The first day back of Charles Taylor’s trial, after a month-long break, was marked by feisty exchanges between Mr. Taylor and lead prosecution counsel, Brenda Hollis, on Monday as she tried to keep a tight grip on the former Liberian president’s answers under cross-examination at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
“Mr Taylor, you are a witness and it is your job to answer questions, not to make speeches. Do you understand that?” Ms. Hollis asked.
“I’m the accused. You do not – the judges are going to instruct me. I don’t take instructions from you. There are contexts involved here and this is my life,” Mr. Taylor retorted.
As the two traversed Mr. Taylor’s prior testimony under direct examination over the course of four months last year, Ms Hollis challenged him on topics ranging outside the indictment timeframe and in relation to events in Liberia (not Sierra Leone where the charges are based) — but which nonetheless may go to testing Mr. Taylor’s general credibility as a witness.
Ms. Hollis asserted that Mr. Taylor lied about his involvement in the 1985 coup to overthrow the then Liberian president Samuel Doe (Mr. Taylor rejected this: “I would not lie about it if I was a part of it”); that Mr. Taylor benefitted from money he allegedly embezzled from Liberia while he was in the United States (Mr. Taylor agreed that he had received $100,000 while in the US, but rejected that it was Liberian government money “and it was never proven that I embezzled any money”); and that Mr. Taylor knew rebel leader Foday Sankoh in Libya during the 1980s, well before Mr. Taylor said the two men met in 1991 (“Ms Hollis, I had never in my life met Foday Sankoh before 1991,” Mr. Taylor said).
Meanwhile, a debate over the use of “fresh evidence” flared again on Monday, as the two sides clashed over how the test laid down by the judges late last year should be interpreted. The core debate revolves around how new documents should be categorized – by their content or the intended use by the prosecution. The distinction is important and will impact the ease with which prosecutors can use new documents in the courtroom during cross-examination. (If documents are assessed by how the prosecution intends to use them, then documents can be used much more easily as a way of trying to “impeach” (or to discredit) Mr. Taylor’s earlier testimony. If the documents are to be assessed on their content, then the potential for challenges to their use in court are much greater – and the hurdles the prosecution have to jump to use them in court are higher – if the documents contain material which could potentially be used by the judges as going to demonstrate proof of Mr. Taylor’s alleged guilt. (An overview of the background to this debate can be found here: http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/01/10/using-fresh-evidence-what-does-this-mean-with-taylors-trial-restarting/).
After an hour and a half adjournment, the judges decided by majority (not unanimously) that content would be the determining factor.
“Now, as has been indicated before, that decision refers to the content of such documents, not to the intended use by the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber again emphasises this distinction, since the Court has a discretion to use such material as proof of guilt no matter what was the intended use declared by the Prosecution,” presiding judge Richard Lussick said.
“Having said that, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the Prosecution has demonstrated either that it is in the interests of justice, or that it does not violate the fair trial rights of the accused to use that material in cross-examination.”
The judges allowed the use of two paragraphs and rejected two paragraphs of the document at issue, demonstrating that the use of “fresh evidence” in the courtroom may continue to be a contested territory as the cross-examination goes forward.
Prosecutors also tried to cast doubt over the truthfulness of Mr. Taylor’s November 2009 testimony about his decision to step down from the Liberian presidency. Ms. Hollis focused on Mr. Taylor’s description of the impact of an attack by Liberian rebels in 2003 which resulted in deaths of internally displaced people hiding in a targeted building called Greystone – an annex to the United States Embassy in Monrovia located across the street where civilians took shelter from the fighting in Monrovia in 2003. Liberians took 18 dead bodies from this attack to the United States Embassy as a plea for the US to stop the bloodshed and restore peace.
In his November 2009 testimony, Mr. Taylor had asserted that this Greystone attack had triggered his decision to step down from power, as he realized that “they [Liberian rebels] would do anything to get rid of you as President, including victimizing your Liberian civilians, and so you decided to step down as President,” Ms. Hollis said. “Do you remember telling the Court that, Mr Taylor?”
“I remember telling the Court that and most other things that are associated with that, yes, I remember telling them that,” Mr. Taylor responded.
The Prosecutors went on to present evidence that this attack which resulted in 18 dead bodies being carried to the US Embassy in fact occurred in late July 2003, more than a month after Mr. Taylor was at the Accra peace talks where he indicated his willingness to step down from the presidency. In raising the inconsistency in timing, prosecutors were attempting to demonstrate that this attack could not have been the reason why Mr. Taylor decided to quit the presidency.
Instead, Ms Hollis suggested that other West African leaders had pressured Mr. Taylor to step down in Accra – an assertion that Mr. Taylor vigorously denied.
“There was not one Head of State in that room that ever asked me to step down. On my honour, no President ever asked me to step down. I, Charles Taylor, just as I told these judges, volunteered. No one – if anyone in that room had asked me to step down, one, it would have been very much undiplomatic,” Mr. Taylor told the court.
“Presidents don’t just say, “Please step down.” I, Charles Ghankay Taylor, volunteered to step down from office. No one pressured me in that room. No one asked me to at all.”
Prosecutors finished the day with questions about the Lome Peace Accord – a peace agreement signed between the Sierra Leonean government and the country’s main rebel group, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in the Togolese capital, Lome, in 1999 — the document which initially triggered the controversy about the use of “fresh evidence” in this case back in November 2009.
Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination is set to continue Thursday, with technical difficulties burdening the court through Tuesday and Wednesday.
(MODERATOR’S NOTE: Again, apologies for the lateness of this report, due to technical factors beyond our control).
I thought the exchange was as I predicted, heated and confrontational. As eluded earlier, I expect further contentious exchanges between CT and Hollis. It’s even more apparent that the prosecution changed their tactic to an aggressive, robust attacking strategy. I also suggested that the first day of cross examination after the break will set the tone at least for a season.
Some would say CT had a good day, others would think that the prosecution forceful control of the cross examination was a point for them. I frankly, think that the prosecution had the better day than the defense. Taylor’s explanations were severely restricted. While it shows control, it might just be a good think for him (sorta). I have risen concerned about the “chatty” nature of CT and that could expose his “vulnerability”. By restricting him it might just help. Then there is the flip side of the debate, by limiting him to short answers, it could expose him even further. A clear example of the long worded answers was his reason for stepping down. Maybe it’s true that the African leaders didn’t tell him to step down, but immense international pressure sure played a role. Some might say, there is just too much information for one person remember all…I will agree that there is a lot of information to retain and recollect, however, the reason for leaving the highest office and “apex” of authority in country, one will definitely remember the reason–and events leading to that. The citation of the Greystone disaster was a blunder. Does this dent the credibility of CT some, I think it does a bit, yet not sufficient to render a guilty verdict; lots more inconsistence must be brought forth.
Several weeks back, in earlier days of the examination by the prosecution team, Ms. Hollis had a nightmarish day in court, she used a document that reference diamond dealing with a “Charles” and assumed it was CT. I thought it was the biggest blunder. Also, it seemed as though the roles were reversed as lead prosecutor, she seemed as though she was being cross examined by CT instead. A day after, I guess she was disgusted by her performance and “feel ill” allegedly. I thought this was the lowest point in the prosecution case. Fast forward, they seem to rebound later though.
I am immensely impressed with the defense lawyer Courtney. He is brilliant; he speaks calmly, yet, there is authority in his voice and brilliance in his choice of words. He is easily the brightest person on both sides.
That being said, I think both sides have experienced bruised eyes and busted lips. The slug-fest will continue and we expect to see “mouth guards” flying across the room from right punches and strong upper-cuts. At the end of the day, one fighter will be standing and will proudly reveal the battle scares of a long war.
We watch and see who wins the next round.
Bnkr,
I believe you said previously that you are based in Senegal. If this is the case I was wondering if you are able to access the live streaming on the internet there ? As you maybe aware this is not possible in Monrovia due to the limited bandwith.
Aki,
Streaming from Senegal is just as good as the states. Liberia’s problem is that it does not have speed internet connection. At the moment, Liberian govt is trying to study the fiber-optic line that runs through Liberia. A friend of mine was contracted from the US to do the study. He has a Masters in Wireless Technologies. So hopefully in the very near future we would have better streaming. This project should have started last year. I was also contact by a company looking for a financial analyst for the same feasibility study.
I would recommend a visit here. This is actually 5th visit here. Goree Island is a must see. I am coming back here in May or June….it’s a beautiful country.
Anyhow, the streaming here is fine…I noticed today though there was problem with audio….
Bnkr,
Thanks for the info!
No prob Aki
bnker,
How could someone who’s majored in wirless technology be hired to do feasibility on engineering a fiber-optic system?? Do you know what you are mixing up here, or do you know what these two technologies are and how they differ. Guys why don’t concentrate on the charles Taylor trial and stop the big talks……please!!!
Look,Taylor did not step down because of international pressure.Taylor llistens to the barrel of guns than any other.THere came a time in June,July and the dawn of August 2003 when Taylor’s defense minister,Daniel Chea could not use the Broard Street to get to the Duco Palace Hotel where some his soldiers were based.Instead,Chea had to use the diplomatic enclave at the UN Drive at the Mamba Point to reach his men at the Ducor Hotel.These were major signs that they were loosing grounds.Chea and his generals then reported to Taylor that the way out for him(Taylor) was to quit the political arena.
And,indeed,Chea and cohorts were right in this.Damate’s LURD was advancing indefatigeably,giving us what they called “the motta”at the Mamba Point and surrounding environments.Taylor did not leave because he wanted peace.He left because he did not want to be captured live by Damate’s advancing boys.
Vaa Alie Mansaray,
Seriously, do you think, menus the international pressure or community, we will be where he are today? Vaa, the Liberia people love their former president. And I hope, you recognize this.
Mr. Taylor, you have lie on the stand and have been caught and there is no where to hide,You did admit during your direct testimomy to providing Sam Bocharie, Foday Sankor and their blood thirsty criminal gangs the RUF loggings in Liberia, military training, radio/satellite phone communications,jobs, and monies to buy jeans while they were conducting the most brutal killings ever known in west african history against the people of Sierra Leone and west Africa.your faith is in the hands of these innocent victims, who are unable to speak, and the judges shall speak collective for them, as you shall pay the price with your life behind bars.
Ziggy Salis,
No! His faith is not in the hands of those unfortunate and unspeakable victims. Instead, it is in the hands of the court. However, I may lean a little bit toward your statement of “the judges shall speak for them”: by acquitting this innocent man of all charges, thereby declaring him a free man. “The judges shall speak for them”: by telling the world that it was Sierra Leoneans that killed and humiliated their own people, and not this “SUN GOD TAYLOR”. Sierra Leone is responsible for Sierra Leone problems.
If Taylor is a “Sun God” then his followers should prepare to worship him upon his conviction and probably build a pyramid in Sub-Sahara to bury his remains! I personally get offended when rational fellow men continue to insult those who suffered gravely due to this man’s cruelty against Humanity and all the physical damage that is evident of his brutal rule in West Africa, by equating this monster to a “god”!
Well, I hope these whorshipers will continue to hold their loyalty after the trial when we take our appeal to the Supreme Court of Liberia. It is there we will know the cowards amongt us because Liberians are known to “flip flop” and opportunistic and the likes will sooner or later pretend to be haters if they find out taylor is no more! Hope I will see all who are talking all the talk when we all present our true Identityand are Not fallahs or nokos. I wait for that day patiently!
J Fallah Menjor — you are back and I am remiss in not acknowledging your return earlier when you commented a few days ago. Happy new year and glad you returned to the conversation here. Your contributions always make the debate very lively!
Best,
Tracey
J.fallah, j.fallah,
Welcome back papay!!!!!!! ….as for me , if you want, we can exchange phone numbers…Sorry to say .. Your prosecution team has let you down again..Fallah , come on the good side. No body will laugh at you.. you will be highly welcomed..WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fallah, Fallah the Papay! welcome back! I kind of miss your rantings they make this discussion really interesting. However I haope the recess has given you and your antiTaylor people time to doo more research and come up with better evidence this time around. Welcome!
Fallah,
Keep waiting. Did I hear you talked about LURD’S Kabana J’ana Supreme Court of Liberia? Way to go Fallah.
Jose, are you by any means familiar with the civil conflicts in both Liberia and Sierra Leone involving Mr. Taylor? Taylor is by no means an innocent man, he may say that to himself without even believing himself. I personally met one of the first of Taylor’s men who invaded Sierra Leone via Vahun, Lofa County, Liberia. We were classmates in high school and confidants. Whatever the outcome of this trial may be, it is the Almighty God who is the ultimate judge. Being acquitted or convicted in a court of law is not the definative proof of guilt or innocence. There are a whole lot of human factors (wealth, judges,experience of counsels, constituents of jurors,proximity of trial and so forth) that determine outcome of cases.
Sierra Leoneans played a major role in the carnage done to their people, but without Taylor forces initial attack and financial and military (arms and ammunitions)support later, Sankor and his few men could not have captured an inch of land in Sierra Leone. Lets not even mentioned the countless atrocities Taylor committed in Liberia of which he is not yet on trial. Based on the outcome of this one, Liberia’s charges against Mr. Taylor may be pending. Take that before you idolize Mr. Taylor.
Hi Nosirrah — I think this is the first time I am seeing you comment on this site. Welcome. Iam glad to have you here with us. I hope we continue to hear from you as the conversations here continue.
Best,
Tracey
Nossirah,
Let me asure you that no charges will ever be brought by the Liberian people against Charles Taylor. He started a well meaning revolution in Liberia and if it was not for the United States abandoning him in mid stream alot of the carnage would not have happened. Don’t forget Liberians forgave Charles Taylor along time ago by their 82% electoral vote. Now to Sierra Leone. If your president Joseph Momo had not started Liberia’s trouble first with the miserably planned Quiwonkpa invasion of 1985 and then his support for ULIMO in 1990 there would have been no need for Taylor to give his initial support to Foday Sankoh. Unfortunately for you this support is outside of the indictment period.
Aki,
The formation of Ulimo was a by- product of Taylor’s invasion of Sierra Leone. The election of some 82% vote for Taylor as you said says something of the Liberian people psyche. Illiteracy was not the only predominant factor in their decision, fear of Taylor returning to the bushes to continue the war was key. Please make me aware; Is there a statue of limitation for murder? The Liberian people can bring charges whenever they deem it necessary. If Taylor participated as a candidate in elections today, the outcome would be different since the Liberian people are now long removed from the fear that promulgated such an overwhelming victory. The Liberian people were under hostage by Taylor and therefore voted under duress. Furthermore, Aki i am a liberian. I did not vote for nor did i vote against Mr. Taylor. I left Liberia in june 1996. Importantly, the late Joseph Momo’s support in November 1985 was given to the National Patriotic Front of Liberia Headed then by the late Gen.Thomas Quiwonkpa, an unfinished business that Taylor continued four years later. What a way for a standup guy like Taylor to pay back a former collaborator?
Nosirrah
Mr. Talyor escaped the justice for the Liberian lives lost when he allegedly resigned to keep the peace in Liberia (or like Vaa Alie Mansaray stated he got out of dodge to save himself). Mr. Taylor is an expert in escaping due justice. Therefore, do not be surprise if Mr. Taylor is found not guilty.
Nosirrah,
Yes, I am familiar with the civil conflicts in both Liberia and allegedly Sierra Leone involving President Taylor. However, Taylor is by all means an innocent man when it comes to Sierra Leone.
Do you have anymore question/questions?
IF IT WAS FEAR THAT MR TAYLOR WON THE 1997 ELECTION, THAN SERKOU DAMATEE KONNEH WOULD HAVE WON IN 1995, YOU TALKING ABOUT ATROCITIES WHAT ABOUT THE AFL OF SAMUEL DOE? THE UN, COMPOUND, LUTHEREAN CHURCH, AND THE NIMBA RAID. STOP TALKING MY FRIEND.
Ziggy Salis,
Do you really know the history of Sierra Leon or politic? you need to go back to the Siaka Steven era. Charles Taylor and Liberia did nothing to Sierra Leone, The Sierra Leonean are responsible for their crisis. If you so beleived that Mr Taylor send his soldiers to Sierra Leone to attack the peacful people of sierra leone, Why the British and American never interven? but the Brit and American were quick to rush to Kuwait, your answer will be their special interest, Do you know that five permanent members on the UN security council are also the biggest arm dealers? make your research ziggy.
sorry 2005, i stand corrected not 1995.
An interesting point ref the timeframe surrounding Taylor’s decision to step down. I note that he did not address the point about timing – merely that no African leader pressured him to step down in Accra.
Tracey,
Can you let us know if Taylor admitted there was a discrepancy in timing of decision to step down, or did he concentrate on the Accra meeting and the actions of other African leaders?
Thank you.
I Fought In Sierra Leone,
Mr. Taylor admitted to discrepancy in timing of the Greystone attack when the 18 bodies which were taken to the US Embassy in late July — however, he maintained that Monrovia was attacked before he went to Accra; that displaced people were sheltering in Greystone befor the June 4 peace talks in Ghana; and also that it was the LURD attacks on Monrovia and Greystone were the issues that made him decide to step down. He told Ms. Hollis on Monday: “There was no other reason for me to step down at that particular time. I told them exactly why I stepped down, and that’s the truth.” Later in the testimony, he then rejected Ms. Hollis’ assertion that other West African leaders convinced him to step down.
I hope this helps?
Best,
Tracey
Al Solo Nyonteh,
According to you, President Taylor escaped the justice of lives lost in Liberia. However, you failed miserably to provide the justice that you say, he escape from. Which court in Liberia that has prosecuted the likes of Prsident Taylor from which he escaped? Bro, you are in a loop here. However, prosecute those other guys first including Ellen, before saying your one sided justice system of which you claimed he escaped from.
The justice system has nothing to do with it. Did President Tolbert or the Liberian lives lost due to President Doe get justice through the justice system? My friend that’s what you call Karma or “due justice” and it’s never one sided. Since you strongly believe that Mr. Taylor is innocent; if he is convicted you can call it Karma.
Al Solo Nyonteh,
You tell me. However, I asked you a simple question based on your assertion that President Taylor escaped from justice for the Liberian lives lost. You however, failed to answered. Nontheless, the question was/is, which court in Liberia that has prosecuted the likes of Mr. Taylor in the context of rebel war?
Ms Hollis is seriously losing her mind without any real issue to confront Mr. Taylor with. Does she knows the inner mind of Mr. Taylor or she is god to determine the exact reason for Mr. Taylor stepping down? This is the most outrageous and homourous attempt to discredit a witness about his own motivations to take an action. What does Ms. Hollis considers herself to be?
It is only the man, Charles Taylor that can say what was his motivation to stept down. Samuel Doe was under the barrel of guns right before the executive mansion but never step down. Taylor fought against ECOMOG and over five different rebel groups and never give up. So I would take Taylor statement to be valid that at this point of his life, and given his role of president , he felt a more pressing obligation to give up power so that ordinary people will survive.
As a matter of fact, after Taylor announced that he would step down. LURD and MODEL forces kept on fighting, they demanded that Taylor should exit Liberia immediately. Taylor refused and demanded that he would not leave Liberia , and that he would not run away from Liberia. He suggested that he would not leave until a neutral international force landed in Liberia to ensure that those LURD and MODEL killers never had the opportunity to run over Monrovia and murder more than a million people. True to his word, Taylor stayed until the international community was compelled to send in troops.
And as Taylor said, he would passed on power to then vice president Moses Blah in keeping with the laws of Liberia, and he did just that. So if it was because of international pressure or some African presidents that forced Taylor to step down. Taylor would not have stayed and turned over power in keeping with the laws of Liberia since most people in the international community was pressuring him to leave without doing just that. So Ms. Hollis line of discrediting Taylor is simply a legal stunt to justified her pay check.
all i will always say is so sweet.long live GHANKAY
G——–GOD
H——-HAS
A——–ANOINTED
N——-NEW
K——-KING
A——-AMONG
Y——-YOU
SO U SEE IT THE TRUE MEANING OF THE NAME GHANKAY.GOD WILING HE WILL BE BACK
Hi Tracey,
One of the prosecution strategies if not the main strategy is to discredit and show inconsistencies in Taylor’s testimony under direct examination. Notwithstanding, inconsistency alone will not cut it for the prosecution. Inconsistency, will not give the prosecution a guilty verdict. The reason, under cross examination, the defense methodically showed most of the prosecution witnesses testimonies were nothing but inconsistencies, lies and the offering of money and other incentives by the prosecution to persuade the witnesses to testify dishonestly. A kind of “Tic for TAC”.” I am not implying that there are inconsistencies in the defense’s testimony.
Hypothetically, if the judges believed there are inconsistencies in the defense’s testimony, and as a result, throw said testimony out the windows, the same thing will have to apply to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies. Their testimonies will be thrown out the windows too. Remember, the burden of proof rest on the prosecution.
Consequently, the defense and the prosecution witness’s testimonies are out the windows. Therefore, the judges will have to rule on the raw evidences presented by both the prosecution and the defense. So far, there are no direct evidence the prosecution have introduced linking Taylor to the 11 counts indictment. You be the judge.
Oh no, another wasted day. So to speak.
Harris K Johnson
Hi Tracey Please is the problem still going on I can’t get access to to watch the trial live. Or is everybody facing the same problem? Since the trial became on monday I have not watch anything at all on my pc. Someone help me please.
Hi Leoroy Dennis,
Apparently there were no problems with the streaming today, at least during the morning session. I hope you are able to start watching again soon!
Best,
Tracey
Brvo, Ghankay.
You are the bravest man i have ever seen.
That Hollis should not instruct you.
It us only the court that is to do that.
Your mention of the gray srone situation
is a good thing. Because when you came back
to Liberia from Ghana, we told you not to
step down. but months later, you maintained
that you would step down to keep your
promise in the interest of the Liberian people.
Those who are speaking are only doing so out of hatred
for you. They don’t understand what took place in our
country.
Johannson Q. Dahn — welcome to the site. I don’t think we have heard from you before. Glad you have joined the conversation here.
Best,
Tracey
Prosecution team please take a very intelligent approach in your endeavour to take on Mr. Taylor. Do not take a more aggressive tatic.
Look at the defense head and see how intelligent, calm and friendly he is. I think you can learn from him.
The court is a place of creating sensation, but proing the guilt of an accused person. Don’t join the international conspiracy against our former president.
exchange between CT and Hollis will always remain harsh if the judges
don’t warn hollis on what question she should be asking. that is, her concerns are
atrocities that occured in SL and not Liberia.
George,
the most disgraceful part of this case that really gets to me is, miss hollis is forcing mr. Taylor to lie on himself instead proving her claims against the man .. I mean that is totally inhumaine.. The world atlarge was hoping that hollis and her team were going to make a serious come back..but from todays’ performance, I can say it is the same old crap that was started that’s going to be carried on..These criminals got no case against Charles . HE NEEDS TO BE SET FREE. Let Sierraleoneans take their SATOKA somewhere else and leave the poor man alone…
Folks,
Still no evidence. No evidence to even prove that African presidents pressured President Taylor to step down. Ms. Hollis miserably failed again to show prove of which African leaders pressured this innocent man to step down. However, there are overwhelming evidence to prove that it was President Bush and the US Government who pressured and demanded this man to step down and leave his homeland.
Folks, I knew it wouldn’t take too long for them to tell us that it was “African Leaders” who pressured this man to step down as opposed to President Bush. Ladies and gentlemen, the substance of this fake case is nothing anymore. This case symbolizes something. Like I said in one of my posts, these people are not even bothering anymore to put on their masks. They are doing it in broad daylight. Nontheless, almost everything Ms. Hollis asked, was about Liberia, which has zero to do with the charges.
Happy New Year Tracey,
i understand your role, but would it be fair if were to say that the defense had a good day in court? I sincerely respect if you couldn’t comment
Having seen today’s happenings in the court I think the prosecution would spend this weekend not very elated, especially after the judges upheld the defense’s objection. I think it showed the prosecution is predominantly relying on hearsay. Here is hollis quoting a book by Festus Aboagye wherein the preface vividly states that not all comments or views can be substantiated.
Good job by the defense for objecting.
How doesTaylor being point Guard/point president on Sierra Leone does not in any way form or
fashion render him guilty. Like CT intimated the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to prove his guilt; so far they(prosecution) have not begun to do so.
Hi Political-Guru,
Welcome back and happy new year to you also.
Judging merely from a procedural standpoint, I think both the prosecution and the defense had successes and disappointments that day. The defense team’s continued challenges to the use of documents – and the decision by the judges to determine whether it can be considered impeachment material or probative of guilt based on content rather than the intended use by the prosecution — continues to make it more difficult for the prosecution to use all the materials they hoped to during cross-examination. Meanwhile, the prosecution did a good job in pointing out inconsistencies and problems with Mr. Taylor’s prior testimony during the day – such as the discussion around Mr. Taylor’s reasons as to why he stepped down from power, pointing out that some of the examples he used as reasons for relinquishing power had not yet occurred by the time of the Accra meeting.
The day demonstrated again that we have a powerful and effective defense team, and a prosecution team that have done their homework when it comes to challenging Mr. Taylor on the breadth of his testimony, and are putting that homework to good use in court.
Let’s see how it continues to pan out.
Best,
Tracey
Jose,
You are right, international pressure paid a role in CT stepping down. The Brush Administration gave CT 72 hours to step down and me did within that deadline.
So far, the score read Ms Hollis & Mr. Koumjain 1, Mr. Taylor 12.
Nothing was gained today….ZERO!!!! If this is the prosecutor’s goal to DISCREDIT…I cannot see how if the man knows more about the subject matter than the prosecutors. Really, what did Ms Hollis do today except look CHILDISH and DISORGANIZED. So sad that the citizens of Sierra Leone are watching MONEY that could benefit them MORE been wasted.
All this argument on whether taylor stepped down from power willingly or unwillingly is self evident in the last ultimatum of 72 hours given by former president George Bush to taylor to step down! Taylor knew at that moment that Bush meant business! Had he not complied, taylor would had been BBQed just liked Sadam Housein during Desert Storm period! It takes an iron to cut iron!This is buttom line! Taylor feared for his own life and not for peace..it was then he realized life was important..and that was his own life..what a coward and selfish individual this man was! Shame on you taylor for talking peace when all you know is cruelty and deceptions in your short miserable life!
LOL!!!!!
Most people do not understand the complex global imprint of this trial. Everyone is trying to gauge the approach of the defense and the prosecution. The world witnessed the most brutal regimes in West Africa ( Samuel Doe, Charles Taylor) where hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people lost their lives. No matter what we believe or want to believe, the fact is Charles Taylor will not be set free. The United States, United Nations, World Bank, IMF are all behind the curtains in this trial. There are remnants of Charles Taylor’s regime on the United Nations Travel Ban List in Liberia currently. How the hell in the world is he going to be free? The world knows that Charles Taylor’s release will lead to a direct renewal of conflict and destabalization of the West African region. Death, mayhem and rampant destruction of property and life will be unheralded in the region if Ghankay is released. All the political juxtaposition on here is just to pass time. In the end, when it’s all said and done-Charles Taylor, just like his son- will never be allowed the walk as a free man.
Samuel,
I totally disagree with your position here. It is through processes such as this that the real truth is heard by the world. This is the second decade of the millenium where individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and can no longer be fooled as they were in the last decade.
The world is watching the international justice system and they are also no trial here in this case. If they bring a guilty verdict without evidence it will serve as a very dangerous precedent and will totally undermine the credibility of an already very fragile international justice system. Those involved I am sure are wise enough to know this.
As to your insistance that Taylor will start war in the region, is to assume that he is the one who is and has been responsible for the wars that raged in the west African region. That is all conjecture and you know that. So Taylor has been incarcerated for over 3 years, is he also responsible for the instability in Guinea? Come on and get real here.
You speak like you are a sttoge of imperialism. What is the relevance of mentioning all those institutions? They are not all responsible for international justice and many of them are very flawed in their decisions and conclusions, as we are getting to see.
As for the fact of former Taylor officials still languishing on a Travel Ban and Asset Freeze is a total travesty of justice and indeed an embarassment for the UN. It is in violation of their very Charter and the Universal rights of a human being as spelt out in the Universal Declarration of Human Rights, which serves as a guideline for all humanitarian rights. If anyone is smart enough, they will be not gloating over the UN being a vein by which the rights of individuals to fair trial and recourse before a competent jurisdiction before being penalized, is denied; but we all would be demanding that the UN do the right thing and either charge those individuals and thus give them an opportunity to defend themselves or release them immediately.
This entire sanction regime on individuals is tantamount to detention without trial that they speak out against so vehemently. Are you aware of this? Do you know that many of these individuals do not even know why they are on the list and have not been told despite persistent efforts being made by lawyers and themselves. Do you think this is a way the international system should be run? Should individuals not have a right to a fair trial? I should hope not.
You may dislike Mr Taylor but face it the prosecution has been very sloppy and given a very dismal performance. They have gravely fallen short of presenting any tangible evidence on this man. The whole process is becoming very comical. Even you can see this.
If the man is not guilty of the crimes he will walk; and as seen thus far there is no evidence presented that alludes to guilt. The fact that you think he is evil without evidence is irrevelant.
Hello Helen, welcome back and happy new year. Good to see you posting with us again.
Helen, I have one post of yours which you submitted at 2:44am on January15. There is one line that does not fit with our policy — the first sentence in the fourth paragraph. Would you mind removing it and resubmitting? I will be happy to post the revised comment without that one sentence.
Best,
Tracey
Samuel,
I totally disagree with your position here. It is through processes such as this that the real truth is heard by the world. This is the second decade of the millenium where individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and can no longer be fooled as they were in the last decade.
The world is watching the international justice system and they are also no trial here in this case. If they bring a guilty verdict without evidence it will serve as a very dangerous precedent and will totally undermine the credibility of an already very fragile international justice system. Those involved I am sure are wise enough to know this.
As to your insistance that Taylor will start war in the region, is to assume that he is the one who is and has been responsible for the wars that raged in the west African region. That is all conjecture and you know that. So Taylor has been incarcerated for over 3 years, is he also responsible for the instability in Guinea? Come on and get real here.
What is the relevance of mentioning all those institutions? They are not all responsible for international justice and many of them are very flawed in their decisions and conclusions, as we are getting to see.
As for the fact of former Taylor officials still languishing on a Travel Ban and Asset Freeze is a total travesty of justice and indeed an embarassment for the UN. It is in violation of their very Charter and the Universal rights of a human being as spelt out in the Universal Declarration of Human Rights, which serves as a guideline for all humanitarian rights. If anyone is smart enough, they will be not gloating over the UN being a vein by which the rights of individuals to fair trial and recourse before a competent jurisdiction before being penalized, is denied; but we all would be demanding that the UN do the right thing and either charge those individuals and thus give them an opportunity to defend themselves or release them immediately.
This entire sanction regime on individuals is tantamount to detention without trial that they speak out against so vehemently. Are you aware of this? Do you know that many of these individuals do not even know why they are on the list and have not been told despite persistent efforts being made by lawyers and themselves. Do you think this is a way the international system should be run? Should individuals not have a right to a fair trial? I should hope not.
You may dislike Mr Taylor but face it the prosecution has been very sloppy and given a very dismal performance. They have gravely fallen short of presenting any tangible evidence on this man. The whole process is becoming very comical. Even you can see this.
If the man is not guilty of the crimes he will walk; and as seen thus far there is no evidence presented that alludes to guilt. The fact that you think he is evil without evidence is irrevelant.
Samuel,
I agree with you on some of the things you have said. On the other hand, I disagree with you on some.
For example, you said,” the United States, United Nations, World Bank, IMF are all behind the curtains in this trial. There are remnants of Charles Taylor’s regime on the United Nations Travel Ban List in Liberia currently. ” Samuel, probably you forgot to include Great Britain. However, where I disagree with you is to say they are behind the scene. These people are not even bothering anymore to put on their masks.These people are not behind any scene. These people are conspicuously visible in all aspects. Ranging from “British investigators” searching to find his alleged 5 billions. Britain providing prison facility. American prosecutors. Paid witnesses. providing protective status and other benefits and etc. Samuel, where I also disagree with you, is your statement of Taylor will not be set free. That is not true. You wish he will not be set free. However, We are in court, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence. As far as the evidence before those honorable judges and world are concerned, it is not amountable to prove this innocent man guilty. As the result, he will be a free man.
So what you’re saying Samuel is EVEN IF THE EVIDENCES ARE NOT THERE TO CONVICT, HE SHOULD STILL NOT BE SET FREE BECAUSE POWERFUL HANDS ARE IN THE SHADOW….and we were told JUSTICE was what been sought…is that FAIR??
If you ask me, chase TRC in Liberia to come on board….there is where there is a CHANCE to convict….but how, if Liberia passed a FORGIVENESS ACT…meaning ALL are FREE. Will be disobey the LAW on the book??
SAMUEL
If you think Ghankay will not be free even if the judges rule in his favore, you are joking or “PLAYING MARBLE..” I DARE ANY POWER KEEP TAYLOR IN JAIL if he’s not guilty.. Trust me it will be my last day in AMERICA.. DE LIBERIAN PEOPLE ARE NOT FOOLS.. get it.. We are watching, and watching very, very deeply..Some of us would rather die with him in jail..but we the people, will never, never accept that crapt people are thinking….I stop there……
Thank you samuel, you sounds like Toni Blair the whole world is at risk saddan hussain is about to lunch the chemical and biological weapons so buy more food and water.
i want you to know that as powerful as Nigeria is, it is not possible to rage war against ghana and ivory coast and mantain it for even a week least to say the west africa subregion, but on the other hand some of you guys are carried by the western propaganda, we all heard Collin Powell about the weapons of mass destruction that was ready by Saddan Hussien to be fire within 45 minutes, and former British prime Toni Blair reinterated the same and i still have my gas mask waiting for saddan to release the chemical and biological weapon. even the mighty American, British French German and the list goes on finding it very difficult in afghanistan least to say Mr Taylor to distroy west africa is complete nonsence, and western propaganda.
Taylor left because of the pressure from all sides. he didn’t had control over the ports of Liberia any more to ship his arms into Liberia. LURD and MODEL rebels had already taken control over the port of Monrovia and Buchanan. At the time of the last war in 2003, no plane was traveling to Liberia so he couldn’t use air because it could have been traced from where it was coming from. He noted in his speech as posted on the bbc website that “The international community, led by the United States and Britain, had denied Liberians the right to defend themselves by imposing an arms embargo.” Taylor didn’t actually stepped down by Bush 72 hours mandate. His boys were willing to fight the U.S army the same as Somalia if they had arm supplies. And he shouldn’t lie about he (Taylor) stepping down because of the bodies that were placed in front of the embassy. Those bodies as I can still record were during the second war in 2003. At the beginning of the third war in 2003 he ordered his boys to fight from doors to doors and streets to streets. It was during the same third war that he later decided to step down. Those who will believe that are those who were not in Monrovia at the time or his supporters who don’t care to make their research.
Nosirrah makes an elistist argument that is border on a presumption of supremacist mentality. The argument purports tthat those who voted for Charles Taylor in the 1997 election were either illiterates or fearful of Taylor making another war. It iis such blatant disregard for the intelligence of other Liberians that have led to not just the backwardness of our nation but the sole reason for this political trial. Today , in open court, Ms. Hollis ramp up similar supremacist argument when she claimed to have known the mindset of Charles Taylor at the time he gave a speech, at an ECOWAS meeting, regarding natural resources of West Africa. Hollis claimed that at the time of Mr. Taylor giving that speech, Taylor only thoughts was about gold, iron ore, and rubber as natural resources for Liberia, diamonds for SL, and cocoa for Ghana, according to, god Hollis.
Without giving Mr. Taylor the benefit to explain why he referenced those natural resources, Ms. Hollis characterized Taylor as a dumb-fool who knew nothing else about the depth and wealth of Liberia’s rich diamonds, which are mine daily by ordinary people. It is this same kind of mentality that has been offered as justification for why Liberians overwhelingly voted for Taylor. The facts are clear, ordinary Liberians are disappointed in their tradinational political class, due to consistent betrayal and robbery of our national treasure. The recent Montserrado senate bi-election was a classis example that no matter who contested against Liberia elite political class, that person has a better chance of winning than the international sponsored politicians that continue to rape our nation. In the 2005 election, it was the robbery of the people’s vote, sponsored by the international community that brought president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to power.
So Charles Taylor election was not based on any fear by ordinary people, the people made a conscious decision but like what happened in 2005, the socalled international community decided to punished the people by supporting LURD and MODEL wars just to force Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf upon us. Ordinary Liberians do not love this woman and her gang of corrupt government officials, yet she continue to enjoy wide international support. Liberians deserves better and not this fake political trial.
Guys Ms Hollis have never forced Taylor to admit to anything he didn’t do or said. IS THIS JUST WHAT I CALL BLIND LOYALTY? why do people look for others to blame for their deeds? just like we hear form our brothers blaming the” white mans system” when ever they(black men) gets busted doing crime, Taylor is using the same race card as an under-tone to sell his guilty self as a prodigal child of Africa. What a Joke!!! I hope people DON’T fall for this race card and or blame game.
KUGBAY,
Your moral equivalence of what blacks and other minority experienced and still experiencing in the US and that of President Taylor illegal incarceration by the west in disguise of justice, is just appalling with nauseating rejection.
KUGBAY, are you not aware of racial profiling in the US? Are you not aware that minorities are put on death role falsely for crimes that they did not commit and even savagely murdered? Are you not aware of the disparity of economic purchasing power between the whites and minorities? Look, I love America so much that my life is on the line. Therefore, I will not go too far. I will stop here. And I mean it.
Talking about President Taylor, are you not aware that it was President Bush who told this innocent man to stand down and leave his homeland for exile? Are you not away that GB has provided prison facility for this man? Are you not aware that the US and GB are the major donors to this court? Are you not aware that most of the prosecutors are Americans? are you not aware that Executive Outcome and Sandline were fueling the war in Sierra leone by sending arms and ammunition? Are you not aware that no charges have been brought against any European, Canadian, and, or, any companies in the world? Are you not aware that it was the west that told Nigeria to turn this man over?
Ha ha ha…. where is miss Teage??? “go pros. go” Look we don’t want people been silent on this site. Come on, speak your hearts ..What do you have to say now about your new evidence??? Are we going to continue with beliefs, speculations, hearsays, they says???? Is this what some of you folks call justice around here????? Fallah menjor , is this the reson why ELLEN sold our damn good president???? What has she got to do with the pieces of silver now…..
Noko5,
You raised a good issue….For the proponents of CT, Why do you think he is a good leader? Maybe this would help broaden our horizon for those who are pro-Taylor and anti-Taylor….thanks to all
Wow!!!, I seem to have miss a lot. I have not been able to watch any of trial so far but what I see, it is generating lot of steam.
Aki, just to set the record straight, Ulimo was not formed in 1990, so Taylor could not have backed RUF because of Ulimo. Secondly, Joseph Momo was not president of Sierra Leone Quiwonkpa led his coup.
Eye,
Nice observation about Momoh. You are right it was “Papa Siaka”
http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/12409/Joseph-Saidu-Momoh.html
Eagle Eye,
You may be right that ULIMO was not formed in 1990 it was early 1991. In 1985 Momo was the president.
Eagle Eye,
You are correct on Joseph Momoh. The Quiwonkpa invasion happened on November 12, 1985. Momoh took power on November 28th of the same year according to Wikipedia. Never the less the facts are that Sierra leone caused Liberia’s instability first with the sponsored invasion by Quiwonkpa and then there support for ULIMO in 1991. Stop blaming Charles Taylor for Sierra Leone’s problem. Remember 90% of Sierra Leonians said they heard Taylor on the BBC saying “Sierra Leone will taste the bitterness of war” The only problem with what they heard as we found out during the course of the trial is that Charles Taylor never uttered those words.
Aki,
Momoh became president Nov 28, 1985. It was Siaka Stevens at the time of Nov 12
http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/12409/Joseph-Saidu-Momoh.html
Eagle eye,
What year was the Liberian/Sierra Leonean border under constant attack?
Hi Bnker — I got your message about your 1:01pm post. I will wait until I hear more from you.
Best,
Tracey
Nossirah,
You said you left Liberia in 1996 this is why you believe what you are saying about all us illeterate people who voted for Taylor. If this was true however why didn’t they vote for George Boley, Alhaji Kromah etc. and the other rebels? Mark my word if Taylor comes back to Liberia and contest the elections there is a good chance of him winning.
Nosrriah,
I found your exchange with Aki interesting. I am a proponent for trail for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Liberia. You have very strong views that I support…I find it interesting that the “carnage” perpetrated by the NPFL is being some what blamed to the US withdrawing their support from CT (as Aki suggests). I think the reason for the indiscriminate killing as you also believe was encouraged by inaction by the leadership. Atrocities in Liberia spread like cancer. I don’t think Aki got this part right and I think its a fumble on his part. We (Africans) tend to shift blames from ourselves to external parties without first taking an introspective look. No one knows why the US withdrew their support from CT; we can speculate but none of us knew (unless someone in this room worked for the State Department in Washington and is at liberty to discuss it–which I doubt). The carnage is sole the responsibility of the leadership. I sure hope the Liberian people can gather up the courage to put to bed our dark history by seeking justice for the victims.
Over the break I had a discussion with someone very high place in the UN security appartus, in fact this person reports directly to the Security Conuncil and the Secretary General. We discussed Guinea, and the current war crimes court in SL and the importance of the UN criminal courts. To be fair, the person expressed concerned that most of the leaders going on trail are African leaders….the person mentioned the UN report on Israel-Gaza that suggested war crimes and crimes against humanity by both parties (that UN team was headed by a former South African judge)–we doubted anyone would be prosecuted for these acts. Then we talked about the Guinea Leadership and the UN report that suggested prosecution for the President, the acting Junta had (current) and the guy who shot the junta leader. We concluded by saying that some African countries fear prosecuting their leader or those responsible for atrocities as a result the circle of violence continues. The international courts are there to serve as a balancing force or a means to keep leaders in check, because there is another body that can still prosecute. I think this might reduce human right abuses in the future.
However, countries that have taken legal stance against those who committed crimes against their own people are high admired.
Bnker – as you always do, you raised some fascinating points in your post.
I am curious what others think particularly about your second paragraph – the utility of these war crimes courts, especially as they relate to potentially reducing human rights abuses and violence; and the concern that is raised not only in this context, but in relation to the International Criminal Court, regarding the focus on Africa.
And just on that last point: the converse argument I have heard, often by prosecutors of these international courts, to the concern your friend raised about most of the leaders going on trial being African has been this: “the victims of the crimes being prosecuted are African and the world cannot overlook or ignore the suffering they experienced and the abuses they suffered. These trials are a way of bringing justice to those people who otherwise have no options for justice, especially in the wake of conflict when legal systems are often either destroyed or overwhelmed.” I’m curious about what you and others think about these arguments that are both raised regularly on this issue of Africa being a focal point for international justice efforts?
Best,
Tracey
Frankly Tracey,
It doesn’t bother me that most of these leaders thus far have been African leaders or rebels. There should be another case starting soon with a former Serbian general (he’s not African). If I am not mistaken, Africa has been the most unstable continent for the past 50 years. We have ravaged ourselves, our national infrastructure and erased any development and process we have ever made. This arguement goes back to the core responsiblity of leadership and respect for human rights. Democracy is fearly new concept Africa. So what was there prior; “creature” like the Idi Amin Adada, Sekou Toure, Nysengbe Enyadema, Samuel Doe, Dr. Jonas Savanbe, then comes Blaise Comparare, Charles Taylor, Prince Johnson, Alhaji Kromah, Conneh, Lassana Conteh. For many years, we have allowed ourselves to be influenced by selfishness and as so, it has clouded our vision and ability to lead as we should. Take the West African region, for the past 20 years every country has experienced more political turmoil than any region in Africa. Leaders have been the executive, judiciary, and legislature. The overarching power is incredible and dangerous for any one person to have. As such, the arrogrance of our leader is heighten while the voices of the people are mushed, at time some permanently silenced. Until our rulers become leaders, and know that the power is never through the “guns” but is in the people they wish to provide better lives for, I support the UN courts. There has to be checks and balances. It’s impossible for a nation to execute justice when the head of state is the judge, jury and prosecution. Since this exist in many places on this continent still, an external body that has enforceable power is encouraged. These courts are the voice of the voiceless, the strength for the weak and feable, and the inspiration for the broken in spirit. So I would encourage those who are out there advocating for the broken and those crying for justice—-keep on at some point this continent will be one of law.
Thanks Trace, I thought you asked wise questions.
Why do I constantly refer to the leaders as “creatures”, classifying them as human is an upgrade, unfortunately is also deminishes who the true humans are—advocates for justice and victims of violence….so, they will be called anything but humans.
Bnker,
You and your Human Right people should start investigating your role first in African conflicts. You and your Human Right people should start asking the question of how arms and ammunition are sent to Africa, when in fact, these people do not have arm factories. You and your Human Right people should start looking at western government double standard first. However, I know you need a job. But not in our names.
Hi Traceyt,
In regards to the issue raised as to why the interantional Courts seem to only prosecute African leaders, I am also of that opinion. Yes they throw in one or two Eastern European leader for effect but the actual people they are constantly persuing are Africans.
I do not believe that this is because there are no adequate justice system in Africa, it is rather another means by which the West is exercing superiority and world dominance. Again they claim that we do not have any courts in Africa. They have brought to Africans a foreign political system called democracy which is not always compatible with the traditional African way of life. AFRICANS PRACTICED THEIR UNIQUE FORM OF DEMOCRACY FOR CENTURIES AND IT WORKED. Over the centuries we had leaders that governed and listened to the views of their people and had the coorperation and consensus of their people. It worked then. The West however came and brought their form of democracy that is contrary in some respects to the culture of a collectivist African social structure. This helped to disentegrate the moral fabric and social structure of our societies. As a result of this their has been persistent instability.
Africans have to be left alone to formulate a system of governance that works for them without constant intervention from the socalled western international institutions. It took the West several hundred years to develop their unique form of democrasy, so why are they faulting us as we develope ours?
I am not saying that Africans should be given a carte blanche to committ atrocities; however, I believe the prosecutions of Africans should be by Africans and not the West, especially when it tis the west who in most cases are at the root of many of the conflicts in Africa in the first place.
Another point to note is that whenever a Eurpoean or person from the West is a party to any of the atrocities in Africa, they are always let off on some watered down charge or most times not charged at all and are allowed to live normally. So why are they different? In the case of South African apathied, the West did not rest until they negotiated for a truth and reconciliation commission, despite the fact that these crimes were so heineous that they make even the strong minded cringe. We then look at Sierra Leone where Sandline and Executive Outcome have been implcated in the crimes committed but they are immuned from any from of prosecution. Is it because they are of European decent?
The whole concept of international justice has become a tool of the West to punish those who do not fall in line with them and what they want (world dominance). There have very well been African leaders who if following their logic should have been on trial but simply because they are stooges or friends of the west, are left alone.
one other example is with the atrocities being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are those generals, commanders and those that bear the greatest responsibilities not prosecuted? Those Americans that committed the atrocities are given very short sentences. Is this justice? If these atrocities had been committed by any other smal country, they would be in the Hague facing war crimes; but not Americans or British citizens. They are untouchable. The Americans have gone to the extent of getting countries to sign up to the convention stating that US citizens cannot be prosecuted or be held accountable before an international tribunal and yet they (Americans) are the first to call for the prosecution of everyone else except their allies and friends from the West. This is by far not a level playing field.
Yes I do fully agree that this international justice system is biased. I believe it is only for third world countries and emering countries. The developed western countries are the untouchables and can act with impunity whenever they choose.
Helen — thanks for your thoughts on this. You raise important points, and ones that a lot of people are concerned about and discussing.
Just to add more background as food for further conversation about the international justice courts: there is now a hybrid court operating in Cambodia for the Khmer Rouge crimes of the 1970s – one of the people indicted is the former head of state during that period, Kheiu Samphan. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was set up in 1993 to try people most responsible for the balkans war in Europe, and it included the trial of Slobodan Milosevic (although the case never came to the point of judgment as Mr. Milosevic died before his case concluded) and so far has indicted and prosecuted 161 people; and the International Criminal Court – while its current cases are all in Africa – is also analyzing a number of other countries to determine whether to take them up as cases: this includes Georgia; Colombia; Palestine; and Afghanistan.
Best,
Tracey
Varney Johnson,
Samuel Doe is dead therefore he cannot be brought to court. With regards to the other horrible incidents in Liberia’s history, perpertrators should be brought to justice without reference to association or affiliation. Anybody who committed crimes against the Liberian people should be held accountable. This will not only give value to those violated, but it will also serve as a deterent to future violators that you cannot kill people, take an entire country hostage and committ inhumane acts against its populace with impunity. There are lots of people that are not so ingenuitive and are waiting to copy tyrants and rebels alike, therefore the sooner we can put stop to this vicious cycle of violence, the sooner we can live as a civil society.
I think that this Jan. 14 summary is mixed up with the Jan. 11 summary that should be on your site, but is not. Jan. 11th is the first transcript of the new year dealing with information you have stated in this summary. Jan. 14 deals with several other issues.
Thanks,
Dave