A factual resposne to Lennox Linton “piece” on the DAAS website

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?

   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.

   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.