Number 1:
Like Mr. Wabol mentioned in his letter, out of the 21 voters that were challenged, why were the 9 remaining voters dismissed, and an additional 5 were brought to testify and claimed that they voted for Mr. Aldan in the Nov. 7 elections. Don’t you think that is a little fishy? Was it just a cheap way to get additional witnesses to claim that they supported Mr. Aldan, just to get their votes disqualified so that the plaintiff could get a lead in “legal” votes? This just goes to show how we can really question our justice system. Was it right? Was it right to question some 11 voters and dismiss the remaining 9 and allow additional “witnesses” to take the stand? Why weren’t the remaining 9 questioned? Was it because some of the 9 voters were truly supporters of the plaintiff? Or was this just an act to deprive someone the rightful seat of being mayor? That I don’t get. Some of the 9 that did not get the chance to speak, and had no choice but to take time away from school and work — only for the court to determine that their testimony was not needed.
Number 2:
During the process of this trial, some had been disqualified after the court learned they had homesteads on Saipan. Having a homestead means that you have declared yourself a resident of that island. I understand why the court disqualified these voters. It is fair to decide that these individuals should not claim to be residents of the Northern Islands when they have homesteads on Saipan. My question with this is WHY was Ms. Robuenog deemed as a qualified candidate/voter when she herself has a homestead here on Saipan? Therefore she is a RESIDENT of Saipan and not of the NORTHERN ISLANDS!
The court was so quick to disqualify those with homesteads claiming that they have no ties to the Northern Islands. But why was Ramona deemed qualified? Qualified to run, qualified to vote? But she has land on Saipan, and on Anatahan (or so she claims)? Something is wrong here.
Why didn’t the court look at the wrong that was done here? How can we disqualify some, and qualify others based on the same exact grounds? This is not right and the court needs to be corrected.
These are the reasons why we should question the ruling of our court, or at least the judge that oversaw the case. This court has failed to provide the people with a fair and just ruling. How can we just sit back and let this come to a conclusion? Take a closer look at what went wrong here. Then let’s ask ourselves: WHO is qualified!
DWAYNE DONOVAN
Dandan, Saipan
