Its nice to see that you are joining the regional fight to ensure Integrity in Public Office. As West Indians, we can not continue to allow “Modern Day Bandits” to dictate our direction with no respect for our constitution.

We can not continue to remain silent on these deliberate disrespect of our countries.

We start the process in Dominica and hope that other caribbean nationals will be very supportive, because it affects us all.

It saddens me to read such article’s that are supposed to be from credible journalistic sources. I am sorry to say but all indications (from my perspective) of such a one sided document draw me to the conclusion that it has been politically charged and written on behalf of a third party with the sole intent of discrediting certain persons in this dispute.

Tactic’s of such nature are indicators to me of someone, or some parties hanging on for dear life to straws ,whilst a stiff wind of change has been blowing through.
“a most clumsy effort at character assassination by a nervous, if not desperate journalistic assassin.”
Since when has a researched and documented article, based on facts & figures written by a Media party been ever been construed as “Journalistic Assassin” by another member of the media.

This is a precedent I have never witnessed before.

Wow, Mr.. Earl Bousquet, what is your agenda and under who’s instruction have you written what you have just disclosed? There is no way that this interpretation of the facts by yourself, could possibility be reached without an internal motive feeding you. The Puppets are all coming out of the closet on this one…..I am dumbfounded once again.

“I have come across several attempts by journalists and reporters to expose corruption or to imply that government leaders are or may be corrupt.”

“But very rarely, if ever, have I ever seen, heard, or read an attempted hatchet job as that done by the “Times” writer on the Prime Minister of his own country. In my book, this one takes the cake.”

Well this illogical and most stupendous statement explains the reasoning behind the first statement above.

Have you really read what you have written, or signed your name to here? Your journalistic credibility, more importantly your intelligence has been severely compromised with such a ludicrous illustration of trying to circumvent the facts at hand (which have been documented) and only reinforces my feelings of an alternative motive being promoted on your part on behalf of a third party.

This is your explanation, and what you consider to be ‘responsible journalism ? You need to be schooled in the definition of Journalism;

According to the Dictionary, Journalism is defined as;

The occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.

Doesn’t the foundation of responsible journalism come from transparency?

Well if you had read the Times report and truly comprehended the content of the statement, you would have understood that there were transparencies being exposed!

I certainly agree with you that, “this one takes the cake.” Bye the way, for your information, That would would be you taking the cake….Incredible Earl, it makes a lot of sense to me, why you have been shipped of to China…WOW……LOL

“It refers to “special investigations” that “reveals” that there are “lots of questions” to be answered by the Prime Minister. And it quoted un-named “sources” who spoke “on condition on anonymity”, including a “former” MP and an unnamed “banking institution”

Hello, is that not what you Journalist do for a living. Investigate, digging up dirt, protecting your sources, etcetera, etcetera. You are incredible..You are a regular talking contradiction…This is good and continues to strengthen my argument that you are nothing more than another Puppet and a Pawn repaying a favor to a third party.

Your journalistic license should be revoked for such transparencies written here. How could anyone possibly take anything else written by you serious?.

“It was clearly calculated to malign Mr. Skeritt and to mislead readers into thinking that he corruptly, if not unlawfully, acquired property that he could not afford on his salary. Worse, it implied that he did so in violation of conventions and norms governing disclosure by holders of political office under normal integrity legislation.”

How could an outside reporter come to such a conclusion? On what premise was such a conclusion drawn. I have been very vocal and active for the last few weeks and have not even come to a conclusion and that is based on understanding my people and the the way we operate. This is incredible how you have ascertained the truth in the absence of law and without a true understanding of the Dominican equation.

Oh yeah, keep talking, your Puppet stature is growing by the minute and it was all done by your transparencies and your eagerness to expose without fact.

“Lawyers, writers, analysts and commentators have had their say and many have identified the legal and other weaknesses in the claims inherent in the article by the “Times”. I do share the view of those who say — on the basis of the evidence contained in the said article — that it is a deliberate and calculated attempt at making the Prime Minister look crooked.”

Okay, so now the other side is right, and the side of the Times is wrong, and is deemed irresponsible in its journalistic approach, when it broke the story and based it on specific figures and facts…Wow..So now you are a Dominican Lawyer, well you certainly sound like one here….LOL

I have not even determined this or even concluded that possibility. This is starting to sound like the hand written notes of a certain Lawyer we all know of being his or her usual devious self.

Question, did you at least take the time to consider the consequences of associating your name with an article that you most certainly did not write or were in full control of your faculty at the time of disclosure?

I am Dominican, and I am not even privy to some of your suggestive reasoning, or could not even draw a conclusion here so soon. The Puppet grows again and the transparency is becoming one that is becoming very conclusive.

I am starting to develop a picture in my mind of the culprit responsible for this and I must say..Very sneaky..You little Devil….This has your hand writing all over it!!!

“However, all that being said, I also wish to share with my colleagues in the Media Workers Association of Dominica, as well as other practitioners of our noble profession, my humble views relating to adherence to the ethical codes and traditional canons associated with day-to-day practices of our time-honored and honorable profession.”

I think your colleagues should have you reprimanded, and you should be severely sanctioned in the future for such a blatant misuse of your profession, and the audacity to call on your fellow Media Workers to discuss the ethical code of conduct is the final slap to them.

You are correct on one train of thought in this rather pathetic display of journalist unity when you stated, ” I call on my colleagues to ensure the adherence of the ethical codes and traditional canons.” I agree, and also call on them to investigate your ‘Modus Operandi’ and fact less account of this document. You have yet to state one fact of relevance pertaining to this case here. All you have done is speculate……The Puppet grows again.

To my fellow readers, I cannot go one any further with my interpretation on this rather pathetic and transparent display of politicking of such a malicious intent.

You are a despicable individual and you should be reported to the media Commission for investigation immediately!

Incredible, is it not?
These ‘co called’ credible journalist of the Caribbean Media (Saint Lucia in particular) are nothing more than opportunistic puppets marching to the drum beat of a certain prominent Dominican lawyer in a shameful cause to discredit a prominent Dominican journalist.

How shallow do you think the members of the Diaspora are ? I have news for you, take a look at the credentials of those you are dealing with here.
Let me also enlighten you to something else, This mythology you have strategically employed is very transparent and will not work.
We are of the People for the the People, undaunted in our cause, and by your ineffectiveness to sway public opinion, more importantly your employment of slanderous accusations through your league of regional puppets.

I can see all this fear mongering and intimidating having an impact on our people at home, from despicable persons of such a devious nature as yourself, for these selfless and cowardice tactics have worked for years in ensuring our people remain in the bondage of ignorance that your kind have been responsible for since independence.

Their is a new educated and determined Dominican Diaspora that are not politically aligned, are not stakeholders to any political parties, and will never waver in there relentless pursue of justice and good governance in our beloved country on behalf of our people.

In this age of information technology, the transparency and ease of material availability is for all if the willingness and motivation exist to investigate.
This new tool is the weapon of choice to combat those who lack integrity and respect for their People.
This indirect departure from the accepted or proper ways you have demonstrated through your constant misleading information, as part and parcel of your devious means to achieve a concocted success, has been exposed, and will be continued to be exposed as nothing more than oblique political maneuvers on your part in the absence of a case.

Where is our Judiciary in all of this? What happened to equality, fairness and integrity ? Are these not the tools you employ in your profession, and are they not directly concerned with the court’s constitutional role as the upholder of the rule of law?
Is it not your failure in upholding the law, your ineffectiveness in ensuring the establishment of an Ombudsman (as warranted by law in our Constitution) and the implementation of the Integrity in Public Office Act which was passes and gazetted, not responsible for these events?
The court’s authority, and therefore effectiveness, is diminished when its orders can be ignored. The continuation of the government to ignore the law of the land under the watchful eye of the Judiciary is in itself a contravention of our constitution.

How can we as a people be taken serious, even be respected as a nation, when we do not respect and continue to ignore the social fabric and core of our makeup, more importantly, our ignorance in respecting the guidelines and rules within the Constitution of our land?

What is the use of having judicial independence if you are not willing to enforce the standards and benchmarks aimed at producing a climate of responsible use of that independence.
Is there not some expediency in ensuring the law of the land be upheld? Are these delays in enactments not the primary cause for a diminished public trust and confidence in the court’s?

Is the court not a public institution? Does the public not have a special place in the courts, as spectators and jurors as well as ‘clients’ or ‘customers’?

The court’s public includes:

legal practitioners,
individual parties to a case,
individuals or company representatives seeking advice or service from the court,
communities of interest or collectives with an interest in the processes and outcomes in particular cases or types of cases,
members of the public attending as spectators in person without a specific interest in any case (including educational groups) and
a mass public who are aware of the courts through the mass media or hearsay.

Each of these groups has different needs for and opportunity to participate in or understand the business of the court. The court’s means of communicating with the public has rested traditionally on a face to face model; this has been transformed by the mass media and information society. Despite these changes in form, the public’s role vis-a-vis the courts remains fundamental to the court’s place in society.

The principle of ‘public trust and confidence’ is particularly important because of this relationship of the court to the public.

Public trust and confidence is related to the other four principles in the sense that the public must be confident that standards are being met. The public should be encouraged to judge the court in terms of these standards, since these are the standards of the court itself, derived from broader values of a democratic society and constitutional tradition. The application of standards of public trust and confidence should promote awareness of all five principles covering the court.

In conclusion, would it not be proper to state that you have collectively failed the
people and the Constitution you have sworn to protect?

1. Dominca has not implemented (as mandated by law) the Integrity in Public Office Act which was passed 4 years ago.
The clear legislative intent of the Act is to prevent corruption and other forms of misbehavior in public office…Our aim here is to give full effect to the act which was passed by Parliament on April 18th, 2003, assented to by the President on May 29th, 2003 and gazetted on June 5th, 2003 as prescribed under the guidelines of our Constitution.

In reality therefore, no Integrity Commission exist, and no mechanisms currently exist to facilitate the declaration of assets, and gifts, and to monitor the submission of declarations as warrented by the implemetation of the Integrity in Public Office Act.

This has lead to an unaccountable ‘free for all’ smorgasboard within government since our Independence in 1978.

Let this initiative underway in Dominica be a lesson and wake up call to all Caribbean Countries that the People in the Diaspora will not sit idle and continue to accept the corruptive acts that have kept our people in bondage and ignorance.

The weapon of choice in the struggle against oppression and corruption is the Internet and we shall emancipate our people through education.

Christian Volney

By Christian Volney

“In all my years living in these parts I have never ever witnessed this crass cannibalization of media people engineered from outside of the media for the benefit of politicians averse to public scrutiny.”

This is the type of media support that needs to be encouraged by the fellowship of regional Journalist in this ongoing battle between the two parties involved in this case. An integral stand on principles and support for one of your fellow kind, one Matt Peltier.

“Like Claudius Francis, Earl Bousquet (both from the Saint Lucian media) is a long standing, high level political operative of the St Lucia Labour Party who now finds himself helplessly under the thumb of a prominent Dominican lawyer, and has fully surrendered the ability to think for himself in the honest pursuit of truth, righteousness and justice”.

Their personal intervention and involvement in this matter of national interest to most Dominican’s, is now been construed as ‘political involvement’ and a breech of the basic fabric’s governing the Journalism code of ethics and standards. Their failure to respect the unequivocal separation between news and opinion has been breeched, hence a conflict of the code.

Whilst the political links of these two parties, and a prominent Dominican Lawyer are still in question, the motives and puppetry displayed on their part is not. The codes and canons of journalism are clearly defined, and provide journalists a framework for self-monitoring and self-correction as they pursue professional assignments. Such is not the case with these two in question based on the fact less articles they have written in a clumsy attempt to discredit one Matt Peltier and the Times News of Dominica.

Journalism ethics and standards comprise principles of ethics and of good practice as applicable to the specific challenges faced by professional journalists. Historically and currently, this subset of media ethics is widely known to journalists as their professional “code of ethics” or the “canons of journalism.” The basic codes and canons commonly appear in statements drafted by both professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast, and online news organizations.

Journalistic codes of ethics are designed as guides through numerous difficulties, such as conflicts of interest, to assist journalists in dealing with ethical dilemmas. The codes and canons provide journalists a framework for self-monitoring and self-correction as they pursue professional assignments.

Objectivity

Unequivocal separation between news and opinion. In-house editorials and opinion (Op-Ed) pieces are clearly separated from news pieces. News reporters and editorial staff are distinct.
Unequivocal separation between advertisements and news. All advertisements must be clearly identifiable as such.
Reporter must avoid conflicts of interest — incentives to report a story with a given slant. This includes not taking bribes and not reporting on stories that affect the reporter’s personal, economic or political interests. See envelope journalism.
Competing points of view are balanced and fairly characterized.
Persons who are the subject of adverse news stories are allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond to the adverse information before the story is published or broadcast.
Interference with reporting by any entity, including censorship, must be disclosed.
Slander and libel considerations
Reporting the truth is never libel, which makes accuracy and attribution very important.
Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights.
Publishers vigorously defend libel lawsuits filed against their reporters
Among the leading news organizations that voluntarily adopt and attempt to uphold the common standards of journalism ethics described herein, adherence and general quality varies considerably. The professionalism, reliability and public accountability of a news organization are three of its most valuable assets. An organization earns and maintains a strong reputation, in part, through a consistent implementation of ethical standards, which influence its position with the public and within the industry.
The Saint Lucian News Media responsible for allowing, these journalist in question, to print fact less accounts, based on speculation and innuendoes of a third party nature, whilst attacking and severly damaging, the credibility and integrity of another reporter. This is a blatant misuse of the ethical code of conduct. The professionalism, reliability and public accountability of a news organization are three of its most valuable assets. These assets have been clearly compromised.

Based on these codes of ethics, standards, and conduct governing good journalism, together with the practices we have all just read, one can easily conclude that Claudius Francis and Earl Bousquet have clearly crossed the ethical lines governed by the codes of journalistic ethics and standards, hence their credibility in this matter, together with their questionable motives of involvement, must be voided and dismissed as third party political maneuvers.

My humble opinion

Let me have my two cents worth on this matter, first let me say how amazed I am to think that someone in Mr Leacocks position would use his office to carry on actions such has been described above.
They are many more pressing issues that both he and Mr Dottin need to address some of which ordinary people are asking why is it these people are not before the courts already, why is Mr Leacock not getting ready to charge the person that has molested three women at a company that Mr Mascoll is involved in ?
Why does he not charge them for corruption for building and office for Mascoll’s wife with public funds and property and having a single cent being repaid?
Why when the story makes it to the Pine it gets scrubbed because the director of the CBC is a director of Mascoll’s hardwood?
Yes they are others that need to go to courts but not these private matters between what should have been the Leacocks and this lady Juman just guess what it cost us the taxpayers for him to assign all these people to harrass and annoy this lady.
We will DPP out of the matter for now with regard to Nicholls, Bannister, Owing and company that will be dealt with later down.

Incredible, is it not?
These ‘co called’ credible journalist of the Caribbean Media (Saint Lucia in particular) are nothing more than opportunistic puppets marching to the drum beat of a certain prominent Dominican lawyer in a shameful cause to discredit a prominent Dominican journalist.

How shallow do you think the members of the Diaspora are ? I have news for you, take a look at the credentials of those you are dealing with here.
Let me also enlighten you to something else, This mythology you have strategically employed is very transparent and will not work.
We are of the People for the the People, undaunted in our cause, and by your ineffectiveness to sway public opinion, more importantly your employment of slanderous accusations through your league of regional puppets.

I can see all this fear mongering and intimidating having an impact on our people at home, from despicable persons of such a devious nature as yourself, for these selfless and cowardice tactics have worked for years in ensuring our people remain in the bondage of ignorance that your kind have been responsible for since independence.

Their is a new educated and determined Dominican Diaspora that are not politically aligned, are not stakeholders to any political parties, and will never waver in there relentless pursue of justice and good governance in our beloved country on behalf of our people.

In this age of information technology, the transparency and ease of material availability is for all if the willingness and motivation exist to investigate.
This new tool is the weapon of choice to combat those who lack integrity and respect for their People.
This indirect departure from the accepted or proper ways you have demonstrated through your constant misleading information, as part and parcel of your devious means to achieve a concocted success, has been exposed, and will be continued to be exposed as nothing more than oblique political maneuvers on your part in the absence of a case.

Where is our Judiciary in all of this? What happened to equality, fairness and integrity ? Are these not the tools you employ in your profession, and are they not directly concerned with the court’s constitutional role as the upholder of the rule of law?
Is it not your failure in upholding the law, your ineffectiveness in ensuring the establishment of an Ombudsman (as warranted by law in our Constitution) and the implementation of the Integrity in Public Office Act which was passes and gazetted, not responsible for these events?
The court’s authority, and therefore effectiveness, is diminished when its orders can be ignored. The continuation of the government to ignore the law of the land under the watchful eye of the Judiciary is in itself a contravention of our constitution.

How can we as a people be taken serious, even be respected as a nation, when we do not respect and continue to ignore the social fabric and core of our makeup, more importantly, our ignorance in respecting the guidelines and rules within the Constitution of our land?

What is the use of having judicial independence if you are not willing to enforce the standards and benchmarks aimed at producing a climate of responsible use of that independence.
Is there not some expediency in ensuring the law of the land be upheld? Are these delays in enactments not the primary cause for a diminished public trust and confidence in the court’s?

Is the court not a public institution? Does the public not have a special place in the courts, as spectators and jurors as well as ‘clients’ or ‘customers’?

The court’s public includes:

legal practitioners,
individual parties to a case,
individuals or company representatives seeking advice or service from the court,
communities of interest or collectives with an interest in the processes and outcomes in particular cases or types of cases,
members of the public attending as spectators in person without a specific interest in any case (including educational groups) and
a mass public who are aware of the courts through the mass media or hearsay.

Each of these groups has different needs for and opportunity to participate in or understand the business of the court. The court’s means of communicating with the public has rested traditionally on a face to face model; this has been transformed by the mass media and information society. Despite these changes in form, the public’s role vis-a-vis the courts remains fundamental to the court’s place in society.

The principle of ‘public trust and confidence’ is particularly important because of this relationship of the court to the public.

Public trust and confidence is related to the other four principles in the sense that the public must be confident that standards are being met. The public should be encouraged to judge the court in terms of these standards, since these are the standards of the court itself, derived from broader values of a democratic society and constitutional tradition. The application of standards of public trust and confidence should promote awareness of all five principles covering the court.

In conclusion, would it not be proper to state that you have collectively failed the
people and the Constitution you have sworn to protect?

The sooner they take it up, is the sooner that we address accountability in public office across the Region.

We are looking at the CSME and if one country messes up in this union, it is going to affect everyone.

The involvement of non-nationals on a partisan level is also creating un-necessary friction within the Region.

Peter Richards and other members of the ACM agreed to mediate on the matter, but I hope that they are looking at everything that is going and do not come with information, only from Tony Astaphans and PM Skerrit as Claudius Francis, Ricky Singh and Earl Bousquet did.

The PM has served MATT Peltier and the TIMES with two lawsuits, but in the meantime he is looking for mediators around the region.

How do you expect MATT and Dominicans to react? The article seek to ask relevant questions of Hon Rooveselt Skerrit and he has yet to answer, but instead seek to find a few dishonest West Indians to TRY in the Mis-Education of the people..

Is there a way you can get it to the NATION?

I would like Bajans to really understand the severity of the problem in Dominica, which can be a lesson for every West indian.

Peace

By Lennox Linton

The issue of persons in public office owning “unaccounted property” or if you prefer “assets that cannot be explained by their legal income” was placed on the national agenda by the Parliament of Dominica – the highest decision making body in the land.

With not one single dissenting vote, the Parliament of Dominica agreed to enact the Integrity in Public Office Act number 6 of 2003 on April 30th, 2003.
The President assented to it on May 29th, 2003 and it was Gazetted on June 5th, 2003.
The act (in limbo for four years) criminalizes the holding of unaccounted property by persons in public office at section 47(1). Now at the time the act was passed, Mr. Skerrit and his colleagues held the Parliamentary majority, meaning that having championed the passage of the act they intended to lead by example in staying clear of the proposed crime of owning unaccounted property.
Emerging from all this is the legitimate public expectation that the media, in honoring the public’s right to know will take the lead in paying attention to the performance of persons in public life in the context of the behaviour guidelines set out in the act.
There can be no question that the Times Newspaper acted in the public interest when it’s investigation pursuant to public statements made by the Prime Minister about his personal assets, revealed that the Prime Minister owned a lot more than he chose to disclose at the time.
Claudius Francis is a high-level and sometimes disgruntled political operative of the St Lucia Labour Party. He is said to be a close friend of Tony Astaphan and the fact that the article which bears his name carries such striking resemblance to Tony Astaphan’s letter to Matt Peltier by email dated September 01, 2007, suggests that Francis is now engaged in the propaganda war to wash away the alleged wrongs of Mr. Skerrit.

Rickey Singh is a veteran newspaper columnist who appears to have closed the door on his earlier days of grinding left wing axes with CARICOM’s political leadership. Based on his strange noises in this matter, Mr. Singh seems to have decided that his time in the departure lounge of media practice will be better spent sympathising with those regional Prime Ministers who believe that favourable lines in his columns will help keep them in office.

To each his own.

Like Tony Astaphan before them, both Francis and Singh have slaughtered the Times for not seeking the views of Skerrit, the land vendors and registry personnel prior to publication. But nowhere in the 2100 word Francis tirade or in Singh’s pro-Skerrit, cry baby piece do they indicate that they even care whether or not the Times is entitled to have its side of the story told in articles that conclude it is guilty of the greatest possible “injustice to the noble profession of journalism”.

Francis and Singh have obviously been instructed to ignore the fact that the Time’s investigation took its cue from a statement to the nation by Prime Minister Skerrit on August 12, 2007 that his sole property interest is a 3 bedroom house he is planning to build in Vielle Case at the cost of 400 thousand dollars.

If they are reasonable, both Francis and Singh would agree that the Prime Minister had ample opportunity in that statement to disclose the truth about properties he had acquired more than two years before. Instead, for reasons best known to himself, he chose to be selective:

“For what I hope will be the final time, I repeat here and now that I do not own properties in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean or in any other country. Also that I do not have any accounts in the Cayman Islands, Anguilla or any other outside financial jurisdictions… I have just submitted a request to the relevant department of government for approval of plans to build a simple, three bedroom home in my hometown of Vielle Case… For the record, the construction cost of my proposed home at Vielle Case is about EC$400,000…”

The Times reported Mr. Skerrit’s selective disclosure. That was his side of the story as he himself volunteered it into the public record. But the spin doctors are continuing to ignore this important fact in a ploy to secure an advantage for their master’s position through the accusation of biased, unfair reporting that holds absolutely no water.

Indeed, the Tony Astaphan led emphasis on the need for a response and/or approval from the Prime Minister to findings of fact contrary to his own volunteered selective disclosures to the public is as hypocritical as it is irrelevant.

And we will lean on Tony’s own guidelines for professional ethics in investigation procedure to tell you why.

His Report of the Preliminary Investigation into Allegations of Corruption and other Abuses by the UWP Administration is dated August 11th, 2000. It tells us at page 3 paragraph 8:

The modus operandi employed in this investigation was straight forward. Relevant documentation was requested and considered. There were times when it was necessary to ask questions of certain Ministers, public officers and other persons who may be concerned in or have knowledge of the documentation or the subject matter of the documentation. No inquiry was made of the former Prime Minister or other Ministers of the last administration.

The report which cost the taxpayers of this country well in excess of one hundred thousand dollars mercilessly brutalized the reputations of a former prime minister and members of his Cabinet. But Tony – the sole investigator – refused to get their side of the story.

Tony’s report said his investigation was “not the forum to determine truth or falsity or the civil or criminal liability of any person”. But the learned gentleman’s report found former ministers of government guilty of illegal conduct without attempting to hear far less present their side of the story.

Now does anyone in Dominica recall hearing either Claudius Francis of St Lucia or Barbados based Rickey Singh telling Tony Astaphan at the time that it was highly unprofessional to have investigated and reported on the members of the UWP administration without seeking to get their side of the story?

I certainly don’t… But lo and behold they are available now to help the same Tony Astaphan and his political master tear up a media colleague for an investigative procedure that was far superior to that used by the senior counsel.

Matt Peltier has said repeatedly on his Q95 talk show that a considerable amount of time was spent researching and preparing the August 29th, 2007 lead story headlined “Million Dollar Assets, $5000 Salary”.
According to Matt, the investigation involved in the main a number of interviews and very careful analysis of:

Matters of further public interest arising from the Prime Minister’s Statement of August 12th, 2007
Land registration documents
Land valuation conduct and procedure
Land transfer certification procedure
Comparative land prices in specific geographic locations
Purchase price versus market value in the determination of land taxes due to the state
Loan financing conduct and procedure
Legislation (whether pending or in force) relevant to land ownership and the acquisition of assets by persons in public life.

The Times Managing Editor is satisfied that his newspaper reported honestly and responsibly based on the foundation of truth and hard evidence discovered during the investigation.

But that is obviously not good enough for Francis and Singh even though both will be hard pressed to find in their archives of politicized commentary anything even close to the investigative content of the Times story.

Now, for those interested in the opinions of the land vendors, registry personnel and the attorneys involved, those written opinions are officially recorded in the land transfer documents filed at the registry. It is partly from those opinions that the Times built its investigative report.

But Francis and Singh could not care less about the facts. Tony first writes the fictitious nonsense to Matt on September 1st, dutifully sells it to them and they hurriedly cut and paste it beneath their own by-lines for publication to the world.

Now this is where their campaign to defend Skerrit at all costs gets really interesting.

Francis writes about the Times article “Million Dollar Assets, $5000 Salary” published on August 29 but tells us the following:

“In fact even when it is clear that the Prime Minister did obtain one of the properties as a gift the paper questions this even while providing not a shred of evidence in support of its position.”

And so the question to Tony Astaphan’s cut and paste parrot is how could the Times have known about and indeed question the alleged gift to Skerrit at the time of publication when it was in the wake of the publication that the nation became aware that what Mr Skerrit paid $90,000 for in 2005 according to registry records, was supposed to have been a gift?

But Claudius Francis honestly believes that he can cut and paste the highly prejudicial work of a fellow political activist to become an authority on responsible journalism and defamation.

Just ask him how much of a defamation expert he was in his native St Lucia when his frivolous and vexatious defamation claim number SLUCV2006/0943 against the present Communications and Works Minister Guy Joesph, was disdainfully dismissed with cost earlier this year.

For his part Rickey Singh tells us:

“Documents, including bank records obtained by me, support Skerrit in his contention that “nothing illegal or immoral” has been done in his acquisition of the parcels of land between 2002 and 2005 as well the sport utility vehicle he owns”.

This statement simply means that Rickey Singh who seeks to criticize the work of the Times Newspaper on the grounds of professional ethics is only interested in presenting Mr Skerrit’s word as the gospel regardless of undisputed facts on the public record.

Mr. Skerrit’s lawyer for example has admitted to “mistakes” in the application for the Certificate of Title by Registration which amount to a violation of section 169 of the Title by Registration act.

The lawyer has also publicly admitted to inadequate tax payments on at least one of the transactions two years ago.

But spin doctor Singh sees nothing wrong. He sees bank records indicating that Mr. Skerrit has loan commitments for two parcels of land and a Sport Utility Vehicle. He doesn’t provide the details but he expects us to take his word that all is well with monthly loan payments which, according to conservative, estimates account for at least 80% of legal income. And quite significantly Singh (the know-it-all investigator) seems to know nothing about the planned 400 thousand dollar mortgage which will move the monthly loan commitment to over 130% of legal income.

Unfortunately, pertinent questions about how these things get done for the benefit of better public understanding and to provide examples of legitimate personal asset acquisition in hard economic times are being shot down as defamatory inferences of corrupt behaviour.

So what was Mr. Skerrit’s ace political advisor Hartley Henry talking about earlier this year in his native Barbados (where Rickey Singh) resides when he said:

“… I believe as well that there should be some mandatory provision for persons to declare their sources of income and the manner in which they would have amassed their wealth…

“If a person in office at present cannot account for how they came by whatever they have come by, then that person should be considered as not suitable to continue to serve in that high office…

“If you were poor five, ten, fifteen or more years ago and today as a politician or “right hand man of a politician”, you are filthy rich, I believe the public has a right to know how you came by such wealth, particularly when the official salaries of politicians are nothing to shout about…”

I trust that Mr. Singh is at least a little bit concerned with whether or not Mr. Skerrit (here in Dominica) is the beneficiary of the same counsel that Hartley Henry gives in Barbados and is guiding himself accordingly

Then Singh purposefully moves on to tell us:

“Of the two parcels of land, 2.06 acres at Trafalgar, valued at EC$90 000, was publicly disclosed by its original owner as “a gift of affection”, permissible under the laws of Dominica”.

In other words, journalist Rickey Singh has no interest in the fact that on August 2nd, 2005 more than two years before the publication of the Times Newspaper story, Marina Shillingford signed a Memorandum of Transfer at the Registry indicating that Mr. Skerrit paid her and she received $90,000 for the land at Trafalgar.

So we need to ask Rickey Singh, under which of the laws of Dominica is “a gift of affection” permissible two years after it was paid for and documented in the official records of the country’s land registry?

We also need to ask the newest recruit to Mr. Skerrit’s damage control team whether he has been allowed to read for himself section 35(5) of the Integrity in Public Office Act number 6 of 2003 piloted through Parliament by the Dominica Labour Party government:

35. (5) Where the (Integrity) Commission finds through an inquiry that the gift was given to the person in public life as a State gift or was given to the person in public life personally but that gift –

(a) was not trivial; or
(b) was intended to be a motive reward for doing or abstaining from anything in the course of the performance of his official duties and functions or causing any other person from doing or forbearing to do anything,

the Commission shall direct the person in public life in writing to deliver the gift to the Financial Secretary within such period, not exceeding thirty days, as may be specified by the Commission, and the person in public life shall comply with the direction within the time so specified

Mr. Singh obviously did not hear the giver of the alleged gift say Mr. Skerrit was given the land (effectively rewarded) because he is a very good Prime Minister

Even so, the veteran political commentator may wish to tell us precisely what is it he finds trivial about a $90,000 gift of land.

Singh also speaks factually about “The other, 2.09 acres, located at Wall House… valued at EC$140 000, and on which required loan payments are being honoured”.

Okay Mr. Singh… valued by whom?
· Are you aware that there was no valuation of the Wallhouse land in the August 2005 application for title?
· Are you aware that the land transfer taxes were actually calculated and paid on the alleged purchase price of EC$140,283?
· Are you aware Sir that it is in respect of this very piece of land that Mr Skerrit and his attorneys now claim more than two years later that they made inadequate tax payments to the state?
· And what Sir would be the basis for such an admission of error when in the absence of a valuation, the registrar accepted the alleged purchase price as the value on which taxes should and were paid?

But such is the blessing of political spin… its practitioners can avoid all the real issues and focus exclusively on whatever offers them the chance to confuse the public and score points for their political masters.

And so it is with Claudius Francis, Rickey Singh and their friends on the executive of the Association of Caribbean Media Workers.

Quite frankly though, I am really bemused by the fact that nobody is really looking at the positive side of all this.

Because what we have, compliments the Times article is a very simple situation in which the poor, tired, huddled masses of Dominica yearning for economic relief honestly want to know how their Prime Minister is able to do so well on legal income in the region of $5,000.00 monthly.
It is entirely possible that if they are shared with the rest of the nation, the Prime Minister’s personal wealth creation strategies and tactics could result in genuine people driven economic revival.
And that for me is the very worthwhile other side that continues to be ignored.

http://www.thetimes.dm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=800

The break down was done by another Dominican who is also very worried about accountability in public office. We can not allow “Servants of the People” to disrespect them in a such a manner and get away with it.

We are the watchers of our Democracy and if we fail to act, then we have to equally take the blame for end result of not taking action.

“The consequence of your actions are independent of the choices you make”

If we make good choices we expect good result, but if the choices are bad we have to accept the results all the same.

The region is at a crossroad and if we fail to empower our citizens across the board them the exploitation will continue..

I wish some one could give a break down of what Owen Auther and his ministers own, and their gifts.
I’m sure every one would like to know.

They should ask skerrit to address the genuine questions that the Times asked on the behlf of Dominicans.

They have further compromised their reputations and the Regional integration process, by their inaccurate reporting. The hallmark of not playing to your own music.

First Gabriel Christian fatally wounded his mediation credibility in this matter with an ultra-partisan, political thesis, “Long Live the Independence Movement” circulated to the Labour Party’s brains trust on September 08, 2007.

Not to be outdone, Thomson Fontaine is teaming up with and/or giving comfort to anyone who will write anything to savagely slaughter Matt Peltier’s credibility and professional integrity. In so doing, he has effectively settled the issue of his bias in what we can properly conclude was a planned mediation ambush of the Times Managing Editor.

So let’s forget Matt and the Times Newspaper for a bit.

Let’s even forget the assembly of high flying journalists of international repute lining up to join the Rumpeltilskin party which, hopefully, will spin the straw of Skerrit’s alleged irregularities into gold.

And let’s focus on the facts as they relate to something referred to as “unaccounted property” in the Integrity In Public Office Act Number 6 of 2003, which is still being held hostage by the Skerrit administration more than four years later:

· Skerrit’s chief defender/apologist Tony Astaphan has now confirmed the following assets in the name of the same man who on August 12th 2007 sought to give the people of Dominica the impression that his sole property interest is a 3-bedroom house he is planning to build in Vielle Case as a cost of $400,000:

o 0.5 acres of land at Picard allegedly purchased in 2003 with bank financing at the cost of $42,500

o 2.06 acres of land at Trafalgar allegedly purchased in 2005 for $90,000 according to Registry records but allegedly given as a gift by Marina Shillingford

o 2.989 acres of land at Wallhouse allegedly purchased in 2005 with bank financing at the cost of $140,283

· Famed regional journalist Rickey Singh writing in the Barbados Nation has confirmed Skerrit owns a Sport Utility vehicle believed to be a 2005 Mitsubishi Pajero PK 497 which carried a minimum price tag of $125,000 at the time of purchase.

Notwithstanding the alleged purchase prices and the recently discovered $90,000 gift of land, these assets carry a market value well in excess of one million dollars.

I trust there are no arguments so far.

Here now is the monthly loan repayment commitment to the bank on these assets:

ASSET
MTHLY

Picard Land
456.71

Trafalgar Land (gift)

Wallhouse Land
1,620.55

Sport Utility Vehicle
2,749.24

TOTAL
4,826.50

Now even though he has owned these assets for at least two years, in Skerrit’s own deliberate judgement it was not necessary to disclose them when he voluntarily publicized his property interests on August 12, 2007.

What he disclosed then was a plan to build a 400,000 dollar house at Vielle Case… And nothing else… Assuming it is not going to turn out to be another gift two years down the road, Skerrit is effectively saying he is now taking on a mortgage on top of his existing $4,826.50 monthly commitment to the bank.

Conservatively, this mortgage at 7.5% over 30 years will mean an additional monthly commitment of $2,796.86.

Add that to the existing monthly repayments and you come to the tidy sum of $7,623.36 which is approximately 158% of the gentleman’s known legal income.

The poor, tired, huddled masses of Dominica yearning for economic relief simply want to know how their Prime Minister is able to do so well on legal income in the region of $5,000.00 monthly.

Then there are the tax evasion and conflict of interest dimensions to this most intriguing matter… If of course anyone out there is still interested in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.