New Rules

Orette Bruce Golding during the Dudus Extradition Affair (DEA) held a number of relevant positions; PM of Jamaica, self declared Chief Servant; MP for Western Kingston, Leader of the JLP, salad maker and husband of Lorna Golding.  Confusion surrounds which particular cap Orette Bruce Golding was wearing at any specific point in time during the DEA.

Orette Bruce Golding is scheduled to be the final witness in the Dudus/Manatt COE.  The public has been hyped to expect a showdown between Golding and KD Knight. Such has been labelled Sheriff vs Spider, Nightmare vs Webmaster and numerous other epithets.

This is the grand finale in the biggest political operatic farce Jamaica has ever witnessed.  

There is a clear and urgent for some new rules:

1. Commissioners must be as usual out of commission and not enforce any rules
2. Lying to one counsel does not bar lying to any or all
3. "Can't recall" and "cannot remember" are only available for answers to twenty questions per day.
4. Complete freedom to contradict all other witnesses and even oneself without shame or explanation.
5. Contradiction of verbatim writer is limited to five occasions.
6. "National Security" "Cabinet" and "Constitutional Rights" are not to be used in the ordinary customary senses. Witness is free to attach any unque, arbitrary or nonsensical meaning without notice.
7. Nelsonian Maths do not apply.
8. KD limited to ten days.
9. Witness free to carry own juice (Leaf-of-lie tea, Oil of Slippery Mouth, Memory Booster) if the water provided is less effective.
10. Audience reactions in terms of laughter, smirks, nodding (of the non-sleep variety) and other expressions of appreciation are strictly prohibited Coughing and throat clearing are allowed. Pauses longer than thirty seconds will not be allowed as they may be interpreted as disbelief or lying.
11. Absence from work during the showdown should not be supported by medical certificate. After all this could properly be classified as a "national disaster."

Read more...

Bruce to Come

• Can we expect JLP supporters to turn out in their numbers (adorned with placards) when their leader attends the COE? What about another round of graffiti?
• Will Bruce Golding be wearing a green or a blue tie; or better still, one similar to that highlighted by his counsel Hugh Small QC?
• Can someone explain the basis for the different legal representation of the JLP and PM Golding? Bruce Golding is the leader of the JLP, so PM Golding is having a separate and distinct position from Party Leader Golding.
• Is it a case that this is not a GOJ initiative; neither is it a JLP initiative but a Bruce Golding initiative?
• Could it have been a Bruce Golding idea; the initial cost of which would be undertaken by the JLP, but it had to have the appearance of a GOJ initiative, with the GOJ taking over the financial obligations of the MPP contract?
•  Is it a mere coincidence that a large number of attorneys, formally or presently, associated with one particular law firm seem to be involved in one way or another in this COE? Is it Dudus/Manatt or Dunn/Manatt COE?
• Will PM Golding inform us as to the amount and type of lubricant which was applied to the "conduit" that facilitated the signing of the authority to proceed?
• Will the PM indicate if Dorothy Lightbourne, who eventually signed the authority to proceed, has obeyed his edict and signed simultaneously her letter of resignation?
• How many members of the Cabinet will be at the prolonged appearance of the PM at the COE?
• Will the PM announce the much anticipated Cabinet re-shuffle before the findings of the COE are delivered?
• Will the hype surrounding Sheriff vs. Spider be realized in spite of the numerous objections from the green gremlins?

The audience is growing weary of the supporting acts.  The top-billed performers are being impatiently awaited. Bram Bram!

Read more...

COE Souvenirs

Although not concerned with anything outside of the hearings, the Commissioners may be well advised to consider possible happenings in the environs of the conference center.

Apart from those being handsomely paid, others will want to “eat – a – food”.

Consider the following unique souvenir items:

• Men Only Underwear (MOU)
• Nelson New Math Textbooks (can’t recall prices)
• Dudus Wigs (one size fits Al)
• Baby leys (introductory offer)
• Flip Flops (green and blue)
• Lubricated Conduits (9 months delivery period)
• Lewin Bleaching Info Kits (turn anything white)
• Phipps Copiers (always has a copy)
• Ancient Quotes (available only in Small print)
• Deadwood Paneling (useless, very expensive)
• Phillips Talking Dolls (unstoppable)
• Multiple Peak Caps (JLP, PNP, Salad)

With the likelihood of the GOJ having some difficulty in meeting the expenses of the extended hearings, the COE may decide to defray some of the costs by setting up its exclusive Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry souvenir gift shop.

Read more...

WOW

Have you ever had cause to wonder:

• Can there ever be a credible investigation into the links between crime and politics in Tivoli Gardens without any mention being made to the one Don - Edward Phillip George Seaga?
• Can there ever be a credible enquiry into the decision making processes of the PNP government 2004 without any insights provided by the Black Prince - P.J. Patterson?
• Is it realistic to expect that all members of any cabinet would have been made fully aware of the detials of national security initiatives when there have been allegations that some have been involved in drug trafficking, money laundering or even murder?
• Can we expect that "collective responsibility" requires that each and every cabinet minister is fully aware of that for which he has accepted responsibility; or does it mean that whatever decisions are made, he has to publicly support or tender his resignation?
• Can we expect the same level of confusion, waffling and inconsistency exhibited in the COE to find sanctuary in the final report?
• Do the terms of reference in the Manatt COE oblige the calling of Lorna Golding to elaborate on her intervention in the Dudus extradition affair?
• Is it still a figment of anybody's imagination that this COE will cost the taxpayers $40 million only?
• What factors could explain the absence at the COE of the Leader of the Opposition and the President of the PNP especially during Peter Phillips' testimony?
• Will PM Golding disclose the name(s) of the JLP donor(s) of US$50,000.00 for the hiring of MPP and produce the actual cheque to substantiate the claim?
• On hindsight would it have been a better political strategy to adopt the Brady approach and pay $500.00 than to have one's reputation savaged in public?
• In light of the legal wranglings and courtroom drama will there be a "reduced rate" for lawyers who have not performed on certain days?

Read more...

Sell Out

The graffiti has been daubed on strategically selected walls in some urban ghetto areas.  The calls have been echoed in Parliament. Now they have found their way into the legal posturings in the Manatt Commission of Enquiry.  

The accusation is simple: Dr. Peter Phillips as Minister of National Security has sold out the constitutional rights of Jamaicans to the United States. This he has done by signing the mystery MOU's.  The charge is serious and hurtful. Peter Phillips has always been a nationalist at heart. It was reported that he was once a member of the Twelve Tribes of Israel - Bungo Peter wore tam and sandals and uttered black conscious lyrics.  Peter Phillips was a social scientist and an ardent follower of Michael Norman Manley. He was once General Secretary of the People's National Party and held ministerial positions both in the Michael Manley and P.J. Patterson led regimes. 

In his testimony, Phillips said that he had obtained the legal opinion of the then Solicitor General Michael Hylton. Later he said that the Solicitor General vetted the MOU's before they were signed. Hugh Small Q.C. in his cross examination of the now Security Minister Dwight Nelson has elicited evidence that the proper course is for the AG based upon the advice of the SG to inform the Minister in respect of legal matters. Well both the then AG A.J. Nicholson QC and the then Solicitor General Michael Hylton are available to the Commission.  The Commissioners are duty bound to call upon them to clarify the situation. In addition as portrayed by Clovis' cartoon, it may be useful if the insights of the then Prime Minister, Most Honourable P.J. Patterson QC be brought to bear on the purported secrecy of the deal.  

Bluntly if Phillips sold out then he was not alone in this venture.  It is very dangerous to leave these accusations hanging out there.

Read more...

That Samuda Press Release

Jacynic has analyzed this statement below from as far back as April 27, 2010. Please click Lies, Damn Lies and Dunce Lies to see our analysis.



Statement by JLP Minister of Industry, Investment Commerce Karl Samuda:

1. In September of last year, persons within the JLP approached Mr Brady to see whether,

through his wide network of international contacts, he could assist in facilitating the

opening of discussions between the US Authorities and the Government of Jamaica, and

thereby, seek to resolve what had become a treaty dispute between the US and Jamaica.

2. It was expected that Mr Brady, having served as a former Secretary-General of the

International Democrat Union, an organisation of worldwide centre-right parties founded

in 1983 of which the JLP is an associate member, would use his vast experience in

international law and politics to assist in this regard.

3. I am aware that Mr Brady’s firm retained the services of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on

or about October 2009, to pursue discussions with relevant officials of the government. I

am advised that all payment arrangements to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were transacted

between the two firms. The government of Jamaica had nothing to do with any aspect of

these arrangements.

4. The Solicitor-General went to Washington in December to have discussions with

officials of the State and Justice Departments. This meeting was arranged through the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US Embassy in Jamaica.

5. The Solicitor-General and the team that accompanied him met with representatives of

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips at Mr Brady’s invitation. The discussions were exploratory and

were focused on alternative approaches that have been taken in similar treaty disputes

with the US. The Solicitor-General made it clear that the government of Jamaica saw no

need at that stage to engage their services but would be prepared to consider doing so

should the need arise.

6. The Solicitor-General accepted a suggestion that a representative of the firm attend the

planned meeting with the State and Justice Departments as an observer, which he did

with the full approval of the State Department.

7. The Solicitor-General, who had had no previous contact with Manatt, Phelps &

Phillips, was not then aware that the firm had already been retained by Brady &

Company. He has had no further contact with the firm since that encounter in December.

8. As regards media reports that a Minister of Government met with State Officials and

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Dr Ronald Robinson, Minister of State in the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, while on a visit to Washington on November 20,

2009, had a brief social encounter with a representative of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips after

having declined an invitation by Mr Harold Brady to attend a meeting at the State

Department.

9. The Government of Jamaica did not enter into any contractual arrangement with

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and therefore no payments were made to the firm by the

Government of Jamaica.

Source: AmLawDaily

Read more...

Out! Played on

When he went, whoever he spoke with at Manatt said “Look, we’re prepared to assist in this matter but it would have to be on a professional retainer basis” and, as I said; as I’ve acknowledged before, when that was reported to me by Brady, that’s when I should have pulled up the stumps. That’s when I should’ve said, "Absolutely no.” Regrettably, I said “Alright go ahead but be very clear in your mind that this is the Party that is doing it not the Government” because it was entirely a Party initiative from it started.

Quote from Bruce Golding in Brady defamation lawsuit.

This raises a number of concerns:

• What factors did the Prime Minister consider when he came to the conclusion that he should have pulled up stumps?
• What factors did the PM consider in coming to the view to allow the play to continue?
• What was the purpose of Golding allowing the game to continue (along the lines as indicated by Brady) but with the warning that it should appear in Brady's mind to be a party matter.
• Was the reality being deliberately disguised?

The umpires in the Manatt/Dudus Commission of Enquiry will be paying keen attention to the replay. The stumps appear to have been shifted.

Read more...

Recalling Leys Lullaby

=""

Rock a bye baby,
In the treetop
When the wind blows
The cradle will rock

Douglas Leys the Solicitor General of Jamaica, in a meeting with US State Department and Justice Department facilitated the attendance of a member of a private US law firm into that official meeting. Hello!?

The SG had just recently a few hours before been introduced to the principals of the said law firm who were anxious to obtain an official brief to act on behalf of the GOJ.

The SG himself had refused the overtures of the said law firm and by his own admission outlined to them the procedure that had to be followed if and when they were to be engaged to act on behalf of the GOJ.

It therefore begs the question: Did the SG act most improperly in facilitating the attendance of a private US law firm at an official meeting between himself and the US authorities?

In so doing, the SG unwittingly gave credence to the impression gained by the US officials - who had previously met with representatives of the US law firm and were involved in discussions of the very same issue as the SG - that the US law firm was indeed acting on behalf of the GOJ.

What is even more difficult to understand is the rationale informing the SG's thinking that to have Brady - a Jamaican attorney attend the meeting would have been improper, yet saw no problem in having a representative from a US law firm (who had not been engaged by the GOJ to his certain knowledge) attending as an "Observer".

Leys was either naive or was "convinced/persuaded" to change his initial refusal of the gratuitous offer. Unknown to him, he was the one being introduced to the US officials.

So, the "Consultant" was not so authorized and neither was the "Observer" but the fact remains that the US law firm acted on behalf of the GOJ in its dealings with US officials as reported on the official websites.

Smoking gun and misty mirrors: Who will be held accountable? Who misled the PM? Who is politically dispensable? Who will be "separated" from their responsibilities?

In the end the DEA - Dudus Extradition Affair has been further complicated, if not compromised, by the FBI (now meaning From Brady's Intervention).

When the bough breaks,

The Cradle will fall

And Down will come baby

Cradle and all

Oops!

Read more...

Resolve vs Avoid

Resolve the dispute

In May 2010 when the Mr Golding told Parliament that he had sanctioned the Manatt initiative, he said the move was to resolve a treaty dispute with the the United States.

"The initiative, which led to the engagement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips by Mr Brady started within the Jamaica Labour Party in September when he was approached to see whether, through his contacts with persons in the American political system, assistance could be obtained in finding a way to resolve what was seen as a treaty dispute."

Source: Jamaica Observer 

Avoid the dispute

But in an interview hosted by Ian Boyne on Sunday September 12, 2010 dubbed 'A conversation with the Prime Minister', Mr Golding said the US law-firm was hired to avoid a treaty dispute.

Source Go Jamaica

Read more...

Enquiry Lost

The Manatt COE runs the very real risk of losing its way and/or losing public confidence/attention in its deliberations. One of the factors grabbing public attention is the opportunity to explain or clarify confusing and contradictory statements made in the public by politicians and public servants in what has been called the "Dudus" extradition affair. The Chief offenders are the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the Minister of Information, the Solicitor General and Attorney-at-law Harold Brady.

The former Commissioner of Police has made some explosive statements in an interview conducted on CVM Direct and the Minister of National Security has responded vehemently to the assertions made.  The enquiry must of necessity consider all things in the public domain. It has to consider all the previous statements made by key personnel.  It cannot afford to ignore or bar any section of any public pronouncement.  We are therefore surprised that up until the time of writing, that interview with the former Commissioner of Police has not been aired in the Commission. Indeed it seems inescapable that certain interests are hell bent on preventing such being disclosed to the commission. The Commissioners would be well advised to make arrangements for such interview to be aired within the Commission and the former Commissioner be recalled to explain, elaborate or expand any view that may pique the interest of the battery of attorneys present. Until then we would issue a call in the public interest for CVM to repeat that interview in the hope that it may jog the memories of those who seem to have forgotten the very nature and impact of the Commissioner's statement.

Nationwide and Newstalk should rebroadcast interviews with SG Douglas Leys now that he has given his testimony.

Brady and PM Golding are involved in a defamation suit in the supreme court and Brady has simply ignored the Manatt COE.  More anon.

Read more...

$$ Always Legit $$$

NOW - 2011

"Testifying earlier during yesterday's sitting of the commission, Information Minister Daryl Vaz, who was deputy treasurer of the JLP, said under cross-examination that the US$50,000 that was used to pay for the services of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips was "clean" money that came from a legitimate source."

Source: Jamaica Observer - Gov't was nervous - Feared ‘Dudus’ Extradition Request could topple administration
Vaz says money for extradition lobby came from legitimate source

THEN - 2003

"JAMAICA LABOUR Party (JLP) leader Edward Seaga will have to furnish evidence of impropriety on the part of James Robertson's campaign team during last week's race for deputy leader or risk facing legal action. This, according to Daryl Vaz, chairman of Robertson's Finance Committee, has become necessary following disparaging remarks made by Mr. Seaga yesterday on national radio.Mr. Vaz added, however, that they would not be complying with the JLP leader's demand that he be furnished with a list of donors.


"We have taken a decision that, whatever the threatened repercussions, we will not be responding to that directive."


Mr. Vaz said that they have already written to Commissioner of Police Francis Forbes asking him to insist that Mr. Seaga provide the evidence of what he said was a clear reference to money laundering on the part of the Robertson team."

Source : Jamaica Gleaner - JLP RIFTWIDENS Party squabbles over campaign financing

Read more...

JLP Government Needs Plumber

When troops seized Mr Coke’s headquarters at Tivoli Gardens they discovered a CCTV system that enabled him to monitor all the entrances. They also found large amounts of local and foreign currency and copies of the extradition documents filed by the US Government, which Mr Coke appeared to have obtained illicitly.

Source: Times Online - How Dudus Stayed Ahead of the Police.

 Minister Lightbourne's response:

Lightbourne said she received a call from "someone in the army" who advised her that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had the request and that it would have been submitted to her.
"I called my office. Have you got this yet? No, we don't know anything about it. Has Foreign Affairs got it? Foreign Affairs was called, they knew nothing about it. I then had to call back and say what is this. This thing has not gone through its processes and I was told: 'We are trying to speed it up so we make copies that everybody will get it all at the same time'," Lightbourne asserted.

Source : Jamaica Gleaner - Nicholson Wants Probe into Lewin's Allegations

Manatt Commission of Enquiry Surprise.

There was a surprising development at Wednesday afternoon's sitting of the Manatt/Dudus Commission of Enquiry at the Jamaica Conference Centre, when it emerged that the secret Memorandums of Understandings(MOUs), which was being guarded closely by the Commissioners, was already in the hands of at least one senior attorney at the hearing..........................The revelation that Queens Counsel (Q. C.) Frank Phipps, who is representing the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), already had copies of the MOUs sparked an intense debate among attorneys including K. D. Knight, counsel for the Opposition People's National Party, who brought the issue to the attention of the Commissioners.

Source: RJR  -  JLP Attorney Already Had Secret MOUs Before Manatt Commissioners

Read more...

Code Secret

One of the highest classifications used by the Ministry of National Security to indicate the level of confidentiality of highly sensitive documents is SECRET! This is normally placed at strategic points throughout the document. Sometimes it may be in red. 

 Nevertheless the classification indicates that only authorized individuals should have access to such documents and under no circumstances should there have cause for its publication to unauthorized individuals. This is essential for the effectiveness of national security operations especially those involving transnational organized crime.

Indeed it is well known that there are foreign law enforcement agents operating in Jamaica. Frequently they provide technical and logistic assistance to their Jamaican counterparts. For example, they may be involved in "sting operations", fugitive apprehension and counter narco-terrorism activities. It has been a feature of small independent countries to enter into "secret" arrangements between the more powerful and technologically superior states. Indeed there is even the arrangement where the captured bounty is shared. 

It is of paramount importance that the confidentiality of such arrangements is not compromised by unauthorized publication of the details of such bi-lateral relationships.  The classification has to be respected by both countries and forms the context in which future relationships are struck in the area of national security.

In most countries, there are criminal sanctions for those found guilty of unauthorized possession of classified documents. 

• Will the Manatt COE investigate the presence of highly confidential information at the headquarters of the Presidential Click?
• Will the Manatt COE investigate the persons within the JLP who facilitated the unauthorized sharing of information with journalists in a certain media house?
• Will the persons be held accountable for what must be regarded as a criminal act?

Don't hold your breath!

Read more...

Big Up

The Dudus COE has had some stellar performances given by public officers notably: Ambassador Coye, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Jeremy Taylor, Snr. Deputy DPP, Head of the Extradition Unit, DPP's office.

Ambassador Coye was credible. This expericed diplomat showed her mettle under cross examination. She sought the guidance (and protection) when she was of the view that the questions posed required her to submit answers not within her knowledge, competence or authority.  The lady was good.

Jeremy Taylor was professional in his approach, aided and abetted by the calm Lord Gifford.  The Snr. Deputy DPP maintained his considered opinion in the face of the constitutional challenges launched by Frank Phipps QC. Taylor's statement/contribution was very helpful to an understanding of the processes involved.  The advice given to SG Leys on the phone was a classic; its elabloration in preparation for the meeting that was not held seemed very comprehensive.

The public of Jamaica will be somewhat re-assured from the performances of these two public officers that all is not lost. Ambassador Coye is at the pinnacle of her career; Jeremy Taylor has a bright future ahead. Make no mistake, it is no easy feat to withstand cross-examination carried out by the likes of Phipps, Small and Knight - silks of the finest calibre.

We await the performance of SG Leys, AG Lightbourne and PM Golding. Make sure that you have a ringside seat in front of JNN it is shaping up to be the real bangarang. 

Read more...

The Grand Design?

The last day of January 2011 was a very interesting one at the Dudus COE AKA the Manatt COE:

• For the first salvo we were treated to vintage courtroom drama practised by the silks (QCs). Hugh Small Q.C. locked horns with K.D Knight Q.C., while Frank Phipps Q.C. and Winston Spalding Q.C. indulged in more esoteric interventions.
• Then the fact of the four memoranda took center stage.  The public still has no idea as to the contents.  Instead, the questions focused primarily on the whereabouts, the non-involvement of certain ministries and the usual procedures for such matters.
• For those oblivious to the objectives of this elaborate and detailed enquiry the grand design became evident in the last two questions posed to Ambassador Coye:
• Who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time?
• Who was the Minister of National Security at the time?
• The moment, the pregnant pause and the audience's reaction were more important than the  answers given. Of course the questioner and other attorneys already knew the answer.
• This has to be assessed alongside the context that was painstakingly brought out in evidence.
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had no record of such memoranda; did not participate in its formulation, negotiation or implementation; and was totally ignorant of such until informed by representatives of the US government who refused GOJ request for copies.
• Furthermore there seems to be no record of such memoranda being discussed or ratified by the Cabinet and certainly the memoranda was not brought to Parliament.
• The impression gained is that such were the result of secret deals between the then Minister of National Security and US agencies involved in national security (read CIA, DEA, FBI).
• The stage has been set. Remember those graffiti markings appearing mysteriously and accusing Peter Phillips of being a "CIA agent" and "selling out Jamaica". Now, there is evidence that the records available seem to indicate that Phillips alone and not even his cabinet colleagues were involved or informed.
• That is not all.  If you want further evidence of the grand design then you should have watched CVM nightly news. Minister of Finance Audley Shaw gave notice that it is likely that the Manatt enquiry could "backfire" on the PNP - specifically Peter Phillips when certain information comes out making him regret having called for the COE.

Read more...

Finding the "Truth"

We note with interest the announcement that the government intends to introduce polygraph testing (lie detector) for persons holding sensitive positions in the civil service and security forces. This has been generally regarded as a good move - especially in light of public perception of widespread corruption.

We have no problem with the idea. It is the implementation that will provoke some controversy. Firstly, it should not only be confined to the employees but applied also to the employers.
 Members of the political directorate - appointed/selected/elected should also be subjected to polygraph testing. Secondly, there is the issue surrounding the reliability of the equipment being utilized. There is a real risk of serious and irreparable damage to individuals who have been inaccurately evaluated.

We put forward one easy (some would say cynical) test. Use the entire Cabinet as the test standard for reliability. If the results come up less than 100% pass rate, then the equipment is deemed to be faulty and should be banned from use in Jamaica.

We fully recognize that there may be some considerable difficulty in sourcing such equipment. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The MPP COE is supposed to unearth the truth. Being sworn with bible in hand is of no guarantee here on earth of the truth being spoken. The battery of attorneys at the COE is more than an indication that "the truth" needs legal protection (lest it be incidentally revealed with embarrassing consequences).

Save time and money: subject witnesses to polygraph testing (who lie?). Then again the Commissioners themselves would also have to be subjected to polygraph testing (who nah lie?).

Read more...

Pointed Questions

Gleaner contributor Gordon Robinson, Attorney-at-Law in a column of August 29, 2010 purporting to outline the sequence of events in the Dudus Extradition affair, made some interesting inferences and asked a number of pointed questions.

Given the details of the statement filed by the former Senator Ronald Robinson to the COE, the following becomes extremely pertinent.

November 20, 2009: MPP has a second meeting with Bisa Williams, a US State Department director. On that same day, according to the May 11 statement of the prime minister:

"Dr Ronald Robinson, minister of state in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and (JLP) deputy general secretary, ... was invited by Mr Brady to attend a meeting at the State Department but declined ... . He did attend an informal meeting between Mr Brady and a representative of [MPP] ... to discuss the matters in relation to which the firm had been retained."

The inference from Driva's statement is that Brady was at that State Department meeting. If so, why? In what capacity? Did he obtain national security clearance? On what authority was he inviting Mr Robinson to attend? On what authority did Mr Robinson entertain the invitation so much so that, although he declined, he attended what could only have been a subsequent debriefing meeting with MPP and Brady? ......................

If these were innocent meetings, why has Robinson resigned? Why was MPP secretly briefing the GOJ's junior foreign affairs minister after the fact if MPP thought all along that it represented GOJ? Why was Robinson wary of being seen with Brady/MPP at the State Department meeting? Two plus two always equals four.

This happened in November 2009. Why was nothing done to reprimand Robinson until the matter became public? The foreign affairs minister has admitted that Robinson was not, at the time, on any sort of leave known to Government service. He was officially on duty as junior foreign affairs minister. But for the evidence of the cautious wording of the October 1 letter, it's easy to understand how MPP themselves might have been deceived into believing that they were working for GOJ. How many more public officials willingly participated in this JLP plot, sanctioned by the JLP Leader, to deceive the US government (and maybe MPP) that it was engaged in government-to-government talks?

One is left to wonder about the silence hitherto concerning the Vale Royal meetings held between the Prime Minister, Harold Brady and Ronald Robinson. According to Robinson, the first one involved the Prime Minister giving instructions to both Brady and himself and specifically about the briefing of the MPP lawyers of Jamaica's position. On the return of Brady and Robinson, the PM was briefed was briefed as to the outcome of his sanctioned mission.

The unavoidable question:

Why then and there did the Prime Minister not issue instructions to terminate the involvement of MPP?

The answer:

To do so would have obviated the need to have briefed them in the first place.

That presence statement is vital, to wit:
“The HPM,” said Robinson, using the acronym for the title Honourable Prime Minister, “instructed me to go to Washington to meet with the principals of MPP to brief them. My presence would also give some credence and strength to Mr Brady’s involvement.”[emphasis added].

Read more...

Fire Dem!

The MPP  Commission of Enquiry a flop! Nutten nah gwaan!

PM Bruce Golding for whatever reasons ( pressure from business sector, need to rehabilitate political credibility, to prove that he was always speaking the truth)) established the Emile George QC chaired Commission.

Chief Servant Golding attempted to lead by example by filing his statement early in the day and indicated (through his counsel) that he stands ready to give evidence at the convenience of the Commission. Sadly none of his Cabinet colleagues chose to follow the Leader's example,  The most egregious example is that of Dorothy Lightbourne who is:

• A senior Attorney of many years standing
• A learned Queens Counsel (QC)
• The Minister of Justice
• The Attorney General (The Legal Advisor to the Cabinet)
• Leader of Government Business in the Senate
• A key operative in the extradition process

This illustrious lady failed to comply with the COE stipulated deadlines for filing statements - both the original and extensions.  The excuse given is that one of the two attorneys representing her. Is it that she had no confidence (pun intended) in the other or was she incapable of crafting her own statement?

Somehow one could have gained the impression that writing the truth would have been easy - certainly within the competence of the Legal Advisor of the Cabinet.

But Lightbourne is not alone.  Where are the statements of the other members of the Cabinet inextricably involved in this matter, such as Minister of National Security, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Information & Special Projects?

We suggest to the Chief Servant that he should no longer tolerate such slackness.  If the statements are not filed by the next Cabinet meeting they should not be required to attend any more meetings of the Cabinet. 

Fire dem!!

He who decided to lead by example must ensure that he is being followed. Do something Leader!

Read more...

Why Ronald Robinson Resigned

  "........in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Dr Robinson admitted that his contact with Manatt "could have been inappropriate".

"For that I accept responsibility and should not have met with them, and for that I apologise. Note, however, that my only contact with the firm was twice between November 19 and 20, which was a full month or so after the website postings," Dr Robinson said.

He was in April this year identified as the Government official who met with officials of Manatt, the firm that was reportedly engaged by the Jamaican Government to lobby the United States to drop its extradition request for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke to face drug- and gun-running charges there.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Ronald-Robinson-resigns-as-senator-junior-minister_7634446#ixzz1CBnPUcRz

The public anxiously awaits the statement to be filed with the Commission of Enquiry. Meanwhile, his attorney has taken advantage of maximum media coverage. The attorney has informed that Robinson is a phone call away in the USA.

Update - The Sunday Observer has reported details of the filed statement by Ronald Robinson.

“The HPM,” said Robinson, using the acronym for the title Honourable Prime Minister, “instructed me to go to Washington to meet with the principals of MPP to brief them. My presence would also give some credence and strength to Mr Brady’s involvement.”

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/New-twist-to-Manatt-saga---Former-junior-minister-says-PM-sent-him-to-meet-with-law-firm-#ixzz1CXeRNu51

Read more...

PNP Probing Questions

The Dudus Enquiry may find the answers to the following questions extremely interesting. 


1. On what basis did the Solicitor General believe it was appropriate for private foreign citizens, in the persons of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, to attend a meeting between the Government of Jamaica and the Government of the United States involving highly sensitive and confidential issues?
Especially when, according to the Prime Minister, they were not engaged by the Government of Jamaica.
Would this not constitute an ethical breach?

2. Was the ambassador of Jamaica to the United States in Washington present at any of the meetings held between the Solicitor General and the US government authorities at which private foreign citizens from Manatt, Phelps and Phillips were also present?

3. Was the Jamaican ambassador to the US in Washington aware that Manatt, Phelps and Phillips were stating that they represent the Government of Jamaica and did he report this to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or any one else in the Government of Jamaica?

4. Did representatives of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips meet with officials of the Government of Jamaica other than the Solicitor General? If so, with whom, when and where?

5. What steps has the Government of Jamaica taken to clear the record with the US Justice Department to indicate that Manatt, Phelps and Phillips is not a representative of the Government of Jamaica?

6. Who paid the US$49,892.62 that Manatt, Phelps and Phillips reports to have paid for services rendered?
Was it the Government of Jamaica?
Was it Mr Brady?
Was it Mr Brady on behalf of his client?
If so, who is his client?

7. Did Mr Brady have any discussions with any officials of the Cabinet and Government of Jamaica other than the Solicitor General prior to signing the contract with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips?

8. Was the Solicitor General on a frolic of his own when he invited Manatt, Phelps and Phillips to attend the meeting between the Government of Jamaica and the US Government?

Source: Jamaica Gleaner

Read more...

Monday's Molotov

In our post Leys Lullaby, we had questioned the role of Solicitor General Douglas Leys.

After initially refusing the gratuitous offer made by the representative of MPP to attend the scheduled meeting of US State Department and Justice Department officials with GOJ officials, he was subsequently convinced to allow the representative to accompany the Jamaican delegation. We had wondered who or what convinced the SG to change his mind. After all has admitted on radio to include Jamaican attorney Harold Brady would have been improper.

Our information from a most reliable source is that the SG was in constant telephonic contact with government officials in Jamaica. On the first day of what has been dubbed the "Dudus Enquiry" we have been provided with the answer.

Coye testified that in December 2009, she went to the residence of Jamaican ambassador to Washington, Anthony Johnson, and that attorney Harold Brady was present together with an attorney from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. She said that she later learned that the attorney was named Kevin Di Gregory.

She said that Deputy Solicitor General Lackston Robinson had told her that the lawyer would be a part of the Jamaican delegation to meet with US State Department and Justice Department officials, which included her, himself and Solicitor General Douglas Leys.

Coye further testified that Robinson told her Leys had included the Manatt lawyer in the delegation because he understood US law and understood the thinking of the Justice Department, being a former employee there.

The ambassador said she objected because there was no approval from Foreign Minister Ken Baugh or Dorothy Lightbourne, justice minister and attorney general. However, she said that when she confronted Leys, he told her that Lightbourne had given permission to expand the delegation.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Manatt-was-working-for-gov-t-on-Dudus---testimony#ixzz1BK1RaVB9

 This raises a number of questions:

• Was the Solicitor General speaking the truth, when he said on radio that the gratuitous offer was extended merely hours before the scheduled meeting?
• Was the Attorney General speaking the truth when she said that the first time she heard of the firm MPP was when the matter was raised in parliament?
• Did the Solicitor General seek and obtain the authority of the Attorney General Lightbourne before he accepted the gratuitous offer?
• What consideration was given to the objections by the officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the initial reservations of the Solicitor General?
• Did the Attorney General inform the Prime Minister of the inclusion of MPP along with the GOJ delegation?
• Were the Attorney General and the Prime Minister briefed as to the outcome of the meetings with the US govt. officials and the GOJ delegation which included the representative from MPP?
• Was there a post meeting conference at the law offices of MPP?
• If yes, what role did the MPP representative play in those post meeting discussions?

Read more...