Essa Thomas, the last time you came with these your nonsensical statements,
I ignored you. Like the deranged person you are, you thought that you could
get away with these insults. I might ignore you on G_L, but do NOT for one
moment think that you are getting away with something here. You will pay one
day and on that day, it would NOT be a defense to say that you were under
the influence. I will NOT allow myself to go past my limit on G_L today
because I am wasting postings on nonentities like you.
KB



>From: Elow Wole <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Attn: List Managers --- Complaint Against Jaiteh
>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:24:38 -0000
>
>KB,
>
>You sound like a paranoid schitzophrenic to me.  Why give a hoot about he
>says she says?  You've clearly stated your position in this matter, leave
>it
>alone brother!  This constant bickering won't ever get you anywhere.  Why
>do
>you have to disagree first to agree?  Look in the mirror and unmask
>yourself
>from this whatever psychotic torment/therapy you're subdued under.  I hope
>we're not losing a brother here.
>
>My best regards,
>
>Essa
>
>
>>From: Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Attn: List Managers --- Complaint Against Jaiteh
>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:33:22 -0400
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>X-Originating-IP: [204.71.174.14]
>>Received: from [149.68.45.24] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
>>MHotMailBCFB50C500B04004315695442D18120C4; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:34:54 -0700
>>Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu (149.68.45.24) by
>>maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
>><[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 9:34:06 -0500
>>Received: from MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU by MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>>(LISTSERV-TCP/IP          release 1.8d) with spool id 660631 for
>>[log in to unmask]; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:33:59 -0500
>>Received: from hotmail.com (216.33.237.35) by maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP
>>for          OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
>><[log in to unmask]>; Thu,          21 Jun 2001 9:33:49
>>-0500
>>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
>>Thu,          21 Jun 2001 07:33:22 -0700
>>Received: from 204.71.174.14 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu,
>>21          Jun 2001 14:33:22 GMT
>>From [log in to unmask] Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:35:42 -0700
>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2001 14:33:22.0716 (UTC)
>>  FILETIME=[1FB4E5C0:01C0FA5F]
>>Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sender:       The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>Mr. Camara, thanks for your response. I hope you realize that the reason I
>>did not respond to you as soon as possible yesterday was because I went
>>past
>>my limit as a non-managing subscriber. I tried replying but got a message
>>informing me that I was past my limit for the day. Mr. Camara, I will save
>>you and the List Managers the trouble of going through the archives again
>>by
>>laying out here what I found offensive about Dr. Jaiteh's postings. After
>>that, I will also save you the trouble of contemplating 'delisting' one of
>>your own. I hope by the time you finish reading this posting you (List
>>Managers) and Jaiteh in particular will have NO doubts about the point I
>>am
>>trying to make.
>>
>>As soon as the Cautionary Statements were posted on G_L and people started
>>discussing them, Jaiteh sent a mail to G_L querying that discussion. I am
>>not a mind-reader but I can deduce from Jaiteh's subsequent conduct that
>>he
>>himself even realized that it was ill-advised to do what he did. After
>>sending the initial query, he sent another mail to G_L saying that he made
>>a
>>mistake when he sent the query to G_L. He meant to send it to me
>>privately.
>>I took Jaiteh's explanation in good faith and sent him a 'mild' response
>>explaining my position on G_L. The past month or so, I had numerous
>>cordial
>>(private) exchanges with Jaiteh regarding the monitoring of Kujabi's
>>account. The last such exchange occurred on Monday, June 18, 2001. If
>>Jaiteh
>>has a 'life and death issue' (as he called it) what was stopping him from
>>contacting me in private this time around to set me straight?
>>
>>Instead, what he did was come to G_L for the second time on June 19, 2001
>>(the day after our last private exchange on Kujabi) still questioning the
>>wisdom of discussing this case in a public forum like G_L. As I said on
>>numerous occasions, there is nothing wrong in Jaiteh questioning this
>>tactic. Even if Lalo was not his family member, he has a right to express
>>his beliefs in a public forum like this. Bamba laye expressed beliefs more
>>or less similar to that of Jaiteh. I responded to Laye and I was not
>>miffed
>>about what he said. I am NOT miffed about Jaiteh's 'belief' either.
>>
>>What bothered me is the way Jaiteh was going about what he is doing. He
>>throws accusations at people, i.e. discussing the case in public would
>>hurt
>>the accused and when you ask him how what I said would hurt the accused,
>>he
>>does NOT provide responsive answers. He gives a vague answer saying that
>>accused persons and their lawyers get advantages over prosecutors when
>>they
>>'surprise' prosecutors in court. The reason I said that this answer is not
>>responsive is, Jaiteh still CANNOT tell me what secrets I gave to the
>>prosecutors or I would give them if I keep discussing this case in public.
>>I
>>have posed him this question on numerous occasions. What did I say that
>>would jeopardize the lives of these people any further? He said it is a
>>life
>>and dead issue.
>>
>>As you demonstrated by saying that you looked at Jaiteh's postings but did
>>not see anything that might offend me, what Jaiteh did to offend me might
>>not be obvious to the naked eye. What Jaiteh did was lay the ground work
>>for
>>people to blame me if and when Dumo et al lose this case. Ah! KB and
>>others
>>were discussing the case on G_L giving prosecutors all these points and
>>that
>>is why the government won the case. Nothing wrong with this conclusion if
>>it
>>is the TRUTH. That is why I want Jaiteh to prove that I am indeed helping
>>the prosecution in any way. I am sure you will agree with me that this
>>problem needs to be tackled by me at this stage. Later, when everything is
>>said and done and the finger-pointing begins in earnest, I might not have
>>the opportunity to reach people and tell them that it is a malicious and
>>false allegation to say that I did anything to jeopardize the lives of
>>these
>>innocent and defenseless citizens. I hope you get my point. If Jaiteh
>>genuinely believes that we are hurting the defense, let him show us how.
>>If
>>he does not want to discuss strategy on G_L, he knows our private email
>>addresses. Let him contact us in private rather than sending these stealth
>>attacks and this grandstanding. The last thing I want hanging on my
>>conscience is the notion that I in any way, shape or form helped to put
>>Dumo
>>et al in jeopardy. Anybody that makes the remotest suggestion to that
>>effect
>>will have some explaining to do. I will ask them to show me how my conduct
>>negatively impacted Dumo et al. That is all I am asking Jaiteh to do. If
>>he
>>cannot do that, then he has to retract his statements.
>>
>>Like I said yesterday, ordinarily I would not make a big meal about such
>>an
>>issue. I would forcefully express my ideas and would not ask for a
>>retraction or an apology. But we are dealing here with Jaiteh (the self
>>appointed custodian of ethics on G_L). I wanted to show him that what is
>>considered as 'offensive' is very subjective from person to person. To me,
>>it is very offensive for anyone to insinuate that I am hurting Dumo et
>>al's
>>case and putting these citizens' lives in jeopardy. It is doubly offensive
>>for the maker of those accusations to then sit back and not show me where
>>I
>>am actually hurting the case.
>>
>>Forget me for a moment. There are other people (including genuine victims
>>in
>>this case) that partook in the discussions we have had about this case on
>>G_L. Did Jaiteh stop to think about those people before he sent his
>>ill-advised mails to G_L? How would you feel if you are tirelessly trying
>>to
>>help your brother or your friend to get out of jail and have someone like
>>Jaiteh come on G_L (for the whole world to see) and tell you that you are
>>going about it the wrong way; thus laying the ground work for you to be
>>blamed when things go wrong later? Worst still, Jaiteh does not back up
>>what
>>he is saying. I hope Jaiteh reads between the lines of what I am trying to
>>say. I hope he realizes that there are other victims in this case that do
>>not need further grief; people that do not need to live with the guilt
>>that
>>they helped incarcerate their friends and family members. Both George
>>Sarr,
>>Kabir and Ebrima Ceesay can attest to the fact that I do not discuss
>>everything about this case on G_L. I am NOT trying to give the impression
>>that I know anything bombastic about the case. What I am trying to say is
>>that I think about the repercussions of my postings on the case before I
>>dispatch them. In other words, Jaiteh is NOT dealing here with an
>>irresponsible person that is indifferent to the plight of Dumo et al.
>>Nothing in my writings suggest that I have jeopardized this case or would
>>do
>>so in future. So, Jaiteh's fears are unfounded.
>>
>>Granted, defense lawyers do benefit from an element of surprise in
>>courtrooms every day. But touting this advantage at this stage of this
>>case,
>>tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. We do NOT have a trial
>>yet.
>>We are fighting to get one; a very tough fight in lawless Gambia. Now, in
>>order to win that fight, the combatants fighting on behalf of the accused,
>>have to be convinced of the accused innocence. How can we do that by
>>allowing only the government's side to be conveyed to the people? Accused
>>people pay millions of dollars to have people to put across their side
>>long
>>before any trial. I gave Jaiteh an example by reminding him of the OJ
>>Simpson case. From day one, the defense were saying that Mark Furman was a
>>racist. What the defense NEVER said in public was that the Gloves will not
>>fit OJ if they are tried on him. If they did that, they would have given
>>the
>>prosecution an advantage and they would not have tried the gloves.
>>Jaiteh's
>>'element of surprise'. I am cognizant of what Jaiteh is trying to say.
>>While
>>the racist label on Mark Furman has an analogy in our discussions, the
>>gloves does not have an analogy in our discussion.
>>
>>Again, I hope I made my point to you and Jaiteh in particular. Consider
>>the
>>matter settled on my part.
>>KB
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>>You may also send subscription requests to
>>[log in to unmask]
>>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write
>>your
>>full name and e-mail address.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------