Saturday, December 12, 2009
Persons accepting plane tickets to vote in Dominica risk imprisonment - former Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal
TheDominican.net
Former Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal Sir Brian Alleyne has opined that paying plane tickets for persons to come to Dominica to vote is bribery under Sections 55 and 56 of the election laws of Dominica, and could result in hefty fines and imprisonment for both the person making the bribe and the one receiving it.
The noted Caribbean jurist was responding to allegations that the Dominica Labour Party (DLP) had chartered several flights to bring Dominicans to vote in the December poll.
The issue was also highlighted in a Dominican.net editorial, which outlined moves to have the United States Department of State take action against their citizens receiving bribes to vote in Dominica.
According to Sir Alleyne, "what would be illegal is bribery as defined in section 55 of the House of Assembly (Elections) Act Cap. 2:01. Valuable consideration is consideration that confers a pecuniarily measurable benefit on a person. Paying for an airline ticket to Dominica would fall within the definition.
If the motive is to induce an elector to vote, that, to my mind, would amount to bribery under the section and would attract criminal sanctions of a hefty fine and imprisonment on both the briber and the bribe.
The briber, if convicted, would also be disqualified from being registered as an elector, or voting, or being elected to parliament, and if elected, he would be disqualified from retaining his seat. The matter is very serious indeed. (Sections 55 and 61)."
According to part 1 of Section 55 of the electoral laws of Dominica; “The following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery within the meaning of this Act: 1. every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavor to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector, or to or for any other person in order to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as mentioned above on account of any elector having voted or refrained from voting at any election.”
Section 56 goes on to say, the following persons shall be deemed guilty of treating within the meaning of this Act: 1. every person who corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly, gives, or provides or pays wholly or in part the expenses of giving or providing any food, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person, or any other person, to vote or to refrain from voting at the election, or on account of that person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting at the election.”
The DLP and persons accepting plane tickets to vote appears to be on a collision course with the legal authorities in Dominica and in the United States since a recently obtained statement from the DLP campaign budget states that : " Mobilisation of and air transport for approximately 600 overseas voters, whose participation is vital to our success, from such countries as USA, Canada, Great Britain, US & British virgin Islands, Cuba, Venezuela, Barbados, Trinidad & Eastern Caribbean ---US# 1.2 million."
It also went on to produce the names of persons who had pledged to vote for the DLP from the various countries, the charter flights on Imperial Jets from the US, and implicated Barbara Dailey of the consular office in New York in contacting and arranging for selected persons to get tickets.
If the DLP moves ahead with the flights, it is reasonable to assume that the election results will be held up until this issue is resolved in the courts.
Former Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal Sir Brian Alleyne has opined that paying plane tickets for persons to come to Dominica to vote is bribery under Sections 55 and 56 of the election laws of Dominica, and could result in hefty fines and imprisonment for both the person making the bribe and the one receiving it.
The noted Caribbean jurist was responding to allegations that the Dominica Labour Party (DLP) had chartered several flights to bring Dominicans to vote in the December poll.
The issue was also highlighted in a Dominican.net editorial, which outlined moves to have the United States Department of State take action against their citizens receiving bribes to vote in Dominica.
 Sir Brian Alleyne is a former government minister and Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. |
According to Sir Alleyne, "what would be illegal is bribery as defined in section 55 of the House of Assembly (Elections) Act Cap. 2:01. Valuable consideration is consideration that confers a pecuniarily measurable benefit on a person. Paying for an airline ticket to Dominica would fall within the definition.
If the motive is to induce an elector to vote, that, to my mind, would amount to bribery under the section and would attract criminal sanctions of a hefty fine and imprisonment on both the briber and the bribe.
The briber, if convicted, would also be disqualified from being registered as an elector, or voting, or being elected to parliament, and if elected, he would be disqualified from retaining his seat. The matter is very serious indeed. (Sections 55 and 61)."
According to part 1 of Section 55 of the electoral laws of Dominica; “The following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery within the meaning of this Act: 1. every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavor to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector, or to or for any other person in order to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as mentioned above on account of any elector having voted or refrained from voting at any election.”
Section 56 goes on to say, the following persons shall be deemed guilty of treating within the meaning of this Act: 1. every person who corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly, gives, or provides or pays wholly or in part the expenses of giving or providing any food, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person, or any other person, to vote or to refrain from voting at the election, or on account of that person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting at the election.”
The DLP and persons accepting plane tickets to vote appears to be on a collision course with the legal authorities in Dominica and in the United States since a recently obtained statement from the DLP campaign budget states that : " Mobilisation of and air transport for approximately 600 overseas voters, whose participation is vital to our success, from such countries as USA, Canada, Great Britain, US & British virgin Islands, Cuba, Venezuela, Barbados, Trinidad & Eastern Caribbean ---US# 1.2 million."
It also went on to produce the names of persons who had pledged to vote for the DLP from the various countries, the charter flights on Imperial Jets from the US, and implicated Barbara Dailey of the consular office in New York in contacting and arranging for selected persons to get tickets.
If the DLP moves ahead with the flights, it is reasonable to assume that the election results will be held up until this issue is resolved in the courts.
| | Home Page | Dominica |Welcome Message | Prior Issues|Flag and Symbols | Dominica Constitution | Bulletin Board |Contact Us |Local Headlines |Discussion Board |Radio & TV |Cricket | Current Issue |
// posted by TheDominican.net @ 1:40 PM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Michael Davies esq I noticed you have been very vocal in disputing that this action is bribery. Unlike you, the laws of Dominica are very clear. I hope you will defend for free the poor people you tell it is not bribery.
# posted by 
: December 12, 2009 1:55 PM
: December 12, 2009 1:55 PM
Good stuff...let people pay their own money to vote. DLP too loleur trying to steal votes. That is no different from stuffing the ballot boxes.
Let me see the DIASPORA take those bribes......we making some space in Stockfarm..copawaison!!! Stay and enjoy your good time in NY!!!
Congratulations tothedominican.net for shedding light on this!!!
Let me see the DIASPORA take those bribes......we making some space in Stockfarm..copawaison!!! Stay and enjoy your good time in NY!!!
Congratulations tothedominican.net for shedding light on this!!!
# posted by : December 12, 2009 2:18 PM
: December 12, 2009 2:18 PM
I was not on any list and had no intention of going home to vote but all of this BS has me motivated now more than ever to seek out who ever is organizing this charter to go home to vote.
Please arrest me on arrival and fine me for entering my homeland. Charge me with the crime of accepting a free ticket. Please read my mind and tell me who I am goi ng to vote. As soon as you are done with that, let us work together to build a list of all those economic citizens under the UWP and Freedom and DLP regimes who have more rights than me. Also let us find out which charity Athie donated the million dollars he got for his "green" efforts.
These clowns are losing what ever little credibility they have left. Utter rubbish. People gone are the days when a select few had the "knowledge" and had to tell people what to think or do. The information revolution happened for Dominica too. Let us discuss issues, plans development.
Please arrest me on arrival and fine me for entering my homeland. Charge me with the crime of accepting a free ticket. Please read my mind and tell me who I am goi ng to vote. As soon as you are done with that, let us work together to build a list of all those economic citizens under the UWP and Freedom and DLP regimes who have more rights than me. Also let us find out which charity Athie donated the million dollars he got for his "green" efforts.
These clowns are losing what ever little credibility they have left. Utter rubbish. People gone are the days when a select few had the "knowledge" and had to tell people what to think or do. The information revolution happened for Dominica too. Let us discuss issues, plans development.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 2:23 PM
: December 12, 2009 2:23 PM
Good Stuff for real.. uwp is just as guilty of giving people tickets to come and vote so why try to hang labour out to dry for it only... last election ask uwp how many trips ck make for them with people from st. thomas he brought down to vote .. haha the joke fell apart when they lost the election again and still had to fly the people back to st. thomas.. this year they only giving one way tickets to come down and promise people they will get the return ticket when they win and get promised money ... hahaha unfortunately labour buying return tickets for their people..hahaha....
# posted by : December 12, 2009 2:32 PM
: December 12, 2009 2:32 PM
Sir Bryan should know better than that. Flying in members of your party to vote is not bribery. Only people who meet residency requirements are eligible anyway.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:07 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:07 PM
How can anyone determine who a person will vote for - it is a secret ballot - transportation is provided for voters in DA to move from one constituency to another in order to vote - that is people who live one place but are regsitered in another - paid buses are provided to take them to vote - each party does this - paid transportation to vote - If I have expressed an interest to my parl rep in coming home to vote but am financially unable to do so and a ticket is provided for me how is this bribery? I did not say send me a ticket and I will vote for you - I said I would like to vote but I am unable to do so - what if your family sends u a ticket is this also bribery and what is the difference? - Funny how the Domincan diaspora is welcome home to spend thier money but not welcome to vote and have thier voice heard
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:14 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:14 PM
This is the smoking gun!!
Where are the intellectual prosstitutes, YOUR TURN!! Are you going to refute SIR Brian Allyene's legal opinion?
Shirley Allan
Where are the intellectual prosstitutes, YOUR TURN!! Are you going to refute SIR Brian Allyene's legal opinion?
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:16 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:16 PM
This plane ticket thing, am sure that has been going on for a long time, reverse the clock to the 80's and 90's Amazing!!!! MR B.A know's the law now. As long as you are registered to vote in D.A someone could be living in Lanticipipi they should be allow to vote. Bollocks!!!!!
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:34 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:34 PM
You people are funny. Is like saying when a cop stops you for speeding that you cant charge me because everyone else is speeding.
There is a good reason why the law is there, So much is at stake in this election that we will not allow Skerrit to buy it, which is what he will do if the 600 people vote who otherwise would not.
Go ahead and come down on a free ticket. I want to hear you tell the judge that it has been happening since 1980....
There is a good reason why the law is there, So much is at stake in this election that we will not allow Skerrit to buy it, which is what he will do if the 600 people vote who otherwise would not.
Go ahead and come down on a free ticket. I want to hear you tell the judge that it has been happening since 1980....
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:39 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:39 PM
Anonymous you keep missing the bribery point. Everyone is welcome to vote. However, when a party charters planeloads of people from that party to vote it is with the expressed purpose of stealing the elections, hence the bribe.
If the government of DA provided a plane and said, first come first serve, or had a lottery then it is not bribery since anyone could qualify.
The laws are well written and will be enforced. If you really want everyone to vote ask government to do absentee ballots. Why should you have an edge over me if you know your Parl Rep and I dont
Democracy...
If the government of DA provided a plane and said, first come first serve, or had a lottery then it is not bribery since anyone could qualify.
The laws are well written and will be enforced. If you really want everyone to vote ask government to do absentee ballots. Why should you have an edge over me if you know your Parl Rep and I dont
Democracy...
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:47 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:47 PM
Typical Dominican blaming Sir Alleyne. The man doh write the law just interpreting it. Now you that have not done a day of legal work suddenly know more about lwa than the man who just lat year was the top judge nin the Caribbean.....go figure!!!
I'm not surprised you have learned well from Skerrit. The Constitution is irrelevant, the laws of Dominica is irrelevant, Sir Brian Alleyne does not knoe the law. Only Tony and Skerrit is right.
I glad for all you Dominicans. I will have no part of that Dominica where rule of law is disregarded.
I'm not surprised you have learned well from Skerrit. The Constitution is irrelevant, the laws of Dominica is irrelevant, Sir Brian Alleyne does not knoe the law. Only Tony and Skerrit is right.
I glad for all you Dominicans. I will have no part of that Dominica where rule of law is disregarded.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:51 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:51 PM
Ha Ha Ha...Brian Alleyne should know better...very funny he does know better..than you. listen to the legal mind and not Skerrit who is no lawyer, but a rogue statesman!!!
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:52 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:52 PM
What about the TWO CHARTER FLIGHTS FROM MIAMI THAT UWP HAS SET UP WITH Taiwanese funds to travel to Dominica next Wednesday?
Do we know who the folks on the UWP flights will vote for?
Do we know who the folks on the DLP flights will vote for?
Skeritt has a French passport - WHAT ABOUT Edison James English PASSPORT?
Do we know who the folks on the UWP flights will vote for?
Do we know who the folks on the DLP flights will vote for?
Skeritt has a French passport - WHAT ABOUT Edison James English PASSPORT?
# posted by : December 12, 2009 3:53 PM
: December 12, 2009 3:53 PM
Thank you for doing something for Dominica SIR Allyne, I was one of the people who called on your many times for coming out and gaining back your credibility and allow yourself to down with this dictator and his henchmen, thank you os much for doing the right thing, at the right time! You are forgiven for others transgressions of not doing your job at the IPO, Now that you have taken the right step continue in that path, and do your job!! OOOOOOOOOOPS! what does the act say about AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE? Can we get back ALL the illgotten gains?
Shirley Allan
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 12, 2009 4:05 PM
: December 12, 2009 4:05 PM
This statement only has cridence when the arguments supports the opposition cause. This the same Sir Brian Alleyne - member of the IPO who is not worth his weight in salt according to Lennox & Gabriel.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 4:57 PM
: December 12, 2009 4:57 PM
Let say thank you to Sir Brian Alleyn for interpreting the law for us. Now that a learnt Judge has spoken, there is no need to waste time reading the foolish remarks of non-lawyers, who don't know the law.
I challenge the DLP to continue with their illegal activity of transporting people to vote, the elections will be decided by the courts. Skeritt, the gig is up for you my friend, no more lies and manipulation.
I challenge the DLP to continue with their illegal activity of transporting people to vote, the elections will be decided by the courts. Skeritt, the gig is up for you my friend, no more lies and manipulation.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 6:31 PM
: December 12, 2009 6:31 PM
Jackson : December 12, 2009 1:55 PM
The technicality of Mr. Allyene's interpretation is correct. I wish however that he had written this article himself - instead of a reporter supposedly reporting exactly what he said.
The esteemed judge explored the objective definition of bribery and the interpretation of the law.
How this objective interpretation applies to the subjective intent of each individual accepting a free ticket or charter plane ride to Dominica is not even considered by learnered gentleman.
Accenting a ticket or a charter plane ride to go to Dominica to vote is not bribery. However, accenting a ticket or a charter plane ride to go to Dominica in exchange for a vote - for a particular party or candidate is bribery.
If their is no promise to vote for the person or organization giving the ticket then their is no exchange. The people on the plane with the free ticket can vote for anyone or any party when they get to Dominica.
It is their private and personal business.
Where is the quid pro quo? Where is the one thing (a vote to a particular party) in return for another (free plane ride from that particular party) favor?
How do the authorities know what is in each voters mind of who or which party they will vote?
Mr. Allyene described the law as it is - the objective written word; he did not reconcile this objective written word which is the law and the subjective intent of each individual Dominican citizen who are registered to vote in their homeland - of accepting a free ride to go home and take part in the national election process of their homeland.
There must be a Quid pro quo - to prove bribery.
Jackson - it is clear that these folks will not need legal services - they have Sir Allyene definition of what would constitute a crime and now they know that their subjective intent is the controlling FACTOR.
Michael Davis, Esq.
The technicality of Mr. Allyene's interpretation is correct. I wish however that he had written this article himself - instead of a reporter supposedly reporting exactly what he said.
The esteemed judge explored the objective definition of bribery and the interpretation of the law.
How this objective interpretation applies to the subjective intent of each individual accepting a free ticket or charter plane ride to Dominica is not even considered by learnered gentleman.
Accenting a ticket or a charter plane ride to go to Dominica to vote is not bribery. However, accenting a ticket or a charter plane ride to go to Dominica in exchange for a vote - for a particular party or candidate is bribery.
If their is no promise to vote for the person or organization giving the ticket then their is no exchange. The people on the plane with the free ticket can vote for anyone or any party when they get to Dominica.
It is their private and personal business.
Where is the quid pro quo? Where is the one thing (a vote to a particular party) in return for another (free plane ride from that particular party) favor?
How do the authorities know what is in each voters mind of who or which party they will vote?
Mr. Allyene described the law as it is - the objective written word; he did not reconcile this objective written word which is the law and the subjective intent of each individual Dominican citizen who are registered to vote in their homeland - of accepting a free ride to go home and take part in the national election process of their homeland.
There must be a Quid pro quo - to prove bribery.
Jackson - it is clear that these folks will not need legal services - they have Sir Allyene definition of what would constitute a crime and now they know that their subjective intent is the controlling FACTOR.
Michael Davis, Esq.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 7:59 PM
: December 12, 2009 7:59 PM
ha! ha! ha! ha! very funny Esq Davis. Anyway zort par feb!!! I applaud all Dominica who do not have a formal post secondary and graduate level education, but have the ability, and the moral value to stand on the side of morality, truth, justice, honesty, intergrity, respect, transparency in goverment, and accountability to thye citizens of the country. May Dominica never forgive or forget those who KNOWINGLY seek to prostitute our beautifulDominica for 30 pieces of Silver. Let us stand tall for Dominica on the side of truth and Justice
# posted by : December 12, 2009 8:49 PM
: December 12, 2009 8:49 PM
I hope that Dominicans will hold Mr. Alleyne to the law, and ensure that justice is done to tihs corrrupt situation. I am residimg out of Dominica and thinks that this is so wrong. All those Maltwavai people that cannot even pay a plane ticket and come back to DA. They have never contributed anything towards the development of the place. They cannot even send a box to no one. I can assure is christmas time and they cannot bring a gift for anyone, these are the people that are going back to put more misery on Dominicans. I saw the list of names and all I could say is saquay maltwavai, just look at them and see that it is true.
# posted by : December 12, 2009 10:42 PM
: December 12, 2009 10:42 PM
All those who are coming from overseas to vote to put back this evil Government on the people of Dominica, if you succeed, you have a greater judge who will judge you and will pour out His wrath on you! Don't you have a conscience?! Do you want your people to continually depend on you to keep sending them barrels or do you want them to be independent to help themselves? People here have been suffering for NINE YEARS! NINE YEARS OF HARD LABOUR! You like it when your people go begging the Prime Minister for whateve they need every Wednesday at the 'Red Clinic'? You like to see your people degraded to that level? You are wicked and evil people to want bad like that for your own people!
# posted by : December 12, 2009 11:30 PM
: December 12, 2009 11:30 PM
This response is to your blog Shirley. Did you return your ill gotten gains from the insurance company? Why don't you put a sock in it
Come on Shut up already.
Come on Shut up already.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 2:30 AM
: December 13, 2009 2:30 AM
Why didn't Brian Alleyne come out and interpret the law after his nephew was set free after being accused of a certain crime.
Why now? is he vying for a position if the UWP wins?
Skerrits's crimes are no worst than the Brian Alleynes of this world.
Funny how everyone finally knows right from wrong all of a sudden.
Why now? is he vying for a position if the UWP wins?
Skerrits's crimes are no worst than the Brian Alleynes of this world.
Funny how everyone finally knows right from wrong all of a sudden.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 2:40 AM
: December 13, 2009 2:40 AM
I hope this is not going to deter anyone who wants to go home and vote . I hope they keep that lists because when and if they do get into power that lists will come back to bite them because nous Domnicien say fammie wachen nou pakar ounbliey.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 2:47 AM
: December 13, 2009 2:47 AM
Because it happened in the past doesn't make it right!
Because other parties do it doesn't make it right!
All Dominicans abroad who are eligible to vote in the Dominican elections should be given equal access to vote.
If the parties are selecting people to offer plane tickets to then it obviously isn't fair. it doesn't matter how the individuals vote. The law doesn't need to be able to read the individual's mind!It clearly shows that everyone does not have equal access to the vote so that is wrong.
It is the government's responsibility to have a system in place to ensure that ALL eligible voters are able to register their vote. This should not include paying for the flights of a selected 'few' (relatively speaking). That is such a waste of money that could be better used within Dominica not just strengthening a political party.
It appears they are just picking up the filthy habits of the Chinese. And what democracy do the Chinese have? Looks like we're well on the way to absolute corruption.
Because other parties do it doesn't make it right!
All Dominicans abroad who are eligible to vote in the Dominican elections should be given equal access to vote.
If the parties are selecting people to offer plane tickets to then it obviously isn't fair. it doesn't matter how the individuals vote. The law doesn't need to be able to read the individual's mind!It clearly shows that everyone does not have equal access to the vote so that is wrong.
It is the government's responsibility to have a system in place to ensure that ALL eligible voters are able to register their vote. This should not include paying for the flights of a selected 'few' (relatively speaking). That is such a waste of money that could be better used within Dominica not just strengthening a political party.
It appears they are just picking up the filthy habits of the Chinese. And what democracy do the Chinese have? Looks like we're well on the way to absolute corruption.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 3:32 AM
: December 13, 2009 3:32 AM
Presently, representatives from the Dominica Labor Party are here in Anguilla giving out tickets to Dominicans residing here so that they can go home to vote. I believe that's the only way we can solve this problem is if the people at the polling stations demand that all voters present their passport to show that they have been residing in Dominica for at least 6 months before they can be allowed to vote.
Dominicans living overseas need to stop being so selfish, because if they are not in the fire then they can't feel the heat so they should allow Dominicans that are actually living in Dominica to select their own leader.
Dominicans living overseas need to stop being so selfish, because if they are not in the fire then they can't feel the heat so they should allow Dominicans that are actually living in Dominica to select their own leader.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 8:38 AM
: December 13, 2009 8:38 AM
This response is to your blog Shirley. Did you return your ill gotten gains from the insurance company? Why don't you put a sock in it
Come on Shut up already.
# posted by Anonymous : December 13, 2009 2:30 AM
===================================================================My answer to that is when the leaders lead by example and stop stealing and lying, and robbing I will realize that stealing is wrong and I will give up my (IMAGINED) ill gotten gains and REPENT for my sins, but as long as the leaders of Dominica continue their pillage, and rape of the country, why shouldn't I and everybody esle do it? It is right for them, it is right for me!!!!
Are you demanding a higher standard from me than you demand from your Prime Minister? Boy I feel flattered!
Shirley Allan
Come on Shut up already.
# posted by Anonymous : December 13, 2009 2:30 AM
===================================================================My answer to that is when the leaders lead by example and stop stealing and lying, and robbing I will realize that stealing is wrong and I will give up my (IMAGINED) ill gotten gains and REPENT for my sins, but as long as the leaders of Dominica continue their pillage, and rape of the country, why shouldn't I and everybody esle do it? It is right for them, it is right for me!!!!
Are you demanding a higher standard from me than you demand from your Prime Minister? Boy I feel flattered!
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 13, 2009 9:33 AM
: December 13, 2009 9:33 AM
I have some questions.
what does ' bribery" mean?
What does " with intent to induce to vote" mean?
Would it be bribery regardless of any agreement as to who the voter should vote for?
What if I do not make my "intent" known?
Does bribery not require some agreement between parties?
Is Sir Brian saying that the unconditional provision of transport is bribery?
What is the difference between the free [provision of transport locally and transportation from the Diaspora?
If political parties want to mobilize locally they use buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on?
If political parties want to mobilize regionally or in the Diaspora, what should they use? Buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on.
In the 1980s the Freedom Party did the same thing.
Between 1005 and 2005r the UWP did the very same thing and are doing it AGAIN in 2009.
So why the noise now?
Why the hypocrisy now?
what does ' bribery" mean?
What does " with intent to induce to vote" mean?
Would it be bribery regardless of any agreement as to who the voter should vote for?
What if I do not make my "intent" known?
Does bribery not require some agreement between parties?
Is Sir Brian saying that the unconditional provision of transport is bribery?
What is the difference between the free [provision of transport locally and transportation from the Diaspora?
If political parties want to mobilize locally they use buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on?
If political parties want to mobilize regionally or in the Diaspora, what should they use? Buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on.
In the 1980s the Freedom Party did the same thing.
Between 1005 and 2005r the UWP did the very same thing and are doing it AGAIN in 2009.
So why the noise now?
Why the hypocrisy now?
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:16 AM
: December 13, 2009 10:16 AM
Hey TONY!!!!
The defintion of BRIBERY---offering bribes: the offering of money or other incentives to persuade somebody to do something, especially something dishonest or illegal
The intent can be found out by -testimony under oath from the bribed !!!
Even yesterday on the bribed OFFERED that testimony, by telling me how he was contacted who contacted him and what he was told that he was going to Dominica to do, in exchage for that plan tickect!!!!! Remember Tony not all the people who were contacted are as loyal to the labor party as you are, not all of them have surrended their souls! and most of them will sing like a bird to save their own skins!!
If the voter was given to a bride to vote for labor party and he voted for UWP or any other party? Then it would be volier volie volier!! LOL!
'What is the difference between the free [provision of transport locally and transportation from the Diaspora?
If political parties want to mobilize locally they use buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on?
If political parties want to mobilize regionally or in the Diaspora, what should they use? Buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on."" )
That is crap and you know it!! Do you know Tony that when the Government of the United States could get pin the mafia even though they were commiting murders, and all manner of crime in the US, before they couldn't get "EVIDENCE" on them, the only way they could get them was by using the postal and other communication devices in the process of committing the crimes?
This is something you must advise your people on to, using the American communication network to commit their crimes!! When all you fenish all you wonder why CIA would be watching all you, if at all the are?
Tony stop giving Skeritt bad advice.. I hope he bite your eyes when he gets into trouble, because you will be responsible for his demise!!!!
I am not even a lawyer!
The defintion of BRIBERY---offering bribes: the offering of money or other incentives to persuade somebody to do something, especially something dishonest or illegal
The intent can be found out by -testimony under oath from the bribed !!!
Even yesterday on the bribed OFFERED that testimony, by telling me how he was contacted who contacted him and what he was told that he was going to Dominica to do, in exchage for that plan tickect!!!!! Remember Tony not all the people who were contacted are as loyal to the labor party as you are, not all of them have surrended their souls! and most of them will sing like a bird to save their own skins!!
If the voter was given to a bride to vote for labor party and he voted for UWP or any other party? Then it would be volier volie volier!! LOL!
'What is the difference between the free [provision of transport locally and transportation from the Diaspora?
If political parties want to mobilize locally they use buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on?
If political parties want to mobilize regionally or in the Diaspora, what should they use? Buses, trucks, dumpers, pick ups and so on."" )
That is crap and you know it!! Do you know Tony that when the Government of the United States could get pin the mafia even though they were commiting murders, and all manner of crime in the US, before they couldn't get "EVIDENCE" on them, the only way they could get them was by using the postal and other communication devices in the process of committing the crimes?
This is something you must advise your people on to, using the American communication network to commit their crimes!! When all you fenish all you wonder why CIA would be watching all you, if at all the are?
Tony stop giving Skeritt bad advice.. I hope he bite your eyes when he gets into trouble, because you will be responsible for his demise!!!!
I am not even a lawyer!
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:44 AM
: December 13, 2009 10:44 AM
I feel for my people of Dominica, When we support a party they can do no wrong HOW SAD...........
our level of Discuss has come to personal attacks and not that of the issue at hand.........
GOD SAVE OUR BLESSED LAND DOMINICA.
our level of Discuss has come to personal attacks and not that of the issue at hand.........
GOD SAVE OUR BLESSED LAND DOMINICA.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 11:36 AM
: December 13, 2009 11:36 AM
Instead of spending millions of dollars to get people en bloc to travel to DA to vote, what about making a concerted effort between elections to establish an absentee ballot system which will be available every Dominican who wishes to vote--without being identified as a supporter of any party,
# posted by : December 13, 2009 11:49 AM
: December 13, 2009 11:49 AM
Mr.Brian is Ron green first cousin and i hope he is sicking justice for the murdered young fellow.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 12:48 PM
: December 13, 2009 12:48 PM
Tony I see in your questions the same kind of arrogance that have Skerrit in hot water. Rather than pull back and consider that you may be breaking the laws of Dominica you try to justify it.
Your regime continues to treat Dominicans with contempt. You steal thousands from the Treasury and say it is a mistake; you lie about giving money to Antigua and say you were misunderstood; you have red clinics so Dominicans can come begging and say our leader is a hero; you sell out our geothermal resources; you create no jobs, but give handouts, crime is rising.
And now you willingly break the laws and try to explain it away. The law is plain BRIBERY is as explained. All of a sudden a learned Senior Counsel does not know what bribery is.
Tony my hope is that some day you will be called to account for all the wrong you have inflicted on our country.
Your regime continues to treat Dominicans with contempt. You steal thousands from the Treasury and say it is a mistake; you lie about giving money to Antigua and say you were misunderstood; you have red clinics so Dominicans can come begging and say our leader is a hero; you sell out our geothermal resources; you create no jobs, but give handouts, crime is rising.
And now you willingly break the laws and try to explain it away. The law is plain BRIBERY is as explained. All of a sudden a learned Senior Counsel does not know what bribery is.
Tony my hope is that some day you will be called to account for all the wrong you have inflicted on our country.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 12:52 PM
: December 13, 2009 12:52 PM
People like Tony Astaphan and all the others of so called Dominican academia/intelligensa do not care how many pove malaway lives they destroy to keepthe "BENEFATOR- Dictator in power in Dominica. Follow the money and the posts, and all the other previlleges that they get and you will understand why they come out prostituting the souls, their minds, the respect that we once gave them.. What an absolute disgrace!!
# posted by : December 13, 2009 12:54 PM
: December 13, 2009 12:54 PM
That is foolishness and Sir Brian should know that. No one can prevent you to go back to your native land to vote whether it was paid for or not. No body but you knows who you going to vote for on election day.
I paid my own ticket to go to Dominica to vote. Did I bribe myself? I am a registered voter and I have the right to vote, no one can prevent that. Come and arrest me.
I paid my own ticket to go to Dominica to vote. Did I bribe myself? I am a registered voter and I have the right to vote, no one can prevent that. Come and arrest me.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 2:06 PM
: December 13, 2009 2:06 PM
Mal chien, since you PAID your ticket to go down to vote, this does not apply to you.. Read well deary! No one will prevent you to votr nor arrest you!!! Stop being lead like a blind man by these master spinners and propagandists, if you don't understand what is being discussed ask someone who does to interpret to you. Please don't ask Tony, he understands but his does not represnt anything but deceit, manipulation and outright LIES!
# posted by : December 13, 2009 2:20 PM
: December 13, 2009 2:20 PM
If the PM cannot provide transportation for ALL Dominicans residing abroad, he has no right providing transportation for a 'select few' who he expects to vote for him in return. The law is the law.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 6:33 PM
: December 13, 2009 6:33 PM
I am happy that this matter is taken up in court however it is not only the DLP that is engaged in such behavior. UWP is also providing tickets even if they are not chattering flights. I CAN SPEAK BECAUSE I WAS RECRUITED IN NY BY THE UWP TO GO HOME AND VOTE.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 6:47 PM
: December 13, 2009 6:47 PM
just to inform the people who are going on those chartered flight(s), U.S Immigration and customs will be looking for you. I am an employee of the U.S immigration department and we have everyone's name who will be on that charter flight and you stand a very strong risk green card and citizens to be deported.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 6:47 PM
: December 13, 2009 6:47 PM
I really hope the US immigration and customs keep to their words. It is time that we make examples of some silly persons. Take the green card and passport'. Let them stay and suck salt too.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 8:18 PM
: December 13, 2009 8:18 PM
TO SCARE MONGER REPRINTED BELOW:
"just to inform the people who are going on those chartered flight(s), U.S Immigration and customs will be looking for you. I am an employee of the U.S immigration department and we have everyone's name who will be on that charter flight and you stand a very strong risk green card and citizens to be deported.
# posted by Anonymous : December 13, 2009 6:47 PM"
I have practiced immigration law in the US for a number of years;
Your statement above is fear mongering.
Deportation is based on laws. Not CRAP.
Michael Davis, Esq.
"just to inform the people who are going on those chartered flight(s), U.S Immigration and customs will be looking for you. I am an employee of the U.S immigration department and we have everyone's name who will be on that charter flight and you stand a very strong risk green card and citizens to be deported.
# posted by Anonymous : December 13, 2009 6:47 PM"
I have practiced immigration law in the US for a number of years;
Your statement above is fear mongering.
Deportation is based on laws. Not CRAP.
Michael Davis, Esq.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 8:19 PM
: December 13, 2009 8:19 PM
Esq Davis, get ready to do some PRO BONO work for your people! It lloks like you are quite the person for the defence!!!
Shirley Allan
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 13, 2009 8:30 PM
: December 13, 2009 8:30 PM
All you dominicans are to ungrateful.When they sending the money down it does never b a poblem but for them to come and vote is a problem? I wonder if those u s does have diaspora written on them too.All u dont want them dnt want thier monies too.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 9:07 PM
: December 13, 2009 9:07 PM
MICHAEL DAVIES ESQ, I DONT KNOW HOW TO PUT IT,
Some of you lawyers I honestly dont know how you make it through law school, when a basic thing like statutory interpretation you cant figure out,
U dere talkin BULL about "QUID PRO PRO",
Clearly you misunderstood what the INTELLIGENT JUDGE has said,
Sir Brian has referred to a motive to "induce the elector to vote".
It doesnt matter who the elector is voting for,
obviously it is an offence to merely induce somebody to vote. That person might not have voted if you did not give them a plane ticket, they would be in the US.
This is DISTINCT from the offence of inducing somebody to vote for a particular party.
So if you give the person a ticket to vote, and that person casts a ballot, the bribery has been effected. it matters not whether the ballot is spoilt. you will argue that your intention was to ge tthe person to bribe instead of going to the beach, sleeping or shopping.
Once the person votes, the onus is on YOU to show that they did not vote as a result of the bribe, it would be hard to see how you prove that when that person resides in Canada or NJ,
Guess how old I am, 21, i'll take credit for that short lesson,and NO, I dont have a law degree.
Some of you lawyers I honestly dont know how you make it through law school, when a basic thing like statutory interpretation you cant figure out,
U dere talkin BULL about "QUID PRO PRO",
Clearly you misunderstood what the INTELLIGENT JUDGE has said,
Sir Brian has referred to a motive to "induce the elector to vote".
It doesnt matter who the elector is voting for,
obviously it is an offence to merely induce somebody to vote. That person might not have voted if you did not give them a plane ticket, they would be in the US.
This is DISTINCT from the offence of inducing somebody to vote for a particular party.
So if you give the person a ticket to vote, and that person casts a ballot, the bribery has been effected. it matters not whether the ballot is spoilt. you will argue that your intention was to ge tthe person to bribe instead of going to the beach, sleeping or shopping.
Once the person votes, the onus is on YOU to show that they did not vote as a result of the bribe, it would be hard to see how you prove that when that person resides in Canada or NJ,
Guess how old I am, 21, i'll take credit for that short lesson,and NO, I dont have a law degree.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 9:29 PM
: December 13, 2009 9:29 PM
When you send your money, you send it to family and friends and that's a huge difference.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 9:29 PM
: December 13, 2009 9:29 PM
Now we all know that you are not an Immigration Officer in the US, and you do not live in the US. Do these people really think that this will stop US from coming this week...
NO ONE IS SCARED-FEAR NO MORE
Gone are the days of scaring people....information is readily available by many of the citizenry.
Consider this, someone with a Green Card is not a US citizen and therefore can not vote in US elections (State or National). This person still carries the passport of a country that is not the US. If this person is need of diplomatic assistance, the US will not intervene on their behalf, as it is not one of their own. The person would have to find refuge from their country of Citizenship.
In the case of Citizenship it is different, but remember the law:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
I am arriving in Dominica on Wednesday
NO ONE IS SCARED-FEAR NO MORE
Gone are the days of scaring people....information is readily available by many of the citizenry.
Consider this, someone with a Green Card is not a US citizen and therefore can not vote in US elections (State or National). This person still carries the passport of a country that is not the US. If this person is need of diplomatic assistance, the US will not intervene on their behalf, as it is not one of their own. The person would have to find refuge from their country of Citizenship.
In the case of Citizenship it is different, but remember the law:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
I am arriving in Dominica on Wednesday
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:15 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:15 PM
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Beys Afroyim (born Ephraim Bernstein in Poland in 1893) immigrated to the US in 1912 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1926. In 1950, Afroyim moved to Israel. He tried to renew his US passport in 1960, but the State Department refused on the grounds that he had lost his citizenship by voting in an Israeli election in 1951. Afroyim sued the State Department, and the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that he was still a US citizen.
The basic point of the Supreme Court's ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk was that the "citizenship clause" of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution -- while originally intended mainly to guarantee citizenship to freed Negro slaves and their descendants, and subsequently interpreted in Wong Kim Ark as conferrring citizenship at birth to virtually everyone born in the US -- had effectively elevated citizenship to the status of a constitutionally protected right. Hence, Congress had no right to pass a law which had the effect of depriving an American of his citizenship without his assent.
Thus, the court ruled, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.
The Supreme Court noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already tried to confer citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the US. However, proponents of the 14th Amendment had expressed fears that this provision could be repealed by a later Congress, and so they insisted that the new amendment should contain its own definition of citizenship that Congress could not change later on.
Further, the court pointed to a proposed (but never ratified) constitutional amendment, early in the 19th century, which would have revoked the US citizenship of anyone who accepted a foreign title or gift, as evidence that Congress was not believed at that time to have the power to do such a thing via ordinary legislation. (Incidentally, this is the same proposed amendment which some foes of the federal income tax allege was in fact duly ratified, then suppressed by lawyers who supposedly feared their "foreign" title of "Esquire" would result in the loss of their US citizenship and their positions of power in the government.)
By ruling as it did in the Afroyim case, the Supreme Court explicitly threw out the principles held nine years earlier in Perez v. Brownell.
The Supreme Court's Afroyim ruling did not definitively throw out all prohibitions against dual citizenship in the US. Although the court clearly stated that loss of citizenship required the individual's assent, some uncertainty remained as to whether an actual swearing of allegiance to a foreign country would, by itself, constitute such assent. (The question of how, or even whether, Afroyim had become a citizen of Israel, or sworn allegiance to Israel, did not come up in his case.)
Also, the court did not address the issue of what standard of proof would be required in citizenship cases -- i.e., whether intent to give up citizenship had to be proved clearly and convincingly (as in a criminal trial), or by a preponderance of evidence (as in a lawsuit). This question would not be resolved until Vance v. Terrazas (see below).
It should additionally be noted that the Afroyim case did not deal with Congress's right to require new citizens to renounce their prior allegiances as a prerequisite for naturalization.
The statutory provision calling for loss of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election, struck down by the court in this case, was repealed by Congress in 1978 (Public Law 95-432).
Beys Afroyim (born Ephraim Bernstein in Poland in 1893) immigrated to the US in 1912 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1926. In 1950, Afroyim moved to Israel. He tried to renew his US passport in 1960, but the State Department refused on the grounds that he had lost his citizenship by voting in an Israeli election in 1951. Afroyim sued the State Department, and the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that he was still a US citizen.
The basic point of the Supreme Court's ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk was that the "citizenship clause" of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution -- while originally intended mainly to guarantee citizenship to freed Negro slaves and their descendants, and subsequently interpreted in Wong Kim Ark as conferrring citizenship at birth to virtually everyone born in the US -- had effectively elevated citizenship to the status of a constitutionally protected right. Hence, Congress had no right to pass a law which had the effect of depriving an American of his citizenship without his assent.
Thus, the court ruled, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.
The Supreme Court noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already tried to confer citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the US. However, proponents of the 14th Amendment had expressed fears that this provision could be repealed by a later Congress, and so they insisted that the new amendment should contain its own definition of citizenship that Congress could not change later on.
Further, the court pointed to a proposed (but never ratified) constitutional amendment, early in the 19th century, which would have revoked the US citizenship of anyone who accepted a foreign title or gift, as evidence that Congress was not believed at that time to have the power to do such a thing via ordinary legislation. (Incidentally, this is the same proposed amendment which some foes of the federal income tax allege was in fact duly ratified, then suppressed by lawyers who supposedly feared their "foreign" title of "Esquire" would result in the loss of their US citizenship and their positions of power in the government.)
By ruling as it did in the Afroyim case, the Supreme Court explicitly threw out the principles held nine years earlier in Perez v. Brownell.
The Supreme Court's Afroyim ruling did not definitively throw out all prohibitions against dual citizenship in the US. Although the court clearly stated that loss of citizenship required the individual's assent, some uncertainty remained as to whether an actual swearing of allegiance to a foreign country would, by itself, constitute such assent. (The question of how, or even whether, Afroyim had become a citizen of Israel, or sworn allegiance to Israel, did not come up in his case.)
Also, the court did not address the issue of what standard of proof would be required in citizenship cases -- i.e., whether intent to give up citizenship had to be proved clearly and convincingly (as in a criminal trial), or by a preponderance of evidence (as in a lawsuit). This question would not be resolved until Vance v. Terrazas (see below).
It should additionally be noted that the Afroyim case did not deal with Congress's right to require new citizens to renounce their prior allegiances as a prerequisite for naturalization.
The statutory provision calling for loss of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election, struck down by the court in this case, was repealed by Congress in 1978 (Public Law 95-432).
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:19 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:19 PM
Sorry for the postings which are long, but I prefer facts and case history rather than 'BEFF'.
Find the case information at : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=387&invol=253
At Every turn someone will say something or write something to dissuade you from exercising your rights as a dual citizen afforded to you by each country's constitution.
FEAR NO MORE, the US can not touch you.
You would think these Imbeciles would do a little click and search before spewing such rubbish. There is precedent and when I come on Wednesday, block the Runway....
Find the case information at : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=387&invol=253
At Every turn someone will say something or write something to dissuade you from exercising your rights as a dual citizen afforded to you by each country's constitution.
FEAR NO MORE, the US can not touch you.
You would think these Imbeciles would do a little click and search before spewing such rubbish. There is precedent and when I come on Wednesday, block the Runway....
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:24 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:24 PM
I am a dual US/Dominican citizen by birth. I was once told that if I ever voted in either an American or a Dominican election, I would lose citizenship in the other country. Is this true?
Absolutely not true.
Neither US nor Dominican citizenship law says anything about losing citizenship as a result of voting in an election in another country.
Note that US law used to mandate loss of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election. However, this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk and was repealed by Congress in 1978.
Absolutely not true.
Neither US nor Dominican citizenship law says anything about losing citizenship as a result of voting in an election in another country.
Note that US law used to mandate loss of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election. However, this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk and was repealed by Congress in 1978.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:26 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:26 PM
Jail Skerrit too. As far as I am concerned he should already be at Stockfarm.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:29 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:29 PM
Anonymous : December 13, 2009 9:29 PM:
You did not have to state your age - your contribution ricks of naivety AND nor would I have guessed that you are 21, - I thought you were 12 and NO, YOU dont have a law degree. That is obvious.
I hope your future education catches up with your age.
Michael Davis, Esq.
You did not have to state your age - your contribution ricks of naivety AND nor would I have guessed that you are 21, - I thought you were 12 and NO, YOU dont have a law degree. That is obvious.
I hope your future education catches up with your age.
Michael Davis, Esq.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:45 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:45 PM
I hope all - READ the CASE LAW ABOVE. Thank you.
One more example to my friends contribution:
Ramh Emmanuel. Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
Born in the US. Served in the Israeli military. Hold a US and Israeli passport. Has voted in Israel. Served in Bill Clinton's administration. Served in congress.
Has not lost any of his citizenship rights in Israel or the US.
Just facts - not that politically motivated gossipy crap.
Michael Davis, Esq.
One more example to my friends contribution:
Ramh Emmanuel. Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
Born in the US. Served in the Israeli military. Hold a US and Israeli passport. Has voted in Israel. Served in Bill Clinton's administration. Served in congress.
Has not lost any of his citizenship rights in Israel or the US.
Just facts - not that politically motivated gossipy crap.
Michael Davis, Esq.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 10:57 PM
: December 13, 2009 10:57 PM
on the same if any party provide's buses or come to pick up people from there home's that should be the same cause when you were in office you'll and even now hired buses e.c.t to pick up people from there home's where would u place these parts ,it all come down to pure crap mr. Alleyene.
# posted by : December 13, 2009 11:45 PM
: December 13, 2009 11:45 PM
to Michael Davis:
the way you talk its impossible to ever convict someone of bribery. Cuz i could give everyone in D/ca a $1000 to vote for me... but since we have no idea who the person accepting the money would vote for... its not bribery.
People like u make me sick- whaz with the Esq after ur name? is it supposed to mean ur're some smart-a$$? any monkey with half a brain can become a lawyer, just look around a see the no# of worthless incompetent lawyers like urself in D/ca... it's pathetic.
Go get a real degree which can create employment and not one which depends on youths doing crimes.
Seriously what the hell do u know about law... u sound like a retard- what makes u believe u can school Sir Alleyne. Bitch all u want this will have to go to the courts- i wanna see ur bitcha$$ defend skerrit
the way you talk its impossible to ever convict someone of bribery. Cuz i could give everyone in D/ca a $1000 to vote for me... but since we have no idea who the person accepting the money would vote for... its not bribery.
People like u make me sick- whaz with the Esq after ur name? is it supposed to mean ur're some smart-a$$? any monkey with half a brain can become a lawyer, just look around a see the no# of worthless incompetent lawyers like urself in D/ca... it's pathetic.
Go get a real degree which can create employment and not one which depends on youths doing crimes.
Seriously what the hell do u know about law... u sound like a retard- what makes u believe u can school Sir Alleyne. Bitch all u want this will have to go to the courts- i wanna see ur bitcha$$ defend skerrit
# posted by : December 14, 2009 12:35 AM
: December 14, 2009 12:35 AM
If Skerrit is voted back in power, one thing I know is that Dominica will be a failed state, the currency will be the one that Chavez wants for ALBA. Dominica is the only republic in the OECS and that is why Chavez & Co. can toy with her, you wonder why Ralph wanted to get rid of the Queen as head of state of St.Vincent?
# posted by : December 14, 2009 3:29 AM
: December 14, 2009 3:29 AM
Micheal Davis- Please do not try to mis-lead the people, American's constitution is NOT Dominica's constitution! you can use America's constitution to decide a Dominica case!!! I know this is Dominica we are talking about -- The anythng goes country) but is what some of us are trying to change!!!! Wonder what you MENTOR Obama would think of you.. Trying your best to defend a protect a dictator some say in the making, but I think already baked.. Myabe you need to REMOVE your Lawyer glasses and put on your conscience to see all the evidence that you refuse to acknowledge..
Shirley Allan
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 14, 2009 7:08 AM
: December 14, 2009 7:08 AM
i see all of all of these parties as the same they criticize when they are in opposition then do worse when in power.
But truth has to be told as a dominican leaving abroad i honestly think that it is none of our business to go home to vote particularly when we a away for how many years. we go to vote a party then take our flight back and leave the rest to face what ever the elected party has in store while we are enjoying our lives else where. as the saying goes "who in the fire knows feels it". if we really want to create change in our native country then why don't we go back home and invest some $$$$$, thus more cash flow and jobs for all instead of ridding big cars and wearing nice suits to the point where we think we are better than those back home. let us stop behaving like we care so much, if we do lets us make the people who leave there make their choice then come together and invest some Benjamin back home which in turn will be best for all of us both aboard and home.
peace to all my people.
But truth has to be told as a dominican leaving abroad i honestly think that it is none of our business to go home to vote particularly when we a away for how many years. we go to vote a party then take our flight back and leave the rest to face what ever the elected party has in store while we are enjoying our lives else where. as the saying goes "who in the fire knows feels it". if we really want to create change in our native country then why don't we go back home and invest some $$$$$, thus more cash flow and jobs for all instead of ridding big cars and wearing nice suits to the point where we think we are better than those back home. let us stop behaving like we care so much, if we do lets us make the people who leave there make their choice then come together and invest some Benjamin back home which in turn will be best for all of us both aboard and home.
peace to all my people.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 8:33 AM
: December 14, 2009 8:33 AM
The main issue discussed here is BRIBERY!!!! Deal with that issue Michael and forget about your dual citizenship case laws.. Let's stick to bribery.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 8:36 AM
: December 14, 2009 8:36 AM
A Short Response: The Mere or Unconditional Provision of Transportation is NOT Bribery
I have the greatest respect for Sir Brian. I note his advice has been circulated on the Internet. The Dominican.Net story quotes Sir Brian as saying
“If the motive is to induce an elector to vote, that, to my mind, would amount to bribery.”
Also, I have noticed an attempt was made to tie in Sir Brian’s advice to certain facts. In an earlier email Gabriel Christian sought by association to give the impression Sir Brian was commenting on specific facts or a specific story by referring to alleged documents and allegations below Sir Brian’s advice.
I have confirmed with Sir Brian that he was not addressing any particular story or facts. In other words, he was not commenting on any specific allegations of fact which have been disseminated by some. I am therefore certain that Sir Brian was getting advice as a matter of construction and not on facts.
However, I was not sure exactly what Sir Brian meant by the words “if the motive is to induce an elector to vote” or whether this was the sole basis of his opinion. Nor, am I sure that his entire advice has been published. But I am confident Sir Brian will agree that the mere provision of transportation is not bribery and that it would depend entirely on the facts as to whether the arrangements or agreements were conditional or unconditional.
It would be very interesting indeed to know whether it is Sir Brian’s position whether all that is required to establish bribery is to show “…the motive is to induce an elector to vote”. Based on my brief discussion with him this morning, I doubt it. I believe Sir Brian accepts the distinction between conditional or unconditional arrangements. Therefore, even this narrow issue of inducement mentioned by Sir Brian requires a determination of the facts concerning relationship and agreements made by the parties.
The provisions of our law, which govern bribery in elections, have been determined by Courts of law. The law is that
“an unconditional promise of travelling expenses to a voter to go to the place of polling, with leave to him to vote or not, as and how he likes seems to us certainly not a promise of money to induce the voter to vote, being neither a promise with that view nor directly calculated to cause it.”
Consequently, the mere or unconditional provision of transportation is not bribery. This issue is a question of fact, which can only be determined in accordance with due process, and an examination of all of the facts. Therefore, how on God’s earth can any one (not Sir Brian because he did not) at this time say or suggest that the arrangements or agreements being made, or made, constitute bribery is simply mind boggling.
Further, what about the simple things that we all take for granted such as the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to be heard, burden of proof and evidence? In this silly and dangerously dishonest season, facts and the fundamental principles which are entrenched in our Constitution are spat on and shredded by the self ordained paragons of virtue.
This present allegation of bribery is a figment in the minds of a lynch mob hell bent of misleading, mischief and destruction. It is part of the scandal mongering and fear mongering taking place in our local and Caribbean politics. My dad always said that there are some who if they cannot dazzle you with facts, will try to baffle you with…..( Sorry but I forgot the word). Just read the emails and listen to Q95 and you will get my drift! This a perfect example of baffling with…….( Sorry but I forgot the word again).
Anthony W Astaphan,S.C.
I have the greatest respect for Sir Brian. I note his advice has been circulated on the Internet. The Dominican.Net story quotes Sir Brian as saying
“If the motive is to induce an elector to vote, that, to my mind, would amount to bribery.”
Also, I have noticed an attempt was made to tie in Sir Brian’s advice to certain facts. In an earlier email Gabriel Christian sought by association to give the impression Sir Brian was commenting on specific facts or a specific story by referring to alleged documents and allegations below Sir Brian’s advice.
I have confirmed with Sir Brian that he was not addressing any particular story or facts. In other words, he was not commenting on any specific allegations of fact which have been disseminated by some. I am therefore certain that Sir Brian was getting advice as a matter of construction and not on facts.
However, I was not sure exactly what Sir Brian meant by the words “if the motive is to induce an elector to vote” or whether this was the sole basis of his opinion. Nor, am I sure that his entire advice has been published. But I am confident Sir Brian will agree that the mere provision of transportation is not bribery and that it would depend entirely on the facts as to whether the arrangements or agreements were conditional or unconditional.
It would be very interesting indeed to know whether it is Sir Brian’s position whether all that is required to establish bribery is to show “…the motive is to induce an elector to vote”. Based on my brief discussion with him this morning, I doubt it. I believe Sir Brian accepts the distinction between conditional or unconditional arrangements. Therefore, even this narrow issue of inducement mentioned by Sir Brian requires a determination of the facts concerning relationship and agreements made by the parties.
The provisions of our law, which govern bribery in elections, have been determined by Courts of law. The law is that
“an unconditional promise of travelling expenses to a voter to go to the place of polling, with leave to him to vote or not, as and how he likes seems to us certainly not a promise of money to induce the voter to vote, being neither a promise with that view nor directly calculated to cause it.”
Consequently, the mere or unconditional provision of transportation is not bribery. This issue is a question of fact, which can only be determined in accordance with due process, and an examination of all of the facts. Therefore, how on God’s earth can any one (not Sir Brian because he did not) at this time say or suggest that the arrangements or agreements being made, or made, constitute bribery is simply mind boggling.
Further, what about the simple things that we all take for granted such as the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to be heard, burden of proof and evidence? In this silly and dangerously dishonest season, facts and the fundamental principles which are entrenched in our Constitution are spat on and shredded by the self ordained paragons of virtue.
This present allegation of bribery is a figment in the minds of a lynch mob hell bent of misleading, mischief and destruction. It is part of the scandal mongering and fear mongering taking place in our local and Caribbean politics. My dad always said that there are some who if they cannot dazzle you with facts, will try to baffle you with…..( Sorry but I forgot the word). Just read the emails and listen to Q95 and you will get my drift! This a perfect example of baffling with…….( Sorry but I forgot the word again).
Anthony W Astaphan,S.C.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 9:00 AM
: December 14, 2009 9:00 AM
Look who is talking TONY ASS-taphan again!! If the Goverment of Dominica can't or won't get you scrundrels, the Government of the USA will, you cannot undertake your illegal activities on American soil and go free Scot.. In Americaq we can Subpoena telephone records, and all other records, we can confiscate computers to extract evidence.. We operate under RULE of LAW, not like in Dominica where they operate under the laws of Tony Astaphan! Foot in mouth Tony, wasn;t it Skeritt who said publicly and unequivocally that no law not even the constitution can prevent him from doing what he wants to do in Dominica, and you have the audacity to take about constitution being spat on and shredded?
I think you were right when you said you took something when you were young that is making mad-- and be a liar!
Shirley Allan
I think you were right when you said you took something when you were young that is making mad-- and be a liar!
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 14, 2009 9:12 AM
: December 14, 2009 9:12 AM
Tony, don't you have enough money to retire? Just leave us alone man.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 4:41 PM
: December 14, 2009 4:41 PM
Attack the messenger. Mr. Astaphan made some points with regard to law and you try to discredit him and call him names. I did not call Brian Alleyne any names or even the proprietors of this e-zine.
Yes this Shirley Allan Person seems hell bent on doing just that.
So Shirley, I do not know you, but I would like to ask you this...
I own property in Dominica (Real Property) I visit three times a year for pleasure and business, should I not come to Dominica to vote?
If you disagree, then please tell me why.
Yes this Shirley Allan Person seems hell bent on doing just that.
So Shirley, I do not know you, but I would like to ask you this...
I own property in Dominica (Real Property) I visit three times a year for pleasure and business, should I not come to Dominica to vote?
If you disagree, then please tell me why.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 5:03 PM
: December 14, 2009 5:03 PM
Whoever you are coming down to vote is not the issue-- The issue is the BRIBERY associated with it.. Where the labor party is using endless yet to be disclosed money to hire jets and buy tickets for a seleted few- labor party supporters to come to Dominica to vote.. Do not allow tony ASS-taphan to confuse the issue as he is known to do, and mislead you!! You are not the only one who has property in Dominica.
Shirley Allan
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 14, 2009 6:34 PM
: December 14, 2009 6:34 PM
Poor Dominica!We are surely the laughing stock of the world at large.Skerrit lies come out one after the other and he keeps on lying without even asking himself a question.This man seems to have the DEVIL in him.For all those who believes he is in control,they are wrong . ONLY GOD IS IN CONTROL MY PEOPLE.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 9:27 PM
: December 14, 2009 9:27 PM
The bottom line is Skerrit ia a pathological liar. Heard from the two islands that he was telling lies about giving them monies.
Some people are so supportive of corruption that the corruption that is going on in Dominica.God is real people.
Some people are so supportive of corruption that the corruption that is going on in Dominica.God is real people.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 9:43 PM
: December 14, 2009 9:43 PM
Sir Bryan Alleyne is being pure selective in his moral decrees. He is a party Hack who cannot wait to go back to his politickingways
Its men like these who make us fear the possibility of a CCJ.
He is being economical on the truth. In fact it is he who is trying to intimidate people by telling them that if the come home to vote they may be victimized. Sahme on you Dame Bryan Alleyne
Its men like these who make us fear the possibility of a CCJ.
He is being economical on the truth. In fact it is he who is trying to intimidate people by telling them that if the come home to vote they may be victimized. Sahme on you Dame Bryan Alleyne
# posted by : December 14, 2009 11:24 PM
: December 14, 2009 11:24 PM
I hope they consider the galvanize, plywood, cement, ration etc. distributed by the uwp as bribery. Its not our fault they cannot afford plane tickets. Why not send one to the Bronx in NY for the exiled former leader E.W. People stop being hypocrite. I shall not fear. I am coming down to vote for the continued progress of my country. If not when my barrels come to the port send them back nor. Or send back my U.S. Or the land I just bought so I could retire someday....strip me of that too "Fidel Castro"! We are a democracy and we shall remain that way!
# posted by : December 15, 2009 12:15 AM
: December 15, 2009 12:15 AM
I hope you people in the Diaspora understands what KARMA is. You don't understand the effect your vote has on the ones left behind to live in poverty and hard times whilst you go back to live in your sweet life. You've done it before and what is the state of DA today?
You have no idea how much you're toying with sombody elses' life. There is no justification to this and KARMA will haunt you till the end. Ignorance is bliss, but for a short while.
You have no idea how much you're toying with sombody elses' life. There is no justification to this and KARMA will haunt you till the end. Ignorance is bliss, but for a short while.
# posted by : December 15, 2009 3:38 AM
: December 15, 2009 3:38 AM
Shirley
I have an extra ticket for the charter. You want to go? We all know that you are not being bribed. Let me know and we can hook it up.
-Your Fellow Intellectual Prostitute
I have an extra ticket for the charter. You want to go? We all know that you are not being bribed. Let me know and we can hook it up.
-Your Fellow Intellectual Prostitute
# posted by : December 15, 2009 9:18 AM
: December 15, 2009 9:18 AM
People the time for talk is over. Shirley, Gabriel, Tompson and the other Diaspora "Intellectuals" specialize in that. I think in revolt they will not have anymore symopsiums and we will all thank them.
-NATO
No Action Talk Only
-NATO
No Action Talk Only
# posted by : December 15, 2009 9:21 AM
: December 15, 2009 9:21 AM
Yeah I know there will be many EMPTY seats on the charter!!! But no thank you!
Shirley Allan
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 15, 2009 9:23 AM
: December 15, 2009 9:23 AM
ALL THE PARTIES ARE BUY TICKETS FOR THEIR SUPPORTERS TO COME BACK TO DOMINICA AND VOTE...........WHAT IS SO WRONG ABOUT LABOUR DOING IT?...........WISH I COULD GET TIME OF FROM WORK TO GET THAT PLANE TICKET AND GO PUT MY X BY THE SHOE........WE IN ALREADY AND THERE WE WILL REMAIN......LABOUR NOW.......LABOUR AGAIN ON THE 18TH
# posted by : December 15, 2009 9:46 AM
: December 15, 2009 9:46 AM
Shirley Allan, &, Roosevelt : December 14, 2009 12:35 AM, ET AL:
We are entitled to our own opinions, however, we’re not entitled to our own facts.
I hope you all realize that and begin to internalize and know it - b/c your credibility is at stake.
Michael Davis, Esq.
We are entitled to our own opinions, however, we’re not entitled to our own facts.
I hope you all realize that and begin to internalize and know it - b/c your credibility is at stake.
Michael Davis, Esq.
# posted by : December 15, 2009 9:59 AM
: December 15, 2009 9:59 AM
Mr. Davis Sir, what credible Facts have you given us here? Yes what you said here is absolutely true, but it also applies to you Sir. I think you should also internalize it, know it because your credibilty Sir, is also at stake here.
Shirley Allan
Shirley Allan
# posted by : December 15, 2009 10:12 AM
: December 15, 2009 10:12 AM
mean while we resign to this war of words over the issue of free plan tickets there is a bigger picture at hand. The development of dominica and a better standard of life for those that live there. Ever one of the political parties have their own plans as to what they do when/if they get in,labour has done good like anything/one they have shortcomings. let us sotp all this foolishness and start writhing some sensesible stuff so people who read will be educated as to the real dominica
# posted by : December 15, 2009 8:28 PM
: December 15, 2009 8:28 PM
You people are ridiculous, blinded by colours: If the Government were to issue tickets without any conditions to any Dominican leaving abroad that would not constitute a bribe. However, if Ms. Dailey, when she contacted the individuals indicated to them that they were would be issued with a ticket to vote for St. Jean or Gloria etc. and that person accepted the ticket, then that is bribery.
The evidence is clear, had the diaspora voters not been imported, Ron Green and Bazil would have won their seats.
I have sat by and observed Dominicans act as if they were dumb or blind. Wrong is wrong regardless of who is the defaulter. I would like someone to tell me, whether stealing a perfume from a store is only an offense when committed by someone below the poverty line and it is not for another person with affluence. Congratulation to the Government! Judgement is mine sayest the Lord. We shall see. In an all thinks give thanks.
PS: ONE LOVE
The evidence is clear, had the diaspora voters not been imported, Ron Green and Bazil would have won their seats.
I have sat by and observed Dominicans act as if they were dumb or blind. Wrong is wrong regardless of who is the defaulter. I would like someone to tell me, whether stealing a perfume from a store is only an offense when committed by someone below the poverty line and it is not for another person with affluence. Congratulation to the Government! Judgement is mine sayest the Lord. We shall see. In an all thinks give thanks.
PS: ONE LOVE
# posted by : December 19, 2009 9:35 PM
: December 19, 2009 9:35 PM
If you really did find a working formula that made you, say $1,000 a week online on average and it kept producing income no matter what, would you want to sell that idea to a bunch of noobs for $47 a pop and expect to retire on the proceeds? No way, man! It does not compute. It does not add up. And it does not make any sense to do that. I certainly don’t go shouting from the rooftops how I make my money online. Hell, I don’t want the competition taking a slice of my pie and neither would anyone who really does make good cash online.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment
Please Provide Opinions and Comments on This Article.