DARBOE'S STRATEGY IS INDEED RIGHT
(the 3rd Rejoinder)

By The Democrat
 
Moliere stated in 1972 that “a knowledgeable fool is a greater fool than an ignorant fool”; whilst Friedrich von Schiller stated in 1801 that “with stupidity even the gods struggle in vain”. Certainly the clown disguising under Oceanic Lad has no value for his criticism of Lawyer Darboe’s strategy than to clearly manifest his brazenness. In his retardedness, this so called New York Legal Assistant had lost his sight off the subject under discord, which had nothing to do with his resume. Furthermore, unless this empty head failed to realise; the New York Central Booking has no staff by that name of his, Oceanic Lad. Hence, I wonder what the essence of his forged bravado is all about.
 
The subject, which was started by this so-called legal assistant of New York was that the strategy employed by Lawyer Darboe in the case of the Gambia State v Femi Peters, was not relevant in law. He then changed that position to condemn it as wrong and now dead wrong. However, the Lad failed to present any legal point to support his allegation but instead resorted to showmanship, and tried to sell us his autobiography.
 
The difficulty with such a sale is that we don’t know this folly, much more interested in his autobiography. All we know for certain are that the New York Central booking has no staff by the name of our author, Oceanic Lad. The institutes he had claimed to have attended, such as the GTTI, had never enrolled a student of his name; nor did any courts that he claimed to have worked for in the Gambia had ever employed a staff with such an unusual name.
 
Yet this pathetic liar wishes for Lawyer Darboe to change his strategy employed and substitute it with a confirm liars strategy. That is the strategy one needs to regard as indeed dangerous and calling a spade a spade is certainly not being Darboe maniac. 
 
In fact, what this retarded mind never reasoned is that the Darboe maniacs like bolongba are not much different to him and his anti – Darboe band wagon. In that their measure of abhorrence for Darboe is equal to the measure of aberration of the Darboe maniacs. Therefore, he qualifies not judge others for their aberration of Darboe, since he failed to ask himself about his abhorrence for the man. 

As to the crux of the argument; the truth remain that the Oceanic Lad is an ignorant so called legal adviser of New York. The man cannot even distinguish the difference between a criminal case and a constitutional case. He had described McClesky v Kemp (1986) as a constitutional case, when it is a criminal matter. He now describes Solomon v Solomon (1897) AC 22, as a criminal court, when it is in fact a company law case.
 
This shows how much this Oceanic Lad is confused about the different areas of law. But then again, if his Law teacher could not pronounce the case of Solomon v Solomon properly, but instead called it “Solaman Square”; then one ought not to be surprised if he had misled this dim-wit to regard the case as a criminal case, or if he had not even misguided him about the concept of corporate veil of an incorporated company.  
 
However, knowing what we know about this pathetic liar, it will be wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt. The man is no legal adviser in New York and had no formal Legal education at the GTTI. All we know about this man is simple, he is not who he claims to be. His name is a fake; so is everything he expresses including his so called strategy that he dogmatically supports in this discord.
 
On the hand, I welcome his appreciation that his highly rated Lawyer Lamin Camara is not the best Lawyer of the Gambia.
I leave him to ponder again.