Take a look at the inconsistencies:
• During the initial part of the hearing, some of the 21 voters were given a chance or the opportunity to write down who they voted for. Later on some of the 21 voters were asked to orally say who they voted for. Definitely inconsistent as they were not afforded the same opportunity throughout the process.
• 21 voters were contested, why out of nowhere, an additional five were brought in and four were placed on the witness stand while some of the original 21 voters were dismissed and never given the chance to be put on the witness stand. There had to be a reason why they were originally called in to be challenged in the first place. Now think…where did these five additional come from and why?
• These five additional were in one way or another closely tied to the plaintiff (sister’s son, sister’s daughter, brother in-law and cousin). But the court allowed the last-minute addition, and to an astonishing surprise, their votes went toward the defendant. Now think…aren’t there witnesses out there who can confirm their presence at the plaintiff’s campaign camps? Did this change the outcome? Yes, the plaintiff ended up leading by two votes.
• The plaintiff herself claims that she is an eligible voter. I begin to question this as in a span of nine years, I only met her once in Anatahan. To my knowledge, I know for a fact that she didn’t own a house up there. Now think…aren’t there witnesses out there who can prove whether she did in fact build a house in Anatahan, or disprove her for that matter?
• On page 14 of Judge Wiseman’s ruling, even “under oath,” it said that after she finished high school and had a child, she continued to go back and forth to Anatahan. I believe this is an inaccurate statement. Why or how? I will leave it up to witnesses to credit or discredit that statement.
• Qualified or disqualified, which one is it? During the hearing when my turn was up to be put on the witness stand, I stood my ground and told the truth. I expected an honest and favorable decision declaring me as “qualified” after giving my testimony. After being declared “eligible,” the court in its final ruling reversed its decision and “disqualified” my eligibility. Again…which is which? I was born there, built a house there, managed a school there twice and intend to maintain my residency there. Now think…what makes me less eligible than the now eligible plaintiff? Kind of hard to comprehend.
These are just a few of the flaws that made me think why it went wrong. It bothers me a great deal to see and hear with those present in the courtroom so many inconsistencies, flat out lies and things that made a mockery out of the system.
To declare “under oath” that someone did not even know her own brother in-law (common-law husband of her sister) did not sit well with me and I am pretty sure that your readers out there will begin to question that, too. Did we allow some individuals to cheat the system right before our own eyes? Was it a burden on the court to disqualify the plaintiff and the easy way out was to disqualify me instead? For those who told nothing but the truth, I greatly admire your courage to respect and make the system work the way it was made to work. Supposedly!
JESS I. WABOL
Fina Sisu, Saipan
