Now I'm seeing a whole brouhaha on Shermie (and do tell; most of it is actually coming to light as things I've been saying all along. Hmm, Pa-trick better fire that seer-woman and hire me, eh?).
The Express even has a photocopy of the cheque paid to Shermie.
How is that for a bit of journalism?But what gets me about this article is the following:
The Chief Magistrate admitted that he collected the cheque, in the name of a CL Financial subsidiary, without any agreement for the sale of the property, that he had never met Maharaj or even knew his proper name.He agreed that in the normal course of things an agreement of sale was usually prepared first before any down-payment was made in the sale of land but noted that both Maharaj and himself were "acting in good faith" and he "wanted to complete the transaction expeditiously".
Hmm, this is the CHIEF MAGISTRATE who did not take basic legal precautions even a layman would... anybody believe that? Especially after his actions at the trial of Sharma, where he was a legal exemplar in re-writing the law to suit himself. Hmm, if anyone could swallow that I have a pineapple for you to swallow too.
He admitted that he repaid Maharaj and not CMMB, the company which had issued the initial cheque, when questioned by Floissac.
He said the only person he spoke to after receiving the cheque was Attorney General John Jeremie, on March 31, 2006.
Huh? Why repay Maharaj directly? Was he authorised to collect money on behalf of the company? Is there records showing that money was actually returned to the company or was it again diverted... maybe to Shermie? And why is John Jeremie's name cropping up in all sorts of circumstances, always interestingly co-joined with Shermie's?
Ah yes, how I missed the bacchanal. Hopefully, I will be back online far more frequently now. Thanks for being so patient.
