Mark H. Vanterpool should be made to ‘forfeit’ nomination fee- Caller
Mr Vanterpool had retained his seat as the Representative for the Fourth District but days after submitted his resignation to the House of Assembly and announced it publicly via press release and social media. He; however, subsequently had a change of heart and asked to be sworn in as a Member of the House of Assembly.
His argument was that he didn’t address the letter to the Speaker of the House of Assembly as is required by the constitution but rather he addressed it to the Clerk, which made his resignation letter invalid.
When the Speaker Honourable Julian Willock refused to swear in Mr Vanterpool he turned to the High Court and was subsequently granted a ruling in his favour. The Speaker has since filed an appeal.
Mr Vanterpool should face ‘consequences’
According to the caller to Speak Out BVI, Mr Vanterpool should either be fined or made to forfeit his refundable $1000 nomination fee.
“There also should be consequences for the whole event,” the caller stated, while referring to a case that took place in the House of Commons in 1880 when an elected Member of Parliament, Charles Bradlaugh, was disallowed in the House of Commons for refusing to take the religious Oath of Allegiance. Mr Bradlaugh, an atheist, had said the Oath would have been meaningless to him.”
Because Members had to take the oath before being allowed to take their seats, Bradlaugh effectively forfeited his seat in Parliament. His seat fell vacant and a by-election was declared.
On at least one occasion, Bradlaugh was escorted from the House by police officers. In 1883 he took his seat and voted three times before being fined £1,500 for voting illegally. A bill allowing him to affirm was defeated in Parliament.
According to Wikipedia, in 1886 Bradlaugh was finally allowed to take the oath, and did so at the risk of prosecution under the Parliamentary Oaths Act. Two years later, in 1888, he secured passage of a new Oaths Act,[22] which enshrined into law the right of affirmation for members of both House of Commons and House of Lords.
According to the caller, similarly, Mr Vanterpool should be made to face some consequences.
“Because Mr Bradlaugh was fined 1500 Pounds, and I think the elected representative should have been allowed to forfeit the $1000 he paid on Nomination Day, even if he is sworn in. But these matters got to come with consequences; you cannot just do what you want.”
Vanterpool was a ‘little disrespectful to his constituents’
Another caller to the show said he had preferred that the matter not reach the courts but thought that the way Mr Vanterpool resigned was “a little disrespectful to his constituents and the country as a whole…”
In a press release sent out to the media on May 5, 2019 Mr Vanterpool cited personal reasons as the motive for the resignation and apologised to the people of the Fourth District 4 for the sudden move.
“Today I have advised the Clerk of the House of Assembly that I wish to be excused from sitting in the next House of Assembly due to be convened on 12th March 2019. I am aware that this would be very surprising to the residents of District 4 and the territory, having been duly elected in the February 25, 2019, General Elections,” he said in the opening of his statement.
“However, allow me to say that this is a decision I have made for personal reasons... I sincerely regret the disappointment and inconvenience that this will cause. I wish to thank all the constituents of District 4 and the citizens of the Territory for allowing me to serve you for four (4) terms in the House of Assembly,” Hon Vanterpool said.
According to the caller, one can’t just decide one day they are going to quit and then suddenly want back the job.
“What is really going on there? And that is something we have to look into. You can’t just say it is invalid.”
Another caller expressed concern about the “stability” of Mr Vanterpool due to his sudden decisions and said she would have liked to know what was going on in the mind of Mr Vanterpool when he suddenly resigned and then wanted to withdraw his resignation.
.png)
_Card_system_comimg_soon_flyer-06_(4).jpg)
Follow Us On
17 Responses to “Mark H. Vanterpool should be made to ‘forfeit’ nomination fee- Caller”
Ignore the Puppet masters whishing to over turn the 2019 elections results
I live in district 4 and to be honest, I don’t care for mark to be any representative of mine or this country matter of fact. I feel disrespected. He came campaigning and and skinning he ugly teeth with all that talk and b***ery begging for a vote and to be put back in. We stood in that line on Election Day and supported him wasted our time putting the X at his name only for his l**ng as* to come days later bout he ain want to represent us again for personal reasons. This ain’t no personal decision. Was it life or death or health? And if it was, is he (or they/ wife/ family) suddenly cured? Does this man really realize what he did and what’s really going on here?? This ain’t no joke. This job doesn’t come with a big eraser or a bottle of white out. All of this back and forth, he caused it. All. It doesn’t get any more serious than this. He wants to be a minister of government today, then he doesn’t want to be that again this afternoon. He think he on the play ground?? Cause he acting like a big spoiled child and that is all I see when I see him about the place like he looking for something to do. I feel that there should be big consequences to pay for his actions of course. It sends a bad message and leaving a bitter taste.
Get away n don’t come back here.