After hearing both sides of the argument in the dual citizenship case against Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit and Education Minister Peter St Jean, here is the summary of the case as penned by High Court judge Gertel Thom.
CLICK BELOW TO READ FULL JUDGEMENTS
Ronald Green v. Petter Saint Jean et al. Claim No.6 of 2010- Ruling dated 10th January 2012
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:
See our full comment/user policy/agreement.
long live the king of the world
have your say miss and may god bless you on this matter
come on people, were you all expecting a different result?if it had gone the other way, i would be surprised. everything is in black and white.teach us the laws we do not understand.
To those who disbelieve, no explanation is acceptable; to those whobelieve no evidence is necessary.
Moreover, the book of Proverbs says:where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. In Romans 1, 28-32 it states that God gave them over to REPROBATE mind.
When God gives you over to a reprobate mind you are likely to develop REPROBATE ideas which would sound reasonable to REPROBATE people!!!!!!
HOTEP
i cannot understand mr noh ,he himself got a passport we and he takin the man to court .nonsense
Ladies and gentlemen
This is a lesson to all of us as Dominicans. The problem is not Skerrit, Eddo,Tony,or judge Thom.
The problem is with the wording of section 32 (1)a of the constitution of Dominica. Tony Astaphan was brilliant in taking advantage of this loophole. You all cannot blame the man for his brilliance.
This loophole existed long before Skerrit and the rest of this guys used it, and none of these politicians saw it fit to correct it by amending the constitution. Now the opposition is crying. Nonsense…..
What the opposition has to do now is get to work to fix this damn loophole.
Another point I would like to make about the decision of the Judge Thom. One contributor mention whilst she was A.G of Antigua, she petition the court to have a senator relinquished his senatorial duties because he held a U.S passport. My question to you all is what does the constitution of Antigua and Barbuda say in connection with having dual citizenship and serving as a government minister. Probably they do not allow it all together, as oppose to D/ca which allow it as long as you did not obtain it by your free will. In this case, she would have been justified in submitting her petition to the courts.
In conclusion, let me say the opposition should take the lead in getting this loophole in the constitution amended so someone else will not take advantage of it. Also whilst you all are making this amendment,ensure that any other loopholes are plugged as well. I can suggest that mention be made that if you are not a born Dominican,you cannot hold the office of Prime minister or President. Make sure this is covered if is not done already. Citizenship by naturalization is not enough.
Before the decision came down I thought that DLP would lose the case. But on further reflection, I realise that UWP were unable to show irrefutable evidence that the 2 gentlement had/used French passports to travel etc. They should have appealed to the French for proof that these gentlemen were in facted issued with French passports. They could then research the use of these passports to support their case. If one does not invoke the previledges afforded by being a French citizen does not disqulaify you. They were unable to prove that those guys were using those passports
No authority will do that, there is confidentiality that has to be preserved, in other to get such information a court will have to so order for that information to be released
Shallow writing by a judge
We cannot fault the judge because the decision was made based on the fact that there was no evidence to prove that Mr. Skerrit and Mr. St. Jean ever admitted to possessing, renewing or travelling on a French passport.
But if in truth and in fact that Mr. Skerrit and Mr. St. Jean did possess, renew and travelled on a French passport as an adult, then under the constitution of Dominica they are both fraudulently holding office because they both lied under oath. If so be the case they have only won the battle but not the war.
Being sworn into office one must pledge under oath to uphold, obey and respect the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica. If in fact they lied under oath then they will be held accountable before both God and man.
Luke 14:11. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Burden of Proof: Okay. It is a standard principle of law that he who asserts must prove. However, isn’t there a difference in the application of the principle in a criminal matter vis-a-vis a civil/administrative matter? Is the principle applied in the same way in examining constitutional petitions? I doubt it. For instance, whereas an employee who brings a case against an employer must bring sufficient, relevant and appropriate evidence to prove his/her case, the employer has a legal burden to make a minimal showing with sufficient evidence that the employee was given full and fair consideration and that the employee’s rights were not unduly violated. The courts have held that because the employer is in possession of information that only he has and which the employee does not have access to. The courts have also held that when a Respondent has refused or failed to produce evidence, it can apply its inherent jurisdiction to draw appropriate inferences from the failure to present the evidence required by the court to make an informed decision and to deliver justice. Therefore, the fact that the Judge did not allow the Respondent to produce evidence or to be cross examined ought not to be a valid justification for ruling that there was insufficient evidence to rule otherwise. The Judgment cannot stand legal scrutiny.
This simply means that the two honorable gentlemen, according to the evidence presented, did not by their own hands, apply for or renewed any such foreign passport. It is not that they were not dual citizens, but not by their own delebarate doing. Amen!
What the judge needed to do was to use the power of the court to allow the defendants to testify instead she use that power to not order on cost.
pertinent documents were not submitted & the defendents were not made to take the stand.. impossible to lose the case.. however if the case had been thorough and covered all the bases the outcomes would have been different.. seems to me the case was engineered so that the defendents would win. seen that in movies so probably it can happen in real life.
As a child growing up i’ve always heard that saying that a prophet is not honoured in his own country.
Have you all Dominicans gone bonkers? What the hell is wrong with you people?.
Shame! shame! shame on you.
Most of these wannabe lawyers on the sight posting these comments don’t know what they are talking about. They think they know it all but they don’t know a thing.
They are the ones who were given the opportunity to study abroad but instead of coming back to develop their country like Skeritt did, they chose to stay in other countries and help develop. Now they are crying fowl. This is hypocricy to the max.
Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is. Stop bashing Dominican and Dominicans. Why don’t you all just pack and
move back home to develop your country you pretend to love so much. I can hear you! What did you say? over your dead body? Go figure. Now then, put up or shut up. Let Skeritt do his job.
Well said writer.love your comments. Down with disstabilers,and oppotunist .They have no love for DA. They are just for them selves and there families. Hold strong, PA KETIA YO PWON DOMIC HOD NOU
I LOVE LOVE MY DA TO MUCH
SMH… Where is Executive Outcomes or Sandline International when you need them..
They should have had a copy of the passport. They said he owns one, they should have to submit.
You expect Skerrit to submit a passport. What is he says he does not have one, then what?
That is the issue with these UWP idiots. Dominicans will never vote them into office, they are losers and I mean that literally – every case they’ve lost.
Dr. Lennox Honeychurch, hurry up and pen this one. I need to sit back and enjoy reading this chapter in the history of Dominica.
Read PAR 86 on wards
Every Dog has his day
Every pig has his Market.
The opposition needs to use the system to their advantage.
Go to Parliament which is broadcast by DBS and Marpin, and debate and where members have to pledge allegiance.
Use the parliament where you are paid to inform the public rather than on q where you have to pay and can’t reach the public.
Appeal to the pride of the many Dominican ministers who are much more qualified and experienced than Skerrit to be PM.
I would give an analysis of the documented acts of allegiance but DNO will not publish the real issues because not many remember when DNO was for sale. Why is it that
Suddenly they no longer are for sale???
Cursed be upon those who sacrifice honesty and integrity for their own personal benefit.
The wrath of the Lord shall be upon those who pervert the course of justice and peace.
Those who continue to haul the devil by his tail, will soon reap the result. The Lord God is a jealous God, you cannot serve both God and the Devil.
God will purge Dominica in His time and His way, watch you will see.
Your comment in no way shows any qualities as someone who is a critical thinker, but someone who takes on religious dogma and religious beliefs. It is not about people being cursed for sacrificing integrity and honesty, it is about people not using their God given mind to think and analyze things, always remember if you do not use your mind someone will use it for you especially when it comes to politics and religion.
It is very sad in your comment bringing God in this saying he is a jealous God. Why would you believe God would purge Dominica
simply because of your personal ignorance and belief on a matter of political partisan.
Every Dog has his day
Every pig has his Market
Fair Ruling, Job well done
Rupert Sterling resigns over dual citizenship matter
Labour Minister Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin
those who use that article when read as an enitre article that just dont compare to what happened here, did he use the us passport, did he recived it when he was an adult or did he recieve it by birth. THOSE DEPARADOS CAN CONTINUE BUT LABOUR WILL NOT BE DERAILED WETHER THEY CAL A PRESS CONFRENCE BY THE FOMER BIAS ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. WE WILL BEAT THEM AT EVERY TURN AND NEXT ELECTION LABOUR WILL TAKE A LOT MORE FROM THE WORKERS PARTY, THAT CASE WITH DR.FONTAIN WILL END JUST BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION AND AFTER WINNING LABOUR WILL BE ON A HIGH AND WILL SWEEP THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.
read pages 25 to 26 and tell me if the judge is not a joker
I’AM NOT FOR NO PARTY PLEASE RESPECT THE JUDGE’S DECISION. LIFE IS SHORT TIMES ARE
HARD EVERYWHERE NOT ONLY IN DA, LETS TRY OUR
BEST RESPECT EACH OTHER AND WORK TOGETHER
MAKE DA A BETTER PLACE BECAUSE ITS YOURS, MINE AND OURS DON’T DESTROY THIS BAUTIFUL
ISLAND.
give it a rest UWPites!!! Let Go!! MOve on!
o The Constitution does not prohibit dual citizenship – it prohibits those who got it by their own hands and those who show allegiance to a foreign nation.
Granted, as established by VAZ…owing a passport may not necessarily mean that you pledge allegiance to that country. Some countries are explicit in their rules and laws, some are not.
In this case, the plaintiffs failed on many levels.
The issue wasn’t whether they had dual citizenship by their own hands. The issue was whether, as established by Vaz, they showed allegiance to a foreign power. To establish that – the plaintiffs needed to show that that they had valid passports at the time of their nominations and they travelled with these passports. If they had renounced their citizenship prior to the nominations, then, it would have been ok, since they’d have severed ties with the other nation.
Furthermore, as established in VAZ, the plaintiffs went on to define what it means to show allegiance. For example, in some countries, renewing a passport requires an oath – thus, this is interpreted as showing allegiance. In America, renewing your passport is seen as a sign of allegiance.
In this case, the plaintiffs failed to show that in fact they showed allegiance to another country. They failed to establish what it means to show allegiance.
Perhaps, even if they had the passports – it could have been argued that unlike Vaz, where the plaintiffs showed that as per American law, renewing the passport is a sign of allegiance, French law could be different…In fact, the plaintiffs did not use the French law to establish their case. No one knows what the French law says regarding citizenship, allegiance etc… Having a passport may not automatically mean that you are showing allegiance to another country.
At the end of the day…. the decisions make sense within the context of the law.
And for the persons down crying the judge – remember that the UWP had all the right to request that the judge not hear the case, if they felt they could have been prejudiced. But, obviously this was not done. If they were concerned with “fairness and justice” as they claim they’ve been denied, then, instead of throwing out these baseless accusations now, they could have dealt with the matter.
Justice is alive is when we lose because in the winning party’s eyes…they’ve just gotten their JUSTICE
seems like all you have to do is deny the accusations against you then your home free in this judge’s eyes.amazing
Being found not guilty does mean that one did not break the rules or commit a crime.
Not guilty by the court does not mean not guilty by the truth. The PM walks with the truth, and wherever he goes, he takes himself…and the truth.
The quest for ultimate power renders men void of conscience.
JUDGE NO ONE ONLY YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU KNOW
WHO YOU ARE.
Ebeh boy people working for 85 cents cuz 15 is for skerro dem and some of them dont even have proper clothing since election every sat in d market with a together we must shirt well wash out. but they kissing road outside d court with tears in their eyes because God has won lol d man dont even know them weh. Yes i …. i take a kix lol lol then say the world not ending
767,
Seriously. I have been reading your comments on DNO, and even though I disagree sometimes, you make some of the most valid points and commentaries. Make youself known, man. I need to sponsor you for the next election.
@ Dubique 767
How can you prove that he is not telling the truth. It is these types of statements of propaganda which will get people into hot water and they will be sued for defamation of character. Have you not yet learned a lesson? Speak the fact and nothing but for the fact. Cease being judgmental.
With all due respect, Justice and Truth, you may need to take a second look at my comment.
Defamation of what? Statement of propaganda? Defamation of character can never be extracted from my statement. Read my statement again…one’s inability to prove a case does not mean that the case does not have merit. One’s inability to substantiate a claim does not mean that the claim is invalid. In the majority of cases,bad attorneys and poor research are the biggest culprits for people getting away with fracturing rules, regulations, and criminal mischief…and course, you have those puppet judges who have been bought…
ignore that jack……..i just skip over his nonsensical, kindergarten comments….as much as nauseating as it is its his right to regurgitate his nonsense.
SAY IT LOUDER…SOOOOOOOOO TRUE
People, this is not even funny…I am sitting here,”salivating”…Nuh,nuh..really…I am quite serious….See this is why I have always maintained that this case was a “Constitutional” issue….Not about a few men…
And I wondered to myself; what would happen if this case went before the PRIVY COUNCIL.
Let me please, share with you, what I came across in my studies,(and research) last night:
When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.
I am not finished…Look:
“when judges depart from the exercise of simple judicial discretion and begin to embrace political discretion, they commit treason to the Constitution.”
That seems to me to be absolutely right.
Pretty damn scary,isn’t it?…….Are you kidding me?….
I started reading the Judge’s decision,and began shaking my head….I had to stop…No,no…I am going to read the whole thing..I saved the whole decision on my PC…I live for stuff like that…I love it….I am not going to criticize the Judge,…But man…Knowing some facts about this case….well I will leave that alone…for now….
How did these Guys present their case?…What were they thinking?….Man.
But if anything, for the sake of The CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA, I hope this ends up at the PRIVY COUNCIL.
In the mean time, let us all move forward…And please, We need to unite!..For the sake of our selves, our children and our Country.
All the very best to all
Profound Peace.
REBEL!!!.
The Judge states that Mr. St.Jean did not admit to acquiring, renewing or traveling on a French passport. Hence, her reason for dismissing the petition . Did she expect Mr. Jean to admit? And what (besides his conscience) would compel him to admit since she ruled that he did not had to testify.
She says the oral notice of Mr. James was based on a false premise that Mr. Skeritt was a French citizen by his own free will. How does she know that? How does she reach that conclusion having denied the petitioners’ written request for Mr. Skeritt to surrender his French passport? The passport was not made available to the Court. In what position is she then to refute Mr.James’ claim?
The reasoning by this Judge is lacking in thoroughness, persuasion, command of facts and logic. The petitioners should appeal her decision.
Not because we oppose the present gvernment we do not have to be so bias. Remember the burden of proof is on the Petioner not the respondent. The respondents does not have to prove to the petitioners so therefore they are not obliged to testify or submit evidence. That was the whole ruling of the case. If someone takes you to court claiming that you stole from them would you tell the court that you stole and what you stole. The person has to tell and prove the court what you stole from them. So that is the gist of the case. Plezse remove the blindfolds from you all eyes and face reality. Stop being negative and think positive for once.
Not a herd follower: “The reasoning by this Judge is lacking in thoroughness, persuasion, command of facts and logic.”
To take this position you would have had to be in the judge’s chambers, have had access to all the information that she did, and to have followed the court case from filing to decision. In the absence of you having access to the details of the case, how can you judge the judge?
In any case, the discussion on the judge’s competence or jurisdiction is a red herring. The opposition has dismissed every democratic institution that we know when that institution does fold to its wishes. In addition, the UWP Opposition, itself, has proven to be terrible losers.
Frankly, that case should never have gone to court. Why? The UWP knew that it could not prove that the defendants acquired citizenship on their own free will. It knew that it had NO EVIDENCE to prove this. The fact that the defendants may possess foreign passports does not even prove HOW they got that passport.
So, any denigration of the judge now is an attempt to distract from the core of the matter, which is the UWP’s incompetence even as the official Opposition.
all i want to know is why the judge didn’t feel confident to read the judgement in person.i smell a rat somewhere or maybe a penguin lol.
This is a normal happening. This decision could have been delivered in Antigua. the Judge was not available so another judge read the verdict.
What obtained in a similar case involving a politician in Jamaica who possessed dual citizenship (US citizen) of his own accord as an adult? Didn’t the judge request that politician to display his US passport in court as proof of his US citizenship? In Dominica, nothing like that with Gretel Thom, who served as Attorney General in the Bird Antigua labour Party.
Which lawyer from Dominica did work on behalf of that same ALP? My people, put the pieces together. We are not all fools.
In the St. Kitts situation re. dual citizenship, who represented the Govt.? Was it at the time a DISQUALIFYING VICE?
Wrong is only wrong depending on who does it. A thief who steals and caught red-handed could easily escape justice, not because he did not committ the crime, but because of the sympathies, interpretations, the influence, connections or some ‘technicalities’
Susan olde did receive a Dominican diplomatic passport from some authority in Dominica. That cannot be refuted. US$400,00.00 was given by OLDE. No denying that. We heard that the money went to a certain NGO named, “Citizens for a Better Dominica.” What happened to that money? When questions were asked in PARLIAMENT by the opposition about that Susan olde affair, diplomatic passport to her and a million plus $$$$$ given to the State, those seeking clarification and wanting the TRUTH told by the DLP Govt., were charged initially about a quarter million dollars.
Why so FEW believe that they have so much POWER that they could bamboozle the MANY at all times? Why so many continue to allow so FEW to control their lives? A new kind of slavery has envelopped our beautiful Dominica. Enslaved again and again and again. Mental slavery persists.
I honestly believe some of you folks commenting on the judge’s decision should following the law and continue to research if the decision was not in your favor. Right/wrong, the ruling was made based on information that was submitted. Respect the judge’s decision.
hence more information is needed to come to a conclusion/verdict/ decision your pick.
All one needs to become a judge is yrs etc and a law degree.To get a law degree all one needs is a fat behind.(not always cause i know one female lawyer whose Butt is level with a her rear thigh part as a her back “Hamstrings”All in one plane and she is a lawyer. lol!
The Attorney on this case failed miserably. He should have examined the constitution correctly prior to having his client go through this shame.
The Attorney in this case is Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, former professeor of Constitutional Law at the UWI Law faculty, and distinguished lawyer throughout the Caribbean and the Americas. He also Sits as a judge in Belize.
Our biggest problem in Dominica is the most ignorant people are always the first ones to disrespect and insult INTELLIGENCE
WHY BLAME THE JUDGE. COME WITH CONCRETE
EVIDENCE AND YOU’LL BE VICTORIOUS.WELL NO
HE AND SHE SAY BRING THE EVIDENCE.
One question I would like answered, and which would probably have saved a lot of time/effort/money.
Had either men made their dual citzenship status know prior to standing for and being voted into office. Would they have been allowed to participate?
The Constitution does not prohibit dual citizenship – it prohibits those who got it by their own hands and those who show allegience to a foreign nation.
The issue wasn’t whether they had dual citizenship by their own hands. The issue was whether, as established by Vaz, did they show allegience to a foreign power. To establish that – the plaintiffs needed to show that that they had valid passports at the time of their nominations and they they travelled with these passports. If they had renounced their citizenship prior to the nominations, then, it would have been ok, since they’d have severed ties with the other nation.
Furthermore, as established in VAZ, the plaintiffs went on to define what it means to show allegience. For example, in some countries, renewing a passport requires an oath – thus, this is interpreted as showing allegience. In American, renewing your passport is seen as a sign of allegience.
In this case, the plaintiffs failed to show that in fact they showed allegience to another country. They failed to establish what it means to show allegience.
Perhaps, even if they had the passports – it could have been argued that unlike VAaz, where the plaintiffs showed that as per American law, renewing the passport is a sign of allegience, french law could be different. Having a passport may not atomatically mean that you are showing allegience to another country.
to summerize all that is being said and answer all your questions, the key point is that there was no evidence that they obtain citizenship through their own will, they did not pledge any aligence.
had the opposition provide anything that showed either of the ministers taking an oath or swearing then the out come would have been different.
this opposition too like to go about on allegations with no evidence.
I STILL HAVE A DIFFICULTY IN ACCEPTING THE JUDGEMENT BECAUSE NEITHER SKERRIT OR PATTER HAS TOLD DOMINICANS WETHER THEY POSSESS A FRENCH PASSPORT. AFTER THE JUDGEMENT,SKERRIT SAID,”I NEVER PLEDGE ANY ALLEDGIANCE TO ANY COUNTRY OR STATE” THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SKERRIT TO SAY,I NEVER APPLIED FOR OR RECEIVED A FRENCH PASSPORT, AS A RESULT,I NEVER PLEDGE ANY ALLEDGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR STATE.IF I COULD GET CLOSE TO SKERRIT,I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM,MR. SKERRIT,YOU CLAIMED THAT YOU RECEIVED YOUR CITIZENSHIP AS A KID,THEREFORE NO LAW NO CONSTITUTION CAN PREVENT YOUR NAME FROM BEING ON THE BALLOT. IF THIS IS THE CASE,WHY DID YOU RENOUNCE YOUR CITIZENSHIP?
Thumbs up! If you were on the right side of the law.. why would you renounce your citizenship?
This was a simple decision. If you accuse someone of something it is your duty to prove the case, not the other way around. The Opposition lawyers started on the wrong foot from the beginning by asking the accused to supply them with evidence necessary to prove a case against themselves. For High profile lawyers as they were, this was the weakest approach I have seen.
The judge gave the only verdict that could be given, based in law, The constitution states by virtue of self, they were born,they did not chose. The case was always a fishing expedition
the opposition thought that the kayei would catch a tuna. They failed the net was not strong enough.
Now they need to reel and come again, by re-organizing themselves, and behaving like a true opposition in parliament.
You guys not easy. Accepting an usigned judgement that has been there for weeks. Or should I say accepted an electronic copy. You will receive the signed versions later.
Ever heard of Federal express, UPS and DHL.
I smell a rat but for now the games will go on till the next round.
“I still wish to read the entire judgment but based on what I’ve seen so far the writing style of the learned judge leaves much to be desired.”
Dominican, I agree with you we. The judge’s written summary above is an embarrassment to the legal profession and the judicial system in Dominica. For a moment there I thought this was a first rough draft as the writing style is so sophomoric and devoid of rhetorical flourish we have come to expect of such high profile cases. Perhaps “the learned” judge should take a basic course in “Writing for Dummies”.
I guess that’s how we behave when things don’t go our way.
To Road Hog
I’m startled by your comment regarding the writing style of the judge,are you serious. This i will let you know, everything that irritates us about others can tell us something about ourselves.
Isn’t it more important to understand and comprehend what is written rather than focusing on the writing style.When you read something don’t you first try and comprehend what is written, no wonder you did not understand what was written,very sad.Finally
something you should know. A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
What is all the fuss about? The key to all this is in Section 32 (1)(a)of the constitution.
Once you read that you will wonder why the UWP members even bothered to take a case.
All this quarrel against the judge is stupid. Skerrit and St. Jean (and Ron Green) and others got their other citizenship and any papers related to their citizenship as a result of their parents making them citizens of another country when they were children.
The constitution says clearly that once they did not obtain their citizenship by their own act they can run for election. Simple so. The judge was right.
Quite clearly you have not understood the case despite all the many months of publicity.
If this was the case.. That they got their citizenship through their parents.. It would have been very easy to prove this by presenting the relevant evidence and getting the case immediately dismissed… Why would they waste the courts time and let this drag on for so long.. And why would they renounce thier citizenship if they were on the right side of the law?
Amen, and that say it all. We want the law and when we get it we want to tell the people who have studied the law how to do it, every one wanted a ruling and the judge gave a ruling base on our law of the land so what is the problem now.
SO WHY ARE THEY BLASFAMING THE JUDGE?TELL THEM TAKE AN INTERPRITER IF THEY CAN NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH.IF THEY FRENCH SKERRIT WILL FOR THEM.SOT
@ Plato
It makes excellent sense.
If after all this time you still do not know and cannot understand what the fuss is about, then you should have kept your ignorance to yourself and not parade it in public.
Having read the decision in it’s entirety …i find that it was well written with clear cut reasons as to why she ruled the way she did.
Good reasoning…
I too read the decision in its entirety. And I find that it written with clear cut reasoning. The petitioners (UWP) failed to show any wrong doing by the ministers. The petition UWP sent was badly written so the judge could not sub-poena the ministers to present their passport to the court.
UWP failed to present their case in court.
I also say that the attorneys for Mr. Green should be brought to justice for Mal-Practice.
THEY SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT LIKE HELL TO SEE THAT JUDGE THOM RECUSE HERSELF ONCE THEY HAD EVIDENCE THAT SHE AND TONY ASTAPHAN WERE BEST FRIENDS AND THAT THEY HAD PRIOR ASSOCIATION WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTIGUA.
We have looked at many Perry mason to know that. Why did they not know the law, were they also part of the PLAN? MAL-PRACTICE!!!
We have to look at the facts of the case to determine if the Judge was wong in her rulling. Having read he rulling with the many cases cited and the reasons for her rulling, as an independent person this was in deed a great rulling. The Appeal Court is there and should be used by the people who have issues with the rulling. Stop disrespecting the judge please.
May just have been malpractice. Find out who is the secretary for the lawyer
@ THE CONSTITUTION
Your first sentence makes me laugh.
I do agree with you. Include defamation of character and incompetence.
DNO is Ken Richard with the news? I just find it to be so balance, hope he stays that way.
ADMIN: Yes, Ken is currently a member of the DNO team. This is part of a deliberate policy by the organization to employ, to the extent that our resources will allow, competent staff, to effectively implement our goal of providing a consistently professional service to our readers and customers.
I believe that we live in a democratic country and the judges decision is final in all matters…. we may cry down the PM or the opposition but at the end of the day we need to continue with nation building…
Nation building? I hope you not into construction. I would be worried.
SEEING THAT LENOX L. WOULD NEVER BE GIVEN THE JOB TO SEAT AS JUDGE ON THAT CASE, WHY DIDN’T THE U.W.P HAVE HIM ON THEIR LEGAL TEAM? THIS LENOX L. GUY IS BRILLIANT WHEN COMES TO THE LAW.
BUT WHERE HE STUDY LAW NUH?
HE WIN A CASE ALREADY NUH?
IF ALL YOU DONT WANT HIM ON THE BENCH PLEASE PUT HIM ON A CHAIR
Dominica’s Constitution is worthless. A big waste!
@ The CONSTITUTION
I have stated it many times that it needs to be reviewed and updated as in this case. It is out-dated. We are residing in the 21st century. It is the year 2012 and they are still operating with an old Constitution of yester-year which is behind time. It is time for a change.
Recall last year that the former Jamaican PM who resigned stated this in one of his articles which was posted on this Website.
Yes I agree that the Constitution is outdated but until it is rewritten it is still the Supreme Law of the land. Or else we may have to release everyone from jail in Dominica for the very law that convicted them has been made of non-effect.
The judge is beautiful inside and out???
Someone got paid! That’s the best calypso for the year…..
Haha, again seems like these folks in the caribbean are extremly unable to understand basic issues…even though they may have degrees etc..it does worth them anything at all…
thats why they will continue to be Highly ranked as third world due the their lack of understanding what evidence is..
firmly the court should never leave a stone untouched in my view to seek the truth.
thats lacking “BIG TIME” in the caribbean region…Dont Caribbean folks learn anything these days…
CCJ…would be another slave Master tool in a different version for the Caribbean.
Its a hard pill to swallow but the facts are real.once the black folks have a slight ability towards power or some level of intelligence its complete darkens and clouds their complete brain.
This is laughable by a judge ignoring the truths and facts of a case, and doing things to suit her personel cause…
i look at it as a complete disgrace to institutions like UWI and other caribbean learning houses..
Our lack of deep thinking has left even our cricket team being down in the gutters God knows if their will be a re-birth.
we are too full of ego down here in the caribbean region and still come up short at all levels even though we proclaim to have so call university and college grads.
when you do a summary its a bunch of zeros, and begging abilities we and entrenched with..
i see the caribbean as being taken over by foreign powers China firstly in due time..as Our policy makers and so call brilliant minds dont have the guts to be tough and visionary on any issues…we a bunch of hypocrites!
lack of deep thinking and facts in the decision
She didnt go UWI she is guyanese
All along, i’ve been claiming that little phrase – “by virtue of his own act”
HUMAN ENVY
After two years and a few weeks, a section of the Dominican society celebrated a phyrric victory in the dual citizenship case, while another section concluded that justice delayed, in the first place, is justice denied. The laws itself explicitly states and a top lawyer of the court claimed that such matters must be dealt with expeditiously. Was that case dealt with quickly?
Who is Gretel Thom? Dominicans should know.
Judge Gretel Thom who dismissed the petitions against St. Jean and Skerritt:
—- is Guyanese born.
—- 1998-2001, she served as Deputy Solicitor General in Antigua and Barbuda in the BIRDS Antigua labour Party (ALP) Govt.
—- 2001-2005, was Attorney General in the AG’s Chambers in St. John’s Antigua.
—- High Court judge in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court from 2005.
DNO please verify for the benefit of your readers. Readers check for yourself. An article in the newsletter of the High Commission for Antigua and Barbuda (London)-issue no. 77, May 2003 is insightful. The article is entitled,”Rupert Sterling resigned over dual citizenship matter.” Prove me wrong. Conduct a google search, my fellow Dominicans and read for yourself. You’ll find out who was the AG at the time and who filed what in the courts. Do you make any connections? After reading is it clearer now to you what is going on with our judicial system in the Caribbean?
What was the judges ruling in the dual citizenship case in Jamaica? Remember also in St. Kitts the dual citizenship case there?
JUSTICE???????? Justice delayed is JUSTICE DENIED. Is not me that say. I heard that statement while in my mother’s womb.
Would some people continue to rally around the slogan,”No Law, not even the Constitution could prevent me from………” What if the thief, the murderer, the fraudster et al acts illegally or committs criminal acts and believes that statement to be true? Crapaud smoke our pipes in Dominica.
—-
I just read the article. Interesting!
Here’s the article in its entirety…..
Rupert Sterling resigns over dual citizenship matter
Labour Minister Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin
Junior Minister of Information Rupert Sterling has resigned from the Senate and his ministerial position.
In his letter, Mr Sterling explained that in light of the commencement of legal proceedings for a declaration to determine whether or not his position as a Member of the Senate contravenes any of the provisions of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda, he considered it within the best interest of the country that he relinquish his position as a Member of the Upper House.
On 9th May, Attorney General Mrs. Gertel Thom filed an application in the High Court for a declaration that Rupert Sterling and Linton Thomas of Barbuda were not validly appointed as Senators because they hold dual citizenships.
The order called for both men to vacate their seats and further restrain them from sitting or continuing to sit in the Senate.
Sterling and Thomas are citizens of the United States of America.
In his resignation letter to Prime Minister Bird, Sterling also said that he is firm in his belief that he has not contravened any law by sitting in the Upper House of Parliament. He said that he plans to clearly establish this beyond any doubt by the use of the Judicial System.
Mr Sterling added that he believes that the Court is the appropriate forum for such a declaration, but he also recognises that it will take some time. He said that during the period leading up to the matter being heard in the courts, he does not consider it proper for him to be performing the duties of a Senator while he is defending the validity of his appointment as one.
He thanked the Prime Minister for the opportunity to have served the country for the past four years.
What then do you have to say about Ron Green being an American citizen and being an elected member of parliament and a government minister for several years. Two wrongs does not a right but at the same time we should not be hypocrites!
Why didn’t the labor party take him to court?
Ok…so he’s resigning over dual citizenship?
the issue in the case is not whether Skerritt was a dual citizen – it’s a proven FACT.
Whether Justice Thom was the AG is irrelevant in this case because if the issues and facts are different – then it’s an ENTIRELY different case.
Regarding the Jamaica case – the plaintiffs had evidence and were not relying on the passports to prove their case. The had expert evidence which established that they had a prima facie case.
the plaintiffs in this case had nothing – not even the basics to help them – i.e …would applying for a french passport mean establishing allegiance to France? In Vaz, they had expert evidence to show that acquiring an American passport means that one bears allegiance to America.
Also …. the plaintiffs were going on the notion that failure to admit, is a declaration of guilty – NOT IN LAW, with exceptions where there is enough basis, grounds, evidence to make that inference.
Dominica allows for dual citizenship. It is prohibits one from going up for elections if he is bound by allegiance to another country, by his own hands – guess as established by Vaz – traveling on the passport, renewing the passport.
Although, i’d personally say that renewing it is of the most importance if by renewing one has to pledge an oath of allegiance. Otherwise to me, it’s just a benefit
I don’t believe you are in command of the facts pertaining to the Jamaica case.
I see no wrong doing in having “dual citizenship”, especially if that citizenship was obtained /attained when the individual was a minor. I too, have dual citienship and I would not give up any of them just to please a few. There is too much envy where this is concerned. I think many of the people raising “Cain” would have also liked to be in the shoe of Mr. Skerrit or Mr. St. Jean. What is all the agrument about? Having dual citizenship or proficiently able to execute the duties for which they were duly sworn?
In 2003 who was the party in power in Antigua? It was the ALP headed by Lester Bird. Who was the attorney for the Antiguan government? Tony I beleive. Who was the AG for the Antiguan government? From what I have heard it was this same gertel thom. Do you see the connection. Do you also remember just about two weeks ago tony was saying he understaood why she had to postpone the descision from Dec 31st 2011 to Jan 10th because he saw the amount of work she had to do while he was in St. Lucia for the recent elections. Birds of a feather. Its all about the fraternity.
These men were grown men when they became citizen’s of the US, they had to establish allegiance to that land, knowing they were in the parliament, the PM was a child and so was Peter they established no alligiance it was given to them, these cases are different. the judge is right in her ruling based on our law.
@ more than we know
Do not make me laugh but I already did.
You heard that statement while in your mother’s womb? At how many months? Did you re-enter your mother’s womb? Couldn’t be.
You must have been a very smart and alert baby who was not already born, whose eyes were not yet opened, brains were not yet fully formed and were at a standstill. A miracle and exception indeed.
Too much propaganda. Prove your case!!
WE SHALL NOT BE MOVE!!!!!!
Its not “move”, it is “MOVED”… english people, speak/write properly. Not sure what the english language did to some of us…
Reread YOUR commess and YOU will see WHO REALLY needs to check his/her ENGLISH! SACKWAY SOT!!!
God is mightier than that woman judge, it a twinkling of an eye all this said come to pass just a matter of time idiots dominicans/dum-in-a-can
If you a Dominican then you are the first IDIOT. Then you turn and talk about GOD?
Dominica is 99.9% Christian. Note well though that 15 out of 20 bloggers so far disagree that the God, who they say is all powerful, all righteous, is not mightier than the woman judge. They are convinced and foolishly claim that is God that send Skerritt to save Dominica.
Irrespective of villas and question of ownership, secret land deals, passport sales, diplomatic passports and questionable non-Dominican ambassadors, refusal to implement electoral Reform, kick backs, firebombings and stalling of invetigations plus, plus, plus, many more issues bouncing around, God had a role it seems in all that. You see the mind-set in Dominica?
For them, who believe in illegalities and corruption, God is good all the time and all the time God is good. They only spew those biblical words as cover for their evil, irresponsible deeds and support of evil deeds.
Where is God in all what Dominicans are going through? On the side of those who committ wrong or on the side of those who are fearless to condemn and fight against wrong?
Oh yep, God will cleanse Dominica with all the evil doers so yep they will be move some day some how
shame on skerrit and the rest
Shame for what? Did he commit a crime? Take out the band lassie in your eyes first before you point fingers
@ disgrace
Are you considering yourself a non-evil person? Holy Scriptures: “All have fallen short of God’s glory.”
Do not place yourself on a high and mighty horse and self-proclaimed pedestal.
Holy Scriptures: “He shall put down the mighty from their seats and exalt the humble.”
St. Paul: “Humble yourself before the Lord and you will be exalted in due time.”
Never wish harm to anyone. You are not immune from harm in this world. What you wish for others, it may fall right back on you and your household. Keep this in mind. Be smart and wise in this case.
U mean to tell me the Prime Minister go all the way to Guana for a Layer,paid her all this money to be on his case,why did’nt he paid his own Dominican Layer to do the same job.
They did not have or she did not allow the evidence.
This woman should not be permitted to sit on one more case in Dominica.
I once thought that bright minds went to law school, but more and more it appears that I have been wrong all along.
She understood the national importance of the case as to not grant cost, but she did not understand the national importance of the case to ensure that all available evidence is presented. You have a case of that magnitude against two individuals and you’re telling Dominicans that they are not obliged to give evidence.
Sick!
Make your devil tea, Linton be Judge Jery and executioner and also make him Google too
He knows everything…he just keep searching
i think you gay wikileks you dream of linton haha at least linton can spell jury haha
Good point, Aye Dominique
@ Aye Dominique:
You should study to be a lawyer. If you excel, eventually you may become a judge. Thhen let us see how more intelligent you are than this Judge.
They came without evidence and wanted her to get it for them. Where you ever hear that?
This is what happens when cases are tried through the media rather than in the courts. Speaking on a radio is not presenting evidence, all the evidence that Linton said he had on the radio why was it not presented in court?
Great job DNO!
Now my legal mind is going to read and analyze the decision and then make an informed judgment.
But so far the summary says it all – failure to establish a prima facie case….. and the evidence which was introduced did not purport / establish the facts…but on to reading the decisions.
Just perhaps, i’ll make my co workers take a read at this, after all, it is their job to take the government to court and that’s all we do
this case should be appealed. and i guarantee you a general election will be called if it’s hearing falls before the next constitutionally due general election.
And when a general election is called…think hard and you will realize that you all still are loosers. BOOOO LOOSER!
@ Ya man
If you reside in DA, it will be at additional costs to you a taxpayer, if you are employed.
And this decision is final in the court of law. Thank you Judge.
GOOD GOING JUSTICE THOM. YOU ARE BEING VILLIFIED IN CERTAIN QUARTERS, BUT WE KNOW YOUR JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE/PROOF.
AS FOR MR. PROSPER’S WITNESS STATEMENT. HE SHOULD BE TAKEN IN FOR PERJURY
@ nightandday
The intelligent ones have noticed this. There was no evidence of wrongdoing.
CLEAR CUT CASE.Thanks Tony.
Thank you, DNO.
It seems to me that the judge did not have a difficult time arriving at that judgement. In fact, i suspect once she realized that the Opposition did not submit evidence that the PM was a dual citizen “by virtue of his own act” (key phrase in this matter), she must have wondered to herself about the need for a case.
I believe that most sane persons had already predicted the verdict because the case was based on sheer mischief and the desperation of the Opposition to gain office by any means. After all, the law is clear: an individual is barrred from nomination (and subsequently holding office) if he/she has acquired dual citizenship “by virtue of his own” actions. Holding a passport in NO way confirms that the individual got the passport through his/her OWN efforts.
So, the case was dead from the start. The judgement, i suppose, confimrs our democracy and will forever be known as another testament to the desperation and idiotic antics of the Opposition.
Why do you think the opposition would have gained office if skerrit lost. wouldn’t they still have 16 seats in parliament. All they would have to do is appoint a new leader. You serious?
Obviously, that’s not the reason why the UWP brought the case to Court. They felt that Messers Skeritt and St.Jean had violated the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Common sense would dictate that once she ruled out the defendants having to submit their passports that there would be no real way of proving that they had citizenship ‘by their own hands’. The quoted case from Jamaica was won by the petititioners BECAUSE the judge there ruled that the respondents had to submit their passports. From then on it was obvious that they not only got it of their own volition but also travelled on them.
The case therefore wasnt dead from the start but was hit a heavy blow back then. This is why Tony cried tears in court when it was deemed that they need not show pasports because it was from that moment that the case was ‘won’.
Lastly, Dominicans rejoicing on this result is like your neighbour rejoicing that the case against the man who stole your TV and most of your possessions has been thrown out. Why ? Well you are rejoicing because you bought your neighbours radio from the same voler so you really dont care about anything other than ensuring things stay how they are, neighbour be damned.
Its not like these guys were actually honest. They got AWAY with it !
But one day many of you will be at the wrong end of the stick and your whining will be heard loud and far.
Good point Jake. It would be interesting to find out why the judge in the Jamaican case ruled that the respondents had to submit their passports. This is the crux of the matter – the ownership of the passports and the manner of acquisition of that citizenship.
Is having a passport of another country a crime? The only time when you submit your passport is when you commit a crime and you are a flight risk! SKERRIT has no intentions to run anywhere. You know what all you people sound like….the lazy man who would cry even when he was called for his lunch…You all really don’t know what you all want in DA.
They should have had a copy of the passport. They said he owns one, they should have to submit.
You expect Skerrit to submit a passport. What is he says he does not have one, then what?
That is the issue with these UWP idiots. Dominicans will never vote them into office, they are losers and I mean that literally – every case they’ve lost.
No Tony what is strange is the fact that you foolishly said on your return from St Lucia that after you spoke to the judge you had all the confidence that the judge would rule in your favor.The same judge who while being aG in Antigua filed a dual citizenship case.
“No Tony what is strange is the fact that you foolishly said on your return from St Lucia that after you spoke to the judge you had all the confidence that the judge would rule in your favor.The same judge who while being aG in Antigua filed a dual citizenship case.”.. When did Tony make this statement please give me a reference.
just like that????????
When taking man to court you must come with evidence. Substantiate you claim. They clearly did not.
I still wish to read the entire judgment but based on what I’ve seen so far the writing style of the learned judge leaves much to be desired.
And “false premise”? Is that not a matter of opinion? As far as I have read the premise had not been proven but that does not mean it is false. The use of this term is rather interesting since the written word can be interpreted very widely. I await a complete copy of this judgment so I can understand the reasoning behind the judgment. The summary alone is not sufficient.
I agree with you on the Judge’s use of the term false premise. She states that Eddison James’ oral notice is based on a false premise but does not prove it.
How she expect to find when she didn’t let the evidence in. She will answer to the ultimate Judge… no evidence is ever hidden from Him.
bu hao
The learned judge seems to have forgotten that in a civil matter preponderance of the evidence is what matters unlike a criminal case where hard, indisputable evidence is a must. While I respect her decision it leaves much to be desired. I smell a BIG FAT RAT in the decision making process. God is good all time so he will be even better in the long term for what is in the dark must finally come to light somehow.