Well said,Mr. Benjamin!

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting and different point of view of this diatribe.

Mr. Benjamin's comments on the arrest of Mr DeJongh are right on point:

http://stthomassource.com/content/commentary/op-ed/2015/08/22/statement-defense-governor-de-jongh

Haha, I love it. The article constructs the following logical chain:

1. Former governor DeJongh is charged with embezzlement.
2. Former governor Schneider and current governor Mapp embezzled public funds too, but were never found guilty.
3. Therefore, DeJongh is innocent, until Schneider and Mapp are proven guilty.

This is like being stopped for speeding, and saying to the cop, "Hey, I was just going with the traffic flow!"

Mr. Benjamin's comments on the arrest of Mr DeJongh are right on point:

http://stthomassource.com/content/commentary/op-ed/2015/08/22/statement-defense-governor-de-jongh

Haha, I love it. The article constructs the following logical chain:

1. Former governor DeJongh is charged with embezzlement.
2. Former governor Schneider and current governor Mapp embezzled public funds too, but were never found guilty.
3. Therefore, DeJongh is innocent, until Schneider and Mapp are proven guilty.

This is like being stopped for speeding, and saying to the cop, "Hey, I was just going with the traffic flow!"

Is that all you got out of the article? It's very well written, with an excellent chain of events and explanations. Far from saying DeJongh could get away with embezzlement because Schneider and Mapp did, it denounces the embezzlement charge over and over.

I'm not for the "dog and pony show" created by Mapp in his vendetta against Dejongh with the aid of his 4th appointed AG and this being a "local" indictment and the prosecution of this case handled only by our "local" AG's office who can't seem to litigate their way out of a paper bag. Look at all the people that have walked and if, perchance, actually sentenced, got a slap on the wrist.

I do hope Mapp does realize that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

However, Dejongh could have avoided all of this had he made arrangements to repay the money that was "repurposed" once he had the OIG audit report or once the facts were brought to light while he was in still in office or by requesting the legislature to repurpose the money for him to begin with. Schneider did the same on his property as did Turnbull, I believe.

He should not have waited 8 years, after the fact, and then only attempt to pay a reduced amount and not the full appropriated amount. There was more than one appraisal and all came in above the amount he attempted to pay.
He built the guard house out of bluebitch stone.
Not the least expensive material.

Additionally, according to some reports I've heard, he began building these additions prior to his even being elected as per an aerial Google search of the property.

I'm not defending Mapp. I think he should have been indicted when he was Lt. Governor and wonder how he's going to wiggle out of having WICO "repurpose" their tax debt to the VI government to pay for his luxury, $14.5K per month, digs. (and all utilities, no doubt.)

it denounces the embezzlement charge over and over.

It denounced the embezzlement charge with the faulty rationale that other governors' apparent immunity to embezzlement charges set the legal and "compassionate" precedent for the current criminal case. Basically, using my traffic violation analogy, the articles argues that DeJongh was driving at the same speed as Schneider and Mapp (above the limit, that is), and therefore, no laws were broken, and no one should be persecuted.

it denounces the embezzlement charge over and over.

It denounced the embezzlement charge with the faulty rationale that other governors' apparent immunity to embezzlement charges set the legal and "compassionate" precedent for the current criminal case.

Not my take on it. I read not that it was OK because others had done it, but that it wasn't embezzlement, at all. I think DeJongh could have/should have conducted things differently, and there probably was some idea of profiting personally (and there had been a precedent set, which I think perhaps is where your argument comes from), but not embezzlement .

Not my take on it. I read not that it was OK because others had done it, but that it wasn't embezzlement, at all.

Here is a quote from the article:
"This [DeJongh's embezzlement charges case] could have been resolved in a similar manner as in the 2000 Governor Schneider [embezzlement charges] case."

The way I read it, is that the author suggests that one case is similar to the other one, and therefore should be handled in a similar manner. I suppose it's possible to read it as "neither one did anything wrong."

I don't know how the Schneider case was handled in 2000, so can't say if I would agree with that statement, or not. My objection is to the term embezzlement. I think of embezzlement as behind the scenes thieving. DeJongh's deeds were in the public eye. Some supporters would even say he was rightfully due the security measures. I can't believe they were all really necessary, though, but he did try to pay some of it back.

wanderer, after spending a mere two months here in the USVI and with no intention of settling here, your apparent obsession with arguing local politics (about which you've already proved you know nothing) and even going so far as to offer advice to people genuinely thinking of moving here could lead one to believe that you have some unaddressed psychological issues.

Your expounding so long and loudly on local issues is akin to my writing authoritatively about being a guard in a Siberian prison. Do you expend this much energy debating the politics and history of SC?

wanderer, after spending a mere two months here in the USVI and with no intention of settling here, your apparent obsession with arguing local politics (about which you've already proved you know nothing) and even going so far as to offer advice to people genuinely thinking of moving here could lead one to believe that you have some unaddressed psychological issues.

Haha, how predictable. Every time you see me post, you respond with your usual "Yo ain' bahn ya, yo know?".

1. There is nothing in the rules of this discussion forum that says "VI politics should only be discussed by Native Virgin Islanders". Heck, you are not even a Native Virgin Islander. You are from the other island over the pond where they pledge allegiance to some sort of queen, and where there is no Afro-Caribbean spirit whatsoever. Correspondingly, I have exactly the same privileges in this discussion board as you do. With regards to my opinions, it's not up to you to determine how much weight they have, relative to your opinions. It's up to the readers of this board to figure it out.

2. VI politics is my research project. I read and participate here to gather material for that research project.

3. Next time, try to follow the civilized rules of this discussion forum. Stay on the topic. Avoid personal attacks. And above all, don't use that "don't get your knickers in a twist" expression, because no one can understand it.

4. You are a St Thomian. I am a Crucian. Call me crazy all you want.

I don't know how the Schneider case was handled in 2000, so can't say if I would agree with that statement, or not.

Here is a short version.

Former governor Schneider houses his sidekick, Walter Brunner, at Frenchman's Reef. Walter says, "Ouch, it's gonna cost me 29 large". Schneider says, "Nuh cry, the govm' will pay, and everything gonna be all rite". Walter says, "Gee, thanks, I guess you like me as your spin doctor".

Schneider falsifies the paperwork to make it look like the room was occupied for official VI business, and sends it for payment to Paulette Rabbsatt, director of accounting for Finance. Paulette says, "Are you kidding me? I am not going to use VI taxpayers' money to pay for this. This is fraud and embezzlement". Schneider promptly fires Paulette Rabbsatt, and hires Dean Wallace to fill the vacancy. Dean Wallace says, "Ya mon, no problem, we'll pay for your sidekick".

Attorney General Iver Stridiron hits Schneider with 14 counts of fraud, embezzlement, and falsification. Schneider calls Stridiron and says, "I ain't the first corrupted VI public official. Show some compassion. I have not done anything differently from others them." Stridiron says, "Unfortunately, this is true. Ok, pay the $29,400 back to the good people of Virgin Islands", and I'll get you off. Schneider produces a check for $50,000. Stridiron says, "What's the extra $20,600 for?" Schneider says, "It's a no-bid contract for naming a STT hospital after me".

End of story.

Insert theme song to The Twilight Zone here........!

Insert theme song to The Twilight Zone here........!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjwI9Oz0yl0

Why buy the book when you can read it on the forum?

just a quick question. didnt the building of the gate have to be approved by the senate?

1. Haha, how predictable. Every time you see me post, you respond with your usual "Yo ain' bahn ya, yo know?".

2. There is nothing in the rules of this discussion forum that says "VI politics should only be discussed by Native Virgin Islanders". Heck, you are not even a Native Virgin Islander. You are from the other island over the pond where they pledge allegiance to some sort of queen, and where there is no Afro-Caribbean spirit whatsoever. Correspondingly, I have exactly the same privileges in this discussion board as you do. With regards to my opinions, it's not up to you to determine how much weight they have, relative to your opinions. It's up to the readers of this board to figure it out.

3. VI politics is my research project. I read and participate here to gather material for that research project.

4. Next time, try to follow the civilized rules of this discussion forum. Stay on the topic. Avoid personal attacks. And above all, don't use that "don't get your knickers in a twist" expression, because no one can understand it.

5. You are a St Thomian. I am a Crucian.

6. Call me crazy all you want.

1. And as mentioned before I've never said anything of the sort. I've asked where you're getting this from and you're unable to answer. Just as you're unable to qualify the statement you made that all USVI Governors have had criminal charges brought against them.

2. Never said that either. Plucking things out of thin air and presenting them as facts only makes one look foolish. And obviously you know nothing about the country in which I was born and raised. You must have one heck of a chip on your shoulder being raised in a repressive regime yet you escape to democracy simply to sneer at it?

3. You're failing the course before you've even started.

4. Yes sir, TEN HUT! Your superiority complex is simply wild.

5. I am not a St Thomian. I am a longtime resident of St Thomas. You are not a Crucian.

6. Oh, no problem there at all although I think "delusional" is a better description.:D

DeJongh subtracted from the 490k the cost of dismantling the guardhouses. Why would Cecil leave that out? He did not make the best argument for DeJongh...

This is a ridiculous prosecution that will be thrown out by any ethical judge on the first motion to dismiss. By ethical, I mean a judge not angling for a reappointment to the bench by Mapp (they will all come up for reappointment during his 1st term).

just a quick question. didnt the building of the gate have to be approved by the senate?

Yes. The VI laws state that only the legislative branch has the authority to allocate public funds for any purpose. In violation of these laws, the decision to "re-purpose" the funds was made by the executive branch, based on a legal opinion from the judicial branch.

DeJongh subtracted from the 490k the cost of dismantling the guardhouses.

If I steal 2 apples from a farmer, and then use my own money to make apple sauce, does it mean that I owe only 1 apple back?

A similar (legally faulty) argument defending DeJongh's intention to pay back the reduced amount is the "depreciation" of the upgrades built with stolen public funds. That is, if I steal 2 apples from a farmer, and 1 of them rots, then I owe only 1 apple back.

DeJongh subtracted from the 490k the cost of dismantling the guardhouses.

If I steal 2 apples from a farmer, and then use my own money to make apple sauce, does it mean that I owe only 1 apple back?

A similar (legally faulty) argument defending DeJongh's intention to pay back the reduced amount is the "depreciation" of the upgrades built with stolen public funds. That is, if I steal 2 apples from a farmer, and 1 of them rots, then I owe only 1 apple back.

Terrible analogy. If DeJongh would have instructed government officials to come onto his property to remove theirs (the gate, guardhouses, etc) it would have undoubtedly cost the taxpayers millions due to the general inefficiency of the government. He once again saved the people money, and is being punished for it.

In other words, there would be no net gain to the government's coffers, as the cost of removal would exceed the 490k they would have received.

In other words, there would be no net gain to the government's coffers, as the cost of removal would exceed the 490k they would have received.

Agreed. However, the purpose of justice is not to save taxpayers' money. It's to deter the future criminals by punishing the guilty in such a manner that makes the criminal way look unattractive relative to the legal way.

In other words, there would be no net gain to the government's coffers, as the cost of removal would exceed the 490k they would have received.

Agreed. However, the purpose of justice is not to save taxpayers' money. It's to deter the future criminals by punishing the guilty in such a manner that makes the criminal way look unattractive relative to the legal way.

That presumes a criminal offense occurred, which is doubtful at best.

That presumes a criminal offense occurred, which is doubtful at best.

Well, the charges are criminal. DeJongh is looking at up to a dime in Golden Grove, which is not fun. But I doubt, too, that this case would be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Solomon