Last Tuesday, March 16 2010, the Prime Minister responded to a question I asked in Parliament regarding whether or not the Government of Jamaica had a contract with the United States law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.
I further inquired whether any such contract could be related to the negotiation of contentious extradition treaties, which the Government has, to date, not expedited. The Prime Minister categorically denied that there was any such contract in a most abusive, condescending and arrogant manner.
There have been several contradictions in the statements made by the Prime Minister, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and Mr. Brady.
Contradictions:
1. The Prime Minister has said the Government of Jamaica has no contract with the law firm Manatt Phelps and Phillips; yet it is clear from the filings that money was paid to Manatt Phelps and Phillips to act on the Government’s behalf. Up until today, the documents on the Department of Justice website list Manatt Phelps and Phillips as representatives of the Government of Jamaica, one week after the GOJ denied having a contract with the law firm.
2. Mr. Brady in his statement said his firm has established a relationship with several international law firms including Manatt Phelps in the area of “international trade and finance specializing in telecommunications and intellectual property”. The Prime Minister, on the other hand says the Government of Jamaica was approached by Mr. Brady to have Manatt Phelps and Phillips “provide assistance in relation to treaty issues between Jamaica and the USA ”. The Prime Minister and Mr. Brady cannot both be right. To further compound the issue, the documents signed by Manatt Phelps and Phillips says they will engage in “political activities as defined”, which includes “contacts and meetings with the Executive Branch regarding existing political and economic matters, including existing treaty agreements between the Jamaica and the U.S. ”
It would appear that Manatt Phelps and Phillips was engaged to deal with the outstanding treaty disputes which had to do with the criminal matters relating to Mr. Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke.
3. The Prime Minister’s statement suggests there was one meeting between the solicitor General and the United States authorities. He also states that the representative of Manatt Phelps and Phillips took no part in the discussions. However, Manatt Phelps and Phillips has filed documents to indicate that at least two meetings took place and further contact was made by e-mail and telephone with the United States State Department and Office of National Intelligence including John McShane, a National intelligence officer.
I now wish to take you through a timeline of activities. The timeline will serve to demonstrate the web of deception and uncertainty that surround this matter. It also serves to put in context the seriousness of the issues.
|
August 25, 2009 |
Extradition request for Christopher “Dudus” Coke. |
|
September 18, 2009
|
First diplomatic note from the Government of Jamaica requesting additional information.
Bill payment made to Manatt Phelps and Phillips (MPP) for US$49,892.62 from Harold Brady (GJ) for services rendered per billing agreement. |
|
October 1, 2009
|
Contract between Harold Brady and MPP signed. Harold Brady was referred to as “Consultant to the Government of Jamaica authorized on behalf of the GOJ to approve of the engagement of MPP as set forth in this letter…” |
|
October 13, 2009
|
First filing by MPP with the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) setting out the contract dealing in political activities for a fee of US$100,000.00 per quarter |
|
October 13, 2009
|
Short Form Registration statement filed by MPP lawyer Susan Schmidt which declares that she is the partner who will engage in political activities as defined in the contract. |
|
November 12 , 2009
|
Amendment/revision to the FARA filed on October 13, 2009 |
|
December 10, 2009
|
Short Form Registration statement by MPP lawyer Kevin Di Gregory. |
|
February 4, 2010 |
Amendment to the registration form filed by MPP. MPP still represents themselves on the USA ’s DOJ website as representing the GOJ and confirms that a bill of US$49,892.62 had been paid. This contradicts Mr. Brady’s assertion (on radio on made March 17, 2010) that he had corrected the agreement which listed him as representing the GOJ, |
|
March 16, 2010
|
Prime Minister responds to questions posed by Dr. Peter Phillips in Parliament.
PM vehemently denies any link between the Government and MPP. |
|
March 17, 2010
|
Harold Brady interviewed on Nationwide Radio Programme and denies that he was a consultant to the Government of Jamaica. He said he had corrected the contract with MPP which listed him as representing the Government of Jamaica.
Mr. Harold Brady issues statement denying that he was retained by the GOJ to act on its behalf in the matters referred to in Parliament.
Minister Daryl Vaz tells journalists during a Post Cabinet Press Briefing that the document proving the corrections that Harold Brady said he made to the contracts have been requested from Mr. Brady. |
|
March 18, 2010
|
Statement from the Prime Minister acknowledging that the Solicitor General in fact had made contact and had met with Representatives of MPP.
He denies any contractual arrangements with them and that MPP had accompanies the Solicitor General to meetings |
|
March 22, 2010 |
Newspaper article quotes Minister Vaz as saying he had received documentation from Mr. Brady, but he was unable to get to his office to retrieve them until the following Monday.
Radio reports outlined that the documents would be perused by the Cabinet |
|
March 23, 2010 |
Still no further information from the Cabinet or any other Government on the matter |
Since then, based on the statements made by Prime Minister Golding himself, the Information Minister, Daryl Vaz, and Mr. Brady, the country has been left with more questions than answers. There has been more than an appearance of public deception by the Prime Minister and the Government. Sufficient to say there are several questions that the People’s National Party insists be answered. The PNP has put together a list of specific thirty questions, which require answers.
1. On what basis did the Solicitor General believe it was appropriate for private foreign citizens in the persons of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to attend a meeting between the government of Jamaica and the government of the United States involving highly sensitive and confidential issues?
- Especially when according to the Prime Minister they were not engaged by the Government of Jamaica?
- Would this not constitute an ethical breach?
2. Was the Ambassador of Jamaica to the United States in Washington present at any of the meetings held between the Solicitor General and the United States Government authorities at which private foreign citizens from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were also present?
3. The question further arises, was the Jamaican Ambassador to the United States in Washington aware that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were stating that they represent the Government of Jamaica and did he report this to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade or anyone else in the Government of Jamaica?
4. On what basis would Manatt, Phelps & Phillips have been convinced that they were representing the Government of Jamaica and could so declare to the Justice Department of the United States Government, which continues to report this fact on their website even up to today?
5. Did representatives of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips meet with officials of the Government of Jamaica other than the Solicitor General?
- If so, with whom, when and where?
6. In view of the Government’s claim that Mr. Brady misrepresented himself as being authorized by the Government of Jamaica to contract the services of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on the government’s behalf, what corrective action does the Government of Jamaica intend to take in relation to Mr. Brady?
7. What steps has the Government of Jamaica taken to clear the record with the US Justice Department to indicate that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is not a representative of the Government of Jamaica?
8. Who paid the US$49,892.62 that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips reports to have been paid for services rendered?
- Was it the Government of Jamaica?
- Was it Mr. Brady?
- Was it Mr. Brady on behalf of his client?
- If so, who is his client?
9. Is it mere coincidence that the date on which the first Diplomatic note was sent from the Government of Jamaica to the United States Government requesting additional information concerning the Extradition request happens to be the same date on which payment was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips for services rendered, which Manatt, Phelps & Phillips maintains was paid on behalf of the Government of Jamaica?
10. If it is true, as the Government of Jamaica claims, that Manatt Phelps & Phillips does not represent them, who then is the real client of Manatt Phelps & Phillips?
11. Did Mr. Brady have any discussions with any officials of the Cabinet and Government of Jamaica other than the Solicitor General prior to signing the contract with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips?
12. Was the Solicitor General on a frolic of his own when he invited Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to attend the meeting between the Government of Jamaica and the United States Government?
The people of Jamaica at home and abroad are demanding answers to all these questions if we are to be assured that the Government of Jamaica has not acted to frustrate the course of justice, or to improperly deploy the resources of the Jamaican taxpayer and further compromise Jamaica ’s name and reputation within the international community.
- 03/06/2010 06:30 - Reflections by Fidel Castro -The Empire and the War
- 29/05/2010 16:19 - CARIBBEAN VIEW: Jamaica’s Business is the Caribbean’s Business
- 23/05/2010 06:55 - Bruce Golding: Let us not forget
- 17/05/2010 04:51 - Portia Simpson Miller’s address to the PNP’s National Executive Council, Sunday, May 16, 2010
- 14/05/2010 02:41 - Stabroek news Editorial- Caricom opens to Brazil
- 09/05/2010 08:54 - The Dudus Affair - The Reckless Variety
- 28/04/2010 06:38 - Rickey Singh : Unique challenge to US
- 12/04/2010 04:56 - The ICC and the Caribbean
- 06/04/2010 23:54 - NATION EDITORIAL - Antigua crisis a cause for pause
- 30/03/2010 07:16 - The US Healthcare Reform - Reflections by Fidel
- 23/03/2010 06:40 - Evolution of gangs in the caribbean by Pastor Clive Dottin
- 15/03/2010 06:20 - COMMUNIQUE - Twenty-First Inter-Sessional Meeting, Conference Of Heads Of Government Of The Caribbean Community (Caricom), 11-12 March 2010, Roseau, Dominica
- 08/03/2010 07:50 - Message from Edwin W. Carrington Secretary-General, Caribbean Community (Caricom) on the occasion of International Women’s Day, 8 March 2010
- 06/03/2010 07:00 - Speech by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, at the Human Rights Council, Geneva, March 3, 2010.
- 21/02/2010 19:43 - Air Jamaica: Is The Playing Field Level? by Lucius C. White
- 18/02/2010 07:02 - The Region…The meaning of the Caribbean by David Granger
- 15/02/2010 06:41 - Dancing to Caribbean drums- Sir Ronald Sanders
- 08/02/2010 05:58 - Portia Simpson-Miller's presentation in Jamaica's IMF debate
- 27/01/2010 06:49 - Reflections by Fidel Castro - Cooperation Spirit Is Put to the Test in Haiti
- 18/01/2010 05:41 - The hate and the quake by Sir Hilary Beckles
| Comments |
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
