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...

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...

Lies, Damn Lies and Dunce Lies

A full statement has been released by Samuda on his findings re the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Engagement by Brady and Co.

The nine point statement raises a number of questions.

Point one: Who are those "persons within the JLP" who approached Mr. Brady? If there was a treaty dispute between the US and Jamaica why is the JLP interfering in such?

Point two: What is Brady's vast experience in international law and politics ? Is there no one else in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in possession of such skills? Why not appoint Harold Brady Consultant to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Point three: Why is Mr. Brady's firm retaining the services of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to have discussions with relevant officials of the US government, in which the GOJ has no interest?

Point four: If the meeting between the Solicitor General and officials of the State and Justice Departments was arranged by the Min of Foreign Affairs and the US Embassy of Jamaica, on what basis would the Solicitor General seek to include an "observer" a couple hours before its commencement.

Point five: Who are the members of the team that accompanied the Solicitor General to that meeting? On what basis was the Solicitor General discussing with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips alternative approaches that have to be taken in similar treaty disputes with the US? Solicitor General Leys indicated that the meeting was arranged by Brady and was mainly introductory. This does not square with Samuda's findings.

Point six:  How did the Solicitor General obtain "the full approval of the State Department" to have a representative of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips attend the meeting as an "observer".

Point seven: If Samuda's findings are true then the Solicitor General is duty bound to tender his resignation by his acceptance of the suggestion by a firm: with which he had had no previous contact, did not inform him that they had already been retained by Brady & Co. and without more he invited them to "observe" discussions between the GOJ and officials of the government of the United States.

Point eight:  What is a brief social encounter? How does one arrange such with a representative of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips? In what capacity was Harold Brady acting when he issued an invitation to the Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade to attend a meeting at the State Department? Who attended that meeting? Is it mere coincidence that Dr. Ronald Robinson and Harold Brady were in Washington at the same time, similar to the chance meeting of Brady and Leys?

Point nine: Have "persons within the JLP" entered into any contractual arrangement with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips? Have "persons within the JLP" facilitated the payments of submitted invoices?

So persons within the JLP decided to assist the JLP government.  This apparently was done without the knowledge of members of the JLP who are also members of the cabinet.  What exactly was the interest of the JLP in this matter? Furthermore Manatt, Phelps and Phillips would have provided written reports of its meetings and positions reached with officials of the US state and justice departments. These would have been provided to Brady and Co. for the benefit of "persons within the JLP". Did those reports reach cabinet members within the JLP? 

So Bruce Golding was not informed of such dealings in his capacity of Prime Minister of Jamaica. Was he so informed in his capacity as leader of the Jamaica Labour Party? Why has it taken so long for members of the hierarchy of the JLP to admit that this initiative was conceived and hatched within the JLP?

And the cow jumped over the moon.

Read more...

"Tainted Money" - Politics

The headline in the Sunday Observer, March 21, 2010 Rich Jamaican Businessman under US Probe must be sending off alarm bells throughout the newly monied interests in Jamaica. Bangarang once again!

Recall the "tainted money" saga in the JLP's internal elections which saw the young turks gaining office. That eventually paved the way for Bruce Golding's return and the ousting of Seaga from the helm.

Then the general election 2007 which saw a very expensive campaign being waged by the Golding - led JLP for some two years. Money flowed from both foreign and domestic sources.

There was little or no concern expressed as to the nature or source of such funds.  The main focus was amount and flow.  UFO's including Cash Plus and Olint were involved. 

The end result was that the Golding-led JLP barely eked out a win (less than a 3000 vote margin) despite the massive injection of cash into its campaign.

Now there is the Brady factor and questions being raised as to the source of the funding to lobby US officials.  The FBI is reported as having an interest.

As if that was not enough, it has been revealed that the US has interests in those who have amassed enormous wealth under the JLP Government.  

• Could the same set of players have been involved to a greater or lesser extent in all these financially tainted activities?
• Has Jamaica become one of the world's leading money laundering facilities?
• Is this the classic case of dirty money and political power?

We are now having our dirty (and tattered) underwear hung out for the international public to view and smell.

Read more...

Bruce & Brady Bawl Out

Let us not confine our examination of this matter to the capacity in which Brady signed the agreement.  Let us assume that Brady was not acting as the "Consultant to the Government of Jamaica".

• Then who were the real clients of Brady and Co.?
• How much money was paid to Brady and Co. to effect such a deal with the US law firm and how were those funds sourced?
• Who were the real beneficiaries of the efforts undertaken  by the said US law firm?
• Was Brady just a "lubricated conduit" - to use the Prime Minister's own words?
• Did the GOJ play any role in advising Brady and Co. and/or the US law firm in this matter?
• If such initiatives were being undertaken in the USA with state officials and agents acting on behalf of the GOJ, then Jamaica's ambassador to Washington should have been aware of such meetings. Was Ambassador Johnson so aware?
• What role if any, did Ambassador Johnson play in this episode?
• Could any John Doe just walk into a prestigious US law firm and enter into an arrangement for that firm to act on behalf of a sovereign independent state without certified/official confirmation?
• Has the disputed contractual arrangement been terminated?

More Bawl Outs Coming.

Read more...

The Brady Factor

The Dudus Extradition Affair (DEA) has been complicated by what can be conveniently called the Brady factor.  Spin is unravelling; embarrassment is spilling all over the government; credibility is a casualty; the situation not only looks bad, but it stinks.

The Golding government needs to come clean. It is walking a vanishing line.  A number of questions remain unanswered:

•    Was Brady provided with written authority to enter into such an arrangement?

•    Did any government/ministry/department receive and respond to any request from the said US law firm regarding the authority of Brady to enter such arrangements on behalf of the GOJ?

•    Who were the individuals that accompanied the SG to meetings with officials of the US government?

•    Did Brady at any time meet with US officials regarding the DEA?

•    How many meetings did the US law firm attend in their capacity as representing the interests of GOJ?

•    Was the AG and Minister of Justice made aware of the occurrence and outcomes of such meetings?

•    Did the AG and Minister of Justice inform the PM and/or the cabinet of the occurrence and outcomes of any such meetings?

•    Did Brady inform the PM about the progress report of the US law firm"s representation on behalf of the GOJ?

•    Did the PM at any time instruct Brady on the direction/strategy to be employed in dealings with the US officials?

•    How much money was paid to the US law firm under the said arrangements and how were such funds sourced?

The Government's inept handling of this episode is turning out to be the newest quiz show: The Brady  Fact - or -???

Read more...

Knots in my Cabinet?

Bruce-on-the-loose must be appalled by the bumpy ride which cabinet and individual ministers have been experiencing over the past six months. For example:

• Audrey Flaw - repeated budgets and accompanying withdrawals.
• Tweety Bird - outburst on the granting of bail for alleged kidnappers.
• Ed AA Bartlett - scathing report by the OCG of misleading cabinet and misleading self.
• Lightweight - to sign or not to sign what is the answer PM?
• His Holiness - cabinet not considering political implications of tax measures.
• Shinehead - Edith just a haul and pull him.
• Dr. Cassava - Hill & Gully sugar divestment.

The" driva" is having a very rough ride - without "a lubricated conduit".  The "blinking bus" is in need of a mechanic as "the engine of growth" sputters along.  

"Technicalities" whether constitutional, contractual or extradition-al aside, the Chief Servant must be "hard talking" to himself: "knots is my cabinet?"

"Staring" is not enough. "Steering" is required. Can you hear me now? We are all listening. Play the tapes if you think you bad (gun salutes are illegal).

Read more...