<![CDATA[STMAARTEN NEWS.COM - ST MAARTEN]]>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:49:02 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[DENICIO BRISON DISBARRED? CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND XAVIER BLACKMAN GOES DOWN TOO!]]>Mon, 24 May 2010 14:35:03 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/05/denicio-brison-disbarred-conflict-of-interest-and-xavier-blackman-goes-down-too.htmlAs of this afternoon Denicio Brison has been disbarred. This is from OUR sources. His brother Franklin Brison a member of the National Alliance (advisor to Xavier Blackman.)"Talking Drums", " Border Point" board, Xavier Blackman, who today received his last vote of no confidence appears also to be about to hit political rock-bottom.
Oh! We know the whole story, but we have to be discreet.
This is St Maarten!
Stay in tune.
You will be informed.]]><![CDATA[MORE OF THE BEST OF CARNIVAL 2010 DOMINICANAS HAVING FUN/ 4M BAND 2010]]>Wed, 05 May 2010 10:57:52 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/05/more-of-the-best-of-carnival-2010-dominicanas-having-fun-4m-band-2010.html 
]]><![CDATA[DUTCH ST MAARTEN CARNIVAL ONLY THE BEST VIDEOS YOUTH WAVES]]>Sun, 02 May 2010 09:33:27 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/05/dutch-st-maarten-carnival-only-the-best-videos1.html
]]><![CDATA[DP ADVISOR JULIAN ROLLOCKS LOSES BIG IN COURT!]]>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:51:24 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/04/dp-advisor-julian-rollocks-loses-big-in-court.html 
Picture
Julian Rollocks lost big in court today.
The Today newspaper it seems is the only local paper actually trying to cover the case with some accuracy.
Julian sued his brother Cimmaron Marlin, after Cimmaron Marlin refused to let Mr Rollocks take what according to the sxmnews site was 80% of all profits from a children's foundation.
Julian Rollocks sued, because he believed that there was no way that Cimmaron would be able to defend himself in court.
It was supposed to be an easy victory for Mr Rollocks.
He would show up in one of his knock off three piece suits.
Present the judge with a few "genuinely" forged documents,
the judge would buy his b.s, and he could then drive off in his second hand Jaguar,
because it his mind, it's all about appearances.....
Well he was wrong.
Him and his alleged "lawyer" got their asses handed to them in court.
He started a smear campaign as early as November to paint his brother as being unstable, and not credible, which is a common Julian Rollocks tactic.
He has also tried to smear the blogger who broke the "Border Point" story.
There is hard evidence, that Mr Rollocks has smeared other local professionals, who have refused to let him have his way with them.
Mr Rollocks does not just smear people, who dare to defy him, he has a group of TonTon Macout like henchmen, who do the dirt for him.
He does this so that no one knows that he is the actual source of the rumour or smear.
Wouldn't it be funny if someone decided to try Rollocks' tactics on Rollocks?
There is a rumor going around, that Julian Rollocks cannot access any of his email or online accounts.
On February 22nd 2010 he was calling and begging everyone who knew anything about computers, to help him access his accounts.
I was told by DP inside sources, that they couldn't help him.
They were incredulous at his stupidity in forgetting his own passwords.
Because if he doesn't know his passwords, then how can anyone else possibly know his passwords?
In fact, several people had access to his online accounts, how could he be that reckless?
No one knows who has the passwords, or access to these accounts, which allegedly contain very incriminating information about any and everyone who has dealt with Mr Rollocks in the past few years.
I want to see someone do to Julian Rollocks, what him and his henchmen, such as "DeepThroat", and Mr E.V.P. the top briber in charge, have done to so many others.
They should upload every email to the web!
Actually, the rumor is that Mr Rollocks' emails have already been uploaded, in bulk ,to various websites and social sites.
I can navigate a computer quite well, and if I find those documents, you best believe, I will post
every single letter, photograph and file, on all 200 of my sites.
And if "DeepThroat", EVP etc, want to step in and get involved in this, I would tell them to proceed cautiously, because supposedly, allegedly, their emails are included.
There is also a rumour, that secret accounts set by Mr Rollocks, to do specific dirty deeds were hacked, and he's also lost control of those accounts.
I am trying to verify these stories, but you know how rumors are in St Maarten.
I wish Cimmaron Marlin the best, and I hope those rumors about Hong Kong banking accounts, trips to Spain to set up offshore banking accounts etc, are not true, because that could really hurt the St Maarten Democratic Party in the upcoming elections.
Biggups,
Peace Out,
And I hope to soon see new classes available for our local kids,
at The Talking Drums Foundation,
at Border Point.

]]><![CDATA[RACIAL POLITICS keith hardeman]]>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:10:59 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/04/racial-politics-keith-hardeman.htmlAre Racial Politics Effective ?


Is the time for racial politics over? This question may seem like lunacy when being asked in one of the most segregated cities in America: Chicago. This question, which has been on my mind and in my mind for some time, came roaring to the forefront of my consciousness after reading an article titled “Blacks Try to Retain Power as Board Race Splits Community”. The article was published by the Chicago News Cooperative and was written by DON TERRY.

I have been accused of being overly analytic, and probably rightfully so, but lets parse the title of the article to discover two premises that may be at the root of ineffective political participation by African Americans. The notion that “Blacks Try to Retain Power” implies that blacks have power on the Cook County Board of Commissioners. The second assertion is that the democratic primary election will not only threaten “Blacks Power” but it will also split the “Black Community”. These two assertions are probably held as fact by many but upon examination they are but wisps of smoke that blind the eye to a truer course.

Maybe a definition of political power needs to be established before we can rightly discard the notion that Blacks are attempting to retain it. “Political power: is a type of power held by a group in a society which allows administration of some or all of public resources, including labor and wealth”. Do Blacks in the county of Cook have this sort of power? Nope.

“Political scientists have frequently defined power as "the ability to influence the behavior of others" with or without resistance.” Do Blacks weld this definition of political power? Naaaaaa!

Perhaps the political power that Blacks are trying to retain can be defined by these 3 dimensions of power which are most frequently considered defining aspects of political power by political researchers.

1. Robert Dahl, a prominent American political scientist, first ascribed to political power the trait of decision-making as the source and main indicator of power.

2. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz describe a second dimension of political power as described as agenda-setting by elites who worked in the backrooms and away from public scrutiny in order to exert their power upon society.

3. British academic Steven Lukes added a third dimension he describes as preference-shaping; which entails theoretical views similar to notions of cultural hegemony .

So can it be said that blacks have enjoyed any form of political power as described by the aforementioned definitions. The answer must be a resounding no. It must be said that Blacks have not enjoyed any real measure of political influence since the 60’s. This fundamental misunderstanding of political power adds to feelings of impotency and isolation of Blacks concerning the machinations of political life.

It also appears that Blacks have been sold a bill of good when it comes to representation. It is my belief that many Blacks equate an elected Black official as “Black Power” and influence in government. This idea that a Black elected official will always adequately represent black concerns merely because he is Black does not hold water. Politicians tend to be politicians. Race, gender and sexual orientation come in a distant second when it comes to who the politician serves. Politicians serve concentrations of power. This declaration of the obvious leads us to our next erroneous assumption about concentration of power or concerns.

The second premise asserted in the article’s title was “Board race splits community”. Once again I think it important to define terms. The definition of terms is essential in examining the possible incongruence’s between expectations and realities. If terms used to describe apparatus and reflect thinking essential to the political acquisition process are not congruent then the acquisition/development of desired goals (resources, opportunities, environments) can not be realized.

The term community is a very slippery one with various definitions. There is no universal consensus on the definition of the term; In fact “there were ninety-four discrete definitions of the term by the mid-1950s. Traditionally a "community" has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household “. It might also be helpful to look at three categories of community to pin point the Black Community in terms of solidarity toward political power.

Geographic communities: range from the local neighborhood, suburb, village, town or city, region, nation or even the planet as a whole. These refer to communities of location.

Communities of culture: range from the local clique, sub-culture, ethnic group, religious, multicultural or pluralistic civilization, or the global community cultures of today. They may be included as communities of need or identity, such as disabled persons, or frail aged people.

Community organizations: range from informal family or kinship networks, to more formal incorporated associations, political decision making structures, economic enterprises, or professional associations at a small, national or international scale.

It becomes increasingly more difficult to identify the Black community. The Black Community is not a monolithic block. Blacks in America are very diverse lot. A community can not be defined merely by prejudices or identifiers ascribed to that group by the dominant group. There has to be consent of membership to be a part of a community or for community to exist. To some these distinctions may seem academic and have no place in the day to day realities of people. It is my belief that the whole notion of a black community is fading in terms of Blacks being a community based on ascriptions by the dominant culture, cultural behaviors, shared ancestry, and skin color. Consumerism, education, income, varied spiritual beliefs and mobility now serves as strong glue to bind community in an altogether different configuration.

College educated Backs who are firmly entrenched in the middle – class probably have more in common and at stake with their White, Latino and or Asian neighbors then they might have with other Blacks in impoverished neighborhoods.Those who need affordable housing, decent wages, and safe neighborhoods transcend race and should pull together as natural allies.

Social ills strike minorities at a higher rate then that of the dominant culture. It is a fact that a tradition of institutional and systemic racism is at the heart of the higher rates of social dysfunction. It is not a fact; however, that social dysfunction is synonymous with minorities (race). This point is important in defining community. The community of like needs and coalition makes more political since then politics of race. Politics of race tend to define community incorrectly. It can erroneously identify members of that community based on superficial characteristics and pit natural community members against each other based on that very same superficial identifier.

An increased political astuteness is needed by the electorate as a whole in order to have their needs and desires advocated for. Those who feel most impotent, when facing the complexities of the economy, domestic and foreign policy, are those who need to find their strength in numbers. Racial politics are divisive and diminish numbers. Communities for political power must be constructed on commonality. Legislators serve concentrations of power. This is a fact. The identification of needs, groups with similar needs, and representatives that articulate understanding of those needs is paramount to the meeting
those needs. A clear plan with clear bench marks is also mandatory.

]]><![CDATA[JULIAN ROLLOCKS VS. CIMMARON MARLIN PART 2 : THE DAILY HERALD QUESTION]]>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:07:49 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/03/julian-rollocks-vs-cimmaron-marlin-part-2-the-daily-herald-question.htmlWhat is the exact relationship between The Daily Herald and The St Maarten Democratic Party?
Why does it appear that The Daily Herald has a clear slant and bias, when writing articles concerning The St Maarten Democratic Party?
Don't take my word for it.
Simply read side by side coverage of The St Maarten Democratic Party by both local papers "The Today", and "The Daily Herald".
I noticed discrepencies in the coverage, since before the election, which seems very strange to me, considering that Mr Rollocks threatened or tried to sue the
paper......
well that could be the reason.
But they also know Mr Marlin, so that might be the reason also.
But journalists and reporters have to take chances when it comes to writing the truth.
Frankly, what I've been reading in "The Daily Herald" is tripe.
Unprofessional, sloppy journalism.
What kind of newspaper is "The Daily Herald"?
Who runs the paper?
Surely they are St Maarteners, Antillians, or Dutch people, to provide their perspective.
No?
They South African Boers?
Really? But they're doing a good job, right?
And that's all that matters.
Not quite?
Only in St Maarten!!!!!!!!
What percentage of their paper are true articles, and opinions, as opposed to filler junk and advertisement?
I'm going to give one example of "The Daily Herald's" sloppy journalism, when covering the DP, then
I'm going to spend some time going through their archives to show further patterns of bias.
As professional journalists/reporters they should have covered the FULL Cimmaron Marlin & Board vs.  Julian Rollocks case!
How did they start their coverage on the front page, on Tuesday, March 16th 2010?
"Emotions flared at the Courthouse on Monday...."
Is that how you begin an article about forgery, fraud and deceit?
THE PLAYERS INVOLVE INCLUDE:
JULIAN ROLLOCKS (DP'S TOP CIVIL SERVANT, ADVISOR, AND STRATEGIST ETC. ETC. ETC.)
THE ST MAARTEN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
SARAH WESCOT-WILLIAMS
CIMMARON MARLIN
EX-MINISTER OF JUSTICE LOUIS CRASTELL GUMBS
UNION AND GEBE BOYWONDER ANTONIO BROWN.
EX BANK PREZ FRANKLIN BRISON
ETC, ETC, ETC!
And I'm NOT a journalist, so I can write etc, etc, etc when the etc. is b.s. that needs no explanation.
From the first sentence, "The Daily Herald" turned these serious allegations into an "emotional family feud".
making it appear to be a personal family issue, when they knew that there were hundreds of thousands of dollars involved.
They were aware that there were accusations of criminal activity.
They were aware that one of the people involved in this case, was a very powerful political figure, yet they chose to allow the
article to portray the whole lawsuit as some silly mixup, and misunderstanding.
The front page paragraph, which is supposed to contain the gist of the argument, and to pursue the reader into buying the paper in order to read the rest of the story, was just some hogwash about "The Talking Drums" being established in...blah, blah, blah, blah.....
These are professional journalists aren't they?
Either your "hook" is in the first paragraph, you are an amateur, or you don't "really" want people to read the article.
The article continue on the 10th page....
After generic tripe articles about Theo speaking to Seatrade on Wednesday for the millionth time, and Sarah discussing BTA for the umpteenth time, like Rollocks instructed her to.
Haitians getting permits
Yeah we know, there was an earthquake, there will be some amnesty in their situation....blah, blah, blah!
There are accusations and a courtcase involving some of St Maarten's highest governing officials.
There are charges of forgeries, and criminal action, yet you are telling me about "Seven vying for the title of district queen".
So tell us "The Daily Herald", are you just being sloppy journalists, or is this the way you cover stories of importance in St Maarten?
And let me point out that on and between the front page, and page ten where they "buried" the story is nothing but "plugs" for the Democratic
Party of St Maarten.
If you need to figure out what the word "plug", means in marketing terms, google it, I won't explain the obvious.
The newspaper continues on page ten
"....Rollocks filed an injunction ....claiming $32.000 from the foundation for work as a consultant through his company BD Consultancy...."
Does the Daily Herald have investigative journalists?
They know Cimmaron Marlin personally    :)
They know Rollocks personally    :)
Why did they not ask questions and dig further, after the court was adjourned?
Isn't that their job?
When they cover a story do they attempt to contact all parties involved?
Especially when it appears that it's growing from a civil case
involving TOP CIVIL SERVANTS, into a criminal case!!!!
Mr. Rollocks claimed that he was NOT a civil servant, but he is/was!!!
Why did no one question that in that BULLSHIT ARTICLE?
Hello?!
Daily Herald ?!
Are you there ?!
Sarah Wescot-Williams is mentioned, but did they question her involvement?
The Daily Herald, continues that......
".....Rollocks is claiming 60% of the income as payment for his service with 40% remaining for the Foundation.
I'm going to repeat that sentence, because how any professional journalist, with any integrity and intelligence, can publish that
without hesitation or a question, needs to retake that journalism course: "Following Up On Leads And Sources 101."
Why has no one questioned Mr. Rollocks CLAIMING 60% of a NON PROFIT FOUNDATION.
IF ROLLOCKS GETS 60%, WHAT DO THE KIDS GET?
Doesn't Rollocks make approx. 12.000 guilders per month AS A CIVIL SERVANT?
Why is he taking away from kids?
Sarah talking nothing but B.S. about the NA, and BTA, are there any legitimate journalists on
St Maarten to ask her the $33.332 question?
The Daily Herald went on to quote Julian Rollocks repeatedly, and to quote Mr. Marlin's lawyer...
But DID NOT quote the president and founder of "The Talking Drums".....MR Cimmaron Marlin himself!
They refused to mention the fact the Mr Marlin and his lawyer were calling the main evidence used by Mr Rollocks to sue his brother, A FORGERY!!!
How did the Daily Herald not mention that?
It's not libel, if you quote it the exact way as it was stated in the courtroom, like real journalists are supposed to do.
They mentioned that Van Sambeek had filed a criminal case, but only mentioned b.s. about illegal payment.
Nothing about a forgery!
Just making a forged document is a crime...right?
Presenting a false document to the court as proof is ANOTHER crime....right?
Perjury in court......"I am not a civil servant..", isn't that ANOTHER a crime?
I could go on and on, but you understand GEBE, and I'm trying to get this done TODAY!
The Daily Herald continue with the fact that Mr Rollocks is trying to receive over 100.000 US dollars from a KIDS FOUNDATION, and they don't even question that!
The Daily Herald tells you how Cimmaron Marlin's lawyer describes Cimmaron, but don't grant him the respect of writing what he said in court, or his own description of himself......
AND THE DAILY HERALD DEFINETILY KNOW CIMMARON MARLIN!
So was that a simple slip by the paper?
Or simply a diss?
Because like Mr. Bijnsdorp, The Daily Herald doesn't always like what Cimmaron Marlin has to say.

LMAO!!! Here's one of my favorite parts of their article....."in sharp contrast with Rollocks, who was portrayed as a "smooth talker" and a "cunning and shrewd
businessman".
ROTFLMFAO!!!! Portrayed? Isn't this the guy who considered suing you last year over an article based on fact with a slight technicality?
The technicality if you didn't know, was that fact that you reported a J.R. running around in his underwear in Belvedere?
He wanted to sue you because he was being chased in MOUNT WILLIAM HILL in his underwear, NOT BELVEDERE!
So when it comes to Mr Rollocks, all of a sudden now, he is being "portrayed" as someone less than a saint.....PLEASE!
DID ANYONE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH B.D. BEING HIRED BY "THE TALKING DRUMS?"
Has anyone asked anything about this MYSTERIOUS B.D. CONSULTATIONS?
Who's the president, founder?
Who's on the board of B.D.?
When was their last meeting held? Have they ever held a meeting.
If they've ever held a meeting were all board members present?
Do you have minutes to these meetings???
You know, my dear Daily Herald, basic questions like those!
NOW HERE IS WHERE "THE DAILY HERALD" LITERALLY MADE ME PUKE IN MY MOUTH!
".....in a burning statement to Judge Diedrik Thierry , Rollocks said it had all been done in good faith. "I only wanted to help my
brother and his foundation......"

THE DAILY HERALD THEN OMITS MR MARLINS RESPONSE, WHICH WAS REPORTED IN THE TODAY, AND WHICH TO ME SHOWS AN ALMOST NAUSEATING PRO ROLLOCKS/DP BIAS!
"....HIS WORK FOR MRS. WESCOT-WILLIAMS IS PRIVATE...?
REALLY?
I thought I saw Rollocks, much to the chagrain and constant burn of Mr Ferrier continues to be the new face of the St Maarten Democratic Party!
The Daily Herald continue it's biased slant by only quoting Rollocks, we are heading into the final paragraph, and yet Cimmaron Marlin has yet
to be directly quoted....
"....I took care of my brothers all of my life...."
LMMAO! Rollocks ignored Cimmaron as he struggled for years, and it was after the Queen forced Sarah-W.W. and the governer to give him "Border Point", then 
he became his "bestfriend"!
HELLO!!!!!
WERE THERE ACTUALLY REPORTERS THERE AT THE COURTHOUSE?
BOTH THE TODAY PAPER AND THE DAILY HERALD HAVE ARTICLES IN THEIR ARCHIVES SHOWING WHERE HER ROYAL MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS AWARDED
CIMMARON THAT PROPERTY, SO WHY DOES NO ONE QUESTION MR ROLLOCKS WHEN HE CLAIMS IN COURT, THAT HE GOT THE PROPERTY FOR CIMMARON.
According to articles published by The Daily Herald, the Queen hooked up Cimmaron, and then Julian became his best friend.
You just want your money back, Mr Rollocks?
I read the documents served by a court processor to Cimmaron.
There were many typos, grammatical and spelling errors, written by both you and your lawyer.
But no actual documents and receipts to show that you actually spent that money.
And by the way did you make the Island and Federal Receivers office aware of these generous transactions, so that you could get a tax break?
The Daily Herald, then ended their article with a statement from the judge saying that ".......it was a classic example of a conflict of interest between a foundation with altruistic goals and a businessman....."
Really your honor?
Really?
Is this another judge sent to St Maarten, from the Netherlands on an extended vacation?
Is he one of those judges in the Antilles dodging something in Europe?
Really a classic example, huh?
These are legitimate questions!
Your Honor, ...
Between March 15th and April 9th, are you going to hire experts on forgery to figure out if the actual documents used for the lawsuit was real?
Are you going to figure if Mr Rollocks is a civil servant? Because that would constitute perjury, wouldn' it?
Are you going to request actual receipts of all "payments" Mr Rollocks made to the "Talking Drum"?
Are you going to question that "letter" written by Mr Maduro?
The letter that made absolutely NO SENSE! I read Mr. Maduro's letter to the board.
It made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE IN ENGLISH! If it makes no sense, how can it be entered into evidence?


NOW MR JULIAN ROLLOCKS,
WHO SUED HIS BROTHER IN THE FIRST PLACE, IS RUNNING TO THE TODAY PAPER SAYING HE WANTS TO SETTLE,
AND TODAY I READ THAT HE JUST DONATED A HUGE CHECK.
LMMAO!
BUT YOU'VE ALREADY WRITTEN A CHECK, MR ROLLOCKS THAT YOUR ASS CANNOT CASH!
So warm that wrist up, and get ready to write a lot more checks to lawyers etc. etc.
because it is now a CRIMINAL CASE isn't it?"

TO BE CONTINUED IN FOLLOW UP BLOG.]]><![CDATA[CIMMARON MARLIN VS. JULIAN ROLLOCKS PT1]]>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:57:07 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/03/cimmaron-marlin-vs-julian-rollocks-pt1.htmlOn March 15th at 3:30 pm, Cimmaron Marlin finally got his day in court.
Who is Cimmaron Marlin?
Cimmaron Marlin is the President and Founder of the "Talking Drums Foundation".
Why was he in court?
Because he was being sued by his big brother Julian Rollocks.
Having read all of the relevant documents involved in the case,
and being quite close to the case at certain points myself,
I've decided to add a little bit of perspective, and ask a few more questions.
THE BIGGEST QUESTIONS...................
Who is suing who?
Because Julian Rollocks told Elco Rosario in Curacao last month that he wanted Elco to mediate the conflict between him Julian, and his brother Cimmaron VS. the OTHER 2 board members, who would be Franklin Brison and Louis Crastell.
So what side are Mr Crastell and Franklin Brison on?
Who's side are they on?
Where were their lawyers?
They were being sued by Julian Rollocks as part of "The Talking Drums" board.
Odd for the now shamed, ex Minister of Finance and the  ex Bank President not to know that if you are being sued, you should have your own lawyer present, especially if there's a family feud going on,
unless, they retained the same lawyer as Cimmaron Marlin?
It appears that Mr. Crastell, Franklin Brison and Julian Rollocks had a lot of deals going on behind Cimmaron Marlin's back.
From the documents that I read.
I have dealt personally with Mr. Crastell, and his stint in prison seems to have taught him nothing.
When I asked Antonio Brown, why Julian Rollocks and Louis Crastell didn't do the right thing with the Cimmaron situation, Antonio Brown laughed, and said that Crastell had to remember the ONLY person who visited him in prison.
That person, if you haven't figured it out is Mr Julian Rollocks.
Cimmaron Marlin started "The Talking Drums Foundation", with completely different board members, but then replaced them with Crastell and Brison at the suggestion of his brother Julian who was "helping him out".
When I asked about Brison, I was told that he also owed Rollocks some favors, where Rollocks helped him out when HE almost went to prison over alleged misconducts at the bank where he worked.
So is it Julian and Cimmaron vs. Brison and Crastell?
or is it Julian vs. Cimmaron, Crastell and Brison?
The truth is IT'S JULIAN, CRASTELL AND BRISON VS CIMMARON MARLIN!
They called Cimmarons bluff, hoping that they could pressure him into signing his soul over to the devil, when Cimmaron resisted, first they treated him like dirt, then they started panicking and making a lot of silly mistakes.
They tried for months to starve him into submission, into relinquishing his rights to Border Point.
Louis Crastell Gumbs went from being the Minister of Finances to working at an upstairs dump and dive on Backstreet.
Owing money, and dodging people.
Let's hope it was worth it to you Mr Crastell.
How does Mr Julian Rollocks, sue his own brother Cimmaron, over something the rightfully belongs to Cimmaron?
Mr Rollocks provided a signed contract between BD consultations, and Cimmaron Marlin.
Cimmaron Marlin and his attorney both claim that this document/contract is a forgery.
The Daily Herald made no mention of those charges, although the "Today" newspaper did.
The Daily Herald buried the story on the tenth page, but that's okay,
I'll make sure everyone in our network gets the full story, if I spend all day typing it.
I first saw the document in November of 2010.
Anyone with a discerning eye, could have told you that it was a very poor forgery, with obvious lines, where the paper overlapped.
What is more fascinating than the articles printed in both papers today, is all of the questions that these so called journalists and reporters were not asking.
What does BD stand for Mr Rollocks?
Does it stand for Bright Day, or is that a coincidence?
Did Mr Rollocks forge these documents?
Did he present this forged documents to the court as proof?
If he did, is that not a crime in itself?
Why is Rollocks now offering to settle, when HE IS THE ONE WHO SUED.
How to you try to use a foundation trying to enhance the lives of local youth, as your own money making machine?
Who suffers if Mr Rollocks does actually get all of those "consultation fees" from "The Talking Drums?
The kids maybe?
Mr Rollocks has bragged about ILLEGALLY BULLDOZING THE PROPERTY HIMSELF AT BORDER POINT.
Mr Rollocks told me, and another party in parliament that he had been warned repeatedly by William Marlin NOT to bulldoze
the property, it would be illegal.
Mr Rollocks laughed about the fact that he agreed with Mr Marlin and PROMISED that he wouldn't do any digging or bulldozing.
That night, AT MIDNIGHT, MR ROLLOCKS SNUCK ONTO THE PROPERTY HIMSELF, AND CLAIMS THAT HE NOT ONLY SUPERVISED THE BULLDOZING...........HE DID SOME OF THE WORK HIMSELF, BECAUSE THE GUY WASN'T MOVING FAST ENOUGH FOR HIM.
The next morning, the deed was done, William Marlin could not do anything about it, and became fodder for yet another Julian Rollocks punchline.
What's Sarah Wescot- Williams role in all of this?
Julian is HER boy, and her allowing him to get away with this nonsense for so long makes her an aider, an abettor, an accessory, an accomplice, a co-conspirator................you name it, she was either involved or fully aware of it.
Cimmaron Marlin had NO friends when he got that property from the Queen.
As soon as he was awarded the property, all of a sudden every politician in the DP wanted to be his friend.
I met Cimmaron for the first time in Julian Rollocks Parliament office.
He ran errands for Julian and a few other people in parliament and the government building.
Sarah would greet him with a smile, because he had something they all wanted, which was that prime Border Point property.
When Cimmaron first came out with the accusations against his brother in November, his name became a bad word in parliament.
I was standing there with him, when Sarah passed him straight like a dog on Backstreet.
But you no nothing can get between Sarah and Julian........
Her ass needs to be subpoenaed in this case, along with all of the other crooks.
Gotta run, more info to come.
Gromyko, still looking for those photos
tot morgen
]]><![CDATA[DEAR ALSTON.......................THE DP LOST, GET OVER IT! NO EDITORS APOLOGY IS GONNA BRING THEM BACK!]]>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:00:01 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/02/dear-alstonthe-dp-lost-get-over-it-no-editors-apology-is-gonna-bring-them-back.htmlChristine Pantophlet I think Hilbert Haar might have gotten the gist of what I wrote in my blog incorrectly.
I however did not get my facts wrong.
1) Jeffrey DID quit the DP, a while back.
2) He has been talking about starting his own party.
3)The only link to his Facebook page, is the one that YOU are the only administrator to....
4) My blog was not a fact or a statement, it was a question about whether it was a coincidence that two DP members who have recently left the party would be starting TWO separate parties.
5) THE INFO COPIED FROM THE INTERNET IS VERIFIABLE! But his mistake was that he published a question as fact.
6)How do you call yourself a revolutionary, when you're working for who you are supposed to be fighting against?
7) You call yourself a semi-socialist, but in 40 years the DP party (YOUR party) has not allowed even the crumbs to trickle down to the common people.
8) The DP Party wouldn't piss on the common man to put him out if he was on FIRE!
9) You cannot seriously consider change Alston, when you enable and are quite complicit in assisting the "Old" system.
10) It's very difficult to take you comments seriously online, because you NEVER acknowledge that the DP has ever done anything wrong!
11) After the DP lost, your first comment about buying votes, was very much a "sour grapes" comments, since the DP has been buying votes since before YOU were born.
12) You are quite young, and unlike Stuart Johnson, you have not quite been sullied by the radioactive fallout of the DP. So
as a young intelligent St Maartener, set yourself apart, and leave the old system behind.
13 A revolution is a full 360 degrees,isn't?
Which would put you exactly back in the very same spot that you started from, which would be the DP.
14) If you truly want and believe in change, then you would distance yourself, and quit defending a party that have never, nor would they ever defend you.

]]><![CDATA[ST MAARTEN DEMOCRATIC PARTY.......FRACTURED!]]>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:53:16 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/02/st-maarten-democratic-partyfractured.htmlOkay, I've been sitting on this story for the past two weeks, but I guess, I'm going to analyze the new political climate for a bit.
Jeffrey Richardson, was supposed to have handed in his resignation to DP leader, Sarah Wescot Williams several Sundays ago.
So, I waited for the press release, or some kind of statement from Jeffrey, but I was told that the DP did not want the news to become public, so I decided to sit, and wait.
Then,
I carefully read the article on the front page of the "Today", You know,The one where Ferrier put his resignation at the "disposal" of the DP.
My unique translation, was that Michael Ferrier finally said, "Either HE goes, or I go."
He of course would be Julian Rollocks, but we all know how great their relationship is, so that theory could not possibly be true!
Then Mr Rollocks made two brief appearances in the Today paper.
In my assessment, the first piece, was simply an article placed in the paper, by Mr. Rollocks, to say "Hey!"
"I'm still here"
"I'm still relevant"!
The second article featuring Mr. Rollocks, was far more interesting, and thus had to be read, and re-read.
The article on page 7 of the "Today" paper, first starts out with nothing but a long list of St Maarten Democratic Party misdeeds.I even learned for the first time of certain questionable moves by Maria, "The Sky is The Limit Foundation", etc. etc.
I was given a concise recap of ALL of the misdeeds of Laveist and Maria and Theo, etc. etc. etc.
We'll follow up on "The Sky is The Limit Foundation", at a later date.The article, gives the impression that Mr Rollocks is in St Maarten, handling his business, but he's not. He's been everywhere, but in St Maarten, for the past several weeks.
The Article seemed to appear for two reasons.
To give the appearance that Mr. Rollocks is very much in St Maarten, and in control(you know like how Osama Bin Laden sends out those videos, from random areas around the world, to give the impression that he's still alive, and a threat).
 He also wanted to serve Michael Ferrier with a backhanded compliment, or basically a diss.
The most vital and telling piece to this whole article, is the final paragraphs.
The "old branches" perspective.
When Mr Rollocks returns to the island, is he going to let us know who these old branches are?
He then goes on to lay the blame at everyone else's feet, but his own, because St Maarteners are too stupid to realize who the main DP antagonist is/was.
BUT...BY FAR THE MOST TELLING STATEMENT WOULD BE THE LAST PARAGRAPH:..."We do not wish the Democratic Party any harm; because we think that a well-functioning democracy..."
If you read the article carefully, Mr Rollocks, who is supposed to be an integral part of the DP, their chief adviser, is not referring to the party as US,
Who are "WE" Mr Rollocks?
That statement clearly shows that there is no "US" in the DP any longer, if there ever was.
And if you are calling yourself "WE", the the Democratic Party, must now be considered THEM.
So that could be considered confirmation, that the DP is now a party of two separate factions.
Still I needed more evidence. So I did some online research, and...voila!Jeffrey Richardson IS a part of the new revolutionary party on FACEBOOK, which was set up by Alston Alvarino Lourens.
It's fascinating what you can learn, when you spend 18 hour days online.
TAKEN FROM JEFFREY RICHARDSON'S FACEBOOK PAGE(thanks for the invite Jeffrey):
SXM Needs a new Political Revolution!
Description:This is a group to begin the organization of a new Political Party on St. Maarten... A Political Representation of our Island's best Qualified, Dedicated and Educated young adults. Please feel free to join and leave comments... Nominate persons you feel should be part of this New Party... Also go ahead and suggest a name... This is the beginning of a revolution, be a part of it...Privacy Type:Open: All content is public.

So my question would be:
Is this Jeffrey's new party, or is that just another coincidence?
Is the DP separated into "Team Rollocks", and "Team Ferrier"?
Is Stuey going to jump ship soon? (Honestly, he told me that he's sticking with DP, but I simply don't believe him)
Is Theo Heyliger going to be a part of this "revolution", or is he really teaming up with Gracita to form ANOTHER party?
Yeah the Theo/Gracita rumor has been afloat for awhile now.
What can I say, they do make a cute couple.
And they cover most demographics. Gracita appealing to the Black and female demographic,
Theo covering the White/Asian and male demographic. I say White and Asian, because Theo can pass for both.
Don't ask me how that happened.
I do know that it would be interesting seeing some strong, new contenders
for the next elections.
When Mr Rollocks is considering trimming old branches, he must have considered the fact that Sarah Wescot Williams is the oldest branch on the tree.
That's not an ageist diss, it's a fact. And if you're considering all political experience,
Then Mr Rollocks, himself would have to be trimmed, considering the fact that
he's been in those same gutters, since Theo Heyliger was in Pampers.
I've been trying to stay out of politics, and work on my archives,
but sometimes I feel compelled......
j.r.
]]><![CDATA[WHERE IS JACINTO MOCK JR? or WHO WILL THE NEXT PRIME MINISTER OF ST MAARTEN BE?]]>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:06:01 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/6/post/2010/02/where-is-jacinto-mock-jr-or-who-will-the-next-prime-minister-of-st-maarten-be.htmlon December 22nd 2009,
Jacinto mocked posted this comment to the Facebook "Christine Hughes" profile notes:
Jacinto Mock Jr Ferrier won't fire Rollocks because he needs a comedian to keep an eye on the Parliament building on Backstreet. But if Ferrier knew that Rollocks is preparing to outrun anyone in the Democratic Party to be the First Prime Minister of St.Maaarten instead of Sarah, William Marlin, Theo, Gracita, Or Loui, he might do so.
In a small studio owned by a... See more Santo Domingo fellow near the Sundial School, -a collection of recorded tapes of Julian Rollocks is to be found. Ready to be Unleashed during our next Election for Country St.Maarten.
Therefore, a party which is destroying itself should be left alone!22 January at 00:05 · I questioned Jacinto, and he sent a follow up private email.
Since then he's been missing in action, so
Jacinto, let us know what's up. :)
]]>