From what I understand from Phil, I have now been demoted to a status where I am only able to post blog entries (no forums or comments), and these have to live up to a specific criteria, in order to be published on nicaliving.  So I do not know whether this post will be censored or not.

One thing I do want to state here is a brief note of thanks to Jon Berger (nicareal).  It is surprising that it took a year and a half for anyone from this site about Nicaragua to actually take the time to personally investigate something that indeed was an important question for foreigners living in Nicaragua during this time.  Those of you who blindly believed lies told by Sherif El-Dibani about me should think twice about your ability to tell truth from fiction in Nicaragua.  Learn a lesson from Jon Berger: only be sure of what you know beyond a shadow of a doubt based on your own experience. Your initial impression and what people tell you are usually already part of a drama too large to see.

I don’t know who Jon Berger actually talked to in Carazo.  I had hoped he would have figured out whether Sherif was individually and solely responsible for the libel, or whether he had been told “un cuento del camino” by some locals.  But that would have required a lot of luck and/or local allies, so I can’t say that Jon Berger’s investigation was flawed in any way in not having figured that out.  Sherif himself had emailed his own reply to me privately a month back: the two words “F*** Off” which is I think an indication that he regrets having ever moved to Nicaragua.

Phil stated recently in his bimonthly defense of his own libel, that I [he] ‘posted his "Machete Damage" post here talking about being attacked by locals. This clearly reflects on Nicaragua and Nicaraguan safety. Two sources have suggested what happened was retribution for mis-treatment of workers and for involvement with young girls. I have no first-hand knowledge of this information and I don't believe those that suggested this did either’

In other words, what Phil says is, “Two poorly-informed people [not necessarily independent] told me a rumor that” X, Y, and Z. 

The website supposedly does not allow illegal posts.  Yet Mr. Hughes’s statement is libel.  Note the following:  

One cannot escape liability for defamation by putting the libel behind a prefix such as "I have been told that ..." or "It is rumoured that ...", and then asserting that it was true that one had been told or that it was in fact being rumoured.... For the purpose of the law of libel, the hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement.link

I have repeatedly asked Mr. Hughes and other past and present administrators of the site to remove the libel posted by Sherif El-Dibani and Mr. Hughes and others.  They refused, in every case stating I ought to defend myself on the site.  Then when I defended myself, they censored me, saying it was a personal attack or not useful.  Now, with Jon Berger’s investigation, they have even more clear evidence that they are condoning and participating in libel by their ongoing publication of Sherif’s and Mr. Hughes’s statements, as well as newer ones by recent members.

For Mr. Hughes, I have this to say: I will ask you once again: please remove all libel and personal attacks referencing me from your site; please remove posts of my copyrighted material that you refused to allow Pete to remove when you first condoned harassment and attacks of me two years ago. If you want to have a propoganda site, so be it, but leave me out of it.

It is ironic that our associate gueguense and I have been banned in various degrees from the website, for, according to Mr. Hughes, failing to provide useful information.  It’s particularly ironic considering that much of the information we have been providing was useful, and particularly ironic considering that Mr. Hughes has devoted such attention to libeling me and defending his wisdom and righteousness in his ongoing publication of the libel by himself and others.  For whom is Phil’s misinformation in this instance useful?  It’s blatantly false and misleading. 

Jon also stated in another message that I have engaged in “repeated personal attacks” (http://www.nicaliving.com/node/13579#comment-76509).  This is coming from a person who compared me to a child abuser and cockroach. Where exactly did I engage even once in even one personal attack?

I have not engaged in a single personal attack in the four years I have been a member of the website, but I have been the subject of over two years of personal attacks and libel there.

Is it a coincidence that I have posted cautionary advice for potential investors in Nicaragua, and been libeled and subject to attacks there? 

It’s probably just as likely a coincidence, as the coincidence that gueguense and I were censored ten days before the Nicaraguan elections, on a day when Mr. Hughes met personally with politicians about his real estate development.

I doubt either is coincidence:  Those politicians, especially after Finland’s recent announcement, are aware of the importance of suppressing informed, critical opinions.   Mr. Hughes now understands after his chat with them, that if he wants to be allowed semi-peace in building his resort, that he must keep his website toeing the party line.

After the recent election travesty, we can rest assured that they will be that much more clear with Mr. Hughes about the guidelines he must follow in his website in order to continue with his resort.  I predict we’ll be able to see that in action in upcoming months.

I invite any persons who would like to participate in collaborative information-sharing in a forum not censored for political/profit purposes to do so at the new forum I started: Central America Forum.