So tonight the new talk show,”Voice of the Patriots” was on.

Who tell me call Brian and put the question to Bro Artherly Robin?

 I called Robin and asked him if picking a fight with the Diaspora Dominicans overseas is the way to go? Should we disenfranchise overseas Dominicans by attempting to keep them away from participating in the electoral process, if that is not taboo? who tell me ask dat. all hell break loose. Brian start to give me a Jhay maypwis. I warned Ron green in a talk show before elections do not go down dat road. make friends with Dominikanz overseas. he din listen to me. he lose 4000 votes down from 16000 once a force to reckon with. No wonder Peter wickam had to come an say UWP weak. yu cannot try to keep overseas Dominikanz from voting u heading into a war zone. dat is why UWP lose beeg f…eeeing time. so keep on keeping on making war with overseas Dominikanz see wer it will get UWP. Bro Rosie saw the merit, he visited Guadeloupe, Antigua, St martin, St Thomas met with all Dominikanz told dem come home to vote. he made friends with them overseas. here yu trying to bang de door in overseas dominikanz from Voting. and I getting my French (European) and US (Uncle Sam) voting papers in my mail every term needed. I doh have to go anywhere. dat is what should be happening. any and every dominikan anywhere overseas should be able to go to our embassy an vote, period. yu feenk when Bro Rosie went all over the world met with Dominikanz was to have a good time. de man was smart. He was making friends with dem. He was bonding with dem.


But no we here making war wif overseas dominikanz.


    Shirley, please do not say I got it wrong. I understand that the guy did not go to jail for the word for word–mapuis–thing, or in other words, “quarrel”. But the violent act of pelting a stone that injured the other person’s ear started with a “quarrel” over a lighter. I explained that in my viewpoint to Peter.

    Now I do not know what “mapuis” mean to you, in English and in “performance”; but when I was in Dominica, and two people started quarrelling, I understood and perceived that it was fight of words–which was “mapuis” that turned into a physical fight quite a few times in my presence.

    We all are aware of what you know about the “kitchen and the heat”; it is not only for Peter. But why does it seem to me, that you do not choose, to simply agree with another person’s opinion, once in a while; and to extend that opinion with yours? I perceive that you love to go against.

    Nonetheless, agreement–unity, harmony– is the only way we can make progress; to choose the positives from the negatives and to work with those positives. On the other hand, we do not go anyplace with contentions– “mapuis”, jokey or serious. But that is my sentiment, okay! I am not asking you to accept it either.

    Honestly, I really do not see how my understanding–as I expressed it to Peter’s comment about “mapuis”–of that DNO article was “wrong”, as you claimed. That is what you think, but I need to defend my understanding.


    Elizabeth I will not deny you your right to your opinion, but I don’t have to agree with it, neither do you have to agree with mine.. We are all entitled to our opinions, but no one is bound to agree with them.. I don’t think by disagreeing with someone’s opnion you do not respect their right to express it. Again I say everything is relative, and I honeslty believe we need to relax and not take evrything so seriously. We have this tendenct to be paternalistic, there are no children here.

    Yes we do nhave different ideas of what mapius is, some take being told that they are wrong as mapuis, some take being told that they are uninformed and ignorant of certain facts mapius, I do see that as mapuis.

  3. Christian Volney | February 18, 2011 at 3:44 AM | Reply

    Be cautioned that you are surrounded by partisan “biased” intent, if they want your opinion, they will give it to you!
    I have been branded as being “intellectually dishonest” and unpatriotic because I do not follow “blindly” to the drum beat of this anti Skerrit cabal that has proven and substantiated “little to date”, legally; they have subjected me (and all) to a “Dog and Pony” show based on conjecture and misrepresentation of the facts and truth. I am not subservient to anyone, or any party, and will continue to question all intended motives, especially when they are projected along politically motivated lines, for I distrust “ALL” politicians! I hold a healthy scepticism towards anyone who fits this category, especially those that feel they have, and know the truth, yet cannot substantiate it in a court of law.
    We have been subjected to the “what if’s”, and when we disagree, we are ostracized and condemned as being perpetuators of a lie. This is the democratic due process they promote, one which is based on obedience and subservience to their “et al”.

    I have asked on several occasions for qualification of “non independence” by the institutional guardians to the executive governing body; I have not have any one publicly claim otherwise which reiterates my contention that we have credible integrity legislation manned by ethical beings of moral fibre and conviction.
    In summarization, how am I or any other independent thinking (of no political bias or prejudice) Dominican to accept such innuendoes?

    Is the Prime Minister innocent of the assertions of corruption levied against him to date (and I state assertions not allegations), I do not know; one thing I do know is the critics and accusers of the Prime Minister continue to perpetuate a clusterfuck; they ride the momentum of partisan discontent and expect us to accept that carbuncle as evidence enough.
    I an sorry but a court of public opinion, especially one motivated along political bias and spurred along partisan lines is “certainly” not worthy of serious discussion.

    I agree that there is much that is of a questionable nature and worthy of investigation to appease all; nevertheless it is not indicative of what is the truth, or the reality we seek. Do I support a public inquiry? I do, on the basis that it would clear the air and vindicate the Prime Minister so we can have him continue with building a nation, as opposed to be being subjected to this malfeasance. On the other hand, it may unveil his deception and lead to his removal from office (rightfully so).
    The IPO commission and its commissioner have opted not to invoke any provisions within the act initiating an inquiry, or requesting assistance from the Director of Public Prosecutions in investigating the assertions brought forth by Matt Peltier and Lennox Linton; why is that? Are they corrupt and a part of a greater conspiracy orchestrated by the Prime Minister? I think not and any person of sound mind and control of their faculty will agree; why is that I say? Well quite simply because we have not discredited them as being “somehow” subjective to the executive and its power.
    It is more likely that they could not qualify the “so called” evidence brought forward by the claimants against the Prime Minister, or they are gagged by some nasty little provision within the act preventing them from disclosing their findings.

    If the Prime Minister is truly a devious and evil man, one who has raped our treasury “as it has been suggested”, then the opposition and their critics have failed miserably in proving his guilt, hence protecting the integrity of our constiturion and our people. That would indeed be the true tragedy.
    My “Disgusted” opinion.

  4. Bernie Collins | February 19, 2011 at 5:28 PM | Reply

    Transfixed by the discourse, whilst juxtaposed in not knowing whether to comment on anything
    for fear of being accused of being partisan; circumspect about even daring to make any comment as what
    seem like an innocuous request to be deleted from the email circulation led to an earfull!; and rivetted by
    the lectures on the definition of “mapuis” to grasping the difference between “circumstancial evidence vs
    hard evidence” and oh daring to add a bit of morality to the equation by throwing in ones biblical teaching,
    I thought I’d add that the disucssion has been incredibly informative. Notwithstanding this, (if being from the
    Diaspora) gives me a right to make an observation…, what I’d say is, perhaps when development and progress
    is evident which represents an advancement of this idyllic nature island, that whatever side of the political
    fence we sit, let us exercise humility (this is not at all weakness) and admit/accept this and champion it!!!!.

    Just my humble observation…..

  5. Philipson Dobson | February 19, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Reply

    You will be are very selective on your agenda to justify or
    raise questionable doubts, deeds etc.
    Sometimes as you raised those issues and a list of corruption practices
    were laid out…the thing is Chris a theif will never arrest itself or its
    aids, it is only when they get off their control zone and new justice
    seekers are about will they be brought to justice. We shal wait. We saw the
    same when the USSR fell, when eastern europe fell and all the corrupt
    practices, abuse, violations., discrminations came to light. Before that
    they all denied it and the truth seekers were the enemies of the revolution
    and of the country……and the truth did unfold whence they fell. .Today we
    have black leaders infront of the International Court….can yo name
    them…..where do you live Chris……and recall while they were in power
    they protected themselves, and where pritected by people like
    yourselves…with nice words, nice wriet ups etc….manged and controlled
    the press, the judiaciary, could not be arrested, would not be arrested or
    investigated because of fear of job, life, family, education etc.
    Are you for real Chris, are you? Where on earth do you live, or do you just
    disappear to Mars and return after 4 weeks. Is there no Q – 95, BBC, Al
    Jazeera, CNN. FOX etc where you live……..or are your ears on;y opned to
    Radio Skerrit?
    I wonder….? Again, I was in the system…I was side by side with Tony and
    the boys and the only time the Susan Oldie affair will be investigated is
    under a new administration because there are those of us who know about the
    deal and the money and the fake Group and who now serve in the diplomatic
    core…….ask the Mayor, I tell you Cecil he fearful of the outcome, so the
    longer Skerrit (not the labour party) is in power the better for him.

    Now, this is the last I will entertain you with such detail and your long
    essays are just not real and too atheoretical… I could be as well, but
    wish to remain real and not be dismissive like you.or…this is real..we got
    some of the bin bobol money back, the “mistake” tax ecvasion…land
    transfer, the lawyers were quick to admit “Mistake”…..are you in Grade one
    CVhris..? .. I ask you …now where is it by accident he no
    longer resides at the same address where he was suppose to receive Tony`s
    phone call………who wrote the letters Chris,,,senior Founsel is stil
    unable to answer….whoa…!!!!
    No fear mongering
    God Bless

  6. Philipson Dobson | February 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM | Reply

    I beg your pardon, I really do not comprehend your language, or even
    underestand from what standpoint, morale authority you do write. How on
    earth despite the fact that the judge has agreed that there is a case to be
    heard, you have the audacity to say that Lennox`s motive is pure political,
    Then you can say so for the Judge and many other Dominicans who beliieve
    even the high and mighty are not above the law. You have ignored,
    deliberately all the successes that have come to light througfh between “you
    and me”, with pay back (bin bobol) land tax payment back to the treasury
    and many more.
    On the other hand, Tony launched a vucious attack on Eddison James (personal
    attack)and the UWP of corruption, and threatened to take them tro prison etc
    etc….and that thay have all the evidence….later on after he got his man
    in office he said that “it was political strategy”…now who was or is
    politically motivated……and yo have the audacity to write Tony and tell
    him that Lennox is politically motivated… Tony lied, he deliberately lied
    and wnet out to lie………I do not hear criticise or condemn Tony for this
    , now you write as ifd yo al are partners in crime….ands lost the cause
    for true justice.
    Again, Chris where have you been, and where are you now..I really have
    problems following your case and logic/…what ever it is. YOu talk
    sometimes as if Skerrit is untouchable and anyone who questions his actions
    etc in public office they have committed a crime…..Until I hear otherwise
    I give Lennox the benefit of doubt especially as I have been in there
    before……I tell you these guys in there are dangerous and they never
    expectded to be caught,they are advised and protected and guarded by a
    senior counsel and other comrades. Tell me Chris,

    1. do think Skerrit holds, or held dual citizenship
    2. do you beloieve Skerrit is French citizen
    3. do yo ubelieve that Skerrit lied on nomination day, hence the saying
    “No constituition, no law etc etc….)
    4. Do yo beoieve that when Skerrit uttered those words he did so out of
    threat and panic to appease his constituents that everyone ekse did not like
    him and wished him bad….etc
    5. do you think skerrit deliberately distracted the constiuents form the
    truth and really played on thier emotions]
    6. do yo believe that it was really “mistake” when the land transfer tax
    etc was not paid amnd then lawyers represneting Skerrit rushed to pay
    it…..”a miostake”…do yo really believe that?

    Well…well well./.
    God Bless


    Was that your QUALIFIED OPINION IN 2007 CHRIS??? See why I don’t find your qualified opinions credible Chris? They can be bought and sold!!!!

    I have come to the realization (5 years later and counting) that I jumped to certain conclusions based on information that has not been substantiated or qualified by the mechanisms we have enacted. As a man of conscience and unbiased prejudice, I have opted ‘not’ to continue with this campaign of condemnation and character assassination of the Prime Minister until due process dictates otherwise.
    Five year of corruption assertions levied against the Prime Minister are still under investigation (as per Lennox), and have yet to be proven or qualified; no judicial intervention has been recommended by the investigating authorities; this indicates to me that these assertions were not cut and dry (as convincingly conveyed back then). This ‘unbiased’ objectivity justifies my ‘independent’ position in extending the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt.
    How is this ‘tangled and deceitful’ as you suggest?

    This is what differentiates my logic and reasoning from yours. I have not changed in my ethical beliefs and conviction, that Transparency and Integrity in Public office is critical and required without reservation, and must be protected at all cost. I have not compromised those values; my position does not suit your agenda (as it did in 2007) so you have concluded that I have compromised my values and integrity; on the contrary, I have matured in my recognition that uncertainty exist’ and have adopted an approach of questioning motives and respecting rights.
    As I have always maintained; I do not know the extent of involvement by the Prime Minister, if any, as suggested. I do know that politically motivated bias by Lennox Linton in his reporting, has opened the door to my questioning his motives. As I have reiterated in the past, this does not mean Lennox is incorrect (no more than the prime Minister is guilty or innocent), it means his credibility needs to be substantiated and qualified.

    I have weighted and measured (without anyone disputing the facts) the following;
    We have an Integrity in Public Office Commission.This commission is independent of the governing executive.This has been proven by the non interference of government, and the unfettered access to the commission by Lennox Linton and any other citizen exercising their right in filing assertions of corruption charges against ‘any’ public servant.This has been qualified by the ‘continued’ preservation of our democracy by a government who continues to ‘respect’ the rights of its citizenry, in not rounding up, or shutting down those who “constitutionally” exercise their discontent.
    Contrary to your fear-mongering tactics in suggesting Dominica is on the verge of ‘failed state’ status and within the throes of a totalitarian regime; citizens are still free to criticize and walk the streets without feared duress or threat of arrest!

    3. This commission is manned by persons of moral fiber and ethical character. And I say so because no one has “publicly” suggested otherwise.

    You tell me now Sister Shirley (and you are still my Sister even if we differ in opinion), where am I deceitful? Is is because after 5 years I have reasonable doubt and seek validity? Is it because I no longer march to the drumbeat of partisan discontent? Why does this brand me as deceitful?

    I feel the decibels of hostility rising.

    Do you think Skerrit holds, or held dual citizenshipAll indications are he does; but this has not been publicly disclosed by the electoral commissioner, or equivalent; when it does, it will warrant redress and be subjected to constitutional consequence;

    Do you believe Skerrit is a French citizenAll indications are he is. Again, conjective until publicly authenticated and qualified.

    Do you believe that Skerrit lied on nomination day, hence the saying “No constitution, no law etc etc….) That is not for you or I to decide or validate. I was not privy to what his nomination documentation detailed. This is for the electoral commissioner to determine and ‘publicly’ disclose; if it is qualified and is in contradiction with our constitution, then the law of the land “must” prevail and the Prime Minister will be subjective to the consequence.

    Do you believe that when Skerrit uttered those words he did so out
    of threat and panic to appease his constituents that everyone else did
    not like him and wished him bad….etcPD, this is not going to go away; if the Prime Minister acted out of desperation and has publicly deceived the public for appeasement reasons, it will be revealed and he will suffer the consequence of the law. Such a tactic would be political suicide and punishable by incarceration. This could never be covered up and will not go away.

    Do you think Skerrit deliberately distracted the constituents from the truth and really played on their emotions.I do not know and cannot qualify or validate your comment. I will however state “clearly” that if public deception was intentional by the Prime Minister as a ‘last ditch’ attempt in holding on to power, and in contravention with constitutional provision, it will be exposed and acted upon as warranted and mandated by law.
    The Prime Minister would have to be a desperate man to consider such a discourse.

    Do you believe that it was really a “mistake” when the land transfer
    tax etc was not paid and then lawyers representing Skerrit rushed to
    pay it…..”a mistake”…do you really believe that?If it was a mistake, then it would have been negligence on the part of his lawyer and incompetence on the part of the registrar, not the Prime Minister. If he personally interfered with the process or imposed influence on the clerk, then that is abuse of public office and subjective to investigation.

    Point being; is the Prime Minister truly that influential in covering up, and maintaining such cover, for so many unethical and corrupt practices for so long? I do not see any one man commanding such power and persuasion over constitution for so long without substantiated exposure.
    I could be wrong, but our system is not that porous and inept!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.