Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
CAY HILL:--- Lawyer Sjamira Roseburg, caNDidate for parliament for the USPArty/12/reussir-saint-martin'>RSM has created the appearance of a conflict of interest in a dispute against NIPA (SPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAtioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl Institute for ProfessioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAlAdvancement). On October 12, a NIPA teacher, D. E. sought the services of lawyer Roseburg, because of a labour dispute with the NIPA school board whose chairperson is Peggy Ann Dros-Richardson, Head of the Labour Office. D.E., who will celebrate her 10th anniversary as a teacher at NIPA this month aND has a permanent part-time contract as a teacher of English aND Life Skills, was without being given notice or reason, no longer scheduled as a teacher as of February 2023.
She brought this matter to the attention of the maSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAgement aND the school board, but the problem was not resolved. In October 2023, D.E. enlisted the help of lawyer Sjamira Roseburg. During the consultation, lawyer, Sjamira Roseburg said that D.E. iNDeed, had a case against NIPA aND that to take the case into consideration, a total of $850 had to be paid. Lawyer Roseburg requested that the full amount had to be paid before she sent out the first letter. The amount was paid in full by D.E. on 24th October. On October 30, 2023, Sjamira Roseburg sent D.E. an email she received from BreNDa Brooks, attorney for NIPA. In the communication, attorney BreNDa Brooks requested a month to stUDy the file. Educator, D.E. strongly opposed this. D.E. told Roseburg that as a lawyer it took her less than an hour to look at the case aND determine that she iNDeed had a case against NIPA, therefore, it was incomprehensible why Ms. Brooks should be given a whole month to stUDy the case. Lawyer Roseburg was also told by D.E.'s husbaND that it is known that Sjamira Roseburg aND BreNDa Brooks belong to the same political party, NDidate' href='/newspolitician/722/luc-merceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA'>Luc MerceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA's USPArty/12/reussir-saint-martin'>RSM aND that there is something fishy about RoseburSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS decision in granting BreNDa Brooks request.
Roseburg at that moment should have recused herself because the appearance of a conflict of interest had been created. Roseburg didn't do that. BreNDa Brooks is President of the USPArty/12/reussir-saint-martin'>RSM political party aND Sjamira Roseburg is a caNDidate for parliament for the USPArty/12/reussir-saint-martin'>RSM. On 3rd November, D.E. asked Sjamira Roseburg what the deadline was for NIPA to respoND. On November 3rd, Sjamira Roseburg sent an email to D.E. aND her husbaND, in which she informed them that BreNDa Brooks was uSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAble to respoND due to medical reasons. She said she had told BreNDa Brooks that this was an urgent matter. Roseburg proposed that she aND D.E. should wait until the eND of the following week, at which point, she, Roseburg would evaluate the situation again. She did not keep her promise as she did not contact D.E. On November 9, 2023, Roseburg received an email, from D.E. in which she asked her if BreNDa Brooks had already recovered aND gone through the documents. Sjamira Roseburg did not respoND to the email.
On November 13, 2023, D.E. sent Sjamira Roseburg an email with an advertisement from NIPA as an attachment, advertising 60 hours of English. Sjamira Roseburg did not take any action in response to this email. From that moment on, there was a wall of silence on the lawyer's side. On November 29, 2023, Sjamira Roseburg sent an email to D.E., stating that her colleague aND fellow USPArty/12/reussir-saint-martin'>RSM party member, BreNDa Brooks, "was in aND out of the office," but after being given more than a month, had not respoNDed. She could therefore uNDerstaND if D.E. wanted to take the matter to court. The educator informed Sjamira Roseburg on November 29, 2023, that this news came as no surprise to her, as she had already pointed out to Roseburg that games were being played. This was the reason why on November 3, lawyer Roseburg received an email in which a proposal was made to take the matter before the court; something she advised against in her response. Upon receiving the email that Brooks did not honour the 30-day request, D.E. asked Roseburg to inform the employer aND the lawyer that she was going to court, aND asked for a cc of the email. Sjamira Roseburg did not respoND. She did not contact D.E. or inform her of any further steps.
D.E. had had enough aND on December 12, she filed a complaint with the Dean of the SXM Bar Association about Sjamira Roseburg. The Bar Association has a mediating role. If no solution is fouND between the lawyer aND the client, the client can file a complaint with the Raad van Toezicht, the Court Supervisory Board. D.E. has decided to file a complaint about lawyer Roseburg with the Court Supervisory Board, Raad van Toezicht, in January. Sjamira Roseburg was also informed of this by the educator.
Article contributed by the client of Attorney Sjamira Roseburg.
