« Tax free zone proposed for Ngerulmud |
| Mlib wants media cameras out of Senate »
February 16, 2009 | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
some people here are just teasing each other. they are not serious about any issue. just past time.
enjoy your weekend.
February 27, 2009 at 09:39 AM
for you to say this it means you have been reading but not absorbing - perhaps if YOu go off the beetlenut you may then absorb and take it on board so that the face of Palau is not looking so bad!
We have a new administration and Palauans should accept that gracefully rather than show off their anger at their guys not being elected.
If you think the 'climax' has been reached, you are mistaken. The delivery has still not been completed (until you accept the truth) and neither has a climax been achieved until you respect our new President enough to wait to see what he achieves - and by the way, any achievement will be better than the 'nothing' achievement of the TR group!
I'm done with the stupidity of pre-empters who are so negative that it is embarrasing!
February 27, 2009 at 04:54 PM
Bro' keep trying with the essays. Some day they will make sense.
gracefully thinking: johnson supporters = diaz supporters = idiots |
February 27, 2009 at 08:27 PM
thanks for the news from belau.
check out this link. i just heard about it. it is the otv weekend news uploaded to the web. small picture, but wow, very entertaining. thanks otv. the link below is the most recent one, but i have started watching the prior weekends and they are great.
February 28, 2009 at 05:35 AM
diaz's power grabbing caught the intention of the SP. now diaz is getting slammed around like a hockey puck.
man that guy is a walking diaster. can't do anything right. he is such a total embarrassment. not just the way he looks ... please do not let the world think Palauans look like him. but that venom he spews. trash and poison. and he bathes in it.
SP Prosecutor off to the right start. prosecute and throw away the keys.
February 28, 2009 at 05:40 AM
As many of you know, I was one of the few bloggers who was and still is very critical about Diaz's arrogance when he introduced a bill that purported to eliminate OTV, his rival competitor in the media. It was obvious then as it is now that his action was contrary to any means of common sense since this was and still is a blatant disrespect for all applicable laws regarding conflict of interest and/or code of ethics. To say that his action was and still is a blatant disrespect to the Code of Ethics is an understatement. To say his action was and still is a blatant disregard to conflict of interest is an understatement. Then if this is not enough, he went to his radio and tv station and bragged about the bill he introduced and constantly referred to him as being a Palauan so it is okay for him to do what he did, and that the owners of OTV who are outsiders should leave the country. However, what made this matter even worse is that the president of the senate condoned Diaz's arrogance by not saying anything about his actions since Diaz is a senator 24/7 and further several other senators, among whom is an attorney are co-authors of the proposed bill. The question then becomes--is it arrogance or ignorance. If one of the co-signatories of the proposed bill is one of the prominent attorneys in Palau who should have know or should know the law, then it is arrogance. I suggest you all go to the OTV website and read the latest weekend report where there is a paragraph that describes what the SP's letter says to Diaz threatening him of possible legal action if he continues to pursue this proposed legislation. It is about time that something is done to this pathetic senator and it is about time that he is told that he is in a democratic society where he took an oath to protect and uphold the laws and the constitution. Now to those who are strong supporters of Diaz, please know that we are humans and thus we make mistakes,but at least do not use vulgar words or phrases in this blog as there may be younger people who are also reading what we write.
February 28, 2009 at 07:27 AM
Alii to All:
Been a while since I last posted. But, I figure I post something now given that what I read from OTV about the letter by the SP to the Senate (if true) gave me chills, to say the least.
While it is in his discretion to prosecute or not prosecute, it is all up to him to so decide. I have no problem with that. That is how the system is intended to work to begin with. What I have a big problem with is the SP going further to attempt to tell the Senate what to do and, to make matters worse, giving the Senate a time line to do it. That is unheard off and, with all due respect to our newly elected Senators, their Leadership must put the SP in his place. To do so is not to condone any wrong doings, if any, or protecting anyone but it is a matter of demanding SP's respect and him knowing how a government is suppose to work. Plaintly stated, the SP is charged with prosecution of criminal offenses, not trying to tell one constitutionally created branch of government what to or how to do it and when to do it. What if the Senate so decides not to take him up on his demand, what is he going to do, prosecute all the Senators for not "obeying" him?
On a personal note, the SP's office should be abolished and its function transferred to the AG's office. And, if a case does arise and the AG determines that an SP is needed, then one will be appointed for such a specific assignment. Otherwise, as things stands right now, we will definetly continue to have problems down the line.
Just my 2 cent.....
Brien Sers Nicholas
p.s. Here is my suggestion. The Senate should subpoena him before the Senate to explain and/or educate the Senate the legal basis upon which he (the SP) saw fit to "demand" that the Senate act and act within a specific time period. That should be interesting. One thing for sure, it will set the rules.
Brien Sers Nicholas |
February 28, 2009 at 04:13 PM
Brein Ser Nicholas,
I understand you haven't read the actual letter to the Senate yet. I think if you had your opinion would be 180 degrees different. Bear in mind that OTV had a motive to mis-characterize the letter because they have an ongoing battle with Diaz. OTV made the letter out to be far more harsh and supportive of their position than in reality it was.
I think you should reserve judgment until you have seen the letter for yourself. After you read it, I think you'll find that the letter was pretty reasonable, respectful, and your opinion will likely be different.
Finally, an independent Office of the Special Prosecutor is a requirement of the Compact of Free Association, and so it would be difficult dissolve it into the AG's office.
February 28, 2009 at 06:02 PM
Brien Sers is right people. SP should not give advise to anyone in the government, he either sue or shut up. Because if he comments and they (senators) do not listen to him, then what is next? file a case against them. Things do not work that way in criminal justice system. All have separate responsibilities ... Diaz is very uneducated and thinks he know the law,and he must be taught because just the way he run his committee and other things and the way he talks in the Senate, he should be recalled. He makes the Senate looks stupid ...
February 28, 2009 at 07:09 PM
NTSP, I hear you and that is why I was careful to note in my comment "if true," i.e., if what was being quote about the letter was true.
On the SP's office being part of the Compact, that is news to me. I do not recall seeing such a provision in the Compact. I will go back and check it out but, if you have the specific section on hand, can you let us know of the same? Be that as it may, if it was indeed part of the Compact, then this may be a good time to "review" the same and have it deleted. I looked at the Ethics Code (interesting law) and the AG is also given the same power to prosecute as well. Seems to be a duplication of functions I would guess.
Lastly, have you read the letter? Please note that I have no interest in what is going on and what not, I am only interested in the SP telling the Senate what to do and when to do it. Did he really say or demand that in the letter?
Brien Sers Nicholas |
February 28, 2009 at 08:54 PM
Ediul, from what I read (if true), it did not sound or appear that SP was giving the Senate any advise. It was more like he was "making a demand" with a deadline!!!!! Again, what is going on between the people involved and what not is but a minor issue. The bigger issue is our Senate (as a whole) being demanded by the SP to act. I don't know, but if I can recall my civics class on government, only the "people/voters" can make demands on the Senate, the House, and the Executive.
Anyways, it will be interesting to see how the Senate will respond.
Brien Sers Nicholas |
February 28, 2009 at 09:01 PM
I heard that Diaz went to Yap with Johnny B.
Can you find the facts: Why were the trip purposes? I guess rejuvenate, make-over afther Penthouse fight, or hu hu ha ha. What senator joined them?
KISS AND MAKE-UP AD AND JB.
Can anyone in Yap investigate and report if true?
February 28, 2009 at 09:03 PM
Brien Sers Nicholas,
The provision of the Compact that demands a special prosecutor is found in Article IV of the Guam Compact Accords.
I have seen the letter to the Senate. It was polite and respectful. It cited a specific example where a senator had openly committed a crime by introducing legislation that he had a financial interest in. Then, instead of automatically prosecuting that Senator, the SP offered to meet with their leadership to talk about ways of keeping violations like this from happening again in the future. There was no demands, and nothing specific was proposed. The SP only asked the leadership of the Senate if they would like to meet to talk about ways of helping the Senators come into compliance with their obligations under Palau's code of ethics.
The letter did ask for a reply within 10 days of receipt. I would suspect that if the Senate's leadership doesn't act interested in voluntarily fixing the Senates problems, the SP will start filing criminal charges - starting with Diaz since his was the case mentioned. But if anything, the SP can be criticized for being TOO deferential and respectful of the Senate. Overall the letter was very reasonable.
February 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM
NTSP, good morning and thanks for the info re. SP being part of the Compact. I will look it up.
On to SP's letter, comparing what you said about the letter to what was said on OTV, no wonder we have problems with our media in Palau, a free for all kind of thing. I'll leave it at that!
The last paragraph of your post hits the essence of my previous comments. That is, as I said, the SP (like any prosecutor) is cloth with so much discretion on whether to prosecute or not. I have no problem with that as that is how it is suppose to be for very good reasons. Similarly, the SP being too deferential and respectful of the Senate (as a body and as a whole) should and must equally be the case as well. My having posted my comments had nothing to do with the individuals occupying these offices. Rather, it is the relationships and the workings of these 2 offices that interest me. Now, if the SP is indeed offering to assist the Senate in understanding the ethics law (from a criminal point of view), then that is good and the Senate should consider it. But, then again, like the SP's discretion on prosecution, the Senate (as a whole) has that discretion as well to accept the offer or not. And, at the end of the day, there should and must not be any hard feelings, call it a mutual respect. But, in all of this, I think it is important to keep in mind that how an individual member of the Senate is treated must be separate and apart from the treatment of the Senate as WHOLE. Our discussion, NTSP, leads me to ask this simple question, where is the ethics commission in all of this?
As a side note, in my previous comment, I had noted that the ethics law was an interesting one. It is interesting in the sense that, aside from providing for criminal penalties, it also provies for civil ones as well. That is where we, as the public, can come into play. There is a requirement to be met but, once it is met, who knows.
Anyways, have a great day and thanks for the info re. SP/Compact.
Brien Sers Nicholas |
March 01, 2009 at 07:08 AM
Good comments Brien but, you should have reserved your comments until you read the actual letter from the SP to the Senate and complete your legal research first.
As a practicing attorney, your comments here weights heavily and may be construed as a legal opinion. In doing so, you may influence the outcome of the Senate's action.
In due respect, be a bit careful on how take a stand on issues based on flimsy information.
March 01, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Bar, thanks for the comments but, God forbid, have no intention of inluencing the outcome of anything, much less the Senate's actions. I do have every intention of getting my hands on the letter when I get down to Palau next week and read/interpret it for myself.
Interesting, though, from the exchange of views based on my earlier comment, we have come to find out based on NTSP's comments that what was posted by OTV and what was actually written by SP may be quite different. I don't believe that prior to my initial comment, this possible difference was known. In any event, having had no opportunity to read the actual letter, I qualified my initial comment by saying "if true."
This part of my comment seems to have been lost in all of this.
By the way Bar, mind answering an earlier question I ask of NTSP? That is, where is the ethics commission in all of this?
Sulang and have a great one.
Brien Sers Nicholas
Brien Sers Nicholas |
March 01, 2009 at 03:39 PM
The Ethics Comission, like most boards and commissions in Palau, is a rubber stamp that's little more than a tool for their political masters. Don't expect meaningful reform from them. It's just two sweet little ladies, (one of whom is retired), with nowhere near the power and ability to fight the powers that be. (The third position sits vacant.) All though they are nice, they exist to do nothing more than collect forms for their filing cabnit.
March 01, 2009 at 08:49 PM
A OMBUDSMAN or AMBUSHMAN went to YAP yesterday following his nephew Diaz. Can someone out there find out info for us?
What if Diaz was on travel authorization of senate 8th OEK. Is he taking pictures for MBTV shows or media or journalism? SP, is he Diaz violating Code of Ethics for using public funds for his personal gain.? Or misconduct in the public office?
SP, I think it is right time to make some correction by checking PNCC contract with MBTV. Nobody enforcing the contract while Diaz continued defaming and redicule people of both Palau and US. SP must get a copy of the contract for review and if any wrong doing he msut press charges against DIAZ.
We wait for Palau delegations to return from YAP DAY to tell a stories.
March 02, 2009 at 01:36 AM
why is Ombudsman in Yap? is there nothing to do in Belau?
it was JT's supporters who were most critical of TR's travel and other unnecessary expenses in the last election, and now they are traveling like they've never flown before?!
i don't care who won the election so don't tell me i'm negative.
March 02, 2009 at 01:57 AM
Brien Sers have every right to state his opinion like every body else in this blog so don't tell him to reserve his comment for any reason.
March 02, 2009 at 08:43 AM
Good Mroning Aha, thanks for the post but Bar does have a point about jumping to conclusions, somthing that I had thought off when I first posted my comments vis a vis by qualifying the same with "(if true)." In any case, through the exchanges with NTSP and based on his/her reading of the SP's letter, we have come to find out what appears to be marked differences in the representation of this very same letter. I will, when I get down there later this week, get a copy of this letter and read/interprete it for myself. Can't wait....
Sulang and have a great day....
Brien Sers Nicholas |
March 02, 2009 at 09:11 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.