Odd that Senator Walker should have said "There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas", later on in the debate, Mike Jackson contradicts this with precise information, and later Senator Walker denies any court case. Didn't he listen to Mike Jackson? How was Mike Jackson more informed than Senator Walker?
Perhaps that's one of those questions Senator Walker could ask?
Can I emphasise… first of all let me say: "Here we go again", any excuse to get a reference back and to delay taking a decision. But the Deputy did mislead the House in his earlier speeches. There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas. Has there been an issue between Harcourt and one of their proposed partners in Las Vegas? Yes. Has there been a legal suit on the back of it? No.
..........
The Connétable of St. Brelade:
On a point of clarification, Sir, the court case was filed on 30th April this year.
...........
Senator F.H. Walker:
I am sorry, but I do have to re-emphasise the factual nature of the position in Las Vegas. No legal motion has been filed in Las Vegas involving Harcourt in this development and I think the Deputy is again at severe risk of misleading the House
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment