Vice Chancellor.Kissoon was once again put out of the court before Hughes argued that De Santos’s suggestion about appointment to statutory bodies was legally incorrect since, it is the president who officially appoints someone to such post.The afternoon session saw Kissoon answering questions on information which De Santos alleged was not in existence at the time, but was in Kissoon’s research paper. The issue came about on Dr. Dindyal Permaul’s employment at the Guyana Livestock Development Authority.It was stated that Kissoon made mention of the gentleman’s employment in his June 2010 presentation, but the Livestock Development Authority did not come about until August of that year.Kissoon however, clarified that his research was ongoing so it was not difficult to add information following his June 2010 presentation. He added also that his June 2010 presentation spoke about the Livestock Development Company and not “Authority” which came subsequently (in August).Kissoon was also asked about his knowledge of Permaul heading the Livestock Authority. He was asked also about his view on the inclusion of information which did not exist in research material.De Santos then asked Kissoon about persons listed in his report which spoke to Indian domination in certain jobs. De Santos asked Kissoon whether he is of the view that despite a person of Indian ethnicity having superior qualifications,Air Max Zero Be True, should a person of lesser qualifications get the job on the basis of ethnicity; Kissoon replied in the negative.The matter continues on November 18.
