Page 82 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud
P. 82

The third member of the Board was Félix Dormoi, M.D., president of the
                     Medical Specialists at Santo Tomás Hospital. Dormoi was known as an active union
                     leader with no partisan affiliation. A few months before the elections he had written an
                     open letter to the Electoral Tribunal suggesting that international observers be invited
                     to  go  to  Panama  to  ensure  honest  elections.  This  concern  over  truly  democratic
                     elections would later lead Dormoi to resign his position in a surprise move. “I cannot
                     countenance with my signature”, Dormoi wrote in a candid open letter dated May 10,
                     “the results to appear in this Board’s official tally sheet. To do so would run contrary
                     to  the dictates of my conscience and that of a people who believe that its  will, as
                     expressed in the ballot box, would be respected”. The complete text of this document
                     is to be found in exhibit 20.

                             The last original member of the National  Returns Board appointed by the
                     Electoral  Court  was  Mrs.  Raquel  M.  Fernández  V.,  who  was  Dormoi’s  alternate.
                     Fernández was a real estate broker by profession; she had no known political history.
                     Together with Gadeloff, she wrote a letter to Presiding Judge Quintero, published by
                     La Prensa on page 13A on May 25. “This letter ends the irregularities committed
                     during the deliberations of the National Returns Board. Our consciences would not
                     forgive us”. (See exhibit 21).

                             There was something very rotten in the most important electoral body of the
                     land. Its third member resigned claiming that “the people’s will, as expressed in the
                     ballot box”, had been ignored. In addition, two other members wrote a letter to the
                     Electoral Tribunal presiding justice denouncing in no uncertain terms what they termed
                     “irregularities” and abuses of power.

                             What did actually happen at the National Return Board at the time of the 1984
                     elections?
                             The first point to address must be Dormoi’s resignation and the appointment
                     of Simón Tejeira to replace him. The arbitrary actions surrounding this incident clearly
                     show the pro-Barletta bias of the National Returns Board.

                             Article 141 of the Electoral Code states: “The offices of chairman, secretary
                     and member of the National Returns Board must be mandatorily accepted. They may
                     be declined only by reason of physical disability, legal impediment or the need to leave
                     the country indefinitely or urgently”. Therefore, the Board was bound by law to reject
                     his resignations, since the reasons he alleged were not envisaged by law. On the other
                     hand, however, the Board could hardly force Dormoi to stay in office against his will.
                     So, it was decided that he would step down and be replaced by his alternate, Fernández.
                     It so happened, however, that both Fernández and Gadeloff had exhibited admirable
                     fairness in their jobs, and, at this advanced stage of the game, the regime was not about
                     to run the risk of having an impartial person serve as the third member of the Board.
                     Therefore,  they  accepted  Dormoi’s  resignation  and  appointed  Tejeira  –and  not  his
                     alternate– as the new third member of the highest electoral body in the country. In so
                     doing, they violated three articles of the Electoral Code, namely: Article 141, quoted
   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87