Dear Editor,
REFERENCE is hereby made to the above caption as it relates to an incident that took place on 09. 05. 16 at the Brickdam Cathedral. At 17:05 hrs I was about to enter the church, since I was already late for the 17:00 hrs Requiem Mass, in memory of my late brother who was interred in Maryland, USA on 07. 05. 16. An outstretched hand of a male individual greeted me, which I thought was someone that was expressing their condolence. However, the person duly informed me that he is a Court Marshal of the Supreme Court, whose presence was in relation to a petition from my wife, in pursuit of a divorce. After a brief exchange of words, I accepted the Petition as a Respondent, with my wife as the Petitioner. Editor, what was most disturbing, immoral, callous and unprofessional, was “when the Court Marshal entered the church 15 minutes later and proceeded up the aisle peeking into the pews.” Thereafter, in turning around I beckoned him to go outside, following him hastily. No bones were spared in advocating “your uncouth behaviour, disturbing the Mass, is a clear indication of disrespect to all and sundry, and I will be highlighting this publicly.”
While he did say he was “sorry,” that I partly accepted. It was indicated, “You have to sign for the document.” My, oh my, here we go again! Seriously, what is there to celebrate, in 50 years of Independence, as it relates to the Judiciary? Would this have occurred 50 years ago? Definitely not! On a serious note, in the traditional home of Catholicism, paying respect to the passing of a late “Don,” what would have been the outcome of the Court Marshal? By the way, would this despicable act be tolerated in a Mosque or a Mandir? Since, I am aware “the statutes/laws of the Judiciary permits a Court Marshal, in the execution of their duties to visit any place and time, irrespective of the occasion for the presentation of a document (s).” Nevertheless, the visit ought to be one-off in nature and definitely not twice, as was done on Monday! While I didn’t have the time to peruse the document immediately, this would have been unethical in a “place of worship”! However, in accordance with the statutes, does it not entail the Marshal producing some form of identification or disclosure of his full name, out of courtesy and mannerisms? Further,wasn’t the Petitioner present to identify the individual? Once again this wasn’t done!
Later in the evening upon perusing the Petition, much to my amazement, my last known address was again incorrectly stated. That 15 Louisa Demerara, Georgetown, never in Georgetown existed. Surely, this is in contravention of the city’s by-laws; an examination of a “Road Map” of Georgetown would indicate this, or the use of a smart phone, or a computer. For the record it’s Louisa Row! The stretch of roadway heading northward form Hadfield Street, to Brickdam, is Brummel Place, Stabroek. Under the given circumstance this feat of geographical failure that appears on the Petition with a signature affixed on behalf of the Supreme Court Registrar, along with that of Attorneys-at-Law, with the latter being the former Minister of Education, surely leaves much to be desired! As a consequence, is the Petition authentic/legitimate? By the way, a visit earlier in the day at the afore-mentioned address, in a taxi which had two females and two males, one of whom was the chauffeur, resulted in: “A disclosure by one to the resident, outlining that: “I would like to make contact with Lester, since I have a package for him from one of his brothers in the USA.” The generosity of the resident was extended by calling me, then handing over her mobile phone to the individual for a conversation.
Editor, much to my surprise the topic of: “An interview, photo shoot for a Supligen Promotion” was the subject. My response entailed “Unavailability, due to other pressing issues including preparation for the Requiem Mass, but can be entertained the following day”! With a negative response forthcoming, the conversation ended. I do hope the publication of this letter attracts the attention of the Hon. Basil Williams, Minister of Legal Affairs; Hon. Carl Singh, Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag); Registrar, Supreme Court, Women’s Lawyers Association, Guyana Bar Association and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Since the “integrity of the Judiciary is being compromised, due to the unprofessional conduct of the Court Marshal,” an inquiry ought to be undertaken, departmentally with the relevant sanction(s) being imposed, which should entail suspension or dismissal! Since “examples are always better than precepts,” and the individual could have been susceptible to a bribe. “Not everyone that says: Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom.” Irrespective of the fact that my wife worships at Freedom Life Ministries, under the pretext of being a Christian, stooping to such a low level; “that walks in the counsel of the ungodly, stands in the way of sinners, sits in the seat of the scornful,” is contrite to the spirit, said the Lord! Is this the teachings of her church, supportive of a “divorce” instead of counselling/mediation, contrary to the Gospel of St. Matthew? With the Jehovah-God on my side, no weapon formed against me shall prosper. “Weeping comes at night, with joy in the morning through Jesus the Christ; Amen”! My day in court would be rewarding!
Regards
Respectfully Yours