PHILIPSBURG:--- NAGICO Insurances has decided to help create awareness about being environmentally friendly by providing an opportunity for persons to reduce their usage of single-use plastic bags on our island. As a practical step, NAGICO Insurances will be distributing over 2,500 re-usable shopping bags in local supermarkets and shops and are these bags are FREE!
Global Ethics Day was instituted in 2014 to provide organizations around the world with the opportunity to host events focused on exploring the role of ethics in a globalized world. “This year, we will be celebrating Global Ethics Day under the theme ‘NAGICO is Green’,” NAGICO said in a statement. “All over the world, we are seeing the effects of what pollution is doing to our environment. The continued depletion of our ozone layer increased the frequency and severity of natural disasters like floods, hurricanes/ typhoons, wildfires, and the intense heat / rising temperatures. We each have to do our part to try to preserve the earth.”
Plastic bags and plastic in general when not recycled, pollute the environment and our oceans. Several countries and neighboring islands have already taken the decision or started the process to ban the use of single-use plastics. We at NAGICO support this initiative and believe in being proactive. We will be distributing over 2,500 bags island-wide in October.
“We have selected a sturdy, functional and also fashionable style of bag and we hope to cause people to rethink the way they treat the environment and explore other ways in which they can help to preserve it,” said Lisa Brown, Marketing Manager.
Stay tuned to NAGICO’s Facebook page NagicoInsurancesStMaarten for details on distribution dates and locations.

PHILIPSBURG:---- Digital & Creative Entrepreneur, John A.M. Sandiford will be the Master of Ceremonies of this year’s SMILE event on October 25th and 26th. In addition to his opening speech and moderation, he will inform the public on an application devised by his company Antonio Media for the island of Statia and the Sint Eustatius Foundation (SEF) with support of the European Union.

Sandiford was the moderator of SMILE’s first edition in 2018. The organizers of the 2nd edition are elated to have him on board once again as a face and advocate of the event. Since its inception, Sandiford has supported SMILE’s three main themes of innovation, sustainability, and networking to enhance Sint Maarten and regional economy: "Out of adversity often times comes opportunity, and as an innovative mind I hope SMILE is here to stay as a business card of vibrant Sint Maarten and Caribbean people!”.

Sandiford, a well-known Sint Maarten music artist in the early 2000’s, founded the design & technology company Antonio Media B.V. after his studies in 2010. Under his current clients is one of the most important Dutch IT multinationals, ASML, amongst many others.

Regardless of his multinational clients, his heart remains with his Caribbean roots. John began sharing his knowledge, experience, and vision gained in Europe to help develop the Caribbean Entrepreneurial eco-system. Primarily through the EU funded programme COSME, where he has trained & guided over 100+ entrepreneurs, civil servants, non-profits and more from 10 OCTA islands on the principles of developing Co-working & Business Incubation environments and Online Presence Strategies. He aims to continue investing in this community by developing a digital platform that connects, informs and educates the Caribbean entrepreneur in an ever-changing global market.

In addition to his professional career, in the wake of hurricane Irma, Sandiford and other Sint Maarteners in the Netherlands founded the NGO; RebuildSXM, bringing close to $100,000 USD worth of needed supplies to the island. Notably, the donation of over 5000 school & sporting materials & equipment to18 schools and 8 sporting organizations.
The group also donated over 2000+ school uniforms to over 400 kids most in need.

Sandiford successfully won a EU tender to design and develop the Sint Eustatius Foundation’s mobile fishing app; “StaBlu”. This app allows for precise coordination of the offer and demand of the fishing industries. In addition to securing fresh fish for the consumer instantly, the app aims to reduce overfishing and hence assist in a more sustainable fish supply for the region.

At SMILE, Sandiford will elaborate on his development of StaBlu during a workshop.
After his contribution, Hasani Ellis of the Sint Maarten Ministry of General Affairs will explore with the audience how the StaBlu framework could be of use for country Sint Maarten's economy.

The full schedule of SMILE can be found at shta.com/SMILE. Display and promotional tables have been sold out, but walkaround tickets are still available for the event starting the upcoming Friday. Tickets can be purchased by visiting the SHTA offices at WJ Nisbeth Road 33A, or by taking up contact with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. For visitors, an App can be downloaded with speaker, schedule and participant information.

There can never be any justification for deviating from the constitution. Confusion over the difference between the date of an LB and Its effective dote
Result: Parliament has not been dissolved and new elections have not been called

PHILIPSBURG:--- A private citizen with legal background summoned Governor Eugene Holiday to revoke the Landsbesluit he signed on to that would dissolve the parliament of St. Maarten and call early elections.

The letter states that based on the law that governs country St. Maarten the following:

Between the effective date of the Landsbesluit, Oct. 3, and the sitting of the new parliament Feb.10, 2020 there lies a time span of 4 months and 7 days. (October 3 to Feb. 10= 4 months and 7 days) This is in violation of art. 59 para 2 of the constitution of SXM. Between the effective date of the LB and the sitting of a new Parliament a maximum of three months is allowed to elapse.

Bizarre and contradictory considerations in the LB

The LB contains at least three controversial or plainly wrong considerations:

1. The deviation from article 59 para 2 of the Constitution is justified
2. An LB calling for elections cannot be revoked
3. The LB goes into effect on October 3 but is retroactive to September 24th.

We shall concern ourselves with the deviation from the constitution since that is the most consequential error in the LB.

Contrary to what the LB states, there can never ever be any grounds for deviating from art. 59 para 2 of the Constitution of Country SxM. Any deviation is therefore unconstitutional and unlawful.

Here are some key dates from the LB: LB Date: October 3, 2019

Effective date: October 3, 2019

Postulation: November 21, 2019

Election: January 9,2019

  New Parliament: Feb. 10, 2020
Time elapsed between effective date and new parliament: 4 months and 7 days

 Confusion about dates:

Reading this LB makes it clear that the writers of this LB are confused, or ignorant of the fact that the date of an LB and its effective date need not be the same. An LB can be dated October 3, but effective November 21. In other words, until November 21st arrives, the LB has no legal force. This is a very common practice and makes it all the more questionable why the writers of this LB seem oblivious of this fact.

Illustration of how the effective date works: The LB should have been:

LB date: :Oct 3
Effective date: Nov. 21
Postulation date: December 1(between 80 to 90 days of New Parliament, Feb. 21, 2020 and the effective date of LB, November 21, 2019 ( kiesverordening art. 21)
New Parliament Feb. 21,2020 (art. 59 para 2 canst. sxm)
Note how between November 21and February 21there is a time-lapse of exactly three months? The window for new parties to register
Notice how this creates the space for new parties to register? If postulation date is December 1, the cut­
off date for new parties to register is October 20, or exactly 6 weeks before postulation date. This gives new parties between October 3, which is the date of the LB or the date on which elections are announced, and the cut-off date of October 20, or a leisurely 17, days to register.
The beauty of it is that this is all accomplished within the three months prescribed by article 59 of the
constitution.

More confusion: the issue of retroactivity

The composers of this LB once more create confusion when they state that this LB is retroactive to September 24, after declaring that it goes into effect on October 3. This in effect creates two effective dates; one on October 3, and the other on September 24. Clearly something is amiss here. Both dates cannot be valid. Whatever the intentions of the writers were, it is not readily apparent from what has ended up in the LB. This brings into question the question of legal advice and the careful drafting of legal instruments. Country SxM deserves better than shoddy and hastily thrown together legal instruments that create more uncertainty than already prevails. It also brings into question the competence of those entrusted with the people's business.

Incoherence

In addition, making this LB retroactive to September 24 causes an even greater timespan between the date of the LB and the dissolution of Parliament, which as stated in the LB is February 10, 2020.
Between September 24 and February 10, there is a time-lapse of 4 months and 17 days, which is an even greater violation of the constitution. Clearly this LB is muddled and needs to be revoked!
 Conclusion:
This LB is a self-confessed violator of the constitution. It cannot, therefore, call into being any legal consequences, regardless to how well-intentioned. As the LB itself states: The principle of a democratic state under the rule of law...requires adherence to the constitution at all times.
Therefore, Parliament has not been lawfully dissolved nor elections lawfully called. We are where we
were on October 2nd.

 Sad part of this saga; all so unnecessary:

 The sad part of this torturous affair is that the fix is so simple! There are no complicated mechanisms to consider, just shift the effective date of the LB as demonstrated above, and there is no need to put forward the clearly fallacious argument that there are grounds for violating the constitution. Such grounds simply do not exist!

Summons

 I, therefore, summon the relevant authorities within seven days after receipt of this letter revoke the offending, LB and issue an LB which does not violate the constitution of Country Sint Maarten. Failure to comply it this request might result in legal measures being taken. Please avoid the shame and embarrassment
a court hearing will bring to Country Sint Maarten and revoke this LB.

PHILIPSBURG:--- A private citizen with legal background submitted some 24 questions on the legality of the screening process. Below is letter with the questions posed.

Artikel 40: Staatsregeling van Sint Maarten

• l.Landsverordeningen en landsbesluiten worden ondertekend door de Gouverneur en door een of meer ministers.
• 2.Het landsbesluit waarbij de aftredende Minister-President wordt ontslagen en waarblj tevens zijn opvolger wordt benoemd, wordt mede door de laatstgenoemde ondertekend. De landsbeslulten waarblj de overige ministers worden benoemd of ontslagen worden mede door de minister-president ondertekend.

 Landsbesluit van 22 mei2013 LB 13/0442,Besluit benoemingsprocedure de Kandidaat Ministers en Kandidaat Gevolmachtigde Ministers.

Section1 sub 5 of the attached "richtlijnen" to the above referenced LB reads:

De gouverneur en de formateur zullen beschikken over de resultataten van een door de Procureur­ Generaal (PG} ingesteld jusititieel antecendentenonderzoek alsmede over een door de Veilighiedsdienst van Sint Maarten (VDSM} ingesteld feiten onderzoek (nas/ag veiligheidsbestanden)

 Duties of the Veiligheidsdients according to the lvo VDSM:

 Artikel 3

 o a.

• l.De dienst heeft in het belang van de nationale veiligheid tot taak:

het verrichten van onderzoek, waaronder het verzamelen van gegevens omtrent organisatles en personen,
die door de doelen die zij nastreven, of door hun activiteiten, aanlelding geven tot het ernstige vermoeden,
dat zij een gevaar vormen voor het voortbestaan van de democratlsche rechtsorde, of de integriteit van het
openbaar bestuur, dan wei voor de veiligheid of voor andere gewichtige belangen van Sint Maarten, of het
Konlnkrljk der Nederlanden;
0 b.

 het verrichten van velllgheldsonderzoeken;
0 c.
het bevorderen van maatregelen ter bescherming van de in onderdeel a, genoemde belangen, waaronder
begrepen maatregelen ter bevelliging van gegevens waarvan de gehelmhoudlng door de nationale veiligheld
van Sint Maarten, of het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Is geboden en van die onderdelen van de overheldsdienst en van het bedrijfsleven, die naar het oordeel van de Minister van vitaalbelang zijn voor de instandhouding van het maatschappelijk Ieven.
• 2.Het hoofd lnformeert de Minister blj voortduring over de uitkomsten van de werkzaamheden van de dienst en stelt hem in kennis van al hetgeen voor hem in de uitoefenlng van zljn functie van belang kan zijn.

Questions:

1. According to article 3 sub 1(above): The service gathers information concerning persons: "whose activities lead to serious suspicions that they present a danger to the continued existence of the democratic order or the integrity of the public administration of St. Maarten, or the security or other important interests of St. Maarten or the Kingdom.

How does one determine If a candidate-minister presents such a threat as to warrant triggering this provision in the law? Which activities can trigger such?

2. Article 28 of the constitution of St. Maarten contains the so-called presumption of innocence. Is it in conflict with that constitutional guarantee to subject or force an individual to prove he is innocent? After all, our constitution says that even when one is being criminally prosecuted, one is assumed to be innocent. Here the implicit assumption is that there are serious grounds
to believe one is guilty of being a threat to national security until it is proven otherwise.

 Article 31 Lvo VDSM:Artikel 31

• l.Verstrekklng van persoonsgegevens waarvan de julstheld redelljkerwijs nlet kan worden vastgesteld of die meer dan 10 jaar geleden zijn verwerkt, terwijl ten aanzien van de desbetreffende persoon sindsdlen geen nieuwe gegevens zijn verwerkt, vlndt niet plaats.

Who determines the "juistheid van persoonsgegevens? Can this be challenged in court,bearing in mind article 12 ofthe Lvo VDSM:

Artike112

Voor zover in deze landsverordening niet anders bepaald,Is de Landsverordenlng bescherming persoonsgegevens, niet van toepasslng.

 3. Art. 42:4 Lvo VDSM: How do you intend to implement this article? How would individuals be permitted to correct inaccuracies according to this article?

 4. Article 43 Lvo VDSM: has the function of the Minister been designated a "vertrouwensfunctie?"

 5. if not, what is the legal basis for a "feitenonderzoek" by the VDSM or an antecedentenonderzoek by the PG?

  8. Art. 44:3 lvo VDSM states: "bij landsbesluit worden regels gesteld ten aanzien van de wijze waarop veiligheidsonderzoeken worden gehouden " Does such a landsbesluit exist, and if so, Can I be provided with a copy?

 10. Can you kindly indicate which landsverordening has authorized either directly or indirectly (delegation) the governor or the formateur to "beschik 110Ver de resu/tataten van een door de Procureur-Generaal {PG) ingesteld jusititiee/ antecendentenonderzoek alsmede over een door de
Veilighiedsdienst van Sint Maarten {VDSM) ingeste/d feiten onderzoek (nas/ag veiligheidsbestonden)"

11. Chapter 8 (art. 43 e.v.) ofthe lvo VDSM treats "veiligheidsonderzoeken". If the function of minister does not appear on the list mentioned, what justification is there for conducting a "veilgheidsonderzoek'? Can such an "onderzoek" be lawfully conducted by the VDSM?

12. In which landsverordening or landsbesluit is a "feitenonderzoek" and "naslagbestanden" defined?

 13.In which landsverordening or landsbesluit are they authorized?

 14. If the lvo VDSM does not define "feitenonderzoek" or "naslagbestanden" what legal basis is there to subject any person to such an exercise?

 15 .Does art. 40:2 of the Constitution of Country St. Maarten authorize the PG or anyone else for that matter to conduct a "justitieel antecedentenonderzoek" on candidate-ministers?

 16. If not, why does the landsbesluit "Benoemingsprocedure" state: "gelet op artike/40, tweede lid, van de Staatsregeling?" What is the relevance of this article to the subject matter at hand, namely screening by VDSM?

 17. What is the legal basis for the PG to act? Is this "richtlijn" sufficient basis?

 18. What criteria will be used to guide the use of the "resultaten" of the intervention by the PG and
VDSM?

 19. If no criteria are in place, is it lawful to use the "resultaten"?

 20. Exactly how do you envision using these "resultaten" and what is the legal basis therefor?

 21. Aanwijzingsbesluit article 2- where on this list does the function of "Minister" appear?

 22. Aanwijzingsbesluit article 3- who is the "werkgever" of a Minister?

 23. Can you kindly indicate which article in the Lvo integriteitsbevordening Ministers require a
"feitenonderzoek" by the VDSM or a "justitieel antecedentenonderzoek" by the PG?
24. Articles 8 -11 of the Lvo Bevordering lntegriteit Ministers contain extensive rules for gathering, storing and protecting sensitive information. What rules are in place for the Governor and the formateur to protect and store the "resultaten" provided ?