, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cicero Denounces Catiline, 1888 Painting by Cesare Maccari (1840-1919)

When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?’, O Martelly and Lamothe? ‘….does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men-—does not the precaution taken of assembling the senate…—do not the looks and countenances of this venerable body…,have any effect upon you? Adapted from Cicero’s First Oration Against Catalina (Transl. by Yonge,1852).

This is a continuation of Part III, which was the testimony of witnesses: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-witnesses-part-iii-of-the-senate-inquest-report-on-the-troubling-death-of-judge-jean-serge-joseph/

Before starting the translation of Part IV of the Senate Inquest Report which is “Analysis of the Information gathered during the Hearings of the Witnesses and Actors in the Event”, we would like to discuss the status of this report, which calls for the Impeachment of Haitian President Martelly and Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe.

The report was written by a Special Inquest Commission, and it was only on last Monday, the 23rd of September, 2013, that the Haitian Senate was finally able to approve it.

As reported on Tuesday, 24th September 2013 by Haiti’s “Le Matin” newspaper:
The Senate approves the demand for the Impeachment of President Martelly….”

“The Senate of the Republic approved, this Monday, the Report of the Special Commission on the case of Judge Jean Serge Joseph’s death. Indeed, 7 senators voted for, 9 abstained and 0 voted against. The President of the Senate did not vote. The conclusions of the report recommend the impeachment of the President Michel Martelly, Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe and Minister of Juste and Public Security Mr. Jean Renel Sanon. According to the commission members these last did indeed meet Judge Joseph at the Office of former Minister of Justice, Mr. Garry Lissade, at Bourdon. The aforesaid report also demands judicial proceedings against the Chief Judge of the Civil Court of Port-au-Prince, Mr. Raymond Jean Michel and Mr. Gary Lissade. Recall that Judge Jean Serge Joseph passed away on the 13th of July 2013 following a cerebral hemorrhage at Bernard Mevs Hospital, located on the road to the Airport. The revelations of Mr. Samuel Madistin and of the human rights activist, Ketly Julien alleged numerous and serious pressures from Michel Martelly and Laurent Lamothe.  The dead magistrate was investigating the dossier of presumed corruption implicating the wife and son of the president. It is now up to the Chamber of Deputies to make the impeachment.  This requires 2/3rds of the Assembly.  Then the Senate sets itself up as a Court of justice to depose the President, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. Finally we note that the accused have all denied having met with Judge Jean Serge Joseph.”
As reported by Succès Estinvil for Le Matin.  Original in French, translation our own. http://www.lematinhaiti.com/contenu.php?idtexte=36863&idtypetexte=1

Based on Article 117 of Haiti’s Constitution some believe that the report is still not approved, because of the number of those present and non-voting.

Regardless, the Deputies left on vacation the 9th of September and are not to return until the second Monday of January 2014, unless, it seems, the executive calls them back for a special session. There are still concerns, barring elections, as to if another third of the seats expire, meaning that there would not be enough members to have a quorum and then Martelly could rule by decree. However, the Chamber of Deputies voted that this third stays on until 2015. http://www.alterpresse.org/spip.php?article15072#.UkTB58saySM So, apparently the soonest that the Chamber of Deputies can vote to impeach Martelly is next January.

Given this lamentable state of affairs, several of Haiti’s Senators trotted off to the US Congressional Black Caucus Conference, which considering that Martelly appears imposed by the US, probably with the help of some other countries, seems a logical place to have gone. (Lamothe was imposed by Martelly).

Senator Steven Benoit, presented the following declaration:

Honorable Senators, Congresswomen and Congressmen
Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are taking the opportunity of this visit to brief you on some of the events that have brought Haiti on the verge of a major political crisis. As legislators and believers in the representation of the people through legislative bodies, it is important for us to submit this analytical paper to your attention. We thank you in anticipation for your kind attention.

Foremost, we would like to state that we are looking for ways to move ahead with Mr. Martelly toward the organization of democratic, fair, transparent elections as quickly as possible to fill hundreds of posts at the local level and in the Senate (10 seats). As legislators we would like to maintain a stable political climate and work in harmony with the executive branch to attract new investments, create new jobs, sustainability and keep the hopes of the Haitian people for a better future.

However, since he arrived in power, Mr. Martelly has shown a profound dislike for democracy, legislative Representatives, as well as for the check and balance of the powers granted to him by the constitution. Currently, municipal government is being managed by hand-picked men and women totally dedicated to Martelly. This means that all 420 municipal executive agents replacing the elected mayors whose term has expired, since 2011, are close Martelly political allies. Thousands of elected county officials have also been hand-picked by Martelly to replace those whose term had run out.

President Martelly has also done all he could to have a hand-picked electoral council he hoped could rig the votes in favor of his political friends.

The following is a summary of the citations and recitals of a resolution proposed by thirteen Haitian Congressmen to have President Michel Joseph Martelly tried by a High Court of Justice as prescribed by the Constitution of the country.

Through this, it is possible to get a good, but incomplete, view of all the violations of Haiti’s laws and constitution by the highest members of the executive branch of the country.

Among other things, President Martelly has been accused of violating article 153 of the constitution when he tried to dispose a neighbor of his private residence of his house and surrounding properties by using the equivalent of the IRS to falsely accuse the individual of not paying property taxes.

As early as October 26, 2011, President Martelly ordered or authorized the arrest of a Haitian Congressman as he stepped out of a plane following an official mission abroad, in violation of article 114.2 of the constitution and without any legal ground to act in such a way. He lied and denied that he had anything to do with it while it is well known that his collaborators are terrified by him and would never act without his approval.

Violation of article 218 of the constitution by President Martelly when he unilaterally levied two (2) taxes on international phone calls and money transfers from abroad without any law supporting that decision. No one beside President Martelly and Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe have control over those funds which surpass US $200million today. He has been trying to get Parliament to ratify his decision at posteriori …

President Martelly also violated articles 200 and 236 of Haiti’s constitution when he designated (January 24, and June 15, 2012) his wife and his 23-years old son to coordinate and manage millions of US dollars in public funds and run social and sports development programs outside of all legally-established channels. For several months, contracts were granted to companies owned by or connected with friends of the Martelly family among rumors of millions being kicked back to the wife and son (the latter is currently building a million dollar-commercial building in one of Haiti’s most expensive neighborhoods. When two Haitian lawyers filed a legal complaint against the Martellys, the District attorney and the investigating Judge received threats. Finally, the investigative Judge accused the Chief Judge of the Court of 1st Instance of taking him to a meeting with President Martelly, Prime Minister Lamothe and Minister of Justice Jean Renel Sanon. That was a clear violation of the separation of powers under Haiti’s constitution.

But things went even further as the investigative Judge stated that President Martelly addressed him disrespectfully and threatened him and summoned him to stop the investigation of his wife and son. The next day, the Judge told his associates that he would abandon the investigation and leave the country. But he was to die the day after under mysterious circumstances that remain to be explained. Both the Congress and the Senate undertook an investigation of the matter that points to violations of the separation of powers by the leaders of Haiti’s executive branch and their Minister of Justice and conclude by making them liable of a trial by the High Court of Justice.

If all of these illegal and unconstitutional decisions could take place, it is because President Martelly had also previously violated other articles of the constition when he was making the nominations of the Judges of the Cour de Cassation (equivalent of the US Supreme Court). He managed to select at least three Judges (disregarding all protests by the Senate) who did not meet the requirements and to have one of them (whom he has known since his childhood) become Chief Justice and President of the Higher Council on Justice.

Through a number of nominations of District Attorneys, Prosecutors, Judges and Justices of the Peace (by Chief Justice Anel Joseph his childhood friend), etc., President Martelly and his Minister of Justice have been able to turn the Haitian justice system into a political arm at the service of the executive branch (or the Martelly crew: he used to call himself and his close friends ‘legal bandits’ and has a song written on the topic). A very dangerous and scary development.

Two accusers of Mrs. Martelly are currently in jail under trumped-up charges, awaiting a trial that may never come … Two lawyers who were very critical of the Martellys’ ways in running the affairs of Haiti are now in hiding and one of them is forbidden to leave the country/travel abroad. No later than yesterday, one of the most critical journalists of the Martelly government has been ordered to surrender all documents pertaining to an information she had on a contested Judge in office which had been nationally disbarred for ten years by the bar associations (federation) of Haiti.

Last but not least, a close friend of the President came to port with 55 packs of marijuana on his private yatch and called the police and the District attorney to come and getthem at his beach hotel. When the Prosecutor had him come to his office for questioning and later sent him to a District Attorney, the police spokesperson and even the Minister of Justice scolded him and the Minister threatened to remove him from office. Only the scandal throughout Haiti’s public opinion and press forced the Minister to back-track.

Being the first person to agree to this. His election was a controversial one as he did not win the first round but was forcefully imposed as a winner. Winning the second round against Mrs. Manigat was easier and he may have won it. Haiti’s political class let Mr. Martelly have his days for two years, despite warning signs that the man was an admirer and follower of former Presidents for Life and well-known dictators François and Jean-Claude Duvalier. Indeed President Martelly had several run-in with members of Congress and of the Senate were he clearly said he would rather run the country without a Parliament.

After two years of hide and seek first to publish the amendments of the constitution, then to form an electoral council, then to send the electoral law to Congress (he kept the document for two months at the palace), President Martelly waited for the lower Chamber to almost end its regular session before depositing the electoral law. The way things look today, there is no way the latest electoral law can be worked on by both Chambers unless the President calls Congress back into session. Last week, Mr. Martelly told a crowd that for the next two years he would ‘… run Haiti as he saw fit to him since he is the only Chief in the country. Whatever he says will have to be done …’.

Having President Martelly run Haiti without a Congress and without holding elections, with practically all elected and public administration positions filled by his nominations, would be equal to going back to the political instability and turmoil of the years that followed President Aristide’s departure from power in 2004. A perspective of violence that Haiti is incapable of sustaining on top of all its other ills: vulnerability to earthquakes, tropical storms and hurricanes and deforestation and erosion, without mentioning lack of investments and jobs …

As responsible politicians we are counting on the understanding and support of all the hemispheric democracies to assist Haiti in ending its years of political upheavals and confrontations. We are looking forward to having good and peaceful elections, but above all an executive branch respectful of the constitution and of the laws of the land and of its opposition, of the right to demonstrate, speak out and criticize peacefully and in order, rights which thousands of Haitians have died for from 1957 to now …

Long live HAITI, longue vie a notre chere HAITI

Steven I. Benoit
Senator of the proud Republic of Haiti.”

Original in English here: http://omegaworldnews.com/?p=5474 (While no date is given, it seems that the date must be September 19th 2013, because that is the day on which Haiti was discussed at the 43rd Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation held September 18-21, 2013)

Saturday, 28 September 2013
Translation of Part IV of Senate Report:

Analysis of the Information gathered during the Hearings of the Witnesses and Actors in the Event

From the analysis of the information furnished by the witnesses and  actors in the events heard on the occasion of the hearings held in the Senate of the Republic, as well as in other places, according to the person being heard, his or her availability and the degree of serenity needed for the hearing and the progress of the inquest in general. The different witnesses and actors heard permitted us to understand that starting from Tuesday the 2nd of july 2013, the Judge Jean Serge Joseph, having made the decision to summon the High-level State Officials to appear, gave a special impetus to a case which appeared banal, but which had all of the possibilities of imposing a 180 degree turn in the legal facts and actions and in the politics of Haiti.  It is necessary to point out that from the depart, the Presidential Family took very seriously the denunciation brought by Newton Louis Saint Juste, Esq. (lawyer) before the public prosecutor of Port-au-Prince, Mr. Jean Renel Senatus, alleging corruption and misappropriation of funds in the highest levels of the State, pointing on this occasion to the wife and son of the President of the Republic.

The presidency found itself with its back to the wall when “the wife of Caesar was exposed.”[1]
Pompeia-Q P
It was necessary to get out of the impasse.  And in order to do this, all means were justified and all of the troops were mobilized.

A case which could appear simple to the eyes of those who do not know too much of the meanderings of politics. But complicated for those who know to read with psychological glasses the political actions and reactions in a state dominated by banditry, contempt for the law and indecent impunity.  Who are the actors implicated in this affair?

I.  The first is Mr. Newton Louis Saint Juste.  Young and brilliant lawyer of the capital, he took it upon himself to initiate a legal action against those who, in his eyes, appear unacceptable.  Certainly, many people were speaking about it, but very few people thought of doing anything about the matter

(Newton Saint Juste on Radio Kiskeya)

II.  But, the affair was quickly filed with no further action by the government prosecutor who was Mr. Jean Renel Senatus.  It sprang back in September and dragged for sometime before receiving an impulsion from a citizen named Enold Florestal who filed a summons at the correctional court.

(Jean Renel Senatus on Radio Kiskeya)

Sunday, 29 September 2013

III.  When on the 2nd of July 2013, Judge Jean Serge Joseph, in charge of the case, gave his interlocutory judgement, just about everyone started to have a presentiment of a judicio-political storm.

A few days later followed the appeal by Mr. Vandal (lawyer) and Public Prosecutor Délille.  But one will recall that the case was anything but a simple lawsuit.  It was an eminently political affair.  Thus, political means would be used to obtain conclusive results.

IV.  Thus, the great negotiators would enter into play, who starting from Tuesday the 9th of July 2013 would impart another direction to the response of the presidential family.  In this judicio-political saga, certain individuals were positioning themselves to mark political points, while others found themselves in a position to lose serious political points:  but all were on the legal terrain.  So, those who envisioned the possibility of losing some points understood right away that it was necessary to use even the apparence of the legal terrain to avoid losing.  The lawyer of the presidential family having made a pitiful performance, it is said, needed in this operation at once narrow, complicated and perilous to call upon heavy weights.

Thus, the services of a large law office were required to arrange and coordinate the lines of attack for the team to manage to score.

V.  The role of the law office of Mr. Gary Lissade should be understood in its historical context.  This law office was already used by governmental services when it was necessary to exercise pressure on the Port-au-Prince Public Prosecutor, at the time, Mr. Lionel Constant Bourgoin.  It was demanded that he proceed to arrest Mr. Gaillot Dorsainvil, former president of the Provisional Electoral Council who had organized the elections during which Mr. Michel Joseph Martelly came to the presidency of the country.  It’s in this law office that the meeting was held in which the Prime Minister at the time (Gary Conille), his Minister of Justice (Michel Pierre Brunache), his Minister of Foreign Affairs (Laurent S. Lamothe), the public prosecutor near the Court of First Instance of Port-au-Prince (Lionel C. Bourgoin), etc. participated.  This law office seems to be the place of predilection for grand plots against the rule of law in Haiti.  The commision had the good fortune and the privilege of having the current Prime Minister Laurent S. Lamothe accompanied by several members of his cabinet including Michel Pierre Brunache.  All confirmed having participated at a meeting at this law office during the time when one was Minister of Foreign Affairs and the other Minister of Justice.  They certainly did not clarify the reasons of that meeting outside of the offices of public administration.  But, everyone knows that following this the public prosecutor Bourgoin had to resign from his position because he refused to grant the demands of his superiors at the time.

[Note that the more important historical context which the Senate fails to mention about Mr. Gary Lissade, Esq. is his having been legal representative for Lt. General Cedras who orchestrated the 1991 coup against the democratically elected President Aristide.  For those who need a primer or a reminder about this coup see the September 29 update at: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/the-ongoing-saga-3-news-updates-tidbits-trivia/ ]

Monday 30 September 2013

[ Aside and comment:  For those who wonder why Martelly might want to remove the head of the Provisional Electoral Council, known by its French acronym as CEP, when he won, it could be because initially the CEP did not place Martelly in the run-off, but rather Mrs. Manigat and Jude Celestin.  Only after apparent outside intervention by the OAS did the run-off candidates become Manigat and Martelly. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_general_election,_2010–2011

New news related to the Judge Joseph case, as reported by Omega World News:
“Mr. Newton Louis St. Juste leaves the country this Sunday, 29 September 2013”

Mr. Newton Louis St. Juste leaves the country this Sunday 29 September 2013 destined for the US, where, from October 5th to October 12th, he intends to meet political personalities and Human Rights Organizations and lawyer colleagues,about the evolution of the corruption case against the presidential family, the situation of political prisoners, and because of this case, the threats which hover over the life and liberty of his colleague André Michel, the cholera dossier, etc. The lawyer will devote the first part of his trip to his family, who had to flee the country, at the end of April, to avoid retaliation from the “Tèt Kale” (Martelly) power. Mr. Newton Louis St. Juste will return to the country the 14 October 2013.  (Our translation, French original found here: http://omegaworldnews.com/?p=5671 )

Some additional information about the alleged threats, etc. is found here: http://thac.ca/amnesty-international-lawyers-in-haiti-threatened-and-intimidated/#more-814 ]

Translation of Senate Report continues:

VI.  One surely understands what expertise this law firm had to develop in the management of scandalous governmental cases. Mr. Lissade, having in his possession a presidential judicial advisor badge, would need to justify his title and perhaps his salary. He should find a judicial exit from a case judged political.  But, was there a judicial detour possible in a case where the judge in charge already gave an interlocutory judgement?

Two things are to be retained here.  A) The case does not present a very clean image of the President of the Republic, of his family and of his administration.  It was necessary to finish with it as fast as possible to pass from this distraction to other things.  But the affair was going to last, because the courts were on vacation with the opening of the Criminal Assizes (Trial Court) the 8th of July 2013, the appeal interjected by the Parquet and by the lawyer of the presidential familly would not be heard until October with the reopening of the courts.  Thus one was running the risk of enduring  the punishment of open mockery for around 3 more months. Therefore, it was necessary to find the judicial detour to get out of this judicio-political imbroglio as soon as possible. Thus, the MInister of Justice confirmed during his hearing that there was a simple judicial exit. The parties who made an appeal would retract their appeal. They would address a request to the Chief Judge of the Court of First Instance to ask him for a re-judgement.  The Chief Judge would make an abbreviated order asking the judge to have a special sitting to hear the case again and thus obtain either that the judge abstain from the affair or that he issue a new judgement that would render the presidential family cleared of the affront of the complaint.

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

VII.  None of this can be done without the backing, support and implication of the Chief Judge.  This is why the Chief Judge Jean Michel has become a central character in this affair.  The appeal having been interjected the 8th of July 2013, on Tuesday the 9th of July 2013 the Chief Judge Jean Michel enters into action.  He tells the commission that the judge came to find him in his office to ask him a question.  But, it was so sensitive and confidential that they both had to leave the offices of the courthouse to go talk about it elsewhere.  They first of all left toward the offices of the former labor court.  There the judge declares that he does not feel at ease and asks for a safer location.  They leave again to the restaurant Table de Cajus at Champ de Mars.  They do not enter into the restaurant, they stay in the vehicle (that of the Chief Judge) in the parking lot of the restaurant.  Consequently, it is not possible to verify with the managers if these two remarkable clients were received that day.  But they go to this secret place to do what?  The judge, says the Chief Judge, had only a single question to ask him:  “Have you received any calls from people from the executive branch concerning the judgement that I rendered?”  No one understands, in fact, why this question, harmless in appearance, could not have been asked in the office of the Chief Judge.  But additionally, the Chief Judge affirms that they stayed there in the parking lot of the restaurant for 20 minutes for this single question.  It is necessary to believe like Garou sings:  “Le monde est stone” (The world is stone).

[Aside:  We are not certain what exactly is meant by the last sentence.  Everyone can only guess.  Knowing that the song was written in 1976, the Senator(s) could mean a play on words and thus something like:  “We’d have to be on drugs or smoking something (i.e. stoned) to believe that!”.  Maybe he just is so fed up with sorting through this nonsense that he just wants to lay down and die or to be put out of his misery.  We leave you to decide with a video of Garou singing, since this is the version which the Senator(s) mentioned, and we have provided our English translation below.  The English translation for this video is generally excellent.  However, where she writes  “…come bring me down to prevent my suffering” it clearly should be “kill me”, “put me down” or “shoot me” in the sense of shooting, killing or putting down an animal in pain.

“Le Monde est Stone” with music by Michel Berger and lyrics by Luc Plamondon is originally from the 1976 Quebec Rock Opera “Starmania”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmania_(musical)

The French lyrics are available on various internet sites.  This is our English translation:

The World is Stone

My head is exploding
I would just like to sleep
Lay down on the pavement
And just die
Stone, the world is stone
I am looking for the sun
In the middle of the night
I don’t know if it is the earth
That is turning upside down
Or if it is really me
Who is being dramatic
Who is making my own drama

I am looking for the sun
In the middle of the night
Stone, the world is Stone

I no longer want to fight
I no longer want to run
Like all of those robots
Who build empires
That the wind can destroy
Like a house of cards

Stone, the world is Stone

Leave me to struggle
Don’t come rescue me
Rather come shoot me
To put me out of my misery

My head is exploding
I would just like to sleep
Lay down on the pavement
And just die

Leave me to struggle
Don’t come rescue me
Rather come shoot me
To put me out of my misery

I have a head that is exploding
I only want to sleep
Lay down on the pavement
And just die
And just die  ]

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

However, the account told by the judge to his friends dares to be different from that of the Chief Judge.  For Judge Jean Serge Joseph, he was driven to a meeting with the lawyers of the [Presidential] family with the intention of being persuaded to meet the Minister of Justice in order to find a solution to the crisis provoked by his interlocutory judgement.  Two days later, the judge was driven one more time by the Chief Judge, with neither a chauffeur nor a security agent to the same restaurant, to the same parking lot.  Always, according to the Chief Judge, on the request of the judge.  The judge definitely must have been victim of love at first sight for that parking lot.  Additionally, the conversation lasted for 20 minutes.  The subject:  the same anguished question by the judge.

But the judge’s account is different.  There was a progression.  This time, he was summoned to meet the Minister of Justice that he had in many prior instances refused to meet. Judge Joseph went to his office that day but left again very early because the offices of the courthouse were practically empty because a red alert was declared due to the passage of Tropical Storm Chantal.  He returned to his home in Cabaret.  Maybe to flee the Chief Judge who was harassing him with telephone calls.  It is around one in the afternoon and he is speaking on the telephone with his spouse.  The Chief Judge calls again, he answers and asks the Chief Judge to give him an hour before meeting him.  The calls of the Chief Judge multiply and become more pressing.  We already know the rest of the story which was already exposed in point 17 of the section relative to the reconstitution of the facts.

Thursday, 3 October 2013

What must be understood from all of this?

1) That the account of the Chief Judge is confronted by serious difficulties of logical coherence.

a) Why a Chief Judge who has an office available, which is supposed to be protected from intrusions of uninvited individuals, would feel the need to go, first of all to a gallery of the premises of a former court, and then to a parking lot of a restaurant, to answer a simple question by a judge?  It is finally back to the time of fairy tales.

b) Why this very simple conversation would have lasted twenty minutes when the monosyllabic response to the judge’s question would have lasted only a second?

c)  Why the Chief Judge, who according to his own declaration, was not in the habit of calling the judge, was not a close friend of the judge, if he would have called, would it not have been only one time that day?

d) How to explain that the Chief Judge was ready so long, waiting in his vehicle, which was running when the judge arrived, if it was only to respond to a question, by the judge, no matter how pressing and worrisome it was?

e)  Why not stay in the vehicle and discuss things when on that particular day the courthouse was practically almost empty, thus without great risk of being heard?

f) But, additionally, what was this conversation which could not be heard by intruders?

Friday 4 october 2013

g) And Tuesday the 9th of July and Thursday the 11th of July 2013, the meetings which were held in the parking lot of the restaurant took place at noon-time, why did they stay outside and did not think to eat lunch together? The various accounts of the Chief Judge present him as someone who often goes to the restaurants of the capital.

h) But Friday the 12th of July 2013, why the Chief Judge who was always so prompt to respond to the entreaties of the judge – who it seems was obsessed by the idea that the officials of the executive branch could have placed pressure on the Chief Judge, so that in turn he would place it on the judge, so that the latter would reconsider his decision – did not see fit to see the judge even though he recognized that the judge presented himself seven or eight times at his office?  Why did he not call him that evening even though the judge had given him a number supposedly unknown to the general public?

i) Why did he only call on Saturday the 13th of July 2013 around 10 am? And why was the Chief Judge so worried to the point of calling several individuals in order to confirm the death of the judge?  Or again, why did he never go see how the judge was during the time of his hospitilization, given that in the preceding days, there was such a complicity between the judge and the Chief Judge?

j)  How to understand the response of the Chief Judge to Judge Morin who took him to task for having driven the judge to a meeting during which the judge was mistreated. The dialogical response comes out: “This is not how it happened. I will tell you later”. Which “it” is it a question of? The fact of being mistreated or the one of driving the judge to a meeting? All in all, he never explained anything to anyone.

k) How to understand, as well,  that the Chief Judge preferred to evade the reprimands of Mrs. Julien, of the IMED, who reproached him for being the cause of the death of the judge due to the simple fact that he drove him to that meeting where he was exposed to all sorts of pressures and threats? He preferred to change the topic of the conversation to the issue of office equipment that the lady needed to acquire for the court, even though Mrs. Julien admits that she was so disturbed by the death of the judge that she spurned the Chief Judge during this conversation.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

2) But beyond the fact that the account of the Chief Judge does not hold up logically, certain elements of his account confirm other points of the account of the judge and are contrary to his own account of the facts.

a) For example, the Chief Judge admits that he took upon himself the initiative of calling the judge at midday on Thursday, the 11th of July 2013. Fact that the judge reported to all those who heard his account. This apparently trivial fact well illustrates the reasoning that the judge was pressured to meet officials about the subject of the correctional suit of the presidential family. Additionally, the judge thought that morning, Thursday the 11th of July 2013, that it was necessary to speak to his wife before deciding to go to the meeting. Berlens, who accompanied him, eloquently testified to this. But, in addition to Berlens, the Judge Jean Wilner Morin and Mr. Samuel Madistin, Esq. (lawyer) confirm having been solicited by Judge Joseph for their advice to know if it was wise to go to that meeting. Judge Morin put forth a negative opinion, but Mr. Madistin did not see any harm. Judge Joseph shares the opinion of Mr. Madistin with Judge Morin who said no more about the question. Why would Judge Joseph have sought and obtained the advice of the these friends on the question? It’s that he was indeed asked to go meet some officials. Note in passing that Judge Joseph saw no harm in meeting the lawyers of the presidential family. But when the pressure was increasing and it was proposed that he meet the Minister of Justice and other personalities of the executive branch, he thought of the indepedence of the judicial branch that would thus be placed in jeopardy: he made some consultations. When the Chief Judge increased the pressure to tell the judges that others were waiting, the judge clung to his power and timidly asked that it should be at the courthouse. But, the Chief Judge insisted, he awaits in his running vehicle, he dismisses his chauffeurs and security agents, he takes command of the operation.

Sunday 6 October 2013

b) Another fact which appears trivial but is revealing. The Chief Judge confirms that Friday the 12th of July 2013 the Judge Jean Serge Joseph came to his office seven or eight times. Judge Joseph confirms this assertion in his account to Judges Bernard Saint Vil and Berge O. Surpris. He explains to them that he was asked to reexamine his decision. In order to do this, the Chief Judge will render an abbreviated order convoking him urgently for a special seating on Tuesday 16 July 2013. He tells Judge Saint Vil that he recognizes and respects his profound knowledge of Haitian Criminal law and its criminal proceedings, what was his advice regarding the feasibility of such an action. Judge Saint Vil replied that he refers himself back to the advice that he gave him at the beginning of the affair. In fact, during this interview with Judge Saint Vil, he confirms that he had been to the office of the Chief Judge several times in order to collect the order. But he also admits to his friends that he would sit on that Tuesday, abstain from the affair and would leave for Canada with his family. Certain people advised him to do it before Tuesday.  So why did the Chief judge not receive the judge on that day? Why at each visit did he respond that he wasn’t ready to receive him? That famous order was not yet written or corrected? Why in leaving the court did the judge insist on being reachable for the Chief Judge to the point of giving him a number unknown to the general public and that he used to call his wife? Why did the Chief Judge only call that Saturday morning? Was it because at that moment the order was ready? Why did he not bother to go visit the judge in the hospital? Because he believed that at that moment that he was being fooled by a judge who was feigning a diplomatic illness to avoid sitting Tuesday? Why in the evening was he anxious to confirm the death of the judge? Because he was surprised by a curious change of nature? So many questions to which the only response is that the Chief Judge appallingly lied. Why should he lie?  What did he want to hide?

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

But he was not the only one to lie, the Minister of Justice also lied.  He tried to advance the wacky argument according to which a meeting could have been held, but the fact that one cited his name as a participant in that meeting simply meant that there was not a meeting at all.  This could be true in another world.  In effect, the minister confirmed before the commission, without meaning to, that there was a reason for which that meeting would be held.  For him, legal technician, it was possible for the judge to re-examen his decision.  How?  The lawyers of the presidential family would withdraw their appeal.  The government prosecutor as well.  They would address a request to the Chief Judge asking him for a special sitting for a rejudgment.  The Chief Judge would address an abbreviated order to the judge who would do a special sitting because of the [upcoming] court vacation.  And thus, he could render another decision.  And that’s exactly what Judge Joseph confided to his judge colleagues.  He asked them that and nothing more. He consulted Judge Saint Vil to be advised on the feasibility of such an action. This does not yet imply that the minister was present at that meeting. However, in the accounts prior to the meeting, the judge confided to all his confidents that the Chief Judge had wanted him to meet the Minister of Justice. This is what he confided to his wife, to Judge Morin, to Mr. Madistin.  It’s what he confided after the meeting to those to whom he told his misadventure.  To Judge Morin he declares:  “If I had followed your advice, I would never had suffered so much humiliation.”  To Mrs. Julien of the IMED who could not believe her ears he confides:  “Those people mistreated me.  Only Mr. Lissade acted nice to me.”  When Mrs. Julien insists:  “And the Minister?  He was not as arrogant as the president, but he insisted on finding an acceptable judicial solution.”  To his worried wife who inquired:  “Do not tell me that after those people so mistreated you, that you ate with them? ”  And he responded:  “There was nothing to eat, I just had a drink with them“.  

The Minister of Justice Mr. Jean Renel Sanon was indeed present at the meeting.   

The President of the Republic also lied.  He asserts that he did not have to prove that he was not at the meeting but that it was up to those who asserted the contrary to prove it.  This suggests that he was there but that everyone received the order to lie about him, and that thus nobody would be able to prove that he was actually physically present at that meeting.
[We added bold for emphasis. This fact that Judge Joseph said “I just had a drink with them” does indeed reopen the possibility that he was poisoned in that way. Additionally, alcohol would strengthen the impact of poisons].

Thursday, 10 October 2013

One may recall that in the report of the hearings a reminder was made regarding the behavior of the Minister of Justice who did not bother to inform the  Director General of the Police that he should have brought with him those responsible from the USPN, USGPN, the CAT TEAM, who are responsible for presidential security.  He did not do it, trying to shield those responsible parties, holders of precious information about the travel schedule of the President of the Republic.    

[Aside:  We refer the readers of our translation back to our
Thursday, 19 September 2013 translation of the Senate Report:
11.  The Minister of Justice, Mr. Jean Renel Sanon, who was asked by the senatorial commission to come with officials of the USP [Presidential Security Unit], the USGPN [General Security Unit of the National Palace], of the CAT TEAM [special security to the President and former Presidents], had not informed the director of the Police that he should alert these officials. The director of the Police confided that the Minister of Justice had not informed him.  During the meeting, the director of the police even tried to call these officials by phone.  But, the Minister of Justice ordered him not to keep trying, because these officials probably went with Michel Martelly to Cap Haitian this Monday the 22nd of July 2013.
In the 19 September “Aside” added by us we noted that oddly enough WHAT happened on that very Monday? A security guard from the USGPN suddenly fell ill only to drop dead the following Tuesday morning the 23rd of July! Incredible! Could it be that he, as a Martelly security guard, was in some way a witness to the alleged meeting at Gary Lissade’s office, which so many have testified occurred, according to Judge Joseph, and which the alleged participants deny having occurred?  Gee, this story just gets more and more creepy, even damning. None of this paints a pretty picture of life in Martelly-Lamothe’s Haiti!

From Radio Kiskeya (also reported in Le Matin and elsewhere):
A police officer dead after a new “long march” by Michel Martelly
Taken with a serious malaise, Jacques Junior Duffaut, on tour with the President in the north, did not survive, just like his colleague Frandieu Jean-Pierre who died a little after a presidential marathon, in October 2012
” Tuesday, July 23, 2013
A security agent close to President Michel Martelly, Jacques Junior Duffaut, 32 years old, died early Tuesday morning in the Justinien Hospital of Cap-Haitian (about 275 km north of Port-au-Prince) where he was admitted urgently the night before, following a malaise while he was accompanying the president in a long walking stretch.   

Reached by Radio Kiskeya, the Department of the North Director of the National Police, the division commissioner Kesnel Pierre, indicated that a spectacular fall in his blood pressure was noted at the moment of the death of the police agent of the General Security Unit of the National Palace (USGPN), member of the 18th promotion [i.e. graduating class] of the PNH [Haitian National Police].

For its part, the administration of the Justinien Hospital made it known that in addition to abnormally low blood pressure, Jacques Junior Duffaut suffered from vomiting and severe diarrhea….http://radiokiskeya.com/spip.php?article9681 (French original, translation our own)
See more at:
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-witnesses-part-iii-of-the-senate-inquest-report-on-the-troubling-death-of-judge-jean-serge-joseph/  ]

Friday, 11 October 2013 where it is discussed how President Martelly is alleged to have followed and stopped Judge Joseph along the highway and threatened him and future posts continue here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/part-v-of-the-senate-inquest-report-on-the-troubling-death-of-judge-jean-serge-joseph-i-just-had-a-drink-with-them/ (Note that we put Thursday’s post there too, as it is very important, but Friday appears after it).

Notes: Not in Senate Original
Note 1:  Caesar’s wife:

Pompeia (fl. 1st century BC) was the second wife of Julius Caesar….In 63 BC Caesar was elected to the position of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion, which came with an official residence on the Via Sacra.[3] In 62 BC Pompeia hosted the festival of the Bona Dea (“good goddess”), which no man was permitted to attend, in this house. However a young patrician named Publius Clodius Pulcher managed to gain admittance disguised as a woman, apparently for the purpose of seducing Pompeia. He was caught and prosecuted for sacrilege. Caesar gave no evidence against Clodius at his trial, and he was acquitted. Nevertheless, Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that ‘my wife ought not even to be under suspicion.’[4] This gave rise to a proverb, sometimes expressed: ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.[5][6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeia_(wife_of_Julius_Caesar)  (references at link)