Here comes the bringing in of "god" again, like a god has anything to do with a person either following or not following the laws of the land relating to what must be paid to the government. As for these political patronage appointments, they have nothing to do with a god. Politicians make these decisions for the varying reasons they all make them.

Cut it out. No one can unseat the government outside of the voters or a coup. The boogeyman isn't going to show up one night and pull their government card. PLPs are giving this information to the media anyway, so what then is your perspective on that?

Good question. Whatever the threat is, it is apparent the media is now backing off and holding back.

So tell us this. When the Tribune reported on the Real Property Tax matter, they didnt go down to the government's offices to read her files to know for themselves whether what they were being "leaked" was true - they just reported it. So how come all of sudden they now - without ever telling us about this letter in the first place, are telling is the letter is a fraud? How do they know whether the contents of the letter (which they hid from the public) are not true? They also told us her Real Property Tax was paid off in full - says who? Did the Tribune go to the Finance office and actually see for themselves the receipt of full payment against her files of monies owed? How come there was such "boldness" about the Real Property Tax leak that the Tribune did not independently confirm before reporting it, but now they are "cautious" about this second leak, especially given where the leak came from - which is also what they are hiding from the public? How come the public did not know about this letter until the PHA issued a statement Tuesday afternoon, when the media got the letter on Monday and spoke to the head of the PHA about it? THAT is a story in itself, the letter and Brown's response - but the media kept it back from the public - WHY? Why are you telling us the PHA's response to a letter, but never told us about the actual letter itself? It seems to me that the media is now backing away from negative stories on Ms. Pindling following the anger it drew from high-ranking PLPs - hence their quickness to report "paid in full" though they did not independently verify that as the media must always do, and why they hid this letter from the public.

The reason business institutions work within the framework of the anti-money laundering guidelines is so that their establishments will not be used for money laundering where the banks will refuse the cash. In other words, the point of anti-money laundering laws is so that ALL institutions are free of money laundering, not just the banks.

If it is now paid off in a one day that means it always could have been paid from the start, but as many of us know, they believe the laws of the land do not apply to them and that they are entitled to live off the backs of Bahamians until they become plant food (buried).

And money laundering is money laundering. The media has yet to make the point clear to the public of why the amount paid in cash matters based on our laws. The media cannot assume that everyone in the public understands what the point of this matter is.

LOL at whoever thinks the Prime Minister doesn't personally know how this leak happened!!!

Money laundering

So very true