Huo ni ujanja wa kuzuia hilo suala lisijadiliwe tena kwa kuwa 'kesi iko mahakamani, na kuijadili ni kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama'. Na kesi itaendelea kuwa mahakamani hadi jamaa ashinde ubunge 2010, halafu itamalizwa 'kishkaji', au itakuwa tu haisikiki tena.
Mbona hata hivyo kachelewa aliambiwa mapema aende mahakamani lakini angeanzia kwanza TCU maana mahakama hai certify degree yenyewe inaangalia haki itabidi ipate ushahidi toka vyuoni na TCU.
He he heeee.Kwanini anahangaika kufungua kesi,si awasilishe vyeti vyake TCU kama mwenzio Dr David Mathayo?
Jamani msiendelee kujadili humu, kwa kuwa kesi iko mahakamani. Kuendelea kulijadili ni kukiuka sheria na kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama. Mimi sijadili tena.
aaah Gabu,
huyu makongoro ni wakala wa mafisadi ndo maana watu wengi wanatamani angeenda haraka TCU kisha aongoze Mahakamani, mjinga huyu.
Mbona hata hivyo kachelewa aliambiwa mapema aende mahakamani lakini angeanzia kwanza TCU maana mahakama hai certify degree yenyewe inaangalia haki itabidi ipate ushahidi toka vyuoni na TCU.
-.
- Kumsingizia mwananchi mwingine maneno ya uongo ni kuvunja haki zake kikatiba, remedies for it ni lazima zipatikane kwenye sheria ya Jamhuri sio TCU, jamani mbona mambo mengine ni madogo sana!
Respect.
FMEs!
- Mkuu vipi katika process ya kuamua haki ni lazima kuwe na part ya certification, kwa hiyo Mahanga ameenda at the right place tena at the right time karibu sana na uchaguzi, meaning kwamba anaweka his everything on line, Tanzania tunalilia utawala unoheshimu sheria sio TCU.
- Kumsingizia mwananchi mwingine maneno ya uongo ni kuvunja haki zake kikatiba, remedies for it ni lazima zipatikane kwenye sheria ya Jamhuri sio TCU, jamani mbona mambo mengine ni madogo sana!
Respect.
FMEs!
Mkuu ni Ukurasa wa 20, Daily News. Mambo hadharani sasa, tuone ngoma ya kwetu itachezwa vipi. Pata Mtama na Mchele kama hivi:
I certainly do agree with you, na ndio maana nimeshawahi kuuliza huko nyuma sheria zetu zinasemaje kuhusu kesi za defamation endapo plaintiff ni public figures,hapo chini ni utetezi wanaoweza kuutumia defendants,nayo ni kwa mujibu wa ExpertLaw.com...Yeye kama public figure ni lazima aprove actual malice that he knew the statement is false.
What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.
An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
Naona hujanielewa soma tena post yangu hiyo part ya certification unayoisema nani ataifanya au nani ataulizwa unafikiri mahakama itajiuliza yenyewe au itamuuliza Mahanga na kiridhika lazima itoke nje kuuliza wanaohusika kama TCU unafikiri TCU wakisema vyeti vyake ni feki mahakama itasemaje itakataa.
Mkuu nakubaliana na wewe kwenye hilo hapo juu.......lakini kumbuka hata MAJAMBAZI yanaua halafu yanashinda kesi na yanaachiwa huru..........lakini haiondoi ukweli kuwa yaliuwa.......kwa hiyo basi............the fact remains.........it is what it is.......Ukweli ni kuwa the damage is done period!............Kainerugaba kamharibia jamaa jina pamoja na kwamba anaweza shinda hii kesi kirahisi..............
Usifundishe watu kutetea uovu tuangalie facts zaidi............Nitafurahi zaidi kama Mahanga akishindwa mahakamani based on facts na sio ujanja wa tafsiri wa maneno ya sheria kutafuta excuse...............lets face the reality tusubiri mahakama itaamua nini at the end of the day..............
Kwa wanaouliza eti alikuwa wapi siku zote kwenda mahakamani.........mi nawauliza........kwani kijarida cha Msemakweli kimetoka lini?.........kwa wale wanaouliza kwanini asiende TCU.......mi nawaambia......wacha mahakama iamue kama itahitaji kuthubitisha huko TCU au lah.......it is a very simple thing kwa mahakama kuomba uchunguzi ufanywe na TCU............kwa hiyo tukae mkao wa kula tusibiri matokeo...........
Mh. Waziri wetu mwandamizi anajivunia u-alumni wa WIU..The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization stated that "[WIU is] operating illegallyin Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education. WIU is forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia".[8]
Yote yawezekana kwa jamii ilozoea mambo kujiendea tu kama yetu. Nimechoka hata hati yenyewe ya mahakama imejaa tele makosa ya uchapaji na hakuna alojali. Mfano yasomeka 'or mention' pale ninapoamini walikusudia isomeke "for mention" Yasomeka "may hand" ninapoamini walikusudia "my hand"
Mahakama isojali hata hati yake ilivokusudiwa itakuwa makini?
Naona hujanielewa soma tena post yangu hiyo part ya certification unayoisema nani ataifanya au nani ataulizwa unafikiri mahakama itajiuliza yenyewe au itamuuliza Mahanga na kiridhika lazima itoke nje kuuliza wanaohusika kama TCU unafikiri TCU wakisema vyeti vyake ni feki mahakama itasemaje itakataa.
huyu jamaa mbona huwa hajiamini hata akiwa anahojiwa tu, hana elimu huyu..hawezi hata ku make points kwenye public, kwanza jimbo lake la ukonga limemshinda..hajafanya lolote jimboni kwake..sasa hivi ndio anajifanya kukwangua kwangua barabara za huko ukonga mazizini ili aonekane anafaa..hapiti safari hii!
Hapana...Makongoro Mahanga ana elimu nzuri tu,ni msomi wa ukweli katika fani za uhasibu na Materials management,ana CPA ,huyu pia kama sikosei anayo certificate(sawa na CPA) katika materials management...Sema sijui ilikuwaje mpaka akapatwa na tamaa ya kujiunga kwenye mtandao wa Washington Internaational University kunyaka PHD feki...Jamaa ni msomi mzuri tu
Hapana...Makongoro Mahanga ana elimu nzuri tu,ni msomi wa ukweli katika fani za uhasibu na Materials management,ana CPA ,huyu pia kama sikosei anayo certificate(sawa na CPA) katika materials management...Sema sijui ilikuwaje mpaka akapatwa na tamaa ya kujiunga kwenye mtandao wa Washington Internaational University kunyaka PHD feki...Jamaa ni msomi mzuri tu