Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio freedom 106.5. All right, we turn our attention to another topic of interest here this morning. Caribbean arms trafficking ringleader charged with conspiracy to smuggle firearms from us. And it's coming from Tampa, Florida where a Trinidadian national and deemed to be an international firearms trafficking organization ringleader have has been indicted with conspiracy to commit smuggling and conspiracy to traffic firearms following homeland security investigations in Tampa, Florida. Shane. 35 year old Shane Wayne Alexander of Port of Spain faces a maximum of 20 years in a federal prison according to the indictment. He is scheduled. Well, he would be able to, he would face that imprisonment as he is deemed as the leader of that unlawful exportation of firearms and components that exist within Tampa, Florida from Trinidad and Tobago between 2019 to 2022.
I have in studio with me some guests as we get set to chat on these issues.
Kesha, good morning. We'll call you Stacy.
[00:01:20] Speaker B: Sherri Ann, good morning.
[00:01:23] Speaker A: Good morning to you. Keisha, Good morning. Let's chat a little bit and get, get your story. What is happening?
[00:01:30] Speaker B: All right, so you just read out the story.
[00:01:32] Speaker A: Part of it, part of it.
[00:01:35] Speaker B: And we're not here to talk about the criminal elements of it, but we're here to talk about the procedural element because we can't talk about the criminal element because the case is still going on. It's in pre trial but based on a couple developments including the Prime Minister's own experience based on what he said yesterday.
[00:01:54] Speaker A: The former pm.
[00:01:55] Speaker B: Yeah, the former pm. Oh my goodness. Sorry.
[00:01:58] Speaker A: Gotta make sure and identify that.
[00:02:00] Speaker B: Yeah, the former PM. I behaving like chatgpt now.
[00:02:04] Speaker A: People feel Mrs. Kamala says so. But before we continue with the interview, let's identify, you know, who you are. We call in, I mean we have you, your name Keisha here but let's talk to who are you in relation to this?
[00:02:19] Speaker B: I'm an advocate.
[00:02:21] Speaker A: You're an advocate?
[00:02:22] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:02:22] Speaker A: So Kesha is an advocate for what exactly?
[00:02:26] Speaker B: For the process that was actually breached by both the Jamaican government and the US Government.
I'm calling on the Trinidad and Tobago government now to do something about it.
[00:02:41] Speaker A: All right, so let's get into the crux of the conversation. You say it was breached. What from your respective opinion is the proper protocols that should be followed in this particular matter that you are advocating for?
[00:02:54] Speaker B: Good question. So we'll start off here with our really recent development.
This story broke probably about a week ago. It's a case involving Village Chandu. Right. Village Chandu is a Dual citizenship of Trinidad and the US And I'm going to go through the comparisons between the two.
Right. Shem is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago.
Right. First comparison, Second comparison. Alleged conduct. Vinish Chando intercepted a shipment of seven pistols with 332 rounds to Trinidad and Tobago.
Shem Alexander. There's no direct evidence based on testimony.
Right.
The timeline of the alleged defense. July 2023. Vidish Chandu Shem is, was indicted by a sealed indictment. And I'll go back to that later. A sealed indictment in 20. November 2024.
The indictment date for Village Chandu is November 4, 2024. It's a public. It was an unsealed indictment.
The indictment for Shem was sealed and Only unsealed in January 2025. January 12, 2025.
So Village knew what he was up against. Shem didn't.
The indictment. Transparency. Transparency. The indictment for Village was filed before his arrest.
Shem was arrested by a diplomatic note issued before the invitement was unsealed.
The arrest method.
Village Chandu voluntarily traveled to the United States. Shem was forcibly arrested at Kingston Airport under sealed indictment.
The extradition process.
Vadeshado went on his own. There was no extradition. Shem was extradited from Jamaica Legal Representation.
Village negotiated a plea with access to evidence.
He knew what he was up against.
Shem was in 35 days detention in Jamaica in a rendition style extradition, as though he was a fugitive. Right. Which is if Jamaican and regional reports that he was a fugitive fugitive gives the notion that he was running from the law, that he knew what he was against and he was running from the law.
[00:05:23] Speaker A: So to, to ask you, did he know?
[00:05:26] Speaker B: No.
This is a seal indictment. You wouldn't know. So seal indictments are usually used in cases where there's a high risk of a person fleeing. Right.
And well, it's usually done in the US if you have international person of interest or that has allegedly done some crimes, you're supposed to go to the U.S. embassy. You're supposed to go to the person's government to actually. This is what they did with Villish.
[00:05:55] Speaker A: They went through the.
[00:05:55] Speaker B: They went through the government. Vidish was presented with his case. He went to the embassy. He gave up himself.
[00:06:01] Speaker A: So he was allowed to do that.
[00:06:02] Speaker B: He was allowed to do that.
[00:06:05] Speaker A: Can it be said that maybe the crimes Vidish has been charged with was one where the governments felt that they kind of, they could make it public and get him as opposed to the ones of the other individual, where they felt he would have been a flight risk. So we needed to seal this, get at him, and then we can expose.
[00:06:26] Speaker B: Okay, that's a good question.
They're both arms and ammunition charges.
[00:06:31] Speaker A: But how did you know if one was sealed? We eventually found out.
[00:06:36] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. It was unsealed in January 2025.
[00:06:39] Speaker A: Oh, that was this year.
[00:06:40] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:06:41] Speaker A: So you're saying that if it's the same thing, right? How come one was treated one way.
[00:06:48] Speaker B: And the other was treated. And it's actually.
It's the same in theory, but it's different because village actually did the transactions. He actually shipped the. The items. Shem's charge is conspiracy. So conspiracy is. I telling you, okay, let me go down the road and shoot that man. So the conspiracy is different to the actual act.
[00:07:13] Speaker A: Well, well, well, in. In. In layman's terms.
[00:07:17] Speaker B: In layman's terms, we would.
[00:07:18] Speaker A: We would. We would say that the person that give the order to shoot and kill is just as guilty as the shooter that killed.
[00:07:27] Speaker B: And let's take, if not more, okay, and let's take it from that perspective.
Okay. They did. They both allegedly would have done something that the US Government said. But why wouldn't they offer the same treatment? Why was the process different?
[00:07:43] Speaker A: Because in my opinion, and this is just me, I'm not a legal mind in no stretch of the imagination. I'm just going by off of public knowledge and reading and understanding to some degree, my opinion, the conspirator can be deemed more dangerous than the.
The henchman, so to speak. I am the man's the mastermind. I may not carry out the plots, but I'm the mastermind. So I prove more of a threat because, okay, we saw the movie. I don't know if you all saw it. Power. And I use this. I don't know if it's a series. I don't know if you heard about it.
[00:08:15] Speaker B: Yeah, right.
[00:08:15] Speaker A: Power. The character was the mastermind and brain of the operations.
And then we have what we call the minions. You are the ones we spy on the street corner. I just never want to. You just. I mean, you know, you just muscle, you big and bad. All right, Go in the street corner, you have no brain. You can't solicit and sit down and negotiate no contract.
But if I get it, I have the contract. I feed in you, right? If you want to bite off my hand and shoot me, you ain't gonna get nothing. You end up suffering. So, yeah, is what. Yeah, you go on these streets now. So my point is this the conspiracy part. This is the this is the me trumping up this plan.
So your whole mahenchman, that was my, you know, he was the man who was shipping for it. All right, you'll get next one.
So maybe. I'm just saying, hypothetically speaking, maybe the US government would have deemed that person more dangerous as a flight risk. That's why the indictment was probably sealed. I'm just saying. You can correct me, you are the advocate.
[00:09:13] Speaker B: Right. So without going into too much details, which I am unable to.
The. The persons with this, charged with this crimes were all convicted of. Well, they were convicted of conspiracy because there was no evidence tied them directly to the crime.
[00:09:32] Speaker A: So this is circumstantial evidence.
[00:09:34] Speaker B: Correct. Everybody in this case there was because everybody, they couldn't link. Okay, so Village, he didn't. He conspired and he did.
Right.
[00:09:44] Speaker A: So Vidish was guilty. Yeah, as far as you can spot.
[00:09:47] Speaker B: He said he was guilty.
[00:09:48] Speaker A: He said he was guilty and then he was extradited.
He voluntarily left and did it the correct way. When he arrived in the US the lockup.
[00:09:57] Speaker B: He did. Right, Right. And he's.
[00:09:59] Speaker A: So he's serving time.
[00:10:00] Speaker B: 18 months.
[00:10:02] Speaker A: What?
[00:10:03] Speaker B: 18 months.
[00:10:04] Speaker A: Anyhow, as you say, no hardcore evidence, circumstantial, but enough to convict you. Go ahead.
[00:10:09] Speaker B: Correct. Enough to get. But it very. They should serve in 18 months for conspiring and doing.
[00:10:14] Speaker A: Right.
[00:10:14] Speaker B: Sham is facing 20 years for allegedly conspiring.
[00:10:19] Speaker A: All right. He is serving it.
[00:10:21] Speaker B: He. No, he is facing it. He's facing. Sorry. Wrong.
[00:10:24] Speaker A: It's coming. It's coming.
[00:10:25] Speaker B: It's not coming. It's not coming, but it's not coming.
[00:10:26] Speaker A: The possibility exists.
[00:10:27] Speaker B: The possibility exists if he loses this case. If he loses this case. That's what he's facing. So if you juxtapose the both of them, you conspire and you do. You allegedly conspire and.
And I'm not here to talk about guilt or innocence. That will be decided.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: That will be determined by the courts.
[00:10:44] Speaker B: Right, but if you look at it side by side, what are the. What are the differences?
[00:10:49] Speaker A: Well, I just alluded to what it. What it could be, but I think I just alluded to that. That's just me.
[00:10:55] Speaker B: But again, if I look at Village. Village conspired and he did.
[00:11:01] Speaker A: You're thinking that.
Well, that the other conspirator, he didn't do. He just conspired. Let me take this call on the issue and then I'll ask. I have a next ask for you. Hello. Good morning.
[00:11:12] Speaker C: Morning.
Tell me my knowledge of this case.
The guy hasn't been convicted as yet, which your guest is referred to as facing 20 years.
And are these jury cases or is it, is there a jury appointed to adjudicate and is it.
[00:11:32] Speaker A: Well, in most US Courts, I think they offer the same thing as Trinidad and Tobago, judge alone trial or judge and jury. So I don't know, I don't know if it's going to be a jury of 12 members.
I can't say when I read the thing. It did not tell us whether it's a judge alone or judge and jury.
[00:11:50] Speaker C: Well, more than likely you'll have a judge and jury.
And I think the fate of these individuals, well, this, the one individual is pending rest on the jury.
So it's not like to say the US Government is conspiring against an individual because he's from a foreign land or so and so. Right. The evidence has to be presented. Does your guest have the indictment, the indictment document in front of her to, to make a determination as to whether what are the charges, what are the specific charges and so on? Well, let me correct these charges.
[00:12:30] Speaker A: Well, let me correct you. It's not a matter. She's not speaking on the, from my understanding on the indictment or the, or the guilt or. No, she is dealing with the fact of how the process was executed. That is what she's advocating for. So I was getting to that part of the question. If you permit me, I will get it. But she's not talking about the crime that you know, whether he's guilty or innocent. She is saying that she's an advocate for right and justice. So this comes in the sense of how they were handled, how the arrest took place while one was allowed to freely give himself up, plead guilty, service 18 months and the other one was treated as a fugitive, as a, as a high risk skp, some kind of thing. He's a clear and present danger. That is what I got from what she's advocating for.
[00:13:21] Speaker C: So your assessment of the conspirator is a lot more dangerous than the guy on the ground. I said that correct?
[00:13:28] Speaker A: 1 I said that right?
[00:13:30] Speaker C: It is correct because the people who think about and, and, and access funding and all these type of things, how to commit crimes, they are the one that you need to lock up.
[00:13:42] Speaker A: Yeah, the muscle men could always be replaced.
[00:13:44] Speaker C: Yeah, the muscle men could always be replaced. Muscle but no brain.
[00:13:47] Speaker A: But no brain.
[00:13:49] Speaker C: Right. So the conspirators have to face because I was reading about an article this morning, I don't know if all you know about it, when Donald Trump came into office in 2016, when he won the election, the intelligence officials told President Obama that there was no intel to suggest that Russia assisted Donald Trump in helping him win the elections in 2016.
Tulsi Gaba, the director of the Director of National Intelligence in the US Came out on Friday last and said that on the I can't remember the date, but is in December. He called all the security heads in his office and he's not satisfied with that report. So they thereby they invented or manufactured a new report to suggest that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. And I tell her something, she referred all of them to the DOJ and the FBI right now. So within a month or two weeks, you might hear Obama and all these big wigs getting charged with whatever it is.
Whatever it is.
[00:14:59] Speaker A: We'll see. All right.
[00:15:00] Speaker C: All right.
[00:15:00] Speaker A: All right. Thanks very much. So let me ask you, what's your ask of this government in relation to this?
[00:15:06] Speaker B: Our ask is for, our ask is for a review of the process.
As I said, the indictment being sealed while someone is being investigated or accused of a crime in an international scenario is a violation of, of human rights and sovereignty. It's a violation of sovereignty.
If one person who conspired and did is given one avenue to address his situation.
Why didn't the other person. Why was the other person given the same Right?
[00:15:51] Speaker A: Why I'm asking you this question. These persons identified as Trinbagonians, correct?
[00:15:55] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:15:55] Speaker A: They are both Trinidadians.
When the first one, Videsh, I think he said it was, was allowed to walk into the embassy, which country was he in?
[00:16:03] Speaker B: He was in Trinidad.
[00:16:04] Speaker A: So he was in Trinidad and he walked into the embassy and then the process took place from there. The other gentleman was in Jamaica.
[00:16:10] Speaker B: Yeah. But his indictment was dated April 2024.
So they had more than enough time to give him that opportunity to go into the embassy and give up himself. I mean, why wasn't he offered the.
[00:16:29] Speaker A: Same thing isn't that he did not know this indictment was coming on him there would. So he was just in Jamaica vacationing.
[00:16:37] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:16:38] Speaker A: And police pull up on him.
[00:16:39] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:16:40] Speaker A: And took him away and that was it.
[00:16:42] Speaker B: Correct.
That is a. That is a violation of sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago. Why wasn't the government informed?
[00:16:54] Speaker A: How far have you taken your. Your plight with this outside of reaching us here at Freedom?
[00:17:01] Speaker B: Well, we are, we have asked the former administration on multiple times to look at the case. Just look at the process. We are not asking you to intervene.
Look at the process that your citizen will was meted out from the United States Government from the Jamaican government. Jamaican. The Jamaican government did not even get any evidence.
[00:17:26] Speaker A: No. Well, if I don't think you need. If you are in my country and I am the head and I receive correspondence or intelligence from authorities in another country that you belong to, that you are wanted in foreign land.
[00:17:43] Speaker B: Right.
[00:17:43] Speaker A: On these allegations and you are considered.
It's my duty Now I am receiving this intelligence from authorized personnel. This is not somebody come up with you and tell me, hey, you know they're looking for that man. And I hold it. I, I got the commissioner, I got the police of Trinidad and Tobago, I got the US Embassy, I got the signed seal. I, I authenticate these things. Then we apprehend you.
[00:18:04] Speaker B: So there was no these things.
So the Jamaica, the Jamaica US treaty mandates that you provide evidence for extradition.
They provided a diplomatic note with no evidence. Even up to the time that Shem left. There was no evidence.
So they provided, in other words to say they have, okay, this piece of paper, arrest this man. That's what the US gave to the Jamaican authorities. There was no evidence.
[00:18:34] Speaker A: So it's as though Prime Minister Andrew Holness and his cabinet and administration they coward before a piece of paper.
[00:18:42] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:18:43] Speaker A: And get rid of somebody out of their country into the hands of the US not knowing what is happening.
[00:18:48] Speaker B: Correct. And the thing for people to know is that Jamaica is an extremely friendly country for extradition. That's something that many people wouldn't know about. They require any revenants they want. You okay? No problem.
[00:19:01] Speaker A: Good point. I'm happy that she was able to raise that.
[00:19:03] Speaker B: Come and get us. Come and get us. So if the process involved according to the treaty, providing evidence, whether it's prima fasi or not, that should have been done. It wasn't done.
And we know why it wasn't done.
[00:19:21] Speaker A: Well, do share. Why? Why wasn't it done?
[00:19:23] Speaker B: Well, I can't say it right now. I can't say. But it wasn't done.
[00:19:26] Speaker A: That's one of the situations where we have to be tight lipped about.
[00:19:29] Speaker B: Correct. Until we, until we don't.
[00:19:32] Speaker A: Until we don't.
[00:19:33] Speaker B: Until we don't.
[00:19:35] Speaker A: So this gentleman is currently in US authorities custody.
He is about to go to court to answer these conspiracy theory charges with the possibility of facing a 20 year prison sentence in federal prison in the US and our former administration says sat idly by while the federal authorities in the US took this gentleman without providing sustainable evidence that he has done these things.
Why intelligence phone tapping this correspondence, Lincoln.
[00:20:10] Speaker B: Correct.
And what's important to note as well, is that the former U.S. administration fired the U.S. district attorney, but he was one of many that filed when Donald Trump came into power because the caller before was talking about Donald Trump and the things that he's doing out Obama. But one of the things that you have to notice that Donald Trump also faced conspiracy charges and he wants to get rid of that part of and I'm sure by the end of his term he probably will.
The idea of conspiracy is very loose and it's something very, very made up in the US it was created to deal with the mafia. Right. And they have, the DOJ has expanded that to do anything.
So the former US administration and the former Trinidad and Tobago administration both failed. Shem.
And we are looking at the process and we want, we are calling on the government to look into that process.
[00:21:11] Speaker A: This and, and if what I mean, based on what you're saying, I'm going on the, on the evidence that you have presented and the facts that you have stated to us this, this morning, I want to lean into the fact that I think the former administration ignored this.
[00:21:27] Speaker B: Oh, they, they more than ignored it. I specifically, I wouldn't call the person's name.
[00:21:31] Speaker A: Well, was the National Security minister then before Marvin Gonzalez?
[00:21:35] Speaker B: Correct. And the, the thing about it is that it was interesting to hear the former PM this morning yesterday come out and say, well, if they are going to extradite a citizen or they have a red notice on Interpol, this person is supposed to know. This person is supposed to know. This person is supposed to know. He clearly outlined in that press conference who we're supposed to know. Why did we have to go to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, all of the ministries that we send FOIAs to, and nobody knows lose anything.
[00:22:03] Speaker A: What are you saying? They've got. You have, you are saying that the former administration, they have denied any knowledge that a Trinidad and Tobago citizen that left here, went to Jamaica to vacation, got extradited to the US and they had no formal knowledge of this?
[00:22:19] Speaker B: None.
[00:22:19] Speaker A: They have denied it.
[00:22:20] Speaker B: They have denied it. The last correspondence that we had, which we found out through the media, is that the end support the team TCPS was looking at Interpol for an update. That was in January 2025 or late 2024.
[00:22:36] Speaker A: Was it ever provided?
[00:22:37] Speaker B: Nothing.
Nothing was provided.
[00:22:43] Speaker A: From what I'm hearing of discussion, this discussion, due process was thrown out. And if this is the position, what can we put into his defense?
Let me take this call. Hello, Good morning.
Good morning.
All right, call me back. 625-2257. So if this man smuggling firearms in and out of the country, how come it wasn't detected by our former government and the Ministry of National Security under Keith Rowdy and Fitzgerald Hines?
[00:23:09] Speaker B: Okay, that's an excellent question.
[00:23:11] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:23:13] Speaker D: Morning.
It was not detected Jamaica and then went to the US get some food a year or two ago to sign a sanction to do exactly what transpired there, right along with Mexico was leading the charge because of the proliferation of arms and ammunition, especially for small arms.
So let me ask a question quick, quick.
This gentleman didn't know that he had a charge pending against him, did he know?
[00:23:47] Speaker B: No, it was a sealed indictment.
[00:23:49] Speaker D: Right. So that means that whole matter transpired without him knowing that there was a.
[00:23:54] Speaker A: An investigation into him, a court matter going on. No, there was not a court matter. The whole thing went down without him knowing that they were investigating him. Which I have no problem with it.
[00:24:04] Speaker D: Right.
[00:24:04] Speaker A: Because if police investigate in crime, they know how to, you know, I investigate in you.
[00:24:08] Speaker B: That's not true.
But again, there are certain things that I cannot speak about.
[00:24:12] Speaker A: So let.
[00:24:13] Speaker B: Okay, I can't speak about it.
[00:24:14] Speaker A: Don't talk it there because I want to leave here just at home, you understand? So let me ask you, Let me ask you if. Well, if police investigating you for a crime, they should come and tell you. We investigate any. I mean we see it in movies, you know, we watch in here. They just tell them, right, but if police investigating something, they, they get intel that you have illegal teenagers for sex trafficking in your establishment, they had to know come on, knock your door and say, you know, I hear you have that. So we're looking at you. So you could be aware. Is it that they have to tell you that? Or they can start investigating and gather their evidence and then come at you.
[00:24:50] Speaker B: Okay, so they can do just what you're saying.
But what I will leave with is that the TTPS and the DPP cleared him in this matter bombshell.
[00:25:05] Speaker A: So. And our Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard cleared. So he was already charged with this.
[00:25:13] Speaker B: Then he was not charged. Nothing to charge.
[00:25:15] Speaker A: So, so, so how if there was nothing to charge, how he was cleared? Oh, okay, okay.
[00:25:19] Speaker B: And the investigation, investigations came up with him.
[00:25:22] Speaker A: They fought the DPP find. Boy, it's not near to really go. That man is clear. That is what you mean, right?
[00:25:28] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:25:28] Speaker A: Okay. And if that man was cleared by our government, how is it that they. Well, you know, why are you surprised? You remember, you remember the, was it the Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. Amy Brown? You remember, you remember, you remember Well, I mean I watch folks, I know they can't see the faces 100 there, but it's the expression on these beautiful ladies faces this morning when I mentioned the name. I remember when the UE London when the UK issued a travel advisory, advisory visa, war visa implementation on US this man seemed like he get catch with the pants in the washing machine.
[00:26:06] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:26:07] Speaker A: He was in a state of bewilderment. And then he sat right on that chair where you were sitting with me in the morning rumble and he said that, you know, they had discussions two to three weeks prior, but yet still.
Yeah. You're saying you didn't know just come in. So.
[00:26:24] Speaker B: Yeah. So I'm trying to figure out how he's trying to help the current. The sitting minister and talking about OJTs and whatever the former administration fail a Trinidad and Tobago citizen. If all of these things happened and they did not allow due process by to happen and if the US the former US government did something that was against process based on the circumstances, the, the policies outlined in the extradition treaty. There's a treaty that governs these things. You're supposed to follow the treaty. Chando. Follow the treaty.
[00:26:58] Speaker A: Why is it too late? Or can't. Or can the government.
[00:27:01] Speaker B: The government can't get him back. Correct.
[00:27:04] Speaker A: Or get some kind of compensation.
[00:27:06] Speaker B: Forget the compensation.
[00:27:08] Speaker A: What is it?
[00:27:09] Speaker B: We will deal with those things after.
We want to know what was the process that happened that allowed this extradition.
[00:27:16] Speaker A: To happen and if we find out that it happened illegally.
[00:27:19] Speaker B: Right.
[00:27:19] Speaker A: What do you think is the next step? Given that he's facing serious charges in the U.S. what do you think is the next step? And I want to take two calls at least before you leave. What do you think is the next step?
[00:27:27] Speaker B: Look at the next step with Brent Thomas.
[00:27:31] Speaker A: All right, you silence me there. Good morning.
[00:27:35] Speaker E: Good morning, Davy. And good morning to the good attorney.
[00:27:38] Speaker A: Make it quick.
[00:27:38] Speaker E: There's something I'm not getting, which is is the attorney contending that there was a breach of due process and because of that resultant from that, the individual is given an extraordinary amount of time in incarceration.
Is that what she said? Because I'm trying to understand something also.
If you are arrested in Jamaica, the extradition process of Jamaica is the one that is taken into consideration, not Trinidad. Is the same way that I say that a certain person was associated with football. Can't even go to Barbados because if you go to be extradited to the US one time.
So I'm trying to understand that if you are, if you are arrested within the confines of the state of Jamaica, the process that applies in Trinidad, I don't, I want to understand how it has anything to do with that. And secondly, I want to file up your attorney. Are you saying that because this due process was breached, the individual was given more than a reasonable amount of time in incarceration? Listen to the comments.
[00:28:46] Speaker B: So there's no incarceration, there's no, there's no sentence?
[00:28:50] Speaker A: No.
[00:28:51] Speaker B: What we are speaking about is the treaties are the treaties that govern the US Jim Bika Extradition treaties, the US Trinidad extradition treaties.
We are looking at the CARICOM guidelines that govern these types of legal issues and the process that has to follow with these types of duties. That was followed with Chandu, it wasn't followed with Alexander.
[00:29:18] Speaker A: I feel you on that. I hear what you're saying. Good morning. Quick, quickly, quickly, please. All right, cool. Let me see what this text is saying here. Very quickly. Morning, Davey.
[00:29:26] Speaker B: Again, to the caller who said that.
[00:29:29] Speaker A: The CIA is bringing up stuff with Obama and stuff. It's totally wrong.
[00:29:33] Speaker B: Trump and them grabbing the straws to.
[00:29:35] Speaker A: Evade the issue that Trump was involved with Epstein.
All right, I don't want to go down on that rhetoric. We have just a couple of minutes again to wind this interview as it relates right now. The caller, Eric, I think made us a good, a good point.
If Jamaica's extra, extra, extra, Extradition treaty. Treaty, the extradition treaty with Jamaica is different to us because he made a point with a particular individual in this country, a high profile individual in this country that is wanted in the US for money laundering and all these things that cannot leave because of the treaty and what is governed, the US can't come here and grab him up. But if he leaves our shores and he touch in Barbados, we touch in Antigua, they could nab him under those.
So if that is the case, but then I think what I'm seeing here, we, our authorities are aware of what they want this man for, correct?
[00:30:37] Speaker B: Treaties have to come with evidence.
Sorry, an extradition has to come with evidence.
An extradition has to follow up process. If you are extradited, you have to you the, the government presents a package, okay, this is what we want him for. This is the indictment. This is the evidence.
That's all. That's all. Even if you look at it from that basic standpoint, that process wasn't followed.
[00:31:03] Speaker A: But then what I'm thinking, right? And one texter is now saying it to me. This was my final, one of my final thoughts. This happened outside of our jurisdiction, remember, he Was in Barbados. He was an international or what we call regional waters. So if he's there for whatever long. I don't know how long he was there for before the authorities.
[00:31:21] Speaker B: He was on vacation.
[00:31:22] Speaker A: I don't know. Again, a few days.
[00:31:24] Speaker B: Right.
[00:31:26] Speaker A: Us not having that intel or denying that we knew.
I think. I don't know if how much of our government, our authorities can get. Get involved with Andrew Holness, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, and his team. Because if. If he gets a document, a piece of paper, as you said.
[00:31:48] Speaker B: Yeah. So we don't. We. We. We forget the Jamaican document, but then for now, we. We will deal with Jamaica at another time.
[00:31:53] Speaker A: Remember, they didn't come Trinidad and take him up with notification.
[00:31:55] Speaker B: Right.
[00:31:55] Speaker A: But he was here and he left.
[00:31:56] Speaker B: Okay, but why wasn't the US Embassy laying with the Trinidad and Tobago government that we have this warrant out for your citizen? We have a seal indictment. Because you can't. You can't say you have a seal indictment. You have to unseal it.
[00:32:08] Speaker A: Have you all reached the. The embassy with questions on this and got nowhere?
[00:32:11] Speaker B: We've actually tried to go through our government because this is a matter for the citizen. We are looking at it as a violation of the sovereignty of a citizen.
[00:32:19] Speaker A: Noted. And I heard you, and I support.
[00:32:22] Speaker B: You, and that's why we're calling at the present government.
[00:32:25] Speaker A: I remain neutral on the matter as it goes, but I support your initiative based on what you are saying to me this morning. So here's my final question.
Have you all made any attempts to solicit this new government, the Homeland Security minister and all, even the CARICOM minister, and all these persons on this matter as yet?
[00:32:44] Speaker B: We are in the process. I mean, they're settling in, but we are in the process of, you know, reaching out to them more aggressively. And we're hoping that by going out to the media, they hear what we are traveling. We are trying to say that it would humanize the situation and they would give us an ear. So. So we are hopeful that they hear our pleas and that they really just ask a question as to what was the process involved. We are not asking them to go outside because they can't.
[00:33:13] Speaker A: You know, I really. I really hear you on that, and I want to commend you for the efforts and the initiatives you're taking to safeguard our citizens. Because sometimes when we have persons like your good self, you become the voice for the voiceless, and sometimes the voiceless is the way we handle alleged criminals. Because this is not a jokey charger. This conspiracy with guns and ammunition. We have a. We have a situation in Trinidad and Tobago that people might say, but this woman going mad or what?
This man conspiring guns.
[00:33:42] Speaker B: Allegedly.
[00:33:42] Speaker A: Allegedly. But boy them in want to hear, you know? Yeah, I see a name calling that circle, pal. We have an infestation. A cancer that's eating away at the very fabric and morale of our society.
Look, last night, look what happened in Toko, all right? That nice village out there. Quiet.
[00:34:00] Speaker B: I love Toko.
[00:34:01] Speaker A: And gunshots ring out, man dead. All kind of thing. Kidnapped money. So people fed up.
And I don't know how popular you'll become advocating for these things, but bless your good heart.
[00:34:15] Speaker B: I'm advocating for a process.
[00:34:17] Speaker A: I'm happy that you are. Because again, if we. If we don't have people like you, then our human rights, our constitutional rights can be infringed upon in such a way that if we do scream to the top of our voices for the authorities to get wind of what we are saying and raise our hands, Ness.
This same gentleman can be treated really unfairly when he was entitled and should have been entitled to due process and be allowed. If he has reneged from freely giving himself up after knowing that he's wanted and he should come in, then he becomes a fugitive.
[00:34:55] Speaker B: Correct? And ask yourself why due process wasn't followed. Ask why.
[00:35:00] Speaker A: That is the question.
[00:35:01] Speaker B: Ask why.
[00:35:02] Speaker A: And from what you are saying, I am wondering, are we as a Caricom nation, and I'm speaking to Jamaica on this instant, are we calling to the us, Are we bowing to their authorities even though they did not present what the extradition treaty said you should give us?
We did not. And I saying we as a collective Caricom body, because if.
If one Caricom nation is allowed to do that, others might wonder why and they may feel that we need to cover too. I don't know.
But he's also now the chair of Caricom, correct?
So he needs to address caricom. CARICOM needs to put pressure on the chair now to ask him what went on here.
And it should come not just from our Prime Minister and our government as a. As one of our citizens, but it should come from every other Caricom nation because it could happen to their citizens, too.
[00:35:59] Speaker B: And what is the role of our Trinidad and Tobago police?
What's the role of the director? Probably persecution.
[00:36:07] Speaker A: Especially if he was cleared. Now, he might be cleared in our country based on the evidence, but he ain't cleared in the US because we. Because even though this particular prominent football former football activist and personnel Whatever was was actually wanted in connection with certain things we do. I saw the gentleman the other day. I said I take a picture with him. I was having, I was having having a beverage and he was passing through and he was lying with us. So I'm saying our authority, he's not even on our radar but he's on the US Radar.
[00:36:37] Speaker B: So maybe this gentleman that's comparing apples.
[00:36:40] Speaker A: To Channet I beg to differ but.
[00:36:44] Speaker B: No, but I know the details.
[00:36:46] Speaker A: Noted.
[00:36:47] Speaker B: So I'm telling you so noted. And you can't compare apples to Chenut I, I, I for temperate and other reasons.
[00:36:54] Speaker A: I ain't even trying to I ain't even trying to. Rest assure I'm not trying to Folks, it's a wrap for me here in Trinidad and Tobago at this time today, March 22nd. The Human Impact is up next. The saga continues on Freedom. Continue to give all our other broadcasters for the rest of the day your respect and your support as we at Freedom seek your we partner with you, our callers and listeners and we thank you very much for the love and support given the best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
