Opposition senator Vynnette Frederick is being prosecuted because her “lies caught up with her,” Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves says.
Gonsalves suggested on radio on Thursday that Frederick’s attempt to bring down his government in the wake of the 2010 general elections has backfired.
He said he had no role to play in the decision by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to bring nine charges against Frederick last week Thursday, hours after a magistrate threw out six charges against her.
“… the person who started the politics with this is Vynnette Frederick and she based it on untruths and on lies. And those lies caught up with her, and that is why she is in the situation where she finds herself — not of my making. I want to make that point. So when [Leader of the Opposition] Arnhim Eustace comes with his foolishness, it’s something must be wrong with him,” the Prime Minister further said.
He also distanced himself from the arrest of the senator on Thursday, when she was having lunch with her legal team and political colleagues.
‘That is a matter within the domain of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution and the police. And the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution is independent of any political interference,” Gonsalves said of the arrest.
He further said that he was hosting Director General of the Food and Agricultural Organisation, José Graziano da Silva and other guests in Gorse on the eastern side of the country, and did not know of the arrest in Kingstown until someone telephoned from overseas and inquired about it.
Gonsalves recounted the genesis of the saga, which began in 2011, when Frederick brought private criminal complaints against him and other ULP election candidates, concerning comments made in the lead up to the December 2010 general elections.
The Chief Magistrate, Sonia Young, dismissed the complaints as frivolous and vexatious and Frederick went to the High Court for leave to seek judicial review.
On the matter of the leave, which was heard before Justice Gertel Thom, a number of affidavits were submitted, and in one of them, Frederick made certain allegations of fact in relation to Gonsalves.
“And what in fact happened, she conflated, she conjoined [statements made from] two meetings, one at Park Hill and one at Belmont, and resulted in a fabrication, a distortion, a misleading set of statements,” Gonsalves said.
Gonsalves said leave was granted because the lawyers for the Chief Magistrate didn’t have the transcripts of his comments.
Recording of the comments where provided by Frank Da Silva, who, like Frederick, is a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP), and who has said he could not allow a travesty of justice to occur.
The lawyer for the Chief Magistrate appealed the decision of Justice Thom and the Court of Appeal agreed with them and overturned the leave granted to Frederick to proceed for judicial review.
“And in the judgement of the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice made comments adverse to the honesty and credibility of Frederick in relation to this matter,” Gonsalves said.
“Frederick had also sworn an affidavit into the Court of Appeal that she had made an error and then we heard all the stories as to how this error came about,” Gonsalves said.
He further spoke of the political implications of the case that Frederick brought against him.
“… if she was correct and I was found guilty, I would have had to resign my seat and therefore, … I wouldn’t be Prime Minister, and I couldn’t run for five years,” Gonsalves said.
He said the Office of the DPP decided to file charges against Frederick arising from the statements in the affidavit, arguing that said statements amounted to perjury.
Cases thrown out
But the magistrate ruled last week, after a submission by Frederick’s lawyers earlier this year, that there were insufficient particulars in the charges, and threw them out.
Gonsalves said the office of the DPP decided to prosecute Frederick again “for those very offences and also others arising from the same set of affidavits — which was open to them to have done in the first place in any event.
“But that’s their judgement as to how they frame charges and how they prosecute. That doesn’t involve me at all. I knew nothing of this; absolutely nothing,” Gonsalves said.
“So this thing about human rights and Constitution are on trial and she is persecuted, what about swearing affidavits where the Court of Appeal itself said that what was in the affidavits was false — in order to bring down a duly elected government? Gonsalves said.
“Could anything be more serious than that? And the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution took a particular view of this in relation to the facts. They may be successful; they may not be successful in the criminal courts against her. But that has nothing to do with me,” Gonsalves further said.
“So when you [are] protesting, why are they protesting against me? I was going about my business; I won the election, you gone to bring case against me based on a falsehood. I am the one who is wronged,” Gonsalves said in reference to planned Opposition protest next week.
(Read: Opposition to hold protest meetings over senator’s arrest)
Gonsalves, a lawyer, said that while he would not express an opinion on any of the issues before the court, he decided to comment “and remind people of the facts because they have decided to make it political.
“There is nothing political in it rather than the original complaint that Frederick took to the Chief Magistrate against me,” he said.
“… I don’t understand how anyone in their right senses can have amnesia about a manner like this and politically putting it at my door,” Gonsalves further said.
But while Gonsalves has denied having a hand in the charges being brought against Frederick, Sen. Julian Francis, general secretary of the ULP, has hinted at Government involvement.
“… let’s assume for one minute that the NDP is in government and there is some charges brought against Senator Julian Francis in Parliament where I was charged for perjury and my defence lawyers got the magistrate to throw out the charges, you mean the NDP government was going to sit down and accept that as the final verdict and not pursue?” Francis said on his weekly radio programme Tuesday night.
(Read: Francis suggests ULP involvement in senator’s arrest)
Now my problem with this is that Gonsalves is a self confessed and self confirmed liar. How therefore can we believe anything that he says, when is a liar not telling lies, how can we know the answer to that.
He even put his name to a document full well knowing it was unconstitutional and unenforceable, but told the recipients otherwise, isn’t that a written lie, isn’t that deception. Further more he later declared that all the signatories to the document were aware when signing that it was unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Now if all the signatories where aware that must surely mean that they discussed the matter, isn’t that therefore a conspiracy?
I am very sorry but anything this man says or does in my book is questionable, there must be doubt about the truthfulness of anything he says or does.
A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally. A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it. A Big Lie is a lie which attempts to trick the victim into believing something major which will likely be contradicted by some information the victim already possesses, or by their common sense. To bluff is to pretend to have a capability or intention one does not actually possess. Bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. An emergency lie is a strategic lie told when the truth may not be told because, for example, harm to a third party would result. An exaggeration (or hyperbole) occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree.
A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more people, a group or an organization of having caused or covered up, through deliberate collusion, an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact.
The most serious of the chronic liars are the psychopaths, who form the most severe 10% (roughly) of those with Antisocial Personality Disorder and yes, they will happily acknowledge that they lie, in some circumstances. They will rarely acknowledge a lie if doing so might cause them discomfort — for example, if they lie to police about not having committed some crime, they will generally not back down from this position and they will often not back away from a face-saving or grandiose lie.
Those liars who are psychopaths or sociopaths are above all charming, glib and usually to some extent flirtatious. If admitting a lie or two is in the interest of holding your attention, they’re happy to do so. Other than an accurate (and controversial) diagnosis of actual mythomania (fantastic story telling as a fixed, non-situational, objectively internal character trait), only delusions can cause an individual to tell a falsehood that they believe to be true. By definition, delusions are *fixed* false beliefs, that do not comport with any religious or cultural tradition, and they do not change when someone points out their falsity. They often don’t even change with heavy medication. So if someone is telling you, “I didn’t realize I just told a lie; I’m a pathological liar,” excuse yourself politely, and go make a new friend. There is not going to be a happy ending.
About Pathological liars knowing whether they lie or not, it’s actually yes and no. He doesn’t know that he has lied until AFTER he has lied (sometimes). He sometimes does not realise he has lied until someone has brought it to his attention. When he finally realises he has lied (on his own), he will NOT admit it, because there is no explanation and he feels somewhat embarrassed. When caught he will sometimes deny it simply because he does not want people to view him as a liar (from fear and shame).
Finally, sometimes he will admit it in certain situations. It’s not their conscious mind at work, but rather their self-centred, defensive, insecure, low self esteem subconscious.
Self-appointed keeper of the whistle
Why are you surprised?Ralph Is a Marxist.Karl Marx was a satanist!Google ‘Marx and Satan’or order the book by that same title, and YOU’LL probably be shocked to find that all the founders of communism were not real atheist.Atheism was just a smokescreen to hide their devotion to Satan and their intense hatred of God and His word,the Bible.Look at the sordid history of communism.In 96 years,over 200,000,000 citizens murdered and each state a gigantic prison.
I wonder what is the timetable for lies about alleged Rapes to catch up on the women that made these supposed false claims. When will these women be arrested and dragged before the courts for lying on our Genius.
The same way those women made statements of “lies” on sworn affidavits but somehow our legal too slow to catch up on them after all these years but there is some sort of shortcut to catch up on Ms Fredrick.
Shame, Shame, Shame.
IS ANYONE OUT THERE WHO CAN SAY IF YOU EVER OWN THAT YOU TELL LIES AND DID IT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD HEARD IT, SHAME ON THE PROFESS LIAR.
When you good and done fooling around with the he said she said, I want to know, WHAT WAS OR QUASI-MILITARY DOING IN A CIVIL ARREST?
That is not a new development. It is a broadening of a troubling development.
How much more before we are a military/police state.
OR ARE WE THERE?
We have a way of mixing up our timelines but lets make sure to get this one right keep Michael Charles, the new COP (Ag), out of this.
He is clean where this is concerned. The Minister of National Security isnt. And if he didnt know about it, the Prime Minister should fire him. Not transfer, as is the usual procedure, FIRE.
ISOLA OLLIE, thank you are spot on right, Professor Gonsalves is a confirmed and self confessed liar. He admitted and broadcast to the world that he is a liar, can’t get any better source than that can we?
Thank you OLLIE for recognising our very own liar.
Self-appointed keeper of the whistle
FERRARI , I am starting to get annoyed with some of the things that your write, QUASI, what do you mean quasi, they are actually military, yes actual military, army men. They do not use police in their title SSU. They carry no name or number on identifying tags or marks anywhere on their uniforms as required internationally of uniformed police officers, we do not even know their rank. They are military, they wear a military uniform, the march in a military style, they carry military style assault rifles, they are all armed constantly with pistols in waist holsters, they are trained as military, I suspect some at the ALBA military school in Bolivia, at the Military school established and run by Iranian Presidential Guards. The problem is being trained by vicious scum can produce vicious scum, its no wonder they are known to slap and even shoot and frighten people.
Police officers do not wear military jungle warfare uniforms, army style camouflaged uniforms for hand to hand fighting in the jungle, police do not dress like that.
IN KINGTOWN JUNGLE CAMOUFLAGED UNIFORMS, BIG GUNS AND TINY MINDS.
QUASI, Ferrari please take that word back.
By the way the arrest was not civil, it was an uncivilised arrest, with these camouflaged turds there only as frighteners, and to give the desired effect of the might of this nasty Marxist regime.
You are quite right in most of what you write. I am not sure if this is a civil matter, I have heard no word of it being a criminal matter. All I know is that the whole thing is being talked about Nation wide, Regional wide, Caribbean wide and certainly in Washington DC, I have seen to that.
Self-appointed keeper of the whistle
Whoooa, Peter. Is how much Jack Spaniard you been eating. Too much and you go blow a gasket you know.
Take back quasi? Not a chance; I shall add to it.
The simple fact is WE DO NOT HAVE A MILITARY. A military training does not make you military. Therein lies the problem. Quasi- is meant as an insult. To call our camouflaged gang military is playing into their hands. It is a compliment. It is a validation. To call them police is (ordinarily) a compliment too.
On the other side, to call them military is an insult to the (regular) military.
The jungle-dressed goons are neither. They are quasi-, neither one nor the other. They are closer and looking to get there to Gairys mongoose gang as you have said many times.
The military has rank like the police. They carry identification their names are on their left breast just above their pockets. They carry dog tags. They follow strict rules, military laws, procedures, protocols. And they obey civil law. AND THEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. And within the military, there is the military police corps.
Our quasi-military are not restricted, or bounded by any ANY of that. They and the judiciary do the bidding of the ULP, as revealed by Julian Francis in a report in this esteemed pages – Francis suggests ULP involvement in senators arrest.
As to your agreeing with some of what I write lad, you can agree with all or disagree with all it is no skin off my nose. I WRITE FOR I MAN.
Since you took me up on quasi- let me now take you up on something. They were not trained by ALBA. ALBA does not train. ALBA indoctrinates.
FERARRI, I love the word GOONS that is an apt name to call them.
How on earth did Gonsalves kiss one of these jungle goon people on the neck at the official house at 4 am in the morning, they are all so tall, even the women resemble men, what made him want to kiss her neck. Was she standing up at the time? how did that big belly of his allow him to get close to her? How does that all reckon with the statement she gave, I will be getting my copy this week of her statement. I will let you know. Was this before he had a morning shower, because I am wondering if he stank.
Another thought crossed my mind, I wonder if Gonsalves likes military uniforms, if he likes jungle camouflage, is it a turn on that triggers an uncontrollable desire.
I ask the question because an American friend of mine had a wife who ripped her clothes off for any uniform, police, firemen, pilots, military
THE PM SAY AN OLD MAN MR DOYLE ONCE TOLD HIM WHERE EVER YOU FIND A LIAR YOU WILL FIND A THIEF SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THE PM MUST BE KNOW SOMETHING THAT WE DONT KNOW BECAUSE HE SAID HE TELL LIES SOMETIMES , MAYBE HE DID NOT FINISH THE CONFESSION.
Comments are closed.