Draft Lawsuit to Comrades!
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 07:52:49 -0400
From: "Anthony Astaphan" < astaphana@gmail.com>
To: "alick lawrence" <alickcl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Revised Statement of Claim
CC: "Roosevelt Skerrit" <roosevelt.skerrit@gmail.com>,
"Hilvester Henry" < Hartleyh@hotmail.com>, drs.patel@hotmail.com,
"sssabin@aol.com" < sssabin@aol.com>
Comrades,
Attached is the revised Statement of Claim. Please let me have comments by tomorrow latest.As Matt has said he is not apologizing, we must file and serve on Monday.
--
Anthony W Astaphan,S.C.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA
(CIVIL)
SUIT NO.
BETWEEN:
ROOSEVELT SKERRIT
CLAIMANT
AND
MATTHIAS PELTIER (JR.)
TIMES PUBLISHING INCORPORATED
DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Claimant is, and has been since 2004, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
The First Defendant is the editor of The Times, a weekly newspaper published in Dominica and widely circulated in Dominica and overseas. He is also the host of a programme called “In the hot seat” which is aired every week day on a local radio station named Q95 FM. That programme is a very popular programme and has a wide listenership in Dominica, and overseas via the Internet.
The Second Defendant is a company registered under the laws of Dominica and is the owner and/ or publisher of the Times Newspaper, which published the words complained of. The First Defendant is the Managing Director, Editor and/ or controller of the Second Defendant.
On the front page and on page 1A of the August 29th, 2007 issue of the Times, the Defendants wrote, printed and published and/ or caused to be printed and published the following words defamatory of the Claimant personally and by way of his office as Prime Minister[1] under cover of an investigative special:
“Million dollar assets, $5000 salary
A special investigation by The Times newspaper reveals that there are a lot of questions about properties acquired by PM Roosevelt Skerrit over the last few years. There have been several eyebrows raised over what many perceive to be the sudden acquisition of wealth by Skerrit. However, he has always denied that there is any impropriety in his dealings since becoming Prime Minister in 2004.
In a surprise attack on the new leadership of the Dominica Freedom Party, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit confirmed this week that he is building a three-bedroom dwelling house in Vieille Case at a cost of $400,000.00 dollars.
The disclosure came as he tried to dispel additional rumors that he claims would be coming from the new DFP leadership regarding its desire to have him disclose the source of his alleged wealth.
In a preemptive response to his predicted accusations of corruption, PM Skerrit highlighted overseas bank accounts and real estate property, which he claims he does not own. Citing some of the new DFP leaders as ‘Rebels,’ Skerrit accused them of planning to engage in diversionary tactics that would seek to slander him and members of his Cabinet.
But while Skerrit remains adamant that he has nothing to hide, our investigations point to several issues that need clarification from the Prime Minister, particularly with respect to his acquisition of two parcels of land amounting to just over five acres and valued at more than one million dollars within a four-week period in 2005.
Our investigations reveal that on August 8th, 2005, Prime Minister Skerrit purchased a 2.06- acre portion of the Hartington Estate in Trafalgar. On September 1st, 2005, he purchased an additional 2.989 acres – part of the Wallhouse Estate. Indications are Skerrit paid cash in the Trafalgar transaction and secured bank financing for not more than 33% percent of the 2005 market price of the Wallhouse land.
Professionals in the field of land valuation indicate that at the time of purchase, fair market value for the Hartington Estate property was approximately $448,000.00 while the value estimate for the Wallhouse Property was $650,000.00. It however appears from the registration documents that the land was purchased for about $1.00 a square foot in the case of the Wall house property and $1.01 per square foot for the Trafalgar acquisition.
…………
Observers are noting that both acquisitions surfaced in the wake of the 2005 general election - an event characterized by the Dominica Labour Party’s lavish multi-million dollar spending at a time when it was burdening citizens with the most painful economic adjustment programme in the history of this country.
It is now widely expected that Mr. Skerrit will explain how he has been able to secure these and other personal assets conservatively valued at well over one million dollars on his legal income as a Minister of Government since February 2000.
When he bought the lands at Trafalgar and Wallhouse, and assuming he saves all of the money he receives in salary and allowances from the Treasury, Mr. Skerrit would have had at his disposal $235,000.00 for 47 months as a Minister of Government and $90,000.00 for 17 months as Prime Minister - a total of $325,000.00.
And so, according to one regular Talk Show contributor, “The question in terms of good governance is how did he do it? What are Mr. Skerrit’s other sources of legal income? Are there undisclosed family inheritances? Are there investments on Wall Street? And, perhaps most importantly, does the public have a right to know?”
One parliamentarian who spoke on the condition of anonymity believes, “This presents a case study of why the acquisition of personal wealth by a Minister of Government has attracted clear conduct and procedure standards with specific penalty provisions in the Integrity in Public Office Act.”
He told The Times: “It is going to be really interesting to see how this one plays out, especially given the Skerrit Administration’s failure to give effect to the Integrity Act of 2002 and this week’s call by the Prime Minister for discussions with the other political parties which can only be seen as a blatant delaying tactic.”
The annual declaration of assets provided for in the act allows ministers and other public officers to indicate the assets they own and the sources of funding for these assets so that the relevant authorities can satisfy themselves that there is no accumulation of wealth by public officers that cannot be explained by their legal incomes. The Act also provides for seizure of any asset held by a public official in the absence of a legal source of acquisition.
Notwithstanding the failure to implement that Act, PM Skerrit is now calling on all political parties to assist him in passing legislation that would require candidates to declare their assets prior to being elected.
One former parliamentarian says this is simply an effort by Skerrit to “pretend to be doing something about integrity in public office, while he remains unwilling to do what he already has the legal authority and the permission of parliament to do”.
He further states that if Skerrit was really serious about integrity in public office, he would “disclose the assets that he entered politics with in 2000 and provide a clear and distinct explanation of the wealth he has since acquired and stop taking the people of
Dominica for fools”.
With the help of a banking institution, The Times attempted to determine the repayment terms in the event the properties were acquired through loan financing. We were advised that even at the most conservative repayment rate, the monthly installment would be well in excess of Skerrit’s monthly take home pay throughout his tenure in politics.
It is clear that many questions still await answers that can only be provided in a full disclosure of, or public inquiry into, the financial affairs of the PM since taking ministerial office in keeping with his stated desire for integrity in public office”.
Further, on the 30th of August 2007 the Defendants republished and posted the article on the website of the Times on the WWW accompanied by a photograph of the Claimant. The words published[2] on the WWW were.
“Posted by Times News on 2007/8/30 21:27:29 (531 reads)
A special investigation by The Times newspaper reveals that there are a lot of questions about properties acquired by PM Roosevelt Skerrit over the last few years. There have been several eyebrows raised over what many perceive to be the sudden acquisition of wealth by Skerrit. However, he has always denied that there is any impropriety in his dealings since becoming Prime Minister in 2004.
In a surprise attack on the new leadership of the Dominica Freedom Party, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit confirmed this week that he is building a three-bedroom dwelling house in Vielle Case at a cost of $400,000.00 dollars.
The disclosure came as he tried to dispel additional rumors that he claims would be coming from the new DFP leadership regarding its desire to have him disclose the source of his alleged wealth.
In a preemptive response to his predicted accusations of corruption, PM Skerrit highlighted overseas bank accounts and real estate property, which he claims he does not own. Citing some of the new DFP leaders as ‘Rebels,’ Skerrit accused them of planning to engage in diversionary tactics that would seek to slander him and members of his Cabinet.
But while Skerrit remains adamant that he has nothing to hide, our investigations point to several issues that need clarification from the Prime Minister, particularly with respect to his acquisition of two parcels of land amounting to just over five acres and valued at more than one million dollars within a four-week period in 2005.
Our investigations reveal that on August 8th, 2005, Prime Minister Skerrit purchased a 2.06- acre portion of the Hartington Estate in Trafalgar. On September 1st, 2005, he purchased an additional 2.989 acres – part of the Wallhouse Estate. Indications are Skerrit paid cash in the Trafalgar transaction and secured bank financing for not more than 33% percent of the 2005 market price of the Wallhouse land.
Professionals in the field of land valuation indicate that at the time of purchase, fair market value for the Hartington Estate property was approximately $448,000.00 while the value estimate for the Wallhouse Property was $650,000.00. It however appears from the registration documents that the land was purchased for about $1.00 a square foot in the case of the Wall house property and $1.01 per square foot for the Trafalgar acquisition.
….
Observers are noting that both acquisitions surfaced in the wake of the 2005 general election - an event characterized by the Dominica Labour Party’s lavish multi-million dollar spending at a time when it was burdening citizens with the most painful economic adjustment programme in the history of this country.
It is now widely expected that Mr. Skerrit will explain how he has been able to secure these and other personal assets conservatively valued at well over one million dollars on his legal income as a Minister of Government since February 2000.
When he bought the lands at Trafalgar and Wallhouse, and assuming he saves all of the money he receives in salary and allowances from the Treasury, Mr. Skerrit would have had at his disposal $235,000.00 for 47 months as a Minister of Government and $90,000.00 for 17 months as Prime Minister - a total of $325,000.00.
And so, according to one regular Talk Show contributor, “The question in terms of good governance is how did he do it? What are Mr. Skerrit’s other sources of legal income? Are there undisclosed family inheritances? Are there investments on Wall Street? And, perhaps most importantly, does the public have a right to know?”
One parliamentarian who spoke on the condition of anonymity believes, “This presents a case study of why the acquisition of personal wealth by a Minister of Government has attracted clear conduct and procedure standards with specific penalty provisions in the Integrity in Public Office Act.”
He told The Times: “It is going to be really interesting to see how this one plays out, especially given the Skerrit Administration’s failure to give effect to the Integrity Act of 2002 and this week’s call by the Prime Minister for discussions with the other political parties which can only be seen as a blatant delaying tactic.”
The annual declaration of assets provided for in the act allows ministers and other public officers to indicate the assets they own and the sources of funding for these assets so that the relevant authorities can satisfy themselves that there is no accumulation of wealth by public officers that cannot be explained by their legal incomes. The Act also provides for seizure of any asset held by a public official in the absence of a legal source of acquisition.
Notwithstanding the failure to implement that Act, PM Skerrit is now calling on all political parties to assist him in passing legislation that would require candidates to declare their assets prior to being elected.
One former parliamentarian says this is simply an effort by Skerrit to “pretend to be doing something about integrity in public office, while he remains unwilling to do what he already has the legal authority and the permission of parliament to do”.
He further states that if Skerrit was really serious about integrity in public office, he would “disclose the assets that he entered politics with in 2000 and provide a clear and distinct explanation of the wealth he has since acquired and stop taking the people of
Dominica for fools”.
With the help of a banking institution, The Times attempted to determine the repayment terms in the event the properties were acquired through loan financing. We were advised that even at the most conservative repayment rate, the monthly installment would be well in excess of Skerrit’s monthly take home pay throughout his tenure in politics.
It is clear that many questions still await answers that can only be provided in a full disclosure of, or public inquiry into, the financial affairs of the PM since taking ministerial office in keeping with his stated desire for integrity in public office.
The Defendants knew and/ or intended that the said words complained of the Claimant would be repeated and republished across the region and internationally[3] and/or that such republication in the Commonwealth of Dominica and worldwide was the natural and/or probable consequence of the Defendant’s publication and that such republication would cause maximum harm and damage to the Claimant’s reputation as Prime Minister.
In their natural and ordinary meaning, the words meant or were understood to mean[4] that:
(i) The Claimant corruptly, dishonestly and/ or illegally acquired the 2.989 acres of land at Wall House Estate and 2.06 acres at Trafalgar.
(ii) The Claimant had acted unlawfully and dishonestly when he acquired the 2.989 acres of land at Wall House Estate and 2.06 acres at Trafalgar which were valued at $1,000.000.00 ECD on a salary of $5,000.00 ECD a month.
(iii) The Claimant had corruptly used or abused the office of Prime Minister to unlawfully acquire the 2.989 acres of land at Wall House Estate and 2.06 acres at Trafalgar valued at $1,000,000.00 ECD and therefore is not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
(iv) The Claimant was duty bound to come clean because he had somehow acquired property valued at $1,000.000.00 ECD which he could not lawfully afford on a monthly salary of $5,000.00 ECD a month.
(v) The claimant was unwilling to give effect to the Integrity In Public Office Act because he had something improper or corrupt to hide in relation to his purchase and acquisition of the said lands.
(vi) By repeatedly asserting that the Claimant had many questions to answer, the inference was that the Claimant had done some something wrong, was hiding his misdeeds and therefore had to come clean with the people of Dominica.
The Claimant will rely on the following facts and matter in support of his claim for damages including aggravated and exemplary damages:
PARTICULARS
(i) The article and words complained of were published on the whole front page under the bold and dramatic banner “Million dollar Assets, $5,000 salary” which was intended to make a statement of fact..
(ii) The article contained a number of false statements of fact or assumptions relating to the acquisition of the lands, the price actually paid for the land at Wall House Estate, the financing of the said land and the nature of the transaction for the land at Trafalgar which the Defendants knew or ought to have known were false and/ or acted with reckless indifference as to whether they were true or not.
(iii) The Defendants failed to mention the existence of the caveat noted on the Certificate of Title for the land at Wall House Estate in favour of the Royal Bank of Canada which clearly indicated the existence of a loan.
(iv) The Defendants failed to disclose or even raise the possibility that the Claimant may have financed the acquisition of the land at Wall House Estate through loan funding and that the repayment of such loans was well within the Claimant’s lawful income.
(v) The Defendants failed to mention the price or value stated on the Memorandum of Transfer for the land at Wall House Estate.
(vi) The Defendants made no inquiry of the Claimant and did not afford the Claimant an opportunity to rebut any of the allegations or of commenting on them before they wrote, printed and/ or published or caused to be printed and published the words complained of.
(vii) The Defendants made no inquires of the transferors (or their personal representatives) or of the Attorney at Law who registered the lands on behalf of the Claimant, or afford them an opportunity to comment on or clarify the matters alleged before the Defendants wrote, printed and/ or published or caused to be printed and published the words complained of by the Claimant.
(viii) The Defendants made no inquires of the person who witnessed the execution of the Memorandum of Transfer for the 2.06 acres of land at Trafalgar.
(ix) The Defendants attempted to give credence to the allegations against the Claimant by quoting from un-named sources who focused solely on the Claimant’s $5,000.00 salary and by seeking to tie the fact that the Integrity in Public Office Act has not been brought into force to the Claimant, his motive and/ or alleged corruption in purchasing the said lands.
(x) The Defendants have maintained the words complained of on their website on the WWW.
(xi) The First Defendant read letters he had received on Q 95 radio he had received as support for his so called courage in which the sting of the words complained was again repeated and read by the First Defendant.
(xii) The First Defendant refused to apologize or retract the words complained of and stated so publicly with great defiance and arrogance on his radio show on Q 95 and in interviews aired which were broadcast on all the radio stations and local television channels in Dominica.
(xiii) The Defendants have not only failed to apologize or retract the words complained of, the First Defendant repeatedly stated publicly on Q 95 and public radio that he has absolutely no intention of apologizing or retracting despite:
(a) Having received an email from Mr. Anthony W Astaphan, S.C. on the 1st of September 2007 which pointed out to him that the allegations made by the Times relating to the purchase of the lands were false and defamatory and that if not withdrawn he would be written to by the Claimant’s Attorney at Law. The First Defendant read the email on Q 95 as requested.
(b) Having received a letter from the Claimant’s Attorneys pointing out the falsity of the allegations relating to the allegation that the Claimant had acquired 1,000,000.00 ECD of assets on a salary of $5,000.00 ECD per month and which demanded among other things an apology and retraction,
(c) Having heard the explanations repeatedly stated on Q 95 and other Radio by Senior Counsel who represented and represents the Claimant and being told by Senior Counsel on more than one occasion on Q 95 that
· The Claimant denied the allegation that he had corruptly, illegally or dishonestly acquired the two (2) portions of land.
· The Claimant actually paid $140.283.00 ECD for the land at Wall House Estate, which was the price required by the vendor.
· There existed a signed agreement of sale between the vendor Mr. Leopold Emmanuel, deceased, and the Claimant, which stated the purchase price of $140.283.00 ECD.
· The land at Trafalgar was given to the Claimant as a gift out of affection and therefore the Claimant did not pay for the said land.
· The value of $90,000.00 ECD stated on the Memorandum of Transfer was not included to reflect any consideration paid by the Claimant, but was erroneously included by the Attorney who prepared the documents for the purpose of transfer fees and that the sum came from a valuation done by a Licensed Valuator Mr. Balthazar Watt and not from the donor of the gift.
(d) The fact that the Attorney at Law who conducted the registration of the properties on behalf of the Claimant telephoned his radio programme on Q 95 to explain what he did in relation to the Memorandum of Transfer for the land at Trafalgar and that the sum of $90,000.00 was included on the said Memorandum not to reflect any moneys paid but solely for the purpose of transfer fees.
(e) The issue of a written press statement by the Attorney at Law who conducted the registration of the properties on behalf of the Claimant. In his statement the Attorney at Law stated the that the actual price paid by the Claimant for the land at Wall House Estate and that the land at Trafalgar was given as a gift. In addition, the Attorney at Law stated that he made an error by including the sum of $90,000.00 as consideration. He stated that he included the sum for the purpose of transfer fees and that the Claimant played no part in the preparation of documents, calculation of the fees or application for the Certificates of Title. The First Defendant read the Attorney’s written statement on Q 95.
(f) A public statement issued by one of the transferors in which she stated that the transfer of the parcel of land at Trafalgar from her to the Claimant was by way of gift and that the Claimant had made and she had received no payment in consideration thereof. The First Defendant repeatedly played excerpts of the oral statements made by the donor Miss Marina Shillingford on Q 95.
(v) The First Defendant sought publicly to ridicule the explanation given by the Claimant’s Attorney at law by, among other things, repeatedly, reading from the Memorandum of Transfer prepared by the Attorney for the Land at Trafalgar and saying ‘something is wrong something is wrong’ when he had no credible material or evidence to refute the statements and explanation given by the Attorney or the donor of the land that the land was given as a gift and that the Attorney had made an error by including the sum of $90,000.00 ECD on the Memorandum of Transfer.
(vi) The First Defendant persisted in and repeated the gist of the libel published by the Times by raising the subject matter of the words complained of on his Talk Show Matt in the Morning on Q 95 radio for several days and permitted persons to consistently call and accuse the Claimant of fraud, criminality, corruption or dishonesty on his “In the Hot Seat” radio programme and to demand a criminal investigation of the Claimant, a commission of inquiry and resignation of the Claimant.
(vii) The First Defendant permitted one Lennox Linton, a known political critic of the Claimant who spent several hours on radio during the 2005 General Election attacking the Claimant and his political party, to spend several minutes of his radio talk show repeating the allegations made and to accuse the Claimant, wrongly and falsely, of contravening the Integrity in Public Office Act had it been in force by accepting the gift of land in Trafalgar notwithstanding there being no allegation or evidence to show that the Claimant used the office of Prime Minister or failed to act in accordance with is office in exchange or as a reward for the gift of land.
(viii) The First Defendant on the 7th September 2007 invited the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader, both members of the United Workers Party, a party politically opposed to the Claimant, on his radio programme on Q 95 to repeat the same or similar allegations against the Claimant, accuse him of crimes and corruption and to demand a commission of inquiry and that the Claimant should resign within seven (7) days.
(ix) The First Defendant has used his access to Q 95 as a host of the call-in programme “Matt in the Morning” to continue his assault on and maintain that his allegations against the Claimant are true.
(x) The Defendants and in particular the First Defendant knew or ought to have known that the words complained and the conduct of the First Defendant would and did provoke widespread negative accusations and comments against the Claimant on radio talk shows by members of the public particularly on Q 95 and Kairi FM and on blog or chat sites accessible by Dominicans in the Diaspora and other person with access to the WWW.
(xi) The Defendants acted with the intention to harm the Claimant or recklessly not caring whether they did or not.
(xii) In the premises, the Defendants wrote, printed and published the words complained of knowing they were false or recklessly not caring whether they were true or false, having calculated that the benefit to them in terms of immediate circulation of their newspaper and increased listener ship to the First Defendant’s radio programme would outweigh any compensation payable to the Claimant.
9 The Claimant has in consequence been gravely injured in his character, credit and reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and has suffered distress and embarrassment. The injury to the Claimant’s feelings has been exacerbated by the fact that the extremely serious allegations made and published by the Defendants strike at the root of his integrity as a Prime Minister.
10 Unless restrained by this Honorable Court, the Defendant will further write, print and publish or cause to be printed and published the said or similar words defamatory of the Claimant.
And the Claimant claims:
(i) Damages for libel and slander including aggravated and exemplary damages against the First Defendant in relation to the words published by the Times and on the WWW and in relation to his statements and conduct on Q 95 radio.
(ii) Damages for libel including aggravated and exemplary damages against the Second Defendant for the publication on the Times and republication on the WWW.
(iii) An injunction restraining the First and/ or Second Defendants whether by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise, from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words of the Claimant whether in the Times, on radio or the WWW or wherever.
(iv) Costs on the basis an indemnity and/ or wasted costs against each of the Defendants.
(v) Further or other relief.
CERTIFICATE OF TRUTH
I certify that all facts set out in my Statement of Claim are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. My Address for service is:
Alick Lawrence Chambers
7 Old Street
Roseau
Commonwealth of Dominica
……………………