UPDATE: Ruling expected on Wednesday whether PM, St. Jean will give evidence in court

St. Jean greets a supporter this morning

Justice Gertel Thom is expected to rule on Wednesday whether Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit and Education Minister Petter St. Jean should be called to give evidence in court, now that submissions have been completed and the objections presented.

Attorney for the petitioners, the United Workers Party, Douglas Mendes continued yesterday’s submissions, this morning, with the notion that the pleading for Skerritt and St. Jean to produce their French passports, should they exist, be allowed to remain part of the petition, despite the fact that discovery is not allowed in election petition matters.

Mendes said, “The fact that discovery is not allowed in election petition is not a bar to the subpoenaing of documents from the other side.”

Attorneys for the petitioners Douglas Mendez (right) and Stuart Young

He further wished that the subpoenaing of the two respondents not be revoked because one of the witness statements indicates that a passport exists in the case of St. Jean and that the petitioners are relying on the fact that several Caribbean newspapers have reported that Skerritt had a French passport.

“We’re saying they reported it, that it was out there and he has never denied it,” Mendes argued.

Additionally, he stated that Skerritt by his letter to the electorate in December 2009 and in using the phrase “It is being said my French citizenship and/or my possession of a French passport”, acknowledged that the reports were out there in the public domain. He was convinced that those news reports and Skerritt never having denied the allegations to be evidence of the existence of the document.

Astaphan, in supplementary objection to the petition contended, “The petitioners have yet to produce a single case where a party/respondent was subpoenaed to give evidence for the sole purpose of establishing the petitioners’ case.”

DLP supporters outside the court this morning

He affirmed that the only law that provides a provision for the manner in which witnesses may be subpoenaed, that may apply to this case, would be the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR). Justice Thom had previously ruled that CPR need not apply in this case.

According to Astaphan, neither the Evidence Act nor the House of Assembly Act give the judge in an election petition matter the jurisdiction to subpoena the parties to produce the documents. He also said that the Evidence Act provides special procedures for documents to be disclosed and the petitioners then cannot subpoena the parties to the petition or to deliver the documents.

“Respondents to election petitions under the House of Assembly Act cannot be subpoenaed at all,” Astaphan claimed.

Justice Thom is expected to rule when court resumes at 2 pm tomorrow afternoon.

Both sides in the case were upbeat and believes the judge will rule in their favor.

“Our legal team did a good job,” St. Jean said. “They (the UWP) must prove their case.”

“We have done well in our submissions,” Geoffery Letang, a lawyer for the UWP said.

Meanwhile Astaphan said the case is going to be a lengthy one. “Whatever way it goes, it is going to be a lengthy process,” he said.

The UWP want the court to declare that both men were illegally nominated to contest the December 2009 general election because they held dual citizenship at the time.

Copyright 2012 Dominica News Online, DURAVISION INC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

Disclaimer: The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com and its parent company or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by DominicaNewsOnline.com. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • contain any material which violates or infringes the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or are purely ad hominem attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote prejudice or prejudicial hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are off-topic and/or excessively long

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

175 Comments

  1. CoCoy Soup
    September 7, 2011

    One ting I know $1.00 EC is worth more than a Jamaican dollar. Make whatever you want of this statement my people.

  2. ineedfree
    September 7, 2011

    jespen;

    let us talk about the constituttion instead of the cookie because THIS RATIONALE BELONGS TO children who love to see cookies crushed in their hands…I suppose that’s how they learn.

    On the other hand even if you are the respondent, it is not your duty to crush the constitution because history will judge YOU as one qulity of treason for trying to defend those careless leaders who crushed the constitution like children playing with cookies.

    CRUSH THE COOKIE IF YOU HAVE MANY TO WASTE WHILE THERE ARE SO MANY CHILDREN WHO COULD EAT IT; BUT WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO CRUSH THE CONSTITUTION.

    THANK YOU

  3. Giving up
    September 7, 2011

    At some point these things used to make me upset, but now i give up hope with all politicians in Dominica. forget the i self wouldn’t mind making some euros the country hard. Skerrit, st jean, give everybody in D/ca french passport too. and then allu wouldn’t have that problem.

  4. Donald Tusk
    September 7, 2011

    :-P History will record it took a trinidadian to save Dominica. Mendes u deserve our siserou award!

    • Justice and Truth
      September 7, 2011

      @ Donald Tusk

      Wait and see. Only God saves and not human beings.

    • DE CARIBBEAN CHANGE,
      September 7, 2011

      Stupid, Mendes cannot even save his own coutry Trinidad with all these countless murders going on in Trinidad and their PM declaring state of emergency it is peaceful Dominica he can save. DONALD TUSK, GET A LIFE.

  5. Dominican Abroad
    September 7, 2011

    To the UWP supporters trying to bring PM Skerrit and St. Jean down, what is your alternative? Who is prepared to lead Dominica to the next level on your side? Do you all have a viable candidate? Instead all I see is a bunch of sore losers wasting tax payers money, yet you complain how Dominica is hard.
    The one thing I remember very well when UWP was in office is that civil servants always had a problem in getting paid at the end of the month. Is that what you all want to go back to? Skerrit is what Dominica NEEDS, not just deserve. Peace!

  6. I'mWondering
    September 7, 2011

    Based on the article above…. it seems that Mr Astaphan’s knows his rules. No matter what the people may say or think…thank man is ASTUTE. Hate him or love him, it cannot be denied that his knowledge of the law is allowing him to advance his case very soundly. Look at his statements regarding CPR and the fact that it has already been declared that the CPR need not apply.

    this man is smart.

    Sorry to say… i do not put that much in the defense if they are not even 100% convinced that the PM has a passport. If they are basing their reasons for the request on the fact that several newspapers allegedly claim that the PM has those passports and he has yet to refute those claims.

    I must say – that doesn’t seem like a sound basis for a defense.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave…. oh how i wish i could be at the courts listening in on these arguments!!!!!!!!!

    times like now, it is important to remember that it is “It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour. ”

    :wink:

    • Anonymous
      September 7, 2011

      Where is integrity, honour, fairness and justice. I evade punishment because of legal trickery, what impact do I have on vulnerable young minds.

    • Sout Man
      September 7, 2011

      Note that Astaphan is part of the defense. He represents the respondents, PM Skerrit and Minister St.Jean. Mendez and Letang represent the “plaintiff”, (petitioners) UWP. It’s an election petition so the terms petitioner and respondents are used instead of plaintiff and defense; but they reflect the same concept.

  7. Jah Guide
    September 7, 2011

    Soucouyant at the forefront, careful guys. Something happening!hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  8. conflict of interest
    September 7, 2011

    Do you or Did you have french citizenship at nomination day? Yes or NO?
    Have you ever had a french passport?yes or no?
    If yes, when last was it renewed?
    Did you sign a declaration as to your eligibility to be nominated and hold post in cabinet, commonwealth, CARICOM and the OECS?
    If yes, Had you notified the
    secretariat of CARICOM and OECS of your status prior to holding chairmanship posts?
    If yes,do you understand what a conflict of interest is?

    • Jespen
      September 7, 2011

      He does not have to answer any of the questions. It is the duty of the petitioners to produce those supporting documents in court.

      • Dominican
        September 7, 2011

        Jespen you retarded or what?

      • chelsea
        September 7, 2011

        doh worry i hope u will not have to answer to your children in the future if u have any.

      • Just saying
        September 7, 2011

        If he is an honest man he will and should answer the questions.

    • Roso Boy
      September 7, 2011

      So why the need for 13 new witnesses ast the very last moment days before the case is sxcheduled to start. Why should Mr. Skerrit prove the UWP’s case for them. This is not the law of the land. tegh law cannotbe changed simply because it is Skerrit. Skerrit is a Dominican too and is deserving of all the protection the law, the system can give. Why is that so hard for us to undertsand. Mr. Skerrit is accused of a criminal matter and soem people expects that he will simply go to court and implicate himslef, plead guilty and then that is it. Those who brought him to court have to prove their case simple.he has nothing to say untill the charges are proven, then he will explain the circumstances of the mattter.

      Which one of us would in a moment of difficulty not advise our lawyer to do whatever is legal possible to protect me? If i had a choice between Mr. Astaphans and the UWP’s lawyere (except) those from Trinidad, then I go for Mr.Astaphans every day, providing of course I can pay him. The man is good. The system of justice and practice of the law should not change based on who is accused. It remains true for us all.

      When Eddison accused Mamo of a cruiminal activity and Mamo took him to court, he could not prove what he was saying. mamao did not have to prove that she was innocent.edison had to prove that Mamo was guilty. Obviously he couldn’t and so was lucky to get off with $62,000.00 reprimand

      • Anonymous
        September 8, 2011

        YOU PLAY SMART BUT YOU JUST A JAC-K A-S-S

  9. justice to be served
    September 7, 2011

    Willie LYNCH SAID, THE EMOTION OF GREED AND JEALOUSY WERE STRONGER THAN LOVE AND LOYALTY, AND SO THE NEGRO WOULD ALWAYS BE DIVIDED AGAINST HIMSELF.
    THINK ON THESE WORDS WHY ARE WE DOING THIS TO ONE ANOTHER?
    IT IS NOT ABOUT LAW BUT GREED AND JEALOUSY.

    • c.bruce
      September 7, 2011

      YES YOU ARE RIGHT!

      WE ARE GREEDY AND JEALOUS THAT WE DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO STEAL AND TRUMP THE LAWS OF THE LAND AS THESE GUYS DO.

      MAN I’M SO JEALOUS

    • Nohogwash
      September 7, 2011

      Jealous of what? thuggery, deceit, dishonesty? Is that it?

  10. A Friend & Brother
    September 6, 2011

    Mr. Skerrit and Mr. St. Jean you are men that I have regard and respect for paerticularly the office that you hold whether legally or illegally as some will contend. Mr. St. Jean I address you as a brother in Christ, the bibles exhort, “AND THEY SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET THEM FREE”. Sir I beg of you, “what truth do you know that would leberate yourself and the rest of us”? I am asking you please do the honourable thing and distance yourself from this matter if in fact you know that what you did was wrong if you allowed yourself to be nominated and elected being a dual citizen. We are encouraged to OBEY the laws of the land, if you were right and have done nothing wrong then the good Lord will see you through. I take this opportunity to warn you man of God, if you are found wanting put your christian duty and loyalty to righteousness before party, prestige/position. Being a minsiter of the gospel you ought to know better if in fact you were illegible to contest the Laplain seat. May I remind you that when Jonah disobeyed God those around him almost perished at sea, this bubble will burst with you in it my friend if you attempt to hold to the reigns of power unjustly and wrongfully. The Lord WILL NOT BLESS A MESS and do not expect him to favor you if you are not legally elected. Set an example for those of us looking gentlemen. This thing can be most embarassing if you all are disgraced by the courts and history WILL NOT FORGIVE YOU GUYS for putting the country through this odeal if your nomination/election were done illegally. I love you guys and love is supposed to hold people responsible! HE WHO COVERS HIS SIN WILL NOT PROSPER!!!!! (DNO ADMIN I’ll not hold my breath, wonder if you’ll allow this one)

    • Anonymous
      September 7, 2011

      you really think is a child you writing to man fella.COME BETTER THAN THAT.Tell your PARTY to prove they are guilty SORT!!!

    • September 7, 2011

      Brother in Christ, Christ did not tell him to go after his neighbor with a gun, he said love you neighbors
      History never forget dictators, Thou shall not call God’s name in your evil mess

  11. Prophet2
    September 6, 2011

    A win is still a loss for them, the damage has been done.

  12. Esther
    September 6, 2011

    Some people seem to be making their own rules as this case is taking place. Well then why doesn’t Mr P.M turn Dominican Rules and make this country into Dual Citizenship?

  13. 1979
    September 6, 2011

    Mr PM ask your minister for public works we that working at public works need our money!!! Today is the 6th mesieur, my lights need to pay, school open. I not in your court case, all I want is to pay my children school fees and my bills sir. What we do!? Why nobody not interested in what happening to us at the public works corporation????

    • chelsea
      September 7, 2011

      why all u not taking to the road?

  14. Gurly
    September 6, 2011

    Don please please please…. When screening the comments if anyone says leave skerrit alone do not publish their comments…. Note this person is ignorant and doesn’t have a contribution to make…..

  15. Justice and Truth
    September 6, 2011

    I do think that this Constitution should be quashed. Keep in mind the statement of the Jamaican PM which was posted last year on this Website. If you read it have you forgotten what was stated?
    For God’s sake, leave the PM alone to continue his elected duties. He only has two more years (or less?) to fulfill this.
    The PM won two terms. Today he is being brought to Court? I do think that this matter has a more underlying motive. It is envy and to take over the reins as PM and Leader of Dominica.
    Who knows what lurks in the heart of man? God knows!
    It is all politics. The non-Laborites are being deceived and are unaware of it. Smarten up you who are on the side of the Opposition. Look and think beyond and put on your thinking cap. There is some malice in this Court case. The devil is in the offing.
    It is a shame and a disgrace. Are you not practicing Christians? So what type of Christians are you, taking your own to Court who has done you no harm? Just to demean him and bring him down? Your day is coming and soon enough.
    1 Peter 2:1:3 – God’s House and People – Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, insincerity, envy, and all slander; like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation, for you have tasted that the Lord is good…

    • mam
      September 6, 2011

      i strongly support ur views and overall its simply envy thats going on there . i cant see no other wod to describe but envy, the opposition is anxious for no reason just because the man is working n sourcing funds for the country. afteralllll man. magway sah. if we fighting our brother who is a neighbour that we will not fight?

      • Anonymous
        September 7, 2011

        I doh understand you all. This is not a christian issue, this is an issue of law. Change the constitution? Just because you are in violation of it, come on nah man! Doesn’t the bible ask to uphold the law of the land? Why doesn’t this beloved PM just tell the truth. If he have nothing to hide. He is dividing the nation. We Dominicans are looking up to him and he is telling us GO TO HELL only you all have to obey the laws. Is that Envy? I don’t want to live in a land where only the lower class must follow the laws. Good thing Skerrit is not a ganja smoker or a thief because thos things would also have to be legalized. JUST COME CLEAN and this will be over, if you are right you can go ahead and run your country.

      • Justice and Truth
        September 7, 2011

        @ mam

        Thank you. I do my utmost to stand up for the truth and what is correct to state and to do.
        In this era Dominicans never had it so good in various ways. Those who oppose do not appreciate what they are presently enjoying.
        You are one intelligent person who can see through this situation. Those who approve of this type of situation which is conducted in the Dominican Court lack godliness. They need to pray to God for mortal and spiritual enlightenment. Some of those are the ones who go to church and pray and state that they are Christians. They are only harming themselves. God knows who they are. He will mete out His fair and just recompense to them in time.
        Pray for Dominica and all politicians specifically Prime Minister Skerrit. May God bless and protect him.

    • Anonymous
      September 7, 2011

      if you stand for justice and truth like your name implies, i would like to think that you would want to know the truth and you will stand for justice, or am i wrong?

      • Justice and Truth
        September 7, 2011

        @ Anonymous

        Yes! You are wrong and often enough. :twisted: :mrgreen: I am not who believe in degrading others, bringing them down and denying them their basic human rights and who act out what is wrong to say and do towards other human beings whether they are in politics or not.
        Many of you have no respect for authority which is why you carry-on as you do on this Website, projecting yourselves to be what you are and disapproving those who stand up/out and speak out for what is right.
        Conform your will to that of God and He will show you the light, your errors and manner of thinking, to do and state what is correct. Keep in mind that you are a human being. Some people tend to forget that which is why they act in such an unbecoming manner.

    • ___
      September 7, 2011

      I do not think you understand the nature of this case, to me as an outsider meaning nonpolitical, my concern is upholding the law of the land. We cannot be lawless, this will prove danger for our little country. Every one must uphold the law of the land no if’s and but’s.

      • Justice and Truth
        September 9, 2011

        Lawless? Tell this to the criminals and murderers who have shown themselves to be and who are a menace to the Dominican society. Teach them to act lawfully and obey the Law of the land. If you reside in Dominica, you have a lot of work to do in Dominica. I suggest that you commence doing just that.

    • September 7, 2011

      For God’s sake revoke your Canadian citizenship and come back to Dominica

      Who feels it knows it, those in the kitchen are the ones feeling the heat

    • September 7, 2011

      For God’s sake leave the PM alone, why can’t you give up your Canadian citizenship and come back to DA, we in the kitchen feeling the heat, and who feels it knows it

      • Justice and Truth
        September 9, 2011

        @ Marie

        You have a beautiful name which is a holy name. Your comments make me laugh. :lol: I have empathy for you. What heat are you feeling? Some of this heat could be self-imagined and exaggeration spurred on by those who oppose the PM and would like to oust him and to assume in his position. Have you ever considered this? Do what you can in prayer and leave the rest to God. In His time He will do what He has to do.
        At this time why should we revoke our citizenship? We earned it and by specifically being employed and struggling in those lands. Sure we would like to return to Dominica. Hopefully, someday, if the Good Lord wills.
        However from what we are reading on this Website, the attitude of some people, it is discouraging.
        We love Dominica and always will. Whenever I speak to other Dominicans and we reminisce about Dominica and our days in Dominica, we wished that none of us ever left home. We have lost much. Such is life. It may be that God had other plans for us.
        Dominica is our land of birth, given to us by God which no one can take away from us. We are saddened at the political melee of all which is occurring in DA.
        For the time being we want what is best for DA and those who reside therein. We pray for every one in DA as we continue to keep in touch with our relatives and friends and to visit when we can. We are also a great defender of our beautiful country, Dominica. Even from afar we support those who want what is best for DA, who are peaceful and who strive for peacefulness and progress.
        We also thank DNO for providing us with up-to-date information of the goings-on in Dominica. Our appreciation is beyond words.
        Finally, you can do much for DA by first striving for peace, encouraging it as you pray for your country and its nationals.
        May God bless Dominica and may He bless you. God’s peace be to you and other nationals who reside in Dominica.

  16. DOMINICAN BORN
    September 6, 2011

    I have 2 questions……1.If they UWP wins court…. what is the accomplishment.2. If you taking me to court why should i have to bring the evidence? This is such a joke…..I am not a Skerrit fan but UWP wants power that bad? Guys do it the right way and stop acting like little boys that lost a cricket game.

    • Dion
      September 6, 2011

      I concur with DOMINICAN BORN.If you accuse a man in a court that man should have a right to speak or not to speak. Itn is like asking the man to be a witness for the opposition against himself. This is crazy. I find myself in a situation like in the 2000 election I had decided not to vote but when I saw the Sun worship, the blocking of Pagua by the opposition I was forced to vote against them.

      Now it is clear to me that they are only after skerrit and all the other demands they are making are just side shows.

      They say they want a clean list yet contested a by-election on the same bloated list and for them it was free and fair because they won.

      If I was Ron Green I would stay far from the court. Prior to the 2009 election it is my understanding that Ron Green contested all the elections as a holder of an American passport. And for this hypocrisy I will never support them As for Mr James I see vindictiveness written all over his face.

      By there actions and that of there cronies they are only causing skerrit to gain more support from the masses.

      • Justice and Truth
        September 9, 2011

        @ Dion

        You have a excellent point.

    • September 6, 2011

      With statments like these no wander Tony can go on calling DOMINICANS names because some of us burry our heads in the sandy it is not a matter of power it’s about the CONSITUTION of DOMINICA the UWP cannot form the GOVT someone from the ruling party would have to decide among themselve which one would be choosen to carry on till the next election but we want to know if these two were qualified according to the law of the land that is what this is all about.
      So take the politic out of it and see it for what it is all of use have to abide according to the laws no one is above it.

      • babs
        September 7, 2011

        Are you also not interested or don’t you want to know whether Ron Green contested the election while holding an American passport (What Hypocrisy) What if his Party had won? Would it have been ok then? Pleeeeeaaaasssse Stop being so biased.

  17. looking in
    September 6, 2011

    Why is Skeritt and St Jean wasting Dominica Money and Dominicans time? If these men care about Dominica at all, why don’t they just plead guilty and avoid this long alleluia story and save the Treasury some money?
    Time will tell doh!!!

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Are you serious “looking in”?

    • Justice and Truth
      September 9, 2011

      @ looking in

      Can you tell us where Ron Green and his Party get the money from for Court costs?

  18. Just sayin'
    September 6, 2011

    All i can say is: them fellas have nice rides and plenty protection. They will fight hard to keep dat.

    Only ones that are guaranteed to win are the lawyers. What do you mean by dragging on…already more than a year and a half. I think that qualifies as dragged out.

    • babs
      September 7, 2011

      Wouldn’t you fight hard to keep what you already have? Wouldn’t anyone? Think before you speak.

      • September 7, 2011

        Not by raping my country’s economic and it’s people, my people what goes up must come down, one day some day skerrit will fall down, skerrit and tony went up the hill to fetch a pale of water, skerrit fell down and tony came tumbling after

  19. spy
    September 6, 2011

    ONE DAY WE WILL KNOW THAT TONY CANNOT DEFEND US.
    FOR HE HIMSELF WILL BE LOOKING FOR A ROCK TO HIDE.

    BROTHER ST JEAN KNOWS THAT JUST LIKE ME,WE CAN FULL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH BUT NOT THE SUPREME JUDGE,AND I WOULD THINK MY BROTHER IN CHRIST WOULD RATHER SAVE HIS SOUL THAN GAIN THE WORLD.

    • A Friend & Brother
      September 6, 2011

      “What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul”

    • MICHELLE
      September 7, 2011

      AMEN!!!”WEALTH GOTTEN BY VANITY SHALL BE DIMINISHED: BUT HE THAT GATHERETH BY LABOUR SHALL INCREASE’ PROVERBS 13:11
      BROTHER ST JEAN I HOPE YOU LOOK THIS UP

  20. the_1
    September 6, 2011

    dat woman st jean holdin look like she really singin for her supper…. look pon d woman face… way way way ma gwey ca…. aaawa dominica…. someone have to do that to dem self pon camara….

    • Anonymous
      September 7, 2011

      tupes keep ur opinion 2 ur self. u r singing 4 ur super 2

    • September 7, 2011

      I know this woman always singing for her supper, always going with the flowRemi

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Please stop degrading people. Would you like to be degraded that way as well.

  21. sunday readings
    September 6, 2011

    Ezekiel 33:7-9
    7“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.
    8 When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for[a] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.
    9 But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.”
    Gospel of Matthew 18:15-20
    Dealing With Sin in the Church

    JESUS Said:
    15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins,[b] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
    16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c]
    17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
    18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.
    19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
    20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

  22. One Love
    September 6, 2011

    8-O HELP
    8-O 8-O HELP
    8-O 8-O 8-O HELLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

    but everybody knows they are frenchmen;
    they themselves said so;
    ALL OF US KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAID

    SO HOW COME THE JUDGE AND THE COURT PLAYING RING A RING A CLOWNIE

  23. ineedfree
    September 6, 2011

    jespen;

    thanks for the legal pointers

    where are your pointers around “handing over documents” requested by the plaintiff as opposed to virtual “silence” in the dock.

    Your argument has a strange twist; because as far as we overstand what the opposition is saying, skerrit and his partner dont have to talk as such.

    We think handing over the documents can be done even if he gags his mouth

    The documents to prove the cutting and pasting of the emailed negotiations for construction of the villas at tibay, etc. ring the same bell like these documents.They can surely prove that we have had some brothers breaking the law at will and these careless ministers want us to stand by and look while they play out those dramatic lies

    Remember the law/constitution is supposed to be impartial to all mostly for the preservation of true nationhood.

    Why do some individuals should go to such length to make it bend at the expence of trusting people. THAT’S NOT FAIR

    IF THEY REFUSE TO CONCEDE, THOSE WHO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION WILL VOICE THIS INJUSTICE WITHOUT FEAR because THIS IS PROVOCOTION.

    • Jespen
      September 6, 2011

      They will remain silent and by remaining silent, they ned not produce, as they would not have self-incriminated.

      The production of evidence is a task to be performed by prosecution or petitioners.

      May sound frustrating to the other side, but it is how the cookie crumbles.

  24. WIKILEAKS
    September 6, 2011

    So if Skerrit lost the case, does Hector John becomes Prime Minister???

    • buwo
      September 6, 2011

      NOOOOOOOOO.

      That is when Dominica fini bat.

      Hahahahahah!!

      • BRAIN DAMAGE
        September 6, 2011

        Is it that mr. buwo, Skerrit assigned as director of the Red Clinic?
        Apparently he’s afraid for its closure too soon!

    • ,,,,,,,,,,
      September 6, 2011

      Hector John does not belong to this corrupt band of rogues pillaging and plundering the country..So he won’t be Prime MInister at all..

      • buwo
        September 6, 2011

        The commissioning of the Delices water supply on Wednesday, housing project in Silver Lake, building of respite center in Portsmouth….all announced in one week!!!

        Is that what you call pillaging and plundering?

        Hahahahahahahaha!!

      • WIKILEAKS
        September 6, 2011

        Why do you have to diss the man like that…you jolly well know that Hector wants to be PM…hehehehehee

      • Justice and Truth
        September 6, 2011

        Do you know the meaning of pillaging and plundering and how they are conducted? Check your dictionary or Thesaurus or Word Check on the computer. Do your research prior to making such a statement and accusation. You could be taken to Court for your words. Mind your words.
        If all Dominicans were loving and kind people including what is imbedded in their hearts and minds and comes through their mouths and fingers through the keyboard computer, Dominica would be in a better shape. There would also be less criticism, some of which are futile and serve no useful purpose.

    • Anonymous
      September 6, 2011

      lol

    • ,,,,,,,,,,
      September 6, 2011

      Go check your dictionary for the meaning of pillaging your accomplished moron..Stop begging for crumbs and being complicit in the destruction of Dominica.Your mental retardation speaks volume…Go to night school..

      • BUWO
        September 6, 2011

        I was being sarcastic you idiot. But we still building the country, bit by bit. You want to be reminded of the projects again?

        Yeah, what the hell, let me remind you:
        -Commissioning of water project in Delices ($2.8 million), respite center in Portsmouth ($1.3 million), housing project in Silver Lake ($300,000)

        All mentioned in one week!!!! Maybe you should go to night school to help you figure you figure out what these things actually do to the country.

        I am not going to waste my time and repond to you again. Wallow in your ignorance.

        Hahahahahaha!!!!

    • September 7, 2011

      Can you answer your own stupid question?

    • Anonymous
      September 8, 2011

      DON’T BE A FOOL

  25. Just This
    September 6, 2011

    Were Skerritt and St. Jean French citizens on Nomination Day 2009 having allegiance to a foreign country by virtue of their French citizenship and holders of french passports? They have yet to deny those facts. Dominicans, why do you think they hurriedly tried to renounce their French citizenship? and if they renounced their French citizenship, doesn’t it mean that were certainly french citizens? Could they have renounced what they were not? Skerritt and St. Jean should never have dragged DA into that situation if they had any respect for the Constitution and electoral laws of the land. Skerritt and St. Jean are not being HONEST with their own fellowmen and women. Right now, with the help of their Lawyer, they will be disgraced in the eyes of the world. Do you all remember how Tony Astaphan argued on behalf of the Govt. against politicians in St. kitts who had dual citizenship? Ask Tony Astaphan what was his stance in the St. Kitts dual citizenship matter there? For Tony Astaphan, when in St. Kitts the opposition politician was wrong with his dual citizenship to contest. He concluded that the oppopsition guy’s action was against the Constitution and electoral laws. But in Dominica, in the cases of Skerritt and St. Jean, no problem. They have done nothing wrong. Justice? justice?

    • Jespen
      September 6, 2011

      It is a job that he has taken upon himself. He represents his clients. Every Lawyer does these things. Many of them worked as prosecutors before having become successful defense attorneys.

  26. mouth of the south
    September 6, 2011

    it’s my time to put a 2 cents…..

    wow!!!! wow!!! and….. wow!!! i can’t believe some of my bros n sisters… i’ve read comments like “why the police want the dealer to bring the weed to court’ etc.. meaning why the prosecution wants to force the defendants to produce documents… so really we support the drugs… we support crime…. we support all ills of our society…. cause we clearly don’t want the defendants to bring forth evidence???? is that right…. as a dominican if mr skerrit and st jean has foreign passports don’t u want to know… do u want the prosecution to beat it out of them… which isn’t possible…. so i get the notion that supporters of the gov’t knows that they are guilty already…. i’m not a supporter of uwp (even if it may seem so) or the d.l.p… i’m a supporter of dominica… and it doesn’t take a scientist to see that even among all the so called ‘development’ that this country is heading down a slippery slope… we as a nation… yes ‘we’ for we all in it… supports all filths which are in our favour… this isn’t the right precedence to set for future generations… we have placed party and men b4 love for country…

    now that foolish statement “who else we going to put in charge if not skerrit” so skerrit is the brightest politician out here… we must stop emberrassing our college and university graduates…. who else we going to put in charge if not skerrit???? should be a question for labourites only… because they set the precedent for a cult following… mr skerrit have hijacked this party and they did nothing… none has the testicular fortitude to take ‘OUR PARTY BACK’… some will cry and say how the helped put him in power and are now emberrassed…. well guess what… unless u are doing anything to reverse this then ‘i don’t believe u’….. we have developed a ‘begging’ mentality in dominica… all we do is beg… we expect others to give us just like that… we honor the dishonorable among us…. we say once we getting something then it’s ok…. we keep voting on looks and nice talk like slutty teen girls… we don’t even have our own interest at heart… we are like drunk men at a swingers party easy to do whatsoever one pleases to do to us…. we even give up the fighting spirit of the 70’s…. we know bird island belongs to us but don’t even feel to fight because of some agreement of past time… all decisions and laws can be challenged… especially when it’s in our interest and can bring much financial gains…. all i can say is that…. if mr skerrit and st jean are men of the people… by the people… then bring the documents if they are present and take the stand…. these men have failed to realise their supporters will love them even more if they did…. since all labourites know that both men are guilty as charged… but don’t care about that…

    i’m also tired of hearing all gov’t in dominican history are corrupt….. in fact on record only 2 gov’t administration have been proven to perform acts worthy of corruption are… patrick john and roosevelt skerrit administrations….. the claims of corruption made against the U.W.P have never been proven… so this makes the millions of dollars paid to mr astaphan to investigate… an act of corruption also… since payment were made with no results… not even a ‘NO’ or ‘YES’…. just blank…. we don’t love dominica….. we love party… we love the men in office…. in developed nations.. u don’t come out to show support to a politician heading to court… since a genuine person wouldn’t be in this situation in the first instance… but u sit back and analyze then make a decision…. i’m still watching how this plays out

    • WIKILEAKS
      September 6, 2011

      Mouth of the South, just make sure you cover your tracks….that’s it

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Eh bey MOTS have you ever been to court? It is the prosecution right to prove their case. They are the ones to make the claim against these two gentle men. Here what you have to say below that follows: –

      …. all i can say is that…. if mr skerrit and st jean are men of the people… by the people… then bring the documents if they are present and take the stand…. these men have failed to realise their supporters will love them even more if they did…. since all labourites know that both men are guilty as charged… but don’t care about that…

      You trying to play lawyer. You asking to prove for the persons who put the claim. Is this another “oreo Cookie and Ice tea” saga? MOTS put your CS in gear and rethink what you have to say. Think first… Then pen.

      It is just a pity that these two young gentle men will not take the stance that “Mamo RIP” took and we would see the outcome. Eddie did not learn back then. Hatred is written all over the face of EDDIE, FREDDIE, lINTIE AND ALL THE OTHER IE’S. Also in their voices as well. MOTS I do hope you are not on the way to become an IE!

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      MOTS a government who takes care of the ELDERLY has the prayers and blessings of the Elderly. Did you not know that. The YES WE CARE PROGRAM. Would you condemn this program too? MOTS please answer me.

  27. possie
    September 6, 2011

    one thing i know the pm will never lost the case he have the haitions helping him . your should know what i mean

    • Anonymous
      September 6, 2011

      stop being an idiot possie! MAYBE YOU HAVE HAITIANS WORKING FOR U! STOP THE HATE AGAINST THE HAITIAN PPL!!!!!!!

    • September 6, 2011

      STUPESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AIR HEAD!!

    • Anonymous
      September 7, 2011

      There are many more Dominicans working obeah in Dominica than there are Haitians. The only obeah that Haitans in Dominica are doing is hard work to support their families back in Haiti.

    • September 7, 2011

      Hahaha, is he inferior or different from others, we all have to abide by the law of the country, skerrit and tony did not create this nation, what we need to remember ma charles kicked mano out because mano had tony arrested, wow be on to you all fools skerrit time will tell, you think that you are in control my friend God is in control he will surpass all the evil

  28. Jespen
    September 6, 2011

    My input is simple that to rule that the defendants MUST take the witness stand, where he gives potentially self-incriminating evidence under oath, in my mind’s eyes only means that the Judge will have set up himself for a successful appeal by the defense. To the learned head Appeal Judges, his actions will only be translated as an abuse of process and power, a willful prejudice against the defendant.

    All arrests, interrogations or questionings are guided by something called The Judges Rules. These are a set of guidelines put in place by learned head Judges many years ago. Those rules serve to:

    • Standardize procedure in all the police forces and for all courts.
    • Afford safeguard to the police officer who acts in accordance with the rules.
    • To protect the suspect, defendant, or prisoner from improper action and to ensure that statement made or evidence by suspect, defendant or prisoners is voluntarily given.

    Although the Judges rules are not laws in the strictest sense of the word, strict compliance is essential.

    In a case such as the one before the Supreme Court, the Presiding Judge must inform the defendant of his right to remain silent if he so chooses and further advised that should he waive his rights to silence, anything said by him may become self-incriminating and to his detriment.

    To remain silent or give evidence under oath, are rights granted to the defendant and is a choice that only he can make. He must freely choose to give evidence under oath in the witness box, give evidence in his defense from the dock, or exercise his rights to silence.

    Should it be the case where the defendant chooses not to take the witness stand and remains in the dock, questions will then only be directed to him from the Bench, (in this case, the Judge). He need not answer any of the questions asked of him, as he can’t be compelled to answer any question put to him whilst in the dock.

    By the defendant’s choice of silence, inference can’t be drawn to the defendant being guilty of the offences with which he has been charged.

    On the other hand, should the defendant choose to testify in his own defense during trial, and such evidence is deemed significantly different to that given by him during the questioning under caution, (in other words, if he lies), he may thereafter face prosecution for perjury.

    In jurisdictions where laws regarded the rights to silence do not exist, Common Law usually applies and such right MUST apply.

    The question that one begs to ask is this. Does the right to silence apply or does it not, in a case such as this, where a POLITICIAN has been dragged before the open court to answer to allegations having been laid against him?

    • I'mWondering
      September 6, 2011

      Finally…someone who understands the legal process!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I’m tired of reading comments based on allegations and NOT YET proven facts.

      It’s the job of the prosecution to present the evidence it has…based on the facts it has collected…not present “alleged facts’ and expect the defence to satisfy it’s evidence/ case

      • Papa Dom
        September 7, 2011

        Sorry my dear friend but your colleague above doesn’t understand the law. Copying and pasting something from Wikipedia is no proof of understand. If your friend had understood what he quoted, he would have realized that the information refers to criminal law. The instance case is an election petition which is more akin to a civil matter and therefore, slightly different rules apply. The point about no inference of guilt being laid against the “defendant” for remaining silent is proof of what I just said. In a civil matter we talk about the plaintiff and the respondent. Any reference to defendant is therefore pointing us in the direction of criminal law.
        May I just add; if there is no truth in what the plaintiffs are alleging, why not take the stand? The court has already made a grave error in not having skerritt present his “French” passport. It is now their opportunity to correct this mistake let’s hope they do just that.

      • I'mWondering
        September 7, 2011

        My friend… in a civil matter …it’s the plaintiff’s job to prove his case also… although it’s on the balance of probabilities…not beyond a reasonable doubt… we must also bear in mind that civil cases can also be linked to criminal cases…thus the idea of self incrimination is still very much alive…to be compelled to testify in a civil case can be seen as violative of the constitutional guaranty against self incrimination especially if. the privilege against self incrimination is not invoked at the proper time. What would constitute proper time in this case? Well, it will be when a question calling for a criminating matter is propounded. And my inferences are all based on the above article because i am not in court to hear all the details of the case…but by the above statements of the petitioners, it seems to be leading to the point of getting the defendant to incriminate himself. Although the civil procedure works under different rules…as per MR Astaphan’s above statements, it seems that the court had already decided that the CPR rule pertaining to the compel to witness issue, need not apply… I would be hard pressed not to believe that the judge has not reasonably thought this out.

    • Jespen
      September 7, 2011

      PAPA DOM,

      I fully understand what i wrote, as i am well versed in Criminal Law as you so rightly suggested.

      You would have also noticed the final question which is yours to answer, as you appear to be well versed in procedure relating to Civil matters.

      Such matters like the decision that the judge will make this afternoon are decided upon presidents set in cases of like nature. And if it is the case where the petitioners, plaintiff or prosecution can’t provide the Presiding Judge with case laws where such decisions were made and not successfully appealed, she will then left with no choice other than to rule in favor of the respondent or defense.

      Criminal or Civil, the respondent, defendant or whatever we refer to them in the legal world, CANNOT be forced to produce documents or give evidence.

      as the word RESPONDENT suggests, they will only respond to evidence presented IN COURT by the plaintiff. No HEAR SAY evidence will be allowed.

      NO PLEASE EDUCATE US ON CIVIL MATTERS. And i trust that you will not copy and paste like you though i did.

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Yes Jespen good! Now I need you to hold public meetings to explain to the masses the law as you have clearly stated on DNO. Probably you could Pappy’s yellow car so you would be conspicuous and some persons may listen .. Those who normally listen to all the lies and slander. LOL

  29. Piper
    September 6, 2011

    Why is Astaphan stonewalling the court in him not asking his client to answer to the court whether he has had a French passport in the recent past?

    What is Skerrit hiding?

    • Aloysius Idoitmatic
      September 6, 2011

      Sometimes we wish for all sorts of things ignorant of what the law allows.

      Skerrit and St. Jean will not testify and the courts can’t force them to doing so guarantees a successful appeal of the verdict should it go against them.

      No matter who you are or what you have been accused of, The Prosecution needs to produce evidence of their own through documents and or statements, DNA, Fingerprints etc to prove your guilt. They can not force you to testify to incriminate yourself….

      The UWP will be compelled to prove their case without the assistance of the two defendants. The court can not ask Skerrit/St. Jean to produce a passport as the court has no proof that such a document exists. To simply read news reports and infer from these that such a document exists alludes to hearsay and hearsay is inadmissible.

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Piper I thought you were smarter than that. Read Jepsens comment. Both gentlemen are entitled to the same treatment as you and myself and all the other citizens of Dominica. That treatment is also afforded to foreign persons as well!

  30. WIKILEAKS
    September 6, 2011

    So if the PM and St Jean lost the case, does that mean UWP will be the new Government???

    • laparol
      September 6, 2011

      it means they lost their seats.. labour still holds majority

    • buwo
      September 6, 2011

      NO….we the majority of Dominicans will never allow them to be the new government. We clearly showed this in 2009 and we will do it again and again and again.

      Hahahahaha!!

    • Justice and Truth
      September 6, 2011

      @ WIKILEAKS

      Since you are Wikileaks, conduct your own investigation. :lol: Woe to Dominica if there is a change of government and at this time. People cannot foresee the future. Should this ever happen, they may be in for a rude awakening and downfall and it may not be long that they will wailing, wringing their hands, biting their fingers and lips as well and wished that they were kinder to the PM. Some people do get exactly what they deserve. Let us hope that what some of them wish for never occurs.

  31. Eagle-Eyes
    September 6, 2011

    The court very well may rule against them, and in favour of UWP.The evidence is clear cut hence the trial, however Tony done concede that one, and preparing for injunctions and all kinds of petiitons, stay overs and appeals to ensure that by the time this comes to end the term will be over and Skerrit and St Jean will be eligible for the next election.

    Tony is doing what he gets paid to do create havoc and delay due justice, it’s his role. Tony never argues a case in any court, this is what he’s known for until such time.The constitution should have added a further clause that anyone found breaching such rules be banned from entering public office or any form of local government, serving on statutory boards etc for 15 years.

    • latche jr
      September 6, 2011

      but how the cops can hold u with weed they say and want u to bring the weed to court na u find that makes sense

    • September 6, 2011

      dream on we will see my friend

    • September 6, 2011

      ha ha, why don’t we try to work for a better Dominica than we a just trying to bring Mr.
      skerrit

      • Justice and Truth
        September 6, 2011

        @ happy face

        This is exactly what they should do. Instead they are exerting all their time, effort and energy to bring him down. This is not a Christian-like attitude. Keep in mind what goes around comes around – on them – in time. God is observing, hearing and taking note of their words and action.

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Eh Bey weh Eagle Eyes – Pure hatred protrayed

  32. sexy Balaw
    September 6, 2011

    Parry bellot can you please speak some reason and sense into the heads of my people. As a production consultant, explain to us the monetary value of the time being spent on a matter that should never reach the courts when the law is clear on this. A number of areas in this country could benefit from the money and time being spent in the courts. The lawyers, court staff, police, the p m taking taxpayers time to deal with a personal matter, the cabinet ministers who came and sat at the court, the supporters leaving work that they should be doing (paid or unpaid) to come to the courts, people taking time to make pilgrimage (payraynage) offering prayers for victory and mercy for whoever they supporting. Most disgraceful is the fight of poor and everyday people to be raising money to defend DOMINICA’S CONSTITUTION. Explain to us especially your employer and bosses that it is a waste of resources, financial, transport, and human resource. PRODUCTIVITY PRODUCTIIVITY PRODUCTIVITY.

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Who brought who to court? It was the Opposition who brought the petition. So who is wasting time but the opposition. They created a pettition and they want the person (respondent) to provide the facts for them. SExy Balaw listen to yourself .. who brought the matter before the courts .. Is it the two Gentlemen whom you have developed hatred of and want to see them down at all costs that you have become judge, jury and master. Balaw listen to yourself . reread you comment again.

  33. buwo
    September 6, 2011
    • Donald Tusk
      September 6, 2011

      We want to know what u getting?

      • buwo
        September 6, 2011

        I am not getting nothing personally but the people of the area going to get fresh clean water. You stay in other people’s country and blabber, while we slowly develop the country where I was born and have never left.

        Thanks PM!!!!!

      • WIKILEAKS
        September 6, 2011

        And what are you getting or maybe not getting

      • Donald Tusk
        September 7, 2011

        Ohh so u getting fresh clean water, we have 365 rivers in Dominica and u waiting on skerrit to give u water, BOY U LAZY!

      • ?????????????
        September 7, 2011

        So everytime someone support the Government we getting something. Well I support them and I do not and do not want anything. What I want well development for the country. YES we CARE Program for the Elderly. USE for all to attend secondary school not just a select few as in days gone by. New Bridges, roads, empowering persons like extending the STate College and enrolling more and more students (EDucation) Nurses studying at our STate College and I can say many more Like those mentioned above – bring the water to the home and not just saying we have 365 Rivers. Who wants to go the River to wash and bathe b4 we go to work and school for 8 am. Donald tusk shame on you for calling Buwo Lazy

        Buwo I stand behind you thanks for slowly helping to build and develop this country slowly but surely. Some of us got to stay back home and do that and we see what is being done withour own eyes.

    • Florida
      September 6, 2011

      That’s your tax money working for you. Unless you don’t work. Do you know what is the roll of a government?

      • buwo
        September 6, 2011

        Is it “roll” of government or “role” of government. All you living in America but all you more tehbeh than anything else and all you want to pretend is all you that know everything.

        And don’t say is a typo.

        Hahahahahaha.

      • Justice and Truth
        September 6, 2011

        @ Florida

        I reside abroad. Buwo should inform us what he/she is doing to make Dominica a progressive, happy and peaceful country and financially so. What has he/she achieved so far to help Dominica? Working solely for him/herself I suppose.

  34. islandgyal
    September 6, 2011

    i dont know wat dcans workin up theirselves 4…this ruling is not gonna change anything…skerrit still gonna be in power!! REAL REAL TALK!!

  35. Boi who tell u dat?
    September 6, 2011

    Some people panicing. :o

  36. ineedfree
    September 6, 2011

    DLP supporters seem to be willing to compromise integrity by putting the fault on the opposition for what is going in the court.

    In the first place, if the DLP leaders had respect for the constitution; or if they had taken time off to understand their role “under” the constitution, the opposition would not waste time and resources to correct this wayward behaviour by these brothers.

    The opposition seem to be more on the side of posterity, while the dlp are all about their myopic agenda. Let us admit that they are making some major blunders that will hurt future generations.

    While some time is wasted,it’s better now than never

  37. SENSES
    September 6, 2011

    AFTER THIS CASE IS OVER AND SKERRIT AND ST.JEAN ARE FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ELECTORITAL LAWS OF DOMINICA,I HOPE HE WILL ABIDE BY THE GUDGEMENT AND DO NOT CALL HIS FORIGN SOLDIERS TO IMPOSE A STSTE OF EMERGENCY IN Da.
    DOMINICANS ARE TAKING THIS GUYS WHO HAVE HIJACKED THE DLP FOR A JOKE!! BUT I DO NOT THINK IT WILL GO DOWN EASY.
    NOW ALL THE OTHER MINISTERS ARE STRUGGLING FOR NEW POSITIONS IN THE CABINET. I HOPE YOU ALL WILL SPEAK OUT AND LET THE MASSES KNOW THE TRUTH.
    JUSTICE TIME.!!

  38. jeremy
    September 6, 2011

    Silence in a court of law can and often is seen as guilt, facts govern this case nothing more nothing less, and if found to be guilty then the punnishment should fit the crime,

    This lengthy nonesence is a delaying hope of Senior Council stephan, AS I have earlier mentioned Astephan has a capable opponent in Senior Council Mendes,

    The facts can not be altered changed or slanted in order to opine a diifering view, they are set in stone,

    and the constitution equally can not be changed to suit a specific situation, the law is the law end of

    • Curious
      September 6, 2011

      Since when is silence in the court of law GUILT? Which court of law you talking about? Isn’t the rule of thumb against self incrimination? Is it innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t it the prosecution to prove it’s case – beyond a reasonable doubt – criminal and balance of probablilities – civil?

      ok ..in which court of law is an accused supposed to defend himself by assisting the prosecution? Nice…silence is GUILT…wow… i guess only in a Dominican court of law.

      It is true … the facts will be what determines the outcome of the case but so to is the interpretation of those facts….. and the application of the law based on those facts… that’s the justice system for you… it’s all about who is the most convincing!

      • jeremy
        September 6, 2011

        Hi curious yes it perfectly true to say that interpretation can alter the meaning of the facts to siut a given situation, but what it can never do is change the fact itself,

        Facts need no laws to support them they are therefore inviolate, by silence you but damage the cause, better the man who can face the facts with nothing to hide say his peace under the strictest cross exaamination on oath.

        And by doing so prove his case, silence is a form of prevarication, and is suspicious by it’s very nature, this is why silence does more to damage an accused than taking the stand.

  39. possitive
    September 6, 2011

    looks like tony already conceding defeat, a lengthy battle? if he had seen it was going his way he would already be on the radio braying…..bache, pwen sa, mendez not letang anyway….. toney cannot argue cases thats what he fraid

    • Island Gyal
      September 6, 2011

      This is what I got from his statements today. He sounded as if he knew they would lose but the process will not end there.

  40. FORKIT
    September 6, 2011

    DOMINICANS THE LAW OF THE LAND SHOULD BE ADHERED TO, AND THOSE SITTING IN THE HIGHTEST OFFICE SHOULD SET THE EXAMPLE…

    DOH PUT GOD IN ALLU BUSINESS, CAUSE IS GOD THAT SAY RENDER TO GOD WHAT IS GOD AND TO CEASAR WHAT IS CEASAR, SO WHEN POLITICIANS BREAK THE LAW BLATANTLY, THEY SHOULD BE JAILED, BECAUSE IF IT WAS AN ORDINARY CITIZEN ALLU BOOMBOOM FLIES WOULDN’T EVEN CARE THAT A POOR PERSON FACING JAIL… HIPOCRITE BUNCH OD DUMBINICAN BARBOONS

  41. abovethefold
    September 6, 2011

    Gwen Fig… in a Crininal Matter, you cannot be force to testify in your defense. In a Civil or Election matter you can be forced to testify. But when you go on the stand you can reserver your right not to answer the question. The judge also has the right to hold you in contempt of court.

    • profiler
      September 6, 2011

      As a defendant in civil or criminal matter u cannot be forced to testify. the lawyers for the UWP are well aware of that. It is always the decision of the defence to allow or not to allow the defendant to testify. Remember that the request to have the defendants produce their passports was thrown out. If the judge rules that skerritt and St.Jean must testify, is the judge also going to rule that questions about the defendants passport is off limits. If I am not mistaken this was the same judge who threw out the passport case. In our blind charge to get rid of Skeritt we must not forget.. We have a right to remain silent. this is one of the corner stones of the legal system.

      • September 6, 2011

        If he is innocent he should have no worries of incriminating himself. By your statements you are asserting that he is guilty and will incriminate himself and by the same token you are apparently condoning wrong doing

    • Gwen Fig
      September 6, 2011

      In this case he will be testifying against his defence, in that the prosecution wants to call the defendant to give testimony for the prosecution so as he will incrimiate himself.

      Case in point, jack is found with a cocaine the police has charged him, but one charge selling or distributing cocaine , the police has no info of the sale. Is is ok then that the police call him as a witness for the prosecution so that he provide the info that the court may now convict him?

      What ever your answer is, I wonder if you were the defendant what would you say and do.

  42. ineedfree
    September 6, 2011

    Patat;

    From what we know, renunciation came before election but not before nomination…as the laws says “before nomination”

    We know politics dont have a place in court and the Judge is aware of that, we can safely assume

    • I am a Dominican!!!!
      September 6, 2011

      Well you have stated that the renunciation came before the election but not before the nomination but if what Lennox and the others are saying is correct, the renunciation became effective after both the nomination and the election!!!!!! Remember that the letter which was revealed, if true, was an attempt to speed up the process and almost make the renunciation IMMEDIATE!!!! However, if that renunciation process went through to and became effective in February, then that would have been well after both the nomination and the election!!! That letter/e mail was simply an attempt to speed up the process hoping that the ambassador would do him the favour (abuse of office) in order to get him out of hot water!!!!!! What a disgraceful act for someone in such high office!!!!!!!!!

    • September 6, 2011

      Are you serious? I believe you have your details twisted because nomination my friend happens before elections and so renunciation cannot be before election but after nomination. The fact is a request was made for a speedier than normal renunciation about three days before the nomination but if only happened in February after the December elections

  43. Anonymous
    September 6, 2011

    Let me tell u I’m not really politically oriented or savvy I’m just a young woman looking for a better dominica,guess what I consider myself a labourite also but in my view the prime minister should be hard at work trying to build his country not in court personally if I get a chance to vote this man out asap I will at the drrop of a dime,sick and tired of the nonsense this is not in the interest of coutry what skerro is doing is clearly in the interest of self

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Who took the Prime Minister to Court? It is not he who wants to go to court. It is the Opposition who brought him to court. Soif someone takes you to court and although you know you did not go do anything to that person , would you not attend court because you were summoned. A Bench warrant can be issued to force you to come to court. So Skerro did not take himself to court and it is the Opposition whom you should be sick and tired of, not the man who has so much work to do to develop this country. He is already working hard and I am sure not amused to be in court when he could be doing something else. You are right there but you venom is against the wrong person.

  44. Julius C
    September 6, 2011

    Gwen Fig,

    Do you know why all attempts are being made to ensure that neither the PM nor St. Jean take the stand? If they are allowed to take the stand, the truth shall be revealed? Do you want to know the truth? Or are you a blindless supporter?

    • Goat mout
      September 6, 2011

      @Julius C
      “A blindless supporter”? What is that?

      • dominican
        September 6, 2011

        human beings kame mistakes even the english professors. I will correct him, a blind supporter. Are you satisfied?

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Read jepsen statement. You have a right to remain silent and the Judge still has to advise that if you choose not to remain silent whatever you say may be used as evidence against you. All citizens are entitled to this choice. Sothis is the rights of MR St Jean and Mr Roosevelt Skerrit as well. Note well that I did not use Minister of PM as they are also citizens as well and what applies to you and me also applies to them.

  45. 1979
    September 6, 2011

    what would be righteous would be for PM to had just say.

    “Yes I had my french passport but I give it up to come and serve Dominica, so let the opposition take me to court if they want”.

    that statement by the PM would have won my support and we would not even need be here in the first place. the whole problem is the SECRECY…..I for one cannot trust anyone who holds so tightly unto a secret. this case is nothing…..the blaircourt melee i want to hear about, and the infamous earl grant.

  46. Julius Corbett
    September 6, 2011

    If the Judge rules in UWP’s favor, that would create a serious dent in the defendants case. Obviously, Tony Astaphan is preparing himself for a ruling against him. The strength of the defendants case was based on the expectation that neither Skerrit nor St. Jean would be allowed to take the stand. My sources are of the view that the courts are likely to rule in UWP’s favor.

    • Goat mout
      September 6, 2011

      @Julius Corbett.
      “My sources are of the view that the courts are likely to rule in UWP’s favor.”
      It is your sources view or is it your wish?

      • Curious
        September 6, 2011

        So does that mean the UWP sources have inside connections with the judge?

        I’m curious about that statement!

      • ?????????????
        September 7, 2011

        This is his wish. We cannot do the courts work for them and also the Almighty’s work for him as well.

  47. Gwen Fig
    September 6, 2011

    A ruling against PM Skerrit & Hon. St.jean would set a very dangerous precedent. What it would in effect do is every defendant who appears on court can be forced to testify whether he likes it or not.

    Such a ruling would take away the defendants right to remain quiet and his rights not to incriminate himself. Such a ruling would also ensure that every defendant would be found guilty whenever he appears at court.

    This would be establishing the law of the jungle. The obligation is on the prosecution to prove his case. It is a known fact that one is presumed innocent until found guilty, but some has it the other way because of political colours.

    My bet is for a dismissal, what is yours?

    Don’t kill me it’s only my opinion and some legal interpretation added.

    • September 6, 2011

      Your argument that putting someone on the stand will ensure that every defendant will be found guilty is UTTER RUBBISH. There have been MILLIONS of cases where defendants took the stand forced to do so or not and have defended themselves adequately with nothing but the truth and subsequently found to be innocent. If Messrs. Skerrit and St. Jean are both innocent and have done no wrong how can they incriminate themselves if they speak truth to power? Its obvious where you stand on the matter and where your support is.”My bet is for a dismissal, what is yours?”

    • Anonymous
      September 6, 2011

      gwen fig i think you just might be right. what happen to the legal thing where the burden of proof rests on the prosecution? or is this a different ball game as it is a political case.

      i think this case will have serious implecations one way or the other.
      if we set aside our poitical biases we will see that.

      • September 6, 2011

        How would you like it if someone were to perpetrate some criminal act against you or your family and were to get away because of some machination/s hindering the prosecutor from proving it actually happened?

    • Lagoon Porssie
      September 6, 2011

      Gwen Fig if one take your comment at face value or just from a legal maneuvering angle then your argument could be credible. First of all and from an integrity perspective the PM nor St Jean should have been in this situation. Let us all agree that in a civilized democracy the PM in particular would have had to vacate the office just based on the obvious and blatant lies. The only scary precedent that we may be setting is one where people who are privileged can show blatant disregard for law and order and then use their privileges to fiddle around the justice and judiciary system. The last time I check this sort of behavior is called “ Abuse of power and privileges.” Is that the kind of behavior we want to promote. Gwen Fig I’m sure your best conscience will agree with such simple , civil and non partisan opinion.

      People should be judged by their action and not upon legal maneuvering. How many of us can honestly ask our sons and daughters to emulate the behavior of the people/politicians that we are so quick to defend under any circumstances. How can I explain to my kids that I unwaveringly support people who are dishonest simply because of a political party. To me it’s a defiance of all moral, religious, social and academicals lessons of life.

      I hate to use this analogy but I believe in calling the spade a spade – Is OJ Simpson not a ruthless murderer because he was acquitted on technicality?

    • Island Gyal
      September 6, 2011

      I don’t necessarily agree. If I know that I am not guilty, I will not have a problem taking the stand. If I know that I am guilty but wants to get off on a technicality without perjuring myself, then I will fight to stay off the stand.

  48. Doubting Thomas
    September 6, 2011

    While these politicians playing their selfish little politics, the country loses valuable financial resources and the due attention of it’s leader. And i ask, what good is it anyway?? who’s purpose does it serve, theirs or ours?? Are the the true sentiments of the dominican voting class represented in this court matter or is this just to appease the shattered egos of the opposition politicians??

    Even if the government were to lose these 2 seats they would still hold a comfortable majority in parliament to hold on to power?? or are we going to call another elections immediately after the hearing to drain more resources, create more instability, more election gimmicks and more accusations and court cases??

    Would the opposition not be better of utilizing their meager resources to do a major overhaul and restructuring and concentrate on presenting the dominican public with a solid workable strategy which would guarantee them success at the next polls??

    • Truth
      September 6, 2011

      Well, well, very well said. These are the questions I have been asking. Any right thinking person who wants good for this country would be scared that this situation is going to cause instability and waste of resources. Presently, does the opposition have what it takes to take this country and run with it if judgement were to go in their favour? Dominicans, most governments are corrupt in one way or the other. They (UWP) have been corrupt in the past, why should we put them back – I guess to undo the corruption? HAHA. People we need to know what we want – corruption and progress or corruption and no progress?

      • Goat mout
        September 6, 2011

        @Truth: “People we need to know what we want – corruption and progress or corruption and no progress?” That is truly the Question!

        The Opposition were the ones who showed Dominican politicians how to be corrupt. Remember the never before levels of expenditure for electioneering with the larger than life posters of certain politicians faces at strategic locations all over the country? Like they were saying: “This land is MY land”? Do we want that again?

        Remember the then Rep for Salisbury smirking in the House of Assembly on the question of corruption saying, “We know how to cover of tracks?” We want that again?

        Dem boys lurking in the air (waves and plane) promise even more deception and intrigue with hautiness to boot. We want that?

        Dominicans, the time has come when you must hold on to your common sense and make your own decisions. Dont let anyone fool you.

      • blast me
        September 6, 2011

        I would echo your sentiment, truth;the political world seems to have left dominica in the dust.Show me a politican that’s honest, i will show you a begger.Yet that’s no reason for politicans to rip the people off. I am non aline, idon’t trust politicasn and preachers,these guys get in there by their wits and fakes.I don’t like the way Dominica is being raped by these(blood crats) not baurocrats or tecnocrats; financial vampirers that what they are, they set up offices all over the world and peddle our sovrinity like drugs .however the opposition was not much cleaner in their doings, they did their share of shit too.They try to stay longer too soon, they try to catch the opposition with their pants down, they lost that gamble.Today you have these band of “wealth prospects” who use our constitution to facilitate their shit, it’s the same animal, just wearing diffrent colour coats.and useing the masses like asses during their campange,which is term”plenty sewoing”Dominica needs better than that, and if these guys don’t change their ways, then JAH JAH will blaze.

    • Evolved
      September 6, 2011

      Doubting Thomas it is sad that you and so many other Dominicans are missing the point. No Dominica – not even the PM should be allowed to break the highest law of the land – the constitution. This would set a very bad precedent and instill in the minds of Dominicans especially the youth that it is okay to break the law. No one expects that the Labor party would be kicked out of office – they have 18 seats.

      The ruling will send a very clear message that the PM is not above the law and that he too will suffer consequences for breaking the law.

      It is really sad that every ounce of moral standing – right from wrong seems to have been thrown out the window.

      Skerrit willingly took the oath of office knowing full well that he was not legally entitled to do so. THE LAW IS THE LAW.

    • September 6, 2011

      They are using their resources to ensure that things are done correctly in this country. I see that you beleive that the opposition should concentrate on elections rather than on things that matter as per the rule of law in the land and ensuring that people who are at the behest of power don’t flaunt the law and do all that they can to get away. This is quite interesting if not hypocritical to say the least

    • 1979
      September 6, 2011

      I agree with your comment, if is thomas letang you doubting…we are on same page…I hear even the treasury going hand to mouth now… hmmm

    • September 6, 2011

      Mr. Thomas ? Are you saying that because Nassif and Astaphan have millions of dollar, an employee stealing a $100 from them would not dent their coffers? Is that what you’re saying to Dominican? I hope you’re not justifying dishonesty in the name of politics. I agree even if the PM and St. Jean loose the case, the DLP will still have a majority, I also agree that the opposition may not be in a position to lead the country as they appear disorganized; but we should allow justice to prevail.

      • September 6, 2011

        The question is not about who will lead the country after this court matter. The opposition and dominicans are well aware that if the decision goes in their favor that it doesn’t mean they will take the reigns of power. The opposition I’m sure would know what they are to do facing the next elections. So all of these are inconsequential right now. What the opposition and civic minded Dominicans are concerned with and fighting for right now with this case is justice and preservation of the rule of law. All that talk about how many seats the opposition will have and how many labor will have, is just merely political garbage coming from people who don’t see the value in whats just and right but prefer to drown in their party political ignorance

    • Anonymous
      September 6, 2011

      All It’s doing is keeping Skerro in Dominica for a few days. He must be getting island fever by now.

    • Gel Couchon
      September 6, 2011

      I agree with goat mouth and so that is the reason why we have the chance to put those we have now in jail so that this kind of recklessness cannot happen again. It is nice to see that Goat mouth admitted that the Labor Party is corrupt. I am disappointed that Rosie Douglas did not keep up to the promise that the corrupt UWP gang stars would have been tried and jailed. Instead Tony took the money and said that there was no evidence to prosecute the UWP gangsters. Why not strike while the hammer is hot and jail the blatantly corrupt Skerrit and his administration. I’m sure Goat Mouth will agree!!!!! Be honest Goat Mouth. By the way I like the alliance name Goat Mouth – Gel Kabwit (lol)

    • I am a Dominican!!!!
      September 6, 2011

      You folks do not seem to understand the importance of the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!! If you have a leader who disregards the law on what is considered by you to be a ‘simple’ matter and he surrounds himself with people who seem to justify it, believ me, he will disregard the law again and again as he is allowed to do so with impunity!!!! He will do all sorts of stuff to cloud his actions like ‘DEVELOPING THE COUNTRY’ to an extent which is seen to be IMPRESSIVE and everyone will fall in line until it is too late!!!!! Dominica needs to keep curruption out as it is too small a country to fight back at weeding it out when it takes root!!!!!!! We are not able to fight against foreign powers either once they plant themselves among our citizens!!!!!!!!Watch out Dominica!!!!!!!!! Stand up always for what is right and just, do not make ‘DEVELOPMENT’ cloud your judgement!!!!!!!! Stand up for your rights!!!!!!!

    • Island Gyal
      September 6, 2011

      Pretty bias I would say.. Young lawyers and politicians should be in court taking notes. Cases like these are never a loss but a learning experience.

  49. CIA on the watch
    September 6, 2011

    hope these political bastards go down disgracefully

    • Nohogwash
      September 6, 2011

      This is also my wish! They deserve just that! A very, disgraceful exit!

      • ?????????????
        September 7, 2011

        Please make your “respectful entry” then. I guess you are very respectful?

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      You surely are a hater!

  50. fatty batty
    September 6, 2011

    well am just waiting and reading lord god and almighty father heal my nation and it’s people. :wink:

  51. Patat
    September 6, 2011

    Just a word of caution to one and all: lawyers love their own arguments.

    Reason will prevail and the court will have little to do with political machinations.
    The substantive test for the Court is this: what degree of strength does submission of foreign passports have in this matter when renunciation application took place many days before nomination?
    From the date of mailing renunciation papers can it be similar to sending acceptance of an offer via mail before the deadline date for acceptance of an offer expires?
    If it does not win favor with the judge an appeal can be put into effect to get concrete clarification from a higher court – hence the ANTICIPATED lengthy and protracted case anticipated.

    Lets hope the judge save this case and get rid of unnecessary and trival submissions in his court and deal with the substantive matter of qualification to contest election.

    • September 6, 2011

      Get you facts right. Renunciation was in February of 2010 AFTER the election process. The request was before nomination and a request for termination is not termination

    • Jespen
      September 6, 2011

      Love your sense of reasoning

  52. praying
    September 6, 2011

    Oh Lord, hear the cry of your people as we call out your name. Pour out your mercy as we pray. The ruling will be in favor of one side while the other side continues their bitterness. Will tommorrow’s ruling be a sign of things to come? Righetousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to it’s people. Lord expose what needs to be exposed and heal the hearts of those who are bitter. May tranquility and peace reign in this land of ours AMEN

    • ?????????????
      September 7, 2011

      Nice thought! We do need healing of persons.

  53. Trouble
    September 6, 2011

    well AStaphan you are not the judge… is because of people like everything have to take a hole year in this country, no reason for this urgent matter to be a lenghty one

  54. Anonymous
    September 6, 2011

    Like some folks would would say It doh must?

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available