69 Comments

1. Wow, gankay boy is trying hard to justify why he opened accounts in his personal name and for what purposes these accounts were intended and used! Well, maybe The Sirleaf Government should consider openning new accounts in Ellen’s name to fight new enemies of state, namely; taylor supporters because it seems that they will attempt to distabalize peaceful Liberia if the chief goes down to life imprisonment as he stands high chances from these newest justifications! Taylor may even attempt to justify why he killed Sam Dokie and entire family because to him,”if you kill a crocodile and leave the eggs behind, you will have new offsprings that will come to hunt you!” Excellent logic Gankay! You are a wise man in your little fantasy world you and your supporters seem to live in! But let me say this to you, chief; You have no right in converting national coffer into your own name no matter what the stae of emergency or fears you had about loosing power. This admission just gave the world another reason to believe the sanity of your presidency and further mendling into the affairs of Sierra Leone to say the least! Shame on your cheap justifications, taylor!

   1. Hum!

      I thought big brother CT had no idea or no specific knowledge of this secret covert account. OK…this is ‘revelation’ to me and I stop here until I can revisit the archives of the transcripts.

      Tracey, is there any legislative act on this matter provided by CT’s defense that we could locate in the archives of your transcripts? I just want to read. However, if this is a sensitive legal question please delete and do not post.

      1. My impression was that CT dismissed Chea’s claims on account that he did not know when, where, and under what condition the interview occur or if it ever occur in the first place and I thought it was a fine argument. However, I am getting a different vibe from comments in his re-examination on Daniel Chea…is this an admission by CT this interview took place and because it took place he can respond definitively with a ” I disagree”?

         1. Noko7,

            You may not know of something; that does not mean when you are asked about the same issue in the future, you can not comment, since infact you have already been told about it previously. Bro, find something very substantive to get the President on and not just mere tone.

      2. Hi there Noko7 — do you mean a legislative act which would have approved Mr. Taylor’s opening of a covert account? I’m not sure — let me check with Alpha to see if Mr. Taylor also discussed in court how the legislature approved this account’s opening.
         Best,
         Tracey

         1. Yes and thanks, Tracey.

            1. Hi Noko7,

               Alpha helped me out on this one. This is what he told me: “Mr. Taylor explained that sometime in late November to early December 1999, the Liberian legislature authorized him to use “any and all means necessary” to defend the Republic of Liberia from attacks by LURD rebel forces. He said this was after he had told the legislature that since the country was under a UN arms embargo, the government needed extra-ordinary measures to fight the rebel forces. It was in this light that the legislature passed a resolution that he should use any and all means necessary. According to him, opening a covert account was one extra-ordinary measure that he instituted as part of the authorization to use any and all means necessary. He said that was why he opened the account on December 8, 2000, immediately after the resolution was passed. He did not go into further details on the resolution, nor did he produce any written document to show that such resolution was passed or whether there was expressed authority to open a covert account.”

               Does this help, Noko7?

               Best,
               Tracey

            2. Yes, it did.

               Many thanks to you, my dearest brother, Alpha, and your team for the research.

            3. Thanks Noko7 — glad it helped.
               Best,
               Tracey

      3. Noko7,

         What are you talking about that you thought Taylor never had a specific recollection/knowledge of a secret account? Please be specific Noko7. If you didn’t know, now you know that it was President Taylor who made mention of this covert account and he told you and the world his reason. However, the prosesution has lied enough to change the matrix of the essence of the trial. What the governance of Liberia has to do with Sierra Leoneans chopping each other up? Noko7, show us your proof so we can discuss it. How how is that? The side that I am on, has shown you through videos, RUF Salute report, documents, and facts of how arms and ammunition went to Sierra Leone. And how Taylor had nothing to do with it. Nontheless, show us your video/audio recording on Taylor involvement. Show us your Salute Report. Show us your prosecution monopoly money of FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. Show us your proof so we can discuss it.

         1. Jose,

            I will make three comments and move on.

            First, I am not sure what you mean by this question: “Noko7, show us your proof so we can discuss it.” I did not make a claim, accusation, or claim to possess any evidence in this case. To refresh our memory, here what I wrote to the particular transcript:
            My impression was that CT dismissed Chea’s claims on account that he did not know when, where, and under what condition the interview occur or if it ever occur in the first place and I thought it was a fine argument. However, I am getting a different vibe from comments in his re-examination on Daniel Chea…is this an admission by CT this interview took place and because it took place he can respond definitively with a ” I disagree”?

            And here is another comment I posted to this transcript:
            Hum!
            I thought big brother CT had no idea or no specific knowledge of this secret covert account. OK…this is ‘revelation’ to me and I stop here until I can revisit the archives of the transcripts.
            Tracey, is there any legislative act on this matter provided by CT’s defense that we could locate in the archives of your transcripts? I just want to read. However, if this is a sensitive legal question please delete and do not post.

            Jose, please show me grounds to submit proof of evidence based on what I said.

            Second, I fully understand which side you are on as you reminded us in this sentence: The side that I am on, has shown you through videos, RUF Salute report, documents, and facts of how arms and ammunition went to Sierra Leone.” However, honestly, I am unmoved by whatever emotional or political leaning folks might have during this proceedings and I am really not bother with which sides folks are on. Much as I admire CT during the offset of his rebellion, I have, will, and must not be pro-Taylor or anti-Taylor. I will look at the issues, raise questions where needed, and make balanced comments. What I am trying to do is discuss aspects of the transcripts from an objective, not emotional, perspective.

            Third, much as I know what you are alluding to, I believe we must empathetic and sensitive to the destruction that visited the people of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Rwanda, and other countries and be careful with the use of words to describe what occurred. I am here referring to your comment: What the governance of Liberia has to do with Sierra Leoneans “chopping each other up?”

            P.S. Tracey or Alpha, please post this one and not the other…clarity issue.

            1. Noko7 — of course — happy to post this one.

               And I do second your request that we try to be as sensitive as possible to peoples’ suffering during the war when we refer to or describe what happened during the conflict.

               Best,
               Tracey

   2. Fallah,

      At least Taylor is as you put it trying hard to justify….In contrast your prosecution did not try hard to vindicate taylor claims that they provided false witnesses to testify in court. The witnesses lied that Sankoh was in MOnrovia meeting taylor while sankoh was in jail. the prosecution never came up to refute any of taylor’s counter punches.

      So please have it quiet and watch perry mason do his thing.

2. Well folks,

   There could be a little bit of diaappointing news, coming from Jose Rodriguez about his weekly reliable responses and take on issues as it unfolds. Well, let be take that back. It’s really not a disappointment news. Because I could still comment, if something percolates in here folks. Anyways, I will post everyday, the website that shows how it was President Kabbah and his international sponsors that destroyed, annihilated, and took the Sierra Leonean people diamonds. And they are wilfully and maliciously scapegoating this innocent man in a navigated diversionary manner.

   THIS IS THE VIDEO AND WEBSITE.

   http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=28164402

   1. Thanks, Jose, for the link…but I am getting the vibe that you are slightly downcast. Hang on in there, bro. We have ways to go before it is all over. At the sound of the last gavel, we all will breath a sigh of relief.

      1. Noko7,

         I am only providing the opportunity to those who have not seen this video as of yet. However, I am committed to posting it everyday bro, for at least a week. Trust me, you haven’t seen anything yet from Jose Rodriguez. I am only warming up. This warm up is just a prelude of what to come. I will not stop posting, until almost everybody in the entire world see this trial from a different perspective. And not to allow the powerful to be entitled to their own facts through manipulation, and deceits.

         1. Oh, Boy!

            Jose, you know I love what an old sage said: ‘do not blow your own trumpet.’ This proverbial statement is time tested.

            I was only complementing you and not soliciting for more video links from you as I will not have time to watch them but you are at liberty to post them anyway.

3. This beggars belief… why would you open a covert account in your own name?!

   Did the defense document the claims that the money went to ATU/SSS/arms deals?

   Did he present the legislative act that permitted him to open a covert account?

   It seems like Mr Taylor is only digging himself into a deeper hole claiming that he didn’t steal the money.

   1. Digressions,
      Let us accept your logic that he stole money. For us the citizens in Liberia who he was fighting to defend we will continue to disagree with you. However what does this bank account have to do with the charges he is indicted for?

   2. Digression,

      Take him to court for breaking Liberia law. The side you are on had over seven years to at least prove just one of the charges, and they are yet to do just that. That should be your concern and worry. Instead of this innocent man digger so-call deeper hole. Do you know who have dug the deepest hole here? It is the prosecution who witnesses contradicted each other in a nauseating disgusted embarrassment. Digression, where is the 5 billion dollars that was to be given to the vitims of Sierra Leone? I guess it’s all monopoly money. Keep falling for the prosecution lies.

4. J Fallah Menjor, Ms Teage and co prosecution people…any comment on day1 of the re-examination? I have always said that the prosecution during cross exam will ask questions that tend to favour their case while limiting the witness’s ability to correctly put matters in perspective. Now that Perry Mason has started the re-exam the witness now has the opportunity to clarify issues such as the LBDI account which is the “straw” that the prosecution has grabbed in an effort to prove that Charles Taylor has “billions of dollars in foreign banks”.

5. Taylor and his leading consul make such good acting team. Taylor, who during cross examination by the prosecution team, wouldn’t remember even the slightest details of major acts he carried out like spending millions (despite the fact that his only job for over four years has been preparing for this trial) has suddenly become sharp.
   The interesting thing is that their acting is so clear that any keen observer can predict Taylor’s answers for questions from his consul as soon as the questions are being formulated.
   For those who have been questioning the efficiency of the prosecution’s strategy and questioning whether the prosecution did a brilliant job, Taylor’s reexamination by his his defend consul yesterday gives glimpses of how the prosecution has sufficiently destroy Taylor’s testimony beyond repair.
   From agreeing that he was a dictator to such an extent that not even his Defend Minister would question his decisions and activities to agreeing that it is foolishness and dishonesty to question the integrity of UN investigation( Carter Camp’s massacre but forgot that he was in Hague largely because the UN panel of expert reports). From the absurdity of listing lot of persons who knew about a covert account (which if true render the account overt) to the stupidity in having two signers of the account when his Special Assistant was an angel of honesty. From cherry-picking the interview of his Defend Minister when a portion suit his case but questioning the authenticity of the interview when it undermine his testimony to completely misinterpreting the Ghana’s president’s interview in order to resurrect his dead testimony. From the illogicality of his subtle claim of Nigeria and its leader being stooges of the West and yet that was the very place he sought refuge from the West.
   Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence who choose to take a voyage through Taylor’s testimony will quickly see that Taylor is making up his testimony and using any means possible.

6. But Mr Chea should not have only commented as such.He should have been bold enough to explain to the court how he and the late Sam Bockarie used to visit the VOA-1 refugee camp in Brewerville to hoax young men into fighting at two fronts,namely,Guinea and The Ivory Copast.

   It’s only when I personally would view Mr Cheah as a decent man with a penchant for the truth.

   1. Vaa,
      I think you are saying the truth this time. He really should have wtithin the margins of precised precitions not only comment but be bold as you said to show those deceitful dirty deals he was in unknowingly to president Taylor while serving as defence minister. I bet Daniel Daniel Chea stand in front of me and say he’s innocent of any wrong doing when it came to the NPFL. Some of us who were there know what he did. Heis now trying to make himself look like an angel, trust me he’s not. He was part of the day to day activities of the NPFL malitials as minister of defence..

      1. Noko5,
         The term is “CYA” (Cover your “donkey”). If Chea didn’t disclose his deeds, he is probably trying to protect himself. Most of these guys knew the UN was setting a dragnet.

         1. Bnker,
            Trust me, some of the corns who worked for Taylor and now think that coming up and saying things against now would save their butts in the future, I can now tell them to think 100 times, because if they were smart, they would know that once you catch the head of a snake , the rest of the body is nothing.Daniel Chea better pray for Taylor and as a defence minister from Gbrnga to Monrovia, I don’t see him out of future indictments if there would be any. Maybe he needs to read about Hitler and the after effects of world war 11, up to todays date.

7. Atleast we now are getting DETAILS instead of the the SHORT ANSWERS Ms. Hollis and Mr. Koumjain wanted….a complicated matter deserves IN DEPTH answers.

   No, I cannot do a SCORE reads since Mr. Taylor is been questioned by his team…..but so far, based on what been produced by both sides, Mr. Taylor should be a FREE MAN.

8. Did Taylor challenge the court to find any Bank account in his name anywhere in the world? When Taylor issued this challenge had he forgotten about this’ Personal Account’ that played host to millions of dollars? Are we to understand that Taylor suffered yet another lapse of memory, another case of ‘selective amnisia’? It needs to be said that Taylor denied the existence of any such account and when and only when the prosecution unearthed the said account that we hear Taylor giving us a rather convoluted explaination.
   This is yet another issue that goes to impeaching his credibility, and illustrates the duplicity and venality of the man and his administration……. Taylor is in trouble!!!

   1. Wadi-Williams,
      Mr. Taylor challenge the court to find any Bank account in his name anywhere in the world was not as simple as you put it. If you read that challenge of Mr. Taylor, you will know what I am referring too.

      What the prosecution did not do with this account, which is the only one they found and it did not have billions or billion of dollars that went through it, was not presenting any other banks statement that Mr. Taylor took this money and enriched himself as the prosecution claim.

      If Mr. Taylor did not pay from this account what he claims, then where did the money go or where is the money now? This was something the prosecution needed to provide in order to sustain that this account was indeed Mr. Taylor for his use to enrich himself and not an account in line with defending his country.

   2. Wadi,
      Mr. Taylor’s challlenge was more to do with the 5 BILLIONS dollars we heard about…the one that the prosecutors have yet to show us.. And no he didn’t….hope you are following the trial CAREFULLY.

      1. Noko4/Ken,

         What some of the western media has embarked on is just PR campaign for this failed prosecution. Some are saying Mr. Taylor challanged the prosecution of any financial wrong doings. And the prosecutors brought forward personal accounts in President Taylor name. Noko4 and Ken, can you guys imagine this? Not only did they lie, or twisted the facts, but they are making the news, instead of reporting the news. All those that are actually following this case know that President Taylor challenge was as the result of the prosecution accusing him of stashing up 5 billion dollars in foreign banks and the money will be given to the victims of Sierra Leone. When the man challenged them to produce the money, they brought some long time account in Liberia that had a balance of zero and say, see, we found your account. UNBELIEVABLE. Was this man challenge all about not having an account ever?
         JESUS CHRIST.

         1. Jose Rodriguez
            I do not think Mr. Taylor challenge was all about not having an account ever. The prosecution came up with that claim after they could not produce bank accounts connected to Mr. Taylor with billion of dollar involved. I thought Mr. Taylor challenge was more of find a bank account in his name with money in it. You are right the prosecutor (one of them) did accuse Mr. Taylor of stashing up 5 billion dollars in foreign banks and when the money is, recover will be share with the victims of Sierra Leone.

         2. Ken,

            We are saying the same thing. i agree with you Ken.

   3. Wadi-Williams

      If this money exist, it will be impossible for the prosecution to find it. Mr. Taylor dealt with people that were ten times more shadier than the people Bernie Madoff (the guy responsible for one of the biggest ponzi scheme) dealt with, and the money Bernie Madoff stashed away was never found. If that money exsit it will never be found? Even if the prosecution find/found the money, it would be consider “fresh evidence”. Because nine times out of ten Mr. Taylor name would not be on the account and the prosecution would only be able to link Mr. Taylor to the account. Sad to say but I think “the bullets jammed on the prosecution for that smoking gun”.

      1. All those responding to Wadi,

         I wrote a long thread several months ago when this LBDI account thing popped up and the Swiss banking system. Some argued that this account was covert. Taylor claimed he was being monitored by the World Bank, UN and IMF so he wisely opened an account titled, “Charles Taylor”, so much for hiding, stupid! I will first admit, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but even I know that I shouldn’t put an account in my name when the “bulls eye” is on my chest. More puzzling was the person who was joint or authorized signatory. Why not some member of the national security team (Chea, VP, or someone)? This account was used for “covert”, true…it was not to be found. Taylor’s logic is so flawed and frankly upsetting to think he can fool anyone with that “childish” story. I guess only the gullible ones will believe this LIE!

         On the 5 billion dollars, if that money exist and is in the Swiss bank, it will take many, many years to have access to it. I wrote a long thread detailing the difficulties of dealing with the Swiss banking system Unlike the LBDI account that has a name for account holder, the Swiss bank has 10 digits access numbers (no names attached).

         Anyhow, I get upset when I think about how our leaders misuse funds and power.

         I guess is the show is not over until the curtains come down.

         1. $$NKER,
            Do you believe if the prosecutors had siad info you’re telling us, they will keep it away from the judges?? The CIA, MI5 and all of the int’l inttelligent agencies are working for the prosecutors, and ZERO they have found. What does that tell you??

      2. Al Solo Nyonteh,

         Not only the bullet jammed on the prosecution, but it can not even be ejected from the chamber through the normal procedure. You will however, have to dismantle the entire weapon in other to get that one jammed bullet out.

9. All of you who’s believing that Taylor( God’s own child) is trouble, I say to you that it is absurd of you to have negated the fact of Taylor walking free. Are you guys trying to rewrite the law or make a new law book? I did not study law but I still know that to convict a man of crimes, there must be proof. Ok, so Liberia, Liberia , Liberia is what the justifies the guilt of Taylor. I never knew that the western law is like that. Rodriguez made it simple by giving you guys the website: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=28164402

   to enhance your knowledge of what really happened. Financial CEOs backed by the west find it not stranged to hire mercenaries to kill innocent people to protect their assets. Now they have decided to pinpoint an innocent man to waste their dirt on. But I will say one thing. Their evil plans will go right down the drain. God Almighty holds the decision of this case. The Victory of Charles G. Taylor has been packaged by God Himself. No man that walked the face of this earth will decide the fate of Taylor. The Lord will vindicate Taylor and all eyes will see what God can do.

   Bank account, Bank account, Bank account; you guys need to do more research on other countries covert operations see how they have disbursed funds.

   In Jesus name Charles Taylor will be free.

   1. Hi Max, re.:”In Jesus name Charles Taylor will be free.” – for your information: your leader has converted to Judaism – Jesus does not figure there. Does anyone know how this happened, his conversion from Baptist to Jew?

   2. Maximus Arellus

      Mr. Taylor defense team has produce a great reasonable defense, so I understand your frustration . The problem is Mr. Taylor is being charged with three separate types of responsibilities to the conflict in SL. These responsibilities range from instigating to giving direct orders. If you start putting the piece of the puzzle together that the prosecution has laid out, it’s clear Mr.Taylor instigated in the conflict in SL. I understand you are taking Mr. Taylor version of how he instigated (as a peace keeper) in the conflict. I just can’t ignore the undisputed facts that NPFL solider fought with RUF rebels in the SL conflict (I’m not convinced that they were recruited as mercenaries), Liberia was never totally disarmed but Mr. Taylor acquired additional weapons, Mr. Taylor recruited Sam Bockarie men, and Mr. Taylor participated in the transfer of power in the RUF. If you put those pieces with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it’s clear Mr. Taylor at minimum, instigated in the SL conflict. Yes, I agree that other were responsible for the conflict in SL. Unfortunately they are shelter from prosecution under international laws.

   3. Max,
      This link is like the soda can that you drink out off, “recycle”. This link was presented before.

10. Hey Guys

    Wadi-Williams,Big Joe, digression, J Fallah Menjor. I really don’t know where you guys got your Understanding but if from what you guys been reading then I am sorry

    If the prosecutor is depending on this Account to Prove that Mr.Taylor had money saving then i am sorry for them cause the Intent is very In material cause the both Account were used out.

    I know by now some of you guys are confused over what i am talking, I am saying that during jurisdiction The Judges will have to look for intent now if these account had money still in them it was going to be a problem for Mr.Taylor cause the Account would have been interpreted that Mr.Taylor was keeping money for personnel used. But fortunate for Mr.Taylor they were empty meaning that he used this Money for their Intended Purpose it do not show any attempt of storing the for personal used.

    The prosecutor felt short of Providing disbursement Information about this account meaning that they had something to hide when Mr.Taylor challenger them.

    Fallah People need proof here and not speculation CGT was president he said that The Liberian Legislator give him that Power. if the prosecutor fail to disprove the information then that their business sorry bro

    The prosecutor when all out to look for what ever green to cook their soup to no avail.
    even with the Knowledge of what these account were used for they still brought it up.

    Look the Judges will be look for Proof not because Mr.Taylor government operated a bank account @ LBDI means he had it all over the would. and these are not Five Billion

    BYE
    Zobon

    1. Zobon

       You are digging to deep. This account proves Mr. Taylor had a way to supply weapons and he actually supplied weapons (it dosen’t prove to whom the weapon were supplied). This is only one piece of the prosecution case “the means” and it only indicates Mr. Taylor had a way to supply weapons. Although you may dismiss as hearsay or unreliable the prosecution has already had witnesses who testified about how Mr. Taylor supplied the RUF.

       1. Hi Jose Rodriguez — I got a post from you today at 3:44am but I cannot post it as it doesn’t accord with our policy. If you remove the first two sentences, or change them to take the focus off another reader and resubmit, I will be happy to post it.
          Thanks for your understanding,
          Best,
          tracey

11. Why should this account be of such heated debate? Is there any record to show that monies were transferred from Sierra Leone? This case isn’t about Liberia. I hope people know that well. We heard about billions in accounts worldwide. Where are the other accounts in forgein banks? This case is a waste of money. Stop prosecuting the wrong guy.

12. Wadi Williams,
    If Taylor was trying to hide money. Do you think he would be stupid enough to hide it in Liberia? The challenge was for the billions of dollars which was supposed to be banked in Europe and the United States. The case is so weak that you are grabbing for any straw. Which man of means in the world does not have an account. So do not take what Taylor said literally but I guess this is the only hope you have.

13. Wow!! Guilty as charged!! That is what some of you guys want.

    Menjor, Wadi, et al, through all the testamonies so far, where is the direct link or overwhelming proof of the Taylor’s direct link with the crimes commited in Freetown?

    Taylor is not on trial for what he did in Liberia, let not forget. Of all the so call accounts worldwide, the prosecution could only come up with an account in Liberia where the billions of dollars were stored? After Kabbeh’s letter that stated that they had overwhelming evidence that Taylor was behind everything going on in Freetown, why couldn’t after so many years of preparing their case, that the prosecution did not use the evidence that Kabbah wrote about?

    Guys, don’t be blinded by hatred. If you got a problem with what Charles Taylor did in Liberia, campaign for that. Do not let your hatred and malice for the man consume you. The case is weak, there is no direct or indirect evidence.

    1. Hey Bro,

       I don’t think the prosecution is trying to show CT connection to RUF any longer. Maybe somewhere down the line there will be something that establishes direct link, however, I believe that they are attempting to portray him as a “liar” and “dishonest”; therefore, his accounts or denial of events in SL is no surprise (from the prosecution perspective). Second, the prosecution is trying to display that he had no regards for human rights and life of his own people (he technically have tides to); least the people of SL (so the killings didn’t bother him–from the vintage point of the prosecution). If anyone is looking for direct link, they may never get it. So the “direct link” argument is losing its “spunk” or “sting”. From my assessment, as long as Hollis et al pierce hole in the credibility of the defense strategy, they would succeed. However, a good defense strategy could “clog” all leakage and doubts. Frankly, they have a mountain to climb. CT practically talk himself into deeper waters and his arrogance fueled the long winded responses.

       This is my observation thus far.

       1. Please don’t make me fart…..a LIAR in one case does not equal a LIAR in all cases.

          We were promised AN AIR TIGHT CASE…..SEALED…but it looks like a swiss cheese to me…..lots of holes.

          1. Noko4,

             Have you ever watch the thriller for a movie that makes you excited and when you finally see the movie, you are disappointed? Well, the trial is the same for some, I guess you included. I personally have enjoyed the battles of the minds—either side trying to outwit the other–I call this a good spectacle!

14. Zobon,
    You are right that some of of us are confused at what you are saying, not because what you are saying are complex but because they are just not logical.
    The issue of the account is not to prove Taylor guilty of the crimes he is accused of but to impeach his testimony.

15. Greetings:
    I have been reading with keen interest the court summaries and comments bout the private account of former president Charles Taylor.

    The creation of a private bank account in the name of the president was and is illegal.

    Even if the the National gave such an approval, it would have been unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

    I doubt that such an approval was given.

    Can some one produce the legislative act for our reading?

    1. Hi Janga A Kowo,

       Good question. The legislative act was not produced in court when Mr. Taylor discussed the legislative approval for the opening of the account.

       In case it helps, here are some of the details from teh testimony thanks to Alpha: “Mr. Taylor explained that sometime in late November to early December 1999, the Liberian legislature authorised him to use “any and all means necessary” to defend the Republic of Liberia from attacks by LURD rebel forces. He said this was after he had told the legislature that since the country was under a UN arms embargo, the government needed extra-ordinary measures to fight the rebel forces. It was in this light that the legislature passed a resolution that he he should use any and all means necessary. According to him, opening a covert account was one extra-ordinary measure that he instituted as part of the authorization to use any and all means neccessary. He said that was why he opened the account on December 8 2000, immediately after the resolution was passed. He did not go into further details on the resolution, nor did he produce any written document to show that such resolution was passed or whether there was expressed authority to open a covert account.”

       Best,
       Tracey

       1. Tracey,
          Do we ever see the President of US SECRET SIGNINGS?? NO!! Does that mean Congress is not in the loop?? NO!!!.

          The APPROVAL didn’t need a FLOOR VOTE but simply leltting a SELECT FEW know. And YES, it was OKAYED by the SELECT FEW. So if the prosecutor is bend on DISPROVING that, let them go ask the Gov’t of Liberia…

          1. HUH? I am lost, where did that come from and where is it going? That question to Tracey is at best trivial.

16. 1)I’m confused about a couple of things. of all the witnesses that they called accusing Mr. Taylor of things in SL, why not call Kabbah? Essa Sessay did and Kabbah showed up and testified.

    2)these financial documents should have been introduced during direct examination and the bank manager should have been called to speak about this account instead of just introducing these documents through Taylor.

    3)why try to use a statement from the friend of Mrs. Campbell instead of just contacting and asking Mrs. Campbell herself?

    4)If they wanted to cast doubt on Taylor assertion that he was point president, why not just go talk to the members of the heads of state and introduce their statements instead of using statements from Generals with axe to grind and calling them a head of state?

    Alpa or Tracey can you help me with this?

    1. Mack — these are really excellent questions.

       On (1) You are right: Issa Sesay did ask for former Sierra Leonean president, Alhaji Kabbah, to testify in his defense, and the judges issued a subpoena compelling Mr. Kabbah to testify in 2008. (By the way, if I remember correctly, Mr. Kabbah was also asked to appear in the Civil Defense Forces case, but the appeals chamber didn’t allow the request for him to be subpoenaed in the end). In this case, it is really up to the prosecution to determine who they call as witnesses, and only they know why they did not choose to call Mr. Kabbah during their case in chief.

       On (2), the prosecution has some latitude to determine which documents they produce at what time. They are supposed to bring all their evidence to prove charges against Mr. Taylor during their case-in-chief, but they may choose also to hold some documents back for their cross-examination as they try to impeach the testimony of witnesses on the stand. So, you are right that it is a matter of tactics and decision-making on the part of the prosecution.

       On (3), it is worth us doing a larger piece on this, which I hope to try to do soon if I can get the time to pull all the research together.

       On (4), we do not know who the prosecution interviewed in developing their case, so they may (or may not) have spoken to other West African leaders in the course of their investigations. It may also be possible, given Mr. Taylor’s line of defense, that his defense team may want to call other West African leaders at the time that Mr. Taylor was president to try to back up Mr. Taylor’s claim that any contact he had with Sierra Leonean rebels was solely in his role as a peacemaker, and he did so with the knowledge and acquiescence of these leaders. We might have to wait and see if any of them make an appearance during the defense case.

       Does this help? Hope to get back to you on the Naomi Campbell issue soon if I can.

       Best,
       Tracey

17. Zobon,
    You are absolutely right. I am completely confuse at your analysis but not because your analysis is complex simply because it is not logical.
    The prosecution raising the issue of the so-called covert account was not intended for the purpose of guilt otherwise the judges would have permitted it use. It was simply to impeach Taylor’s testimony.

18. I DON’T KNOW WHEN WILLTHIS SO CALLED CASE COME TO END. EVERY GOD BLESSING DAY LIBERIA, NOT SIERRA LEONE, BANK ACCOUNT IN LIBERIA, NOT OTHER PARTS IN THE WORLD, TOTAL WASTE OF THE GOOD TIME OF CGT.

19. I’m confused about which account Mr Taylor opened in Dec 2000 — it can’t have been the LBDI account because the OTC-related deposit was made in July of that year.

    1. Digressions –let us just clarify this and revert
       Best
       Tracey

20. Tracey
    Mr. Taylor does not need to call any West African president to back up this role as peace maker because the prosecution own documents from ECOWAS clearly supports Mr. Taylor’s position that he was “mandated” as the point president for the SL peace process. Except the prosecution wants to reject their own evidence that they presented , which they only used part of the document. But Defense Cousel Griffins has turn the prosecution own documents on its head by reading direct portions from the ECOWAS communiques which without doubt suports Mr. Taylor version that he was the point president for peace. The document , as was read yesterday in court, clearly indicated that Taylor was asked to “personally get involve” with the SL peace process.

    Regarding the issue of covert account, I think some bloggers here are missing the issue. The intent of the account was to by-pass the international monitoring system, of funds going in and out of the National Bank of Liberia. And the fact that the government of Liberia was successful in doing that demonstrates that the account was indeed a covert account that the UN was unable to monitored. Taylor had to open the account in his own name as president , so as to get a frim control over the account. As a matter of fact, all the prosecution documents proves that the monies withdrew from that account were mostly paid to Liberian security forces. And those monies the prosecution could not account for, Mr. Taylor admitted that the government of Liberia used the money to purchase weapons for Liberia’s self-defense.

    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that Taylor was not mandated by the Liberian legislature to open such an account. But even if Taylor is proven in the negative, the issue of the bank account is not in contention because , like I stated, LBDI is not a foriegn bank but a local Liberian bank. The prosecution must show us the proof, and they have FAILED.

    On a serious note, the total amount as was attempted to be calculated by Mr. Koujain was not more than fifteen millions ($15m) dollars. That amount is too small when one consider the prosecution claims that Taylor has billions of dollars kept in foriegn banks. The LBDI is not a foreign bank.

21. I think Mr. Taylor has to be careful here because it is possible that Daniel Chea could have been misquoted.

22. Noko4,
    I am not saying that they will hide such information, they may choose to release it later. I think I mentioned I don’t think there is hard evidence. Remember Tracey explained that the prosecution and defense is at liberty to disclose all evidence before or during the trial. We all witness this, the prosecution brought forth new evidence in the middle of testimony. So if there is maybe its going to be introduced later; that’s why I said they are “kicking the can” down the road. I don’t know what they have. We are all speculating. Well, I am!

    1. Jose — sorry I cannot post your 6:54pm post as it focuses on another reader.
       Best,
       Tracey

23. Tracey, thank you for checking about the 2000 date.

    As for the billions, I understand that the prosecutor said this is the TOTAL amount of transactions — but that much of it was the same money because the US bank that the LBDI money was transferred to was a ‘Sweep Account’ — that is:

    A bank account that automatically transfers amounts that exceed a certain level into a higher interest earning investment option at the close of each business day. Commonly, the excess cash is swept into money market funds. At the open of each business day, the money is returned to the account.

    This is done to provide the customer with the greatest amount of interest with the minimum amount of personal intervention.

    But with such daily transactions, the total amount of transactions can rise quickly.

    I’m not sure why the prosecution chose to report the total in transactions ($billions) rather than the actual sum of money (likely $10 – $100s of millions)…

    It also isn’t clear to me if the US accounts were government of Liberia accounts or C Taylor’s personal accounts —

    Tracey, was that made clear in the actual testimony?

    Either way, it certainly suggests that the US banking authorities fell down on their legal responsibility to report suspicious transfers.

    Further, given that the OTC-related money was transferred to the US accounts, doesn’t it also undermine Taylor’s argument for a ‘covert account’?

    1. Digressions — as always, great questions. Let me revert — it may take me a little time to look up the transcripts so please may I ask for your patience while I do the research to give a proper answer?
       Best,
       Tracey

    2. Digression,

       Sorry. Your understanding of the prosecution saying the billions they talked about is the total amount of money for Taylor is wrrrrrooooooooooogggggggggggg!!!!!!
       Please don’t rewrite or change history here. The prosecutor clearly said Taylor has 5 billion dollars in foreign banks and the money will be given to the victims of Sierra leone. It was when Mr. Taylor challenged them to bring the 5 billion dollars.

       Digression, stop misrepresenting the facts. Where is the money? Sierra Leonean victims are waiting for the money.

24. Jose,
    I’m not misrepresenting the facts.
    Go back and read the 2008 report:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7379536.stm

    “Liberia’s ex-President Charles Taylor had transactions of about $5bn in two US bank accounts during his presidency, his prosecutor has told the BBC.”

    The headline writer got it wrong — there WAS $5bn in transactions — but this doesn’t represent the total amount in the accounts — I don’t know what the total was, b/c the account was a sweep account, the total amount of transactions isn’t a good representation of the sum of actual outside deposits.

    I don’t know why the prosecutor didn’t reveal the total amount of outside deposits, but I can see how a big number like $5 bn gets picked up by the media and the headline writer gets it wrong (CT had ‘billions’ in the bank).

Comments are closed.