dominica2day: A factual resposne to Lennox Linton "piece" on the DAAS website

A factual resposne to Lennox Linton "piece" on the DAAS website
================================================================================
 on 28 September, 2007 01:40:00
 
This is a short factual reply to Linton’s emotional ranting. The important
facts which Lennox Linton failed or refused to state in his piece are:
1. The fact that the Code of Ethics of the Association of Caribbean Media
Workers and the International Association of Journalists DEMANDS that a
journalist must do all he can to ascertain the truthfulness of the facts and
that he ought not to publish allegations unless first seeking the response of
the targeted subject.
2. The fact that it has been judicially determined that there is no public or
democratic interest in misinformation or irresponsible journalism.
3. The fact that the Times could never have ascertained the true facts or acted
responsibly without FIRST making inquiries of the Prime Minister, vendor, donor
or persons with personal knowledge of what actually happened and who
participated in the transaction or gift.
4. The fact that the TIMES, the investigator and Lennox Linton had or have any
personal knowledge of the facts, agreement to sell or gift. They were not
present.
5. The fact that the Times made no prior inquiries of any person who had any
personal knowledge of the facts or transactions.
6. The fact that the Times failed to make inquiries of the vendors/ donors. Why
is that important?
6.1 The vendor or the executor of the vendor of the Wall House Lands would have
produced a sale     agreement signed by the vendor Mr. Leopold Emmanuel and Mr.
Roosevelt Skerrit in which the purchase price of approximately $140.283.00 ECD
was stated.
6.2 The donor of the gift of the land at Trafalgar would have stated at the
very first stages that the land was given as a gift. The so called investigator
would then be able to have asked questions of her and the Prime Minister BEFORE
publication.
7. The fact that the Times falsely assumed that the alleged market value
determined by UNKNOWN sources was the ACTUAL PRICE paid by the Prime Minister
for the two (2) parcels of land.
8. The fact that the Times relied on so called un-named sources and values and
alleged bank sources to assert, falsely, that the Prime Minister could never
have been able to afford ONE MILLION DOLLARS worth of assets on his salary of
$5,000.00 ECD.
9. The fact that the Times falsely assumed without any proof whatsoever that
the Prime Minister paid ONE MILLION DOLLARS for the two parcels of land solely
on his salary of $5,000.00 ECD and premised their entire assault on those false
premises.
10. The fact that the Times concealed from the public the EXISTENCE of a CAVEAT
on the Certificate of Title of the Wall House land in favour of the Royal Bank
of Canada.
11. The fact that a caveat is CONCLUSIVE PROOF that the Prime Minister had
obtained a loan.
12. The fact that the purchase of the Wall House lands was fully funded by the
Royal Bank of Canada.
13. The fact that had the Times sought inquiries of Roosevelt Skerrit BEFORE
publication it would have learnt that the Royal Bank of Canada had FULLY FUNDED
the Wall House purchase.
14. The fact that the Times falsely asserted that the Prime Minister financed
33% of the Wall House land and paid cash for the Trafalgar land.
15. The fact that notwithstanding the CAVEAT, the Times CONCEALED from the
public that a financial loan was a definitive source of alternative funding
available to the Prime Minister and that he was not confined solely to his
salary.
16. The fact that the Integrity in Public Office Act, even if it was in force
and it is not, does not make illegal the giving of gifts to a Minister out of
affection or unrelated to any reward in exchange for any official act by that
Minister.
17. The fact that a former Attorney General of Barbados Mr. Maurice King Q.C.
has confirmed in writing that the Integrity in Public Office Act, even if it was
in force and it is not, does not make illegal the giving of gifts to a Minister
out of affection or unrelated to any reward in exchange for any official act by
that Minister
18. The fact that Code 1 (c) of the Code of Ethics expressly excludes from the
operation of the Integrity in Public Office Act gifts from a relative or friend
or personal gifts which are not given as a motive or reward to the person in
public life for doing or forbearing to do anything in the performance of his
official functions or causing any other person from doing or forbearing to do
anything as Prime Minister or Minister of Finance.
19. The fact that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Prime
Minister asked for or received any land for doing or forbearing to do anything
in the performance of his official functions as Prime Minister or Minister of
Finance or causing any other person from doing or forbearing to do anything as
Prime Minister or Minister of Finance.
20. The fact that in his statement of August 12, 2007 the Prime Minister was
responding to the specific allegation that
“I am told, for example, that I have properties in the United States of
America. That I own a luxury condominium in Barbados and of course the tiring
refrain, that I have dozens of accounts in Cayman Islands, Anguilla and other
financial jurisdictions.”
21. The fact that at no time during his statement of August 12, 2007 was the
Prime Minister ever addressing any allegation about his ownership of land in
Dominica.
22. The fact that even the Times in its article “Million dollars assets,
$5,000 salary”, expressly recognized the fact that the Prime Minister was on
the 12th August referring to OVERSEAS ACCOUNTS AND PROPERTY when the article
stated
“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”. ( Need I say more!!)
23. The fact that the Prime Minister’s reference to his INTENTION to build a
house in Vielle Case cannot under any circumstances be honestly construed as a
statement that he owns no or no other land in Dominica.
24. The fact that the Prime Minister of this small land never hid his ownership
of the lands as the Certificates of Titles are all in his name at the Registry
of the High Court of Justice.
25. The fact that not one single member of the United Workers Party wrote Mr.
Tony Astaphan to complain or threaten to sue him.
26. The fact that the Prime Minister of our great land has written and has sued
to defend his reputation!
27. The fact that Anthony W Astaphan,S.C. has absolutely nothing to say about
Lennox...uh?? .. Sorry, Lennox Linton.
Dated the 25th September 2007
Anthony W Astaphan S.C.