Dear Editor,

I would like to correct Mr. Simeon James on his claim that Jesus is not God. Jesus is God manifested in the flesh – never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”

  We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming – deity.

  When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).

  John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh.   

  Acts 20:28 tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

  Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom.’” The Father refers to Jesus as “O God,” indicating that Jesus is indeed God.

  In Revelation, an angel instructed the apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation did. There are many other passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity.

  The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that, if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.

Levar Carter

Dear Editor,

Did Jesus ever claim to be the Almighty God? At John 3:16, Jesus referred to himself as God’s “only begotten son.” Other scriptures where Jesus referred to himself as God’s son include John 5:19, 20, 25, and John 10:36. Jesus’ apostles and disciples knew Jesus as God’s Son, not as God. Jesus even blessed Peter for accurately recognizing who he really is – God’s Son.

  Matthew 16:16, 17; John 1:49; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Galatians 2:20; 4:4 etc. Consistently, the Bible refers to Jesus as “Son of God” or God’s son – never as “God the son.” Why? Because Jesus is not God, but God’s son. No wonder that Jesus said at John 20:17 that the Almighty is his Father and his God. Why would Jesus have a God if he himself is God?

  At Mark 13:32, why did Jesus say that he did not know the day nor hour when the world will end but only his Father knows? If Jesus is God, would he not have known when the world will end? If Jesus is God, why did he say at John 14:28 that his Father is greater than him? The fact is Jesus is the son of God. This is a very important fact to know according to John 17:3.

  Let us not be fooled by any twisting of the scriptures to believe in a mysterious three-in-one God, an idea that came from Pagan nations such as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, whose people worshiped three-in-one false gods.

Simeon James

Dear Editor,

When on Monday July 25, 2016, the Prosecutor’s Office withdrew its appeal filed against the alleged “straw man” in the so-called Buncamper forgery case, and its appeal against the second suspect in this case, a smell of injustice started to cloud the clear blue sky. Something is seemingly rotten in the rule of law of Country St. Maarten.

  On April 7, 2016, the Court of First Instance had acquitted Mr. T. O. W. of all charges, and sentenced Mr. I. A. H. to a suspended prison sentence of 3 months, on 2 years’ probation, with 120 hours of community service. Mr. Claudius A. Buncamper and Mrs. Maria J. Buncamper-Molanus were both sentenced to suspended prison sentences of 12 months, on 3 years’ probation with 240 hours of community service, and Notary Mr. F. E. G. was sentenced to 240 hours of community service.

  In April 2016, the Prosecutor’s Office filed for appeal against all verdicts of the Court in First Instance. After consultation within the Prosecutor’s Office, it was decided to withdraw the appeals filed against Mr. T. O. W. and subsequently Mr. I. A. H., thereby making their verdicts to become irrevocable. However, the appeal cases against the Buncamper’s and Notary Mr. F. E. G. will continue.

  The law that states that people pay taxes on the sale of a parcel of land with or without a constructed building, be it judicial or economical, doesn’t exist in St. Maarten. It does in the Netherlands but not here, so it’s going to be strange to see them convicted on such according to the various legal scholars and tax experts I spoke to.

  What is clearly remarkable in these cases is the fact that the Judge does not see any so-called outside legal debt exclusion ground: No punishment without blame. After all, an official Notary recommended the Buncampers, to act according to his so-called ‘Belehrungspflicht’: the function of a Notary within the legal transactions brings with it, that he is professionally kept to prevent, to the best of his abilities, the abuse of legal ignorance and factual prevalence.

  The Judge is apparently absolutely not interested in the ‘Belehrungspflicht’ of the Notary Mr. F. E. G. and persists in the Buncampers’ participation in an illegal construction. I would dare say that because he could not find the burden of proof against the notary that he falsified a deed, he decided to go with the alleged illegal construction and hold the notary legally accountable for such and thus punish him for that behaviour.

  Furthermore, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2 of the National ordinance on the notaries: “a Notary must refuse his services, in the event that to his reasonable belief, the activity that is expected from him, leads to breaches of the law, the public order or the moral order, or his participation is required by acts which seemingly have an illegal purpose or consequence.” No reference is made whatsoever to this stipulation.

  The appeal of the Buncampers, against the recent criminal sentences, therefore surely has a huge chance of succeeding, one would think and hope.

  Imposing a sentence of 240 hours of community service, to two renowned members of community service organizations, seems farfetched and out of order. It is not said that these people are immune to criminal conviction, but after the acquittal of Mr. T. O. W. of all charges, the acquittal of the charges of money-laundering and participating in a criminal organization, the continuation of a criminal case against the Buncampers smacks of legal hypocrisy.

  The principles of due process should have urged the Public Prosecutor to drop all criminal charges against the involved suspects, after they admitted their serious mistake (the then case Prosecutor took pictures with a personal cell phone of various documents that were between the lawyer and his clients and lots of other papers they knew full well they could not confiscate due to their secretive/confidential nature as process documents; these pictures were then sent via email throughout the Prosecutor’s Office), and withdrew the first case Prosecutor.

  Continuing the criminal process with another case Prosecutor, at least shows a somehow unprofessional attitude, or even a personal grudge on the side of the Public Prosecutor against the Buncampers. Portraying that the Prosecutor’s Office came clean is the furthest from the truth as they only came forward when the Buncampers’ lawyer filed a formal complaint against the prosecutor at the judge of instruction. It is only then that she states that she realized what she did, but yet it reportedly took her 6 days to, so call, destroy the pictures she took from her computer and I-Cloud and write a report to her superiors.

  In the meantime, she reportedly opted to email the pictures to the present prosecutor and the chief prosecutor. It’s like asking a new rat to mind the cheese and hope it doesn’t eat it.

  The Prosecutor’s Office wants the Buncampers and the lawyers to believe that the present prosecutor didn’t peek at the illegally taken pictures and documents; something I unfortunately cannot believe nor trust as integrity at the Prosecutor’s Office has in St. Maarten shown to have a different meaning than what we should expect. Now that the verdict of the other suspect in this case Mr. I.A. H. is irrevocable, it means that nobody destroyed any evidence and using that excuse to raid the home of the Buncampers clearly shows the manner in which the Prosecutor’s Office operates.

  Perhaps the harshness of the conviction towards the Buncampers was because they dared to challenge the Prosecutor’s Office and the entire justice system, showing that they were not afraid of a fair legal battle. The fact that the Judge blames Maria that as a politician she should have given the right example, turns her criminal process into a political process, whether the Judge had intended it or not: a Judge cannot be that naive, a sentence stigmatizes the culprits, if not directly then indirectly.

  So, the term judicial persecution has now been established beyond a reasonable doubt. You would think that the courts would have stuck to judicial prosecution.

  It should be clear enough, that the Judges are still lacking a certain sensitivity of how the St. Maarten society functions, they are unfamiliar with the norms of our society and seemingly also not fully adapted to the understanding of the St. Maarten Law as embedded in the Civil Code of St. Maarten.

  I would like to suggest allowing these fine jurists first to familiarize themselves with the laws of the country St. Maarten, because although many laws of the country St. Maarten are derived from the laws of the Netherlands, the Dutch laws cannot blindly be applied in country St. Maarten. In particular the law on taxation which played a major role in this case is not the same as the one in the Netherlands. St. Maarten as a country has its own laws and these laws must not only be adhered to by society but, these are the laws that the judges must apply. In St. Maarten we don’t have capital gains laws (no personal taxes on the sale of land).  

  How this saga will end is surely a good test case for how the society of St. Maarten resolves its impediments. The society of The Netherlands honestly cannot be compared with the society of St. Maarten; although there is a lot of common history, at the same time there are too many demographic differences. Let’s not lose our belief in justice, and let us work together to realize that at the end, justice always will prevail no matter who the persons are. There’s no room in St. Maarten for class justice.

  Lastly, if the Prosecutor investigates public notaries for the type of so-called “criminal constructions” that the Buncampers have been accused of, they would find they would have to drag half the population before the judge as arrangements involving economic rights are signed, sealed and delivered every day at these notaries. Come on now!

A Buncamper Supporter

Dear Editor,

  Please allow me to express my concern about the deterioration of service on St. Maarten.

  As a St. Maartener, I have been an unfortunate witness to the slow deterioration of service on the island, and while I have yet to come to grips with what has happened, I can only imagine what our guests must think of us.

  We have to recognize that we are a service-oriented economy. The tourists that visit our island come with a promise of a wonderful vacation experience, to get value for their hard-earned money and to leave our shores with memories they can’t wait to share with their loved-ones. Unfortunately many of our guests are met with a broken promise.

  We need to wake up and realize our island is slowing devolving. Who are we to blame?

  Perhaps the Government is to blame for not having a strict immigrant integration policy to ensure all immigrants understand and accept what our island expects of them as residents. Immigrants either integrate and respect our way and quality of life, or catch the next flight out.

  Or is it our educational system, K-12, which lacks a basic hospitality curriculum so students understand the core principles of our economy when they graduate from high school.

  Or maybe it is our antiquated labour laws that protect employees and not the economy that drives employment. Our labour laws do not promote a competitive labour environment and shackles businesses with poor or underperforming employees.

  Or do we blame ourselves for being so indifferent that we accept such subpar performance.

  There is much blame to go around, but rather than point fingers, we need to have a long-term plan to improve our service and Tourism industry. If we don’t do so, and soon, we may as well change our moniker to: “Sint Maarten – The Mediocre Island.”

Name withheld at author’s request.