US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

**johnnycakes** · 04-26-2010, 12:10 PM

Re: Friend, not foe - US Embassy opens its doors in bid to a

What a nice story. How really nice, clean and pure are the operations of the U.S.
Embassy not only in Kingston but in every country subjugated and exploited in one way or another by the wealthy of the United Snakes.

I wonder why it is they did not get to interview any of the many CIA operatives who operate again not only from the U.S. Embassy in Kingston but in
E-V-E-R-Y U.S. Embassy in the world doing all THEIR wonderful secret things for the citizens of those countries.

I did notice just how secure the perimeters of the embassy were described and not only that but the following description of the interior:

".........It is deliberately compartment-alised in a manner that prevents access to key areas from certain sections of the property.

Several of the doors our news team walked through were heavy and metallic."

How about mentioning that all these secure areas hold CIA files that were they expose would reveal things the State Department would find embarrassing in the extreme as regards CIA operations AGAINST the people of Jamaica ?

Nuff said.

The article was a whitewash and puff story to make U.S. intentions in the world seem to be beneficent when in the grim reality, they are not.

Is this not obvious to all?

**evanovitch** · 04-26-2010, 12:26 PM

'Dudus' issue not a factor in granting visas, says US

'Dudus' issue not a factor in granting visas, says US

BY PAUL HENRY Observer staff reporter [email protected]

Monday, April 26, 2010

THE United States says the current row between Kingston and Washington over the contentious extradition request of Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke has not affected the granting of visas to Jamaicans.

Officials at the US Embassy in Kingston told reporters Friday during a tour of sections of the Old Hope Road complex that the prevailing political climate has nothing to do with whether visa applications are approved or denied.

David L Stone (right), consul general at the US Embassy in Kingston, makes a point on Friday during a discussion with reporters while his deputy, Laurence Tobey, listens. (Photo: Bryan Cummings)
David L Stone (right), consul general at the US Embassy in Kingston, makes a point on Friday during a discussion with reporters while his deputy, Laurence Tobey, listens. (Photo: Bryan Cummings) 1/1

The decision, the officials pointed out, is made on a case-by-case basis, following an assessment of each applicant and the applying of the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) to their circumstance.

"No visa is issued or declined for political reasons and there is no daily quota [for visa approvals]. If a thousand people turn up and they qualify, they all will get visas," said Consul General David L Stone.

The embassy last year processed approximately 109,000 non-immigrant visa applications and "vastly more" than half that number has been approved for visas, Laurence Tobey, chief of the visa unit, said.

Stone's pronouncement should serve to quell the current anxiety of Jamaicans who, based on public pronouncements of some unsuccessful visa applicants, have formed the view that the embassy has been rejecting applications in retaliation for the Bruce Golding-led administration's refusal to extradite Coke to face drug- and gun-running charges.

The US had last August requested Coke's extradition but Golding has so far refused, arguing that the evidence submitted by the Americans against Coke was gathered in breach of Jamaican law.

Relations between both countries have been soured over the issue.

The matter is currently before the Supreme Court.

Responding to a question from the Observer, Rebecca C Park, the embassy's deputy public affairs officer, said there has been no decline in visa applications since the stand-off.

Embassy officials warned on Friday against applicants contracting the services of persons or organisations making guarantees of successful visa applications, noting that this would be a waste of their money.

"If a person says 'I can guarantee that you get a visa', that is not true, because there is no guarantee," Stone said.

Tobey said that there are no less than 33 grounds -- including criminal activity, control substance abuse and the contraction of certain communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis -- on which persons can be refused a visa.

Under normal circumstances, Tobey said, the burden of proof is on applicants to convince the interviewing officer that they should be granted visas.

Tobey was keen to clarify that the visa application fee Jamaicans are asked to pay is a standardise fee required of applicants across the globe.

**andronian2** · 04-28-2010, 11:39 AM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

So they give up at least part of the charade.

404 - Jamaica Observer

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/JLP-confesses-to-Manatt-deal_7559861

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
THE ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) yesterday conceded that the decision to approach US law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips originated within its ranks and revealed that the mystery Government minister who met with State Department officials and representatives of the law firm was junior foreign minister Dr Ronald Robinson.
</div></div>

Everyting gwine shake out...gi time.

**evanovitch** · 04-28-2010, 07:01 PM

We want whistle-blower cop - GOJ

We want whistle-blower cop - GOJ
Tuesday, 27 April 2010

While the United States is requesting the extradition of Christopher “Dudus” Coke to prosecute him, the Jamaican government is now going after the police constable who shared the incriminating information against Coke in the first instance.

According to Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne, the anonymous police officer broke the law by sharing information gathered in wire-taps placed on Christopher Coke's phone calls.

<span style="font-weight: bold">She says the Jamaican government is therefore demanding that the U.S. government disclose his name so that he can be charged and tried for the offence. </span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Furthermore, if the unnamed policeman is in the United States, Jamaica is demanding that he be sent back here for prosecution.</span>

This intriguing twist in the extradition dispute between Jamaica and the United States forms a crucial element of the affidavit filed by the Attorney General in her action in the Supreme Court.

She is seeking a declaration in the court regarding her authority to authorise the commencement of the extradition process with respect to Christopher Coke.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Who is John Doe? </span>

On February 2, 2007 the Supreme Court issued a warrant to intercept calls made by or to Christopher Coke on a particular telephone number.

Under the Interception of Communications Act the information gathered by this means was to be disclosed only to the Commissioner of Police, a Superintendent of Police and the Head of the Military Intelligence Unit of the Jamaica Defence Force.

An unidentified police constable, named as "John Doe", is cited by the US in its request for Coke's extradition as being the officer who confirmed the legitimacy of the information which it used to support its request for Coke's extradition.

The Jamaican government has so far refused to allow the extradition hearing to proceed through the courts, arguing that the information furnished in support of the request was obtained illegally.

Furthermore, the Jamaican government is seeking to turn the tables on the Americans and is demanding that if the unnamed officer is now in the United States he should be extradited to Jamaica for trial here.

If the police officer is prosecuted in Jamaica and found guilty he could be imprisoned for up to three years and/ or fined as much as three million dollars.

At the heart of the dispute is the American charge that Christopher Coke conspired to distribute one thousand kilogrammes of various drugs and also conspired to traffic in firearms without a licence.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding last week challenged the United States to do more to assist Jamaica in its ongoing efforts to stem the flow of illegal guns into the country.

Last year more than 16 hundred Jamaicans were murdered, mostly through the use of guns.
So far this year more than five hundred have been similarly murdered.

**johnnycakes** · 04-28-2010, 09:03 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

"Yeah Johnny, that's quite a scenario you painted, but nothing as dramatic will occur. Both sides will eventually find a way to settle this dispute and become better friends when all the dust has settled. You can bet the farm on it..."
____________________________

Agreed ...sort of.
The dispute will be settled when the Jamaican government knuckles under (submits) and extradites Dudus.
The United States will get its way....or else.
Okay maybe not invasion but financial punishment for sure.
No IMF loans, no favorable trade agreements etc.

As Woodie Guthrie wrote," Some will rob you with a six gun and some with a fountain pen"

The USA has a multitude of weapons at its disposal and Jamaica has none.

Seen?

**Panajar** · 05-02-2010, 05:56 PM

Re: We want whistle-blower cop - GOJ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

According to Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne, the anonymous police officer broke the law by sharing information gathered in wire-taps placed on Christopher Coke's phone calls.

<span style="font-weight: bold">She says the Jamaican government is therefore demanding that the U.S. government disclose his name so that he can be charged and tried for the offence. </span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Furthermore, if the unnamed policeman is in the United States, Jamaica is demanding that he be sent back here for prosecution.</span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">lol The senior citizen know who is the president of jamdung </span> these people tek everybody fi eedaiat.

hav fe tek bad thing mek joke

**evanovitch** · 05-09-2010, 08:04 PM

Delaying tactics over extradition weaken Government capacity

Delaying tactics over extradition weaken Government capacity

Claude Robinson

Sunday, May 09, 2010

JOURNALIST Ian Boyne's criticism of media colleagues and others for failing to applaud what he regarded as Prime Minister Bruce Golding's "intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding" Budget presentation is misdirected.

Admittedly, Mr Golding was his customary eloquent self as he compared the Jamaican economy to "living a lifestyle in which we put on weight but we don't grow" and calling for "national consensus on the type of counteroffensive that must be united against criminal forces".

But these positions are neither new nor disputed. The prime minister made a similar economic case when he explained why the country was heading back to another agreement with the International Monetary Fund. And the crime plan has been outlined in several pieces of draft legislation, tabled in the House some time ago, that would, among other things, give extraordinary powers to the police.

The speech failed to gain traction Ian thought it deserved for two reasons: First, it did not go much beyond a description of what is known. It lacked specific actions the Government will take to lead the country through the twin crisis of crime and economic malaise. Second, the speech completely ignored that 800-pound gorilla in the prime minister's room and the emanating stench that is becoming unbearable.

Mr Golding is correct when he stresses that the Government must live within its means and should not borrow to pay for public services that cannot be sustained by an economy which has hardly grown over the past two decades. And he's right about spreading the tax burden more equitably and achieving greater tax compliance.

But these are big transformational ideas that are not easy to do, given the historical inequities in Jamaican society where the privileged have held sway. There's also the expectation, fostered by political practice especially since Independence, that the State must play the leading role in creating opportunities to even out the inequalities.

Now the country is at a place, in terms of the economy and crime management, where the prime minister seems to be pushing for less government in terms of human development while pressing for more draconian policing. If that's the plan, there will be resistance on both counts. And the prime minister has to step up to the crease and show what he is capable of if he wants buy-in.

But, as Ian acknowledged, the Golding administration has a big problem, namely, the "widening credibility deficit" over its handling of the US request to extradite Christopher Coke and the hiring of US law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips to lobby Washington not to pursue the request.

He wrote, "The truth is, a lot of people don't want to hear one damn thing from this Government and every day that the 'Dudus' affair lingers, the cynicism and distrust deepen. This has made it extremely difficult to dispassionately discuss anything this Government says or does. We might as well face it," (Sunday Gleaner April 25).

Ian was not clear on who is the "we" that should "face it". For me there is no doubt: It is the prime minister, the Government and the Jamaica Labour Party that must face the issue and make a full and truthful disclosure.

Continued shilly-shallying will make it harder for the administration to speak its truth on the wide range of challenges it is seeking to address. This includes tight economic management and handling the waves of public sector discontent over wages and related matters.

For more than a month Mr Golding and the leadership of the JLP have been hopscotching from one incredible explanation to another as to why they will not sign the request to have Mr Coke answer serious charges of trafficking in guns and drugs between Jamaica and the United States.

Unless you have been under a rock you have heard them and probably made up your mind as to where the truth lies.

So it is not necessary to remind that Karl Samuda's statement that "persons within the JLP" were responsible for lobbying the Barack Obama administration to ease the pressure on Mr Coke doesn't make sense; does not accord with facts not in dispute; and avoids the real questions, including: Who stood behind the US$400,000 deal with Manatt and actually made an initial payment of almost US$50,000? Who wrote the cheque and what is the source of the money?

Nor are we likely to be any wiser when there is a ruling in the action brought by Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne to have the Supreme Court make a declaration that she acted lawfully in refusing the US request to extradite Coke.

Threats to free speech

But as we await the ruling by Justice Roy Jones on the request by Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller to remove her name as a defendant in the action, many of us in the media are troubled by the realisation that someone can be called upon to be a defendant simply by expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest. To me that seems to be a challenge to the freedom of expression provision in the Jamaican Constitution.

It is not without irony that the case was being heard in camera just as the global journalism fraternity was engaged in the annual observance of World Press Freedom Day, set aside by UNESCO to highlight the role of a free and independent press in democratic society and to call attention to the scores of journalists, around the world who are killed because of what they write or say.

Thankfully, we still have a free press in Jamaica and journalists are not killed or banished from view for doing their jobs.

But it should not escape notice that the Police High Command had to offer special protection to the families of investigators into the huge contraband cigarette/liquor/cash find in Beverley Hills recently after the lawmen received death threats from persons involved in the rackets.

We must also be mindful that in some Latin American countries, especially Mexico and Colombia, journalists who investigate the illegal activities of drug traffickers often pay the ultimate price. Maybe we have been spared such experiences not because we are different but because we have not been following the money. Will that change as the press inevitably dig deeper into current matters?

While the extradition drama plays out, the picture painted in the indictments and the international reporting is that organised crime controls the kind of wealth and exerts a level of political influence that should cause us to worry.

So Ian, the concern is not whether the prime minister offered "piercing" analysis of the economy or whether he was ready to take on the human rights advocates about policing strategy. Rather, it is that the country needs his assurance, supported by evidence and action, that our constitutional democracy is not in jeopardy, despite the fact that the State has lost effective control over many communities controlled by dons. Without that assurance the applause is unlikely.

[email protected]

**evanovitch** · 05-09-2010, 08:13 PM

Re: Delaying tactics over extradition weaken Government capacity

<span style="font-weight: bold">
Bruce's Budget Battle</span>
Published: Sunday | April 25, 2010 Ian Boyne, Contributor

The prime minister delivered an intellectually robust, piercingly logical and commanding Budget presentation last Tuesday, but you would never know from the commentary about it. The Government's widening credibility deficit over the Dudus extradition/Manatt, Phelps and Phillips issue has added to our own peculiar challenge of assessing things outside a partisan context.

The truth is, a lot of people don't want to hear one damn from this Government, and every day that the Dudus affair lingers, the cynicism and mistrust deepen. This has made it extremely difficult to dispassionately discuss anything this Government does or says. We might as well face it.

So, before the prime minister opened his mouth last Tuesday, he stood condemned by many. Plus, people know him Government bruk and can't offer them many handouts. That his presentation was evidence-driven, well-argued and bold and incisive in its engagement with opposing ideas did not matter one bit to many people. They are just turned off and angry, and as we know emotions corrode the thinking process. Unfortunately, talk-show hosts, commentators and journalists are not exempt from this pitfall.

This will be a hugely unpopular column. But for any takers, I urge you to reason with me. The prime minister did not waste any time in getting to the heart of the issue: The 'tax, borrow and spend more' approach to budgeting was not on this year. It cannot be on in light of the global economic crisis, our home-grown economic malaise and our 'Heavy Manners' agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Fiscal lifestyle

For the last 14 years consecutively, we have been spending more than our revenues can cover, the prime minister began by telling us. Our current expenditure has grown three times as fast as our revenues, he continued - 76 per cent versus 24 per cent.

"We have lived a fiscal lifestyle in which we put on weight but we don't grow. We accumulate fat but build no muscles," said Golding, a master wordsmith (Critics say that's all he is.) The prime minister calmly explained that in a previous era, we could go on ur super-spending ways because we could borrow from the international capital markets. When those markets closed and our export markets collapsed, that game was over. Our bauxite exports alone account for 50 per cent of our total export earnings.

How do you continue important social spending, offer a fiscal stimulus for production and growth and meet public-sector wage obligations when you are faced with such a crisis - and when you can't keep taxing the people? The Opposition has not identified what should be cut to accommodate increased spending in other areas. Indeed, they have noted how sharply reduced the Budget is. The Budget is bare bones. The Opposition debaters are not making an argument that there are gross areas of misallocation and distorted priorities.

Is it fair?

The prime minister correctly noted that the leader of the opposition in critiquing the Government made no mention of a global economic crisis. Is it fair to compare economic performance during a crisis period unlike any other in over 70 years, with relatively normal times? Is it fair to use aggregate comparative figures of economic decline, totally oblivious to what has taken place in the real world since 2007?

The prime minister decisively and conclusively answered opposition critics who pointed to the 2.7 per cent economic decline in Jamaica last year, noting first that 1.9 per cent of that was accounted for by the fallout in the bauxite/alumina sector alone. He then pulled on statistics from a number of developed countries - including Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy as well as Mexico, Trinidad (which has energy resources) and Barbados which declined to an even greater extent. Much-touted Barbados declined by as much as 5.3 per cent. Now in my book, if you are debating someone, you have to reckon with the hard evidence he brings. You can't ignore them and pretend that you didn't hear what was said or raise other issues.

The task of the Opposition is to demonstrate conclusively that the Government mismanaged the global economic crisis, that it took reckless policy decisions in its wake and that it did not do enough to insulate us from its shocks. Proving that the Government underestimated the impact of the crisis is not enough, for as the prime minister showed, even the IMF, World Bank and the United Nations had to revise their own targets and assessment as the crisis deepened. We need a national debate where debaters take on the ideas of opponents frontally and squarely, rather than raise red-herrings and engage in diversionary tactics.

Traditions of debating

If you have been following the trajectory of the Opposition's critique of the Government, you will see that Golding lived up to the best traditions of debating. He took on the major economic arguments and assumptions of the Opposition and dealt with them creditably. He stuck to fundamental issues.

The debate might have been dull and lifeless before the opposition leader spoke, but Golding certainly did not drop the ball. This country has been in denial on two critical issues which the prime minister faced courageously: the economy and crime.

The prime minister's presentation was irenic, not polemical; he reasoned rather than ranted. It was an excellent display of respect for the canons of public reason. We need to have a larger debate in this country on what is possible given current global realities and our own economic circumstances. We need to have dialogue with a greater respect for evidence and empirical data, rather than rely on gut feelings, intuition and supposition. The quality of public discourse needs to be considerably improved and we, in media, must play a critical role in this. Our tribal loyalties must not be allowed to get in the way.

Those interested in research and reason, rather than cultic party devotion, should read the just-released study, Achieving Fiscal Responsibility in Jamaica: the JDX and Beyond by the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI). This important research paper, whose principal researcher was the University of the West Indies senior economics lecturer, Dr Damien King, draws heavily on cross-county studies. The study points to the fact that the country's average debt level over the last 10 years has been 115 per cent of GDP.

And what has been the result of this crushing debt burden? "Crumbling, inadequate infrastructure, declining quality and quantity of public services and rising rates of crime and violence. It is within this context that sustained economic growth has continued to elude Jamaica."

The People's National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) are agreed that there is no prospect of sustainable economic growth without containment of our debt - and control of our appetite for more debt. It must be explained to our people, in simple terms, that this means we can't spend for even every desirable and important thing until we are earning our way out of the crisis. Macroeconomic stability is not sufficient for economic growth, but it is certainly a necessary precondition. The Government's debt-exchange programme, which the CaPRI study hails, was a major initiative for dealing with this formerly intractable problem.

Macroeconomic stability comes with a price and, unfortunately, the poor pay disproportionately that price under our capitalist system. But that is the system of non-socialised production that the PNP itself is committed to, so it can't debate for more radical solutions such as debt repudiation and nationalisation of industry. As long as the parties continue to operate within the strictures of the neo-liberal capitalist model, they have to put pressure on the backs of the poor to achieve macroeconomic stability. A so the thing set!

The CaPRI study says the major reason for our unsustainable debt levels are the liabilities contracted outside of central Government ... the very same point the prime minister made in his speech, and that is why the Government has decided to sell those assets and to make those kept economically viable (like JUTC, which means increased bus fares.) We have to learn some basic laws of economics.

When Ralston Hyman, who should know better, ask why we are not stimulating the economy like the United States and other developed countries, I have to shake my head. Ralston is not a fool. As desirable as it is, where would the Government find the funds to adopt counter-cyclical policies at this time and under a stringent IMF agreement? We really need to get serious in our economic discourse. For years everybody was singing the mantra of low interest rates. Now that interest rates are coming down, people are switching to say "low interest rates alone can't solve the problem".

It would be good to subsidise not only early-childhood, primary and secondary but also university education. It would be good to do a number of things to help the poor beyond the measures the prime minister announced. Every politician would love to spend more. But it's not just politics which is "the art of the possible". Economics is also.

Someone needs to engage directly the arguments Bruce Golding offered after carefully reading his presentation. His implicit call for stronger hard policing and for sending clear signals to criminals and terrorists, expectedly, received reflexive opposition from the very powerful human-rights lobby. The Gleaner can continue to scream the murder figures from its front pages, but as long as this county does not adopt, as a part of a holistic package of solutions, stronger measures against hardened criminals and gang members, we will forever be calling on the Government to do something and the Government will continue to flounder and look clueless.

There is certainly no huge amount of money for "social-intervention programmes". And the PM carefully outlined a number of non-hard-policing things already being done without much effect at all on our bloodthirsty criminals. The prime minister is right: "We need a national consensus on the type of counteroffensive that must be mounted." I am not holding my breath, for the human-rights fundamentalists are not going to cede anything. The Opposition must support the anti-crime bills if we are to see any dent in crime.

If we can't agree on crime, for reason's sake, let's at least accept some economic common sense.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Feedback may be sent to [email protected] or [email protected].

**evanovitch** · 05-11-2010, 11:58 PM

mi done wid Bruce..dis admission is di final straw fi mi

PM makes statement on Manatt affair
Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Prime Minister Bruce Golding.Prime Minister Bruce Golding on Tuesday afternoon admitted that he sanctioned the engagement of US Law Firm Manatt Phelps and Phillips.

Mr. Golding in a statement to parliament said that he stands by his March 16 pronouncement that the Government of Jamaica had not engaged any legal firm to act in the extradition issue which is now before the courts.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Mr. Golding told Parliament that the initiative was sanctioned by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and not the Government</span>.

He says the payment of nearly US$50,000 to Manatt Phelps and Phillips was sourced from financial contributors to the JLP.

He denied that the US firm was paid by Mr. Christopher Coke.

**evanovitch** · 05-12-2010, 12:02 AM

Re: mi done wid Bruce..dis admission is di final straw fi mi

<span style="font-weight: bold">Statement by Prime Minister Bruce Golding on the Manatt Affair</span>

I wish to address the House on two related matters that have generated much public discussion and controversy. The one has to do with the request by the US government for the extradition of Christopher Coke, the other with the engagement of the US law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

The Extradition Treaty between Jamaica and the US specifies the type of information that must be provided in support of a request for extradition. Article IX(1) states that if the Minister considers that the information furnished is not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the Treaty, she shall notify the US authorities in order to enable them to furnish additional information before the request is submitted to the Jamaican Courts for extradition hearings to proceed.

The government maintains that the information presented in support of this particular request is unacceptable because it has been used in violation of Jamaican law and in contravention of the expressed order of a Judge of the Supreme Court. For the Minister to ignore this violation and issue the authorization to proceed would be to condone and legitimize this violation and would be a dereliction of duty.

From as far back as September of last year, the government wrote formally to the US authorities requesting them to provide additional or separate information that would enable the Minister to fulfill the request. We assured the US authorities that once this is done, the Minister will sign the authorization to proceed.

The US has steadfastly refused to do so, contending that the information already submitted was presented in accordance with existing bilateral agreements between both countries as allowed under section 16(9) of the Interception of Communications Act. The agreements referred to, which were entered into in 2004, relate to the sharing of information as part of the cooperation between law enforcement agencies of both countries. This is an arrangement that the government wholeheartedly endorses and we are appreciative of the considerable assistance and support provided by the US government in carrying out these arrangements.

However, these arrangements are patently clear as to how information so shared is to be used. They state explicitly that any information so shared is provided only for intelligence purposes and cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings, subpoenas or for legal or judicial purposes unless it is provided in accordance with the requirements of the laws of Jamaica. The US authorities have acted in contravention of this provision in the bilateral agreements.

Our contention, therefore, is that with regard to Article IX (1) of the Treaty, the information supplied cannot fulfill the requirements of the Treaty. The Minister has still not refused the request and remains ready to sign the authorization to proceed once those requirements are met.

I wish to make it clear that the government will, without hesitation, facilitate the extradition of any Jamaican citizen wanted to stand trial for extraditable offences once the obligations under the Treaty are met. Christopher Coke is wanted for an alleged crime in the US for which he ought to be tried and the government of Jamaica, consistent with its obligations under the Treaty, will do everything necessary to facilitate his extradition once it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and the laws of our country.

Some argue that this is a matter for the Courts and not the Minister to determine. They are wrong! As I have already pointed out, the Treaty makes it clear that information sufficient to allow the Minister to authorize extradition proceedings must be presented before the request is submitted to the Courts. What we have, therefore, is a dispute regarding the application of the Treaty. A treaty dispute cannot be resolved by the Courts of either party to the dispute. This is why we have used every conceivable means to resolve this dispute through dialogue with the US authorities.

This is not the first time there has been a dispute between Jamaica and the US regarding the application of the Extradition Treaty. Such a dispute arose in 1992 when a Jamaican national, Richard Morrison, extradited on one set of charges to be tried in a particular Court was placed on trial for a different set of charges in a different Court, in breach of Article XIV of the Treaty.

The then PNP administration, quite rightly, took strong exception and formally notified the US government that such violation of the Treaty provisions could not be tolerated. At a meeting with the US Department of Justice in Washington on October 13th 1994, the then Minister of National Security and Justice, Hon. K.D. Knight, advised the US authorities:

· of the importance State Parties must attach to the existing statutory and Treaty provisions as extradition is a “politically sensitive issue”;
· that failure to follow the letter of the Extradition Treaty could unnecessarily test the cordial relations between Jamaica and the US with respect to criminal matters;
· that if the government of Jamaica considers that the US will violate the terms of surrender, it will not surrender the fugitive.
Subsequently, in a Cabinet Submission dated February 3rd 1995, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Hon. Seymour Mullings, proposed to Cabinet, inter alia, that, pending resolution of the question of a breach of the Extradition Treaty, the Minister should not issue any warrant for extradition unless he is “absolutely certain” that the provisions of the Treaty will be observed faithfully by the US authorities or, alternatively, that the Minister should not issue the authority to proceed in respect of any extradition request until the issue of the breach of the Treaty has been resolved.

The then government was very strident in its insistence that the US authorities must comply with its obligations under the Treaty. Indeed, in an interview with Mr. Wilmot Perkins on KLAS Radio on January 26th 1995, the then Prime Minister, Hon. P.J. Patterson, stated that the breach of the provisions of the Treaty had “very, very clear adverse implications for the obligations under the Extradition Treaty” and that the Minister would not be signing any other extradition documents unless he is “absolutely satisfied that in no circumstances will there be a recurrence of the breach that occurred in the Morrison case”.

That dispute remained unresolved for three years during which no extraditions took place until the US government, by way of a letter from the Department of Justice dated April 27th 1995, gave the government of Jamaica the assurance that it would conform to the provisions of the Treaty and that directions had been given “to carefully review all cases involving extradition from Jamaica and to coordinate closely with our prosecutors to ensure that they maintain strict compliance with Article XIV”.

In a Cabinet Submission dated May 19th 1995, the then Minister of National Security and Justice advised of this development and sought the authorization of Cabinet “to continue the extradition process with the government of the United States of America based on the assurance given”. The Cabinet, by decision No. 20/95 dated May 25th 1995, accordingly issued the authorization for extradition to the US to continue.

Speaking in the House on June 6th 1995, the then Minister of National Security and Justice, Hon. K.D. Knight, stated:

“I wish to give the assurance that my Ministry will do everything in its power to ensure that the extradition process in Jamaica is carried out in a manner which is faithful not only to our international obligations but also to the fundamental concepts of justice and fairness as enshrined in our Constitution”.

That is also the assurance of this government.

The position taken by the government then did not evoke any public consternation or condemnation. There was no alarm that this action would “sour” relations between Jamaica and the US and would lead to retaliatory action by the US government such as the cancellation of visas. Nor was there any protest by the then Opposition that the actions of the government were tarnishing the good name of Jamaica. Indeed, the Opposition supported the government’s insistence that the provisions of the Treaty must be faithfully observed and that the “concepts of justice and fairness” be upheld. It wasn’t a matter that could have been resolved by the Courts either here or in the US. It was a dispute between parties to a Treaty that was eventually resolved through dialogue, albeit, it took three years before the matter was resolved.

The government is very clear as to the responsibilities of the Minister in this particular case. However, in view of the controversy that has developed and the suggestion that the government’s stand is motivated by partisan considerations, we have retained the services of Dr. the Hon. Lloyd Barnett Q.C. to seek a declaration from the Court as to the duties of the Minister and the matters she must properly take into account in exercising her authority under the Extradition Treaty. On conclusion of the matters that have been placed before the Court, the Minister of Justice will act in accordance with the declaration sought.

This government and the previous JLP government of which I was a part have always sought to strengthen our relations with the United States, often attracting criticism and ridicule from the Opposition.

We value the friendship and cooperation that have long existed between our two countries. Friends will, from time to time, have disagreements. The true value of friendship is the ability to resolve those differences in a spirit of understanding and mutual respect. That’s what friends are for. That is what we seek to do and I have every confidence that that is what we will do.

I turn now to the issue of the involvement in this matter of Mr. Harold Brady and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

On March 16th, I stated in this House that “the government of Jamaica has not engaged any legal firm, any consultant, any entity whatsoever in relation to any extradition matter other than deploying the resources that are available within the Attorney-General’s Department”. That was the position then. It remains the position to this day, save and except for the engagement of Dr. Lloyd Barnett to which I have referred.

The initiative which led to the engagement of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips by Mr. Brady started within the Jamaica Labour Party in September when he was approached to see whether, through his contacts with persons in the American political system, assistance could be obtained in finding a way to resolve what was seen as a treaty dispute between Jamaica and the US. Mr. Brady is a member of the Party and a former Executive-Secretary of the International Democrat Union, an organization of centre-right parties including the US Republican Party founded in 1983, currently headquartered in Oslo, Norway and of which the JLP is an associate member.

I sanctioned the initiative, knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value in dealing with issues involving the governments of both countries. I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the Party, not by or on behalf of the government.

Mr. Brady’s contacts referred him to the firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a highly reputable US law firm, which offered to assist on a professional, retainer basis. Mr. Brady’s firm retained Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in October of last year to pursue discussions with relevant officials of the US government. A payment of US$49,892.62 was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on September 18th 2009. These funds were sourced from financial contributors to the Party. Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false as the Party is fully aware of the source of these funds.

The engagement of lobbyists to act on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or corporations is a well-known practice in the United States governed by law. There is absolutely nothing illegal or surreptitious about it. Interestingly, in the Richard Morrison case, Professor David Rowe, whose firm was retained by the government of Jamaica to seek to secure his return after he was prematurely extradited, wrote in a memorandum to the government dated June 17th 1991 as follows:

“There are at least three options which we may pursue:

(1) Diplomatic – primarily through discussions with the Department of State;
(2) Political – through discussions with interested members of Congress and the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida or appropriate members of the executive branch, for example, the National Security Advisor who we believe acts as the liaison between the Department of Justice and the National Security Council.
(3)
(4) Legal – continue efforts to intervene in the criminal case against Morrison and to delay or stay his prosecution.
We recommend proceeding on all three parallel tracks.”

Mr. Brady, from as far back as September, had contacted the Solicitor-General to discuss issues relating to the extradition request. These discussions included email correspondence sent to Mr. Brady at an email address provided by him which, it was subsequently discovered, is an address belonging to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. The correspondence related to issues concerning the extradition request which the government of Jamaica had raised with the US government.

From the investigations that I have made, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were made to believe that Mr. Brady was acting for the government of Jamaica, rather than the JLP, and that their engagement was authorized by the government of Jamaica. Accordingly, in filing its representation with the Department of Justice on October 13th 2009, as it is required by law to do, it listed its client as “The government of Jamaica through Harold Brady & Company”. I only became aware of this when it was brought to the attention of the House on March 16th. The Attorney-General subsequently wrote to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips stating that neither Mr. Brady nor his company was engaged as a consultant to the government nor was either of them authorized to act on behalf of the government or to engage their services on its behalf.

It has already been acknowledged that the Solicitor-General and other government officials who went to Washington in December for a meeting with officials of the State and Justice Departments met with representatives of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips at the invitation of Mr. Brady. It has also been acknowledged that a representative of the firm offered and was allowed to attend the scheduled meeting with the State and Justice Department officials but, of significance, took no part in the discussions. It is of significance because, had he been there representing the government of Jamaica, his silence would have warranted explanation.

In discussions between the Solicitor-General and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips following the meeting with the State and Justice Departments, it was suggested that a draft release be prepared on the outcome of the meeting. Email correspondence ensued between the Solicitor-General and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on the contents of the release but the issuing of the release was eventually not pursued.

Dr. Ronald Robinson, Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and Deputy General Secretary of the JLP, while on a private visit to Washington, was invited by Mr. Brady to attend a meeting at the State Department but declined to do so. He did, however, attend an informal meeting between Mr. Brady and a representative of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips on November 20th to discuss the matters in relation to which the firm had been retained.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has relied on these meetings between its representatives and government officials and the email correspondence to which I have referred as authentication that it was acting on behalf of the government of Jamaica. However –

· Mr. Harold Brady was and is not a consultant to the government and was never authorized to act on behalf of the government or to engage the services of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to so act;
· Manatt, Phelps & Phillips registered the government of Jamaica as its client without the knowledge or appropriate authorization of the government;
· The Solicitor-General was not aware that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips had already been retained by Mr. Brady when he met with their representatives, only that their services were available should the government wish to retain them. Had he been so aware, he would not have entertained any such meeting;
· The engagement by Mr. Brady of the services of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has been terminated.

**evanovitch** · 05-12-2010, 04:34 PM

US wanted for 'Dudus' case

US wanted for 'Dudus' case
Published: Wednesday | May 12, 2010 Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

Supreme Court judge Roy Jones has called for the United States government to make its voice heard in court proceedings seeking to determine if Minister of Justice Dorothy Lightbourne has the authority to decline the extradition request for West Kingston strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

Jones made the recommendation yesterday while releasing Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller and Joseph M. Matalon, president of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), as defendants in the proceedings initiated by Lightbourne, who is also the attorney general.

Lightbourne had initially declined to sign a request to proceed with the extradition of Coke on the grounds that the evidence on which the United States' case is based was acquired illegally.

In court documents, the justice minister contends that she properly exercised her discretion with respect to the extradition request.

"In my view, the party whose legal interests may be affected by the grant of the declaration sought by the minister is the government of the United States of America," the judge said.

"They (US), however, enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be named or served to be a party in this matter. The minister says, however, that they have been made aware of these proceedings and can elect whether they wish to intervene in any capacity they so choose."

Jones ruled that Simpson Miller had no legal interest in the proceedings and should not be a defendant. She had filed an application seeking to be removed as a defendant in the matter.

Lightbourne had conceded last week that the PSOJ should not have been a defendant in the proceedings.

Hunt on for Dudus

Coke, who was one of the defendants, was not served with the claim form and was, therefore, not party to the proceedings.

Dr Adolph Edwards who, along with Dr Lloyd Barnett, is representing the minister, told The Gleaner yesterday that "further attempts will be made to serve Coke".

The case-management conference for the declarations Lightbourne is seeking is set for June 1 in chambers at the Supreme Court.

No order was made as to legal costs for the two defendants. Lightbourne's lawyers said yesterday that they were taking instructions from her as to whether they should appeal the judge's ruling removing Simpson Miller as a defendant.

Coke, 41, has been named as a defendant because he is the accused in the extradition request. He is wanted in the United States to face charges for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana and conspiracy to illegally traffic firearms.

Portia Simpson Miller, for her part, said she would not be commenting until the matter had come to its end.

Attempts to reach Matalon proved futile.

A representative of the US government could not be reached for comment.

[email protected]

**evanovitch** · 05-12-2010, 11:50 PM

Prime Minister vs. party leader

Prime Minister vs. party leader
Wednesday, 12 May 2010

Prime Minister Bruce Golding.Prime Minister Bruce Golding sought Tuesday in Parliament to make a distinction between his role as Prime Minister and that of Leader of the Jamaica Labour Party in respect of the Manatt, Phelps and Phillips affair.

In outlining the sequence of events in contracting the services of the US based law firm to lobby the Obama administration in the controversial extradition matter, Mr. Golding said attorney at law Harold Brady acted with his blessings.

"Mr. Speaker, I sanctioned the initiative...knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value dealing with issues involving the governments of both countries," Mr. Golding said on Tuesday.

Mr. Golding then told the House that when he gave those instructions to Mr. Brady he was doing so as Party Leader.

"I made it clear, Mr. Speaker, I made it absolutely, unmistakably clear that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the party not by or on behalf of the government," he said.

But Mr. Golding appeared to be dismissive of such distinctions in 2006 during the parliamentary debate on the Trafigura affair in which the then government of the People's National Party was enmeshed.

"There's an attempt to differentiate between a Minister of Government and that same person who is the acting Treasurer of the People's National Party. We can't just jump out of one skin and into another. We have to understand that given the nature of our political. Whenever we act as a minister, whatever extent we carry party responsibilities, that you are not going to be able to simply separate them," Mr. Golding said on October 17, 2006 when he was Leader of the Opposition.

And Prime Minister Bruce Golding has gone back to his original stance of being mum on the Manatt Phelps and Phillips issue.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Prime Minister was asked to react to criticisms being thrown at him based on his statement in Parliament Tuesday.

But Mr. Golding said he spoke extensively on the issue Tuesday in Parliament and did not wish to say anything further.

He also did not react to calls for his resignation.

The Prime Minister, who was touring the Falmouth Pier in Trelawny on Wednesday with Transport and Works Minister, Mike Henry, was then whisked away.

**andronian2** · 05-13-2010, 12:58 AM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

Everyting mus unravel.
Dis scandal nuh near done yet!

Who did believe seh PM and party leader nuh know bout what a gwaan?
Only the most gullible and naive!

**Tuff Gong** · 05-15-2010, 09:48 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

The Miami Herald
Posted on Sat, May. 15, 2010
Jamaican leader caught in the middle of a drug war

<span style="font-style: italic">BY FRANCES ROBLES
[email protected]</span>

It's Wednesday night, and reggae music is blaring in Tivoli Gardens, the inner city neighborhood known for dangerous streets that an accused drug baron now keeps clean and safe.

``The president is here!'' the proud disc jockey declared.

By ``president,'' he meant Christopher ``Dudus'' Coke, a man the U.S. Department of Justice considers one of the most dangerous narcotics kingpins in the world.

And he meant a man whose case threatens to topple Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who is under fire for his loyalty to the alleged drug baron.

Thanks to ties to the ruling Labor Party that run deep and strong, Coke is still attending weekly dance parties in the western Kingston neighborhood he controls. He's not in New York, facing the U.S. court that seeks to try him on charges of running cocaine, marijuana and weapons up the eastern seaboard.

After admitting that he played a role in hiring a Los Angeles law firm to lobby the U.S. government on Coke's behalf, Golding hunkered down with advisors late Friday as cries for his resignation grew louder.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Coke ``is the most powerful criminal in Jamaica,'' said Desmond Richards, editor of the Sunday Herald newspaper, which has investigated Coke's government construction contracts. ``He is like a vampire -- these people do not do well under light.'</span>'

Coke, 41, is believed to be the leader of the Shower Posse, one of the most notorious criminal gangs in the hemisphere. He was indicted by a New York grand jury last year on conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana and traffic weapons. But Golding cited illegally obtained wiretap evidence and other irregularities and refused to extradite him.

At the center of the widening controversy that includes a flap over the hiring of the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips lobbying firm is a 41-year-old food importer and construction contractor whose influence in his neighborhood is so strong that children must be off street corners by 8 p.m. Men must work, and thieves look elsewhere to pilfer pockets.

``You could describe it as a welfare system: They provide resources and operate what you could call a second tier justice system,'' Richards said. ``There is no stealing, no rape.''

Experts describe Coke as Jamaica's answer to Pablo Escobar, the late Colombian drug trafficker whose benevolence in the community afforded him absolute control -- and respect.

``I am not going to lie: people go to school because of him. People who need clothes go to him, so do old people,'' said Claudette White, who spent a recent morning at a local produce market, which Coke is credited for keeping safe. ``He gave a start to the people who run the food and soda carts. Most people here depend on him for something.''

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">FAMILIY TIES</span>

Coke is the son of Lester Lloyd Coke -- aka ``Jim Brown'' -- who was also one of Jamaica's gang leaders, called ``dons'' here. Accused of murder and drug trafficking in Miami, the elder Coke died in a suspicious fire in 1992 while awaiting extradition.

When Christopher Coke's brother Mark was murdered that year, gang warfare broke out that left at least a dozen people dead in a single month.

Coke's attorney dismisses his client's reputation as pure lore, and said the flimsy case against him is politically motivated.

``Christopher Coke is someone who is fair, eschews the use of violence and whose main enterprise is economic development in the inner city and the development of youth through economic activities,'' said lawyer Tom Tavares-Finson, a Labor Party legislator.

``You cannot impose a curfew with a gun. If you could impose peace and security through the use of force, wouldn't the state be able to do it?''

Tivoli Gardens is a longtime stronghold of the Jamaican Labor Party; Golding is its representative in parliament.

The Jamaican government maintains that the wiretaps the U.S. government used to record Coke's Kingston cellphone were illegal, and the Minister of Justice declined to sign an extradition order for Coke. Facing intense criticism, she asked the court whether she was within her rights to refuse. The motion is pending.

The prime minister's office did not return calls seeking an interview. Minister of Information Daryl Vaz late Friday denied rumors that Golding had resigned.

The Drug Enforcement Administration referred questions about the Coke case to U.S. Attorney's Office spokeswoman Yusill Scribner, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

``We would like to once again reiterate our position that all evidence collected by the United States in the indictment of Christopher `Dudus' Coke was acquired in a manner consistent with existing international agreements between our two countries, and that the extradition request was properly prepared and submitted,'' State Department spokesman Charles Luoma-Overstreet said in a statement.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">But most experts agree that the government is unlikely to let Coke go. He knows too much.

``They are worried about what he would say,'' said David Rowe, an adjunct law professor at the University of Miami School of Law who has represented Jamaican dons. ``They know that he could implicate a number of Jamaican government ministers.''</span>

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">THE GANGS</span>

Criminal ties to Jamaican politics are not new. Gangs were created in the 1970s, when political parties here armed groups of supporters in a quest to eliminate rivals.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">``The dons' service to the party was that they could deliver votes,'' said John Rapley, president of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute, a Kingston think tank.</span>

But to deliver votes,they had to deliver services. And for that, they needed money. They soon became the Caribbean middlemen for Colombian drug cartels.

In the '70s, the dons controlled the gangs.

``The tail is wagging the dog now,'' Rapley said.

Even if the government wanted to get rid of them, Rapley said, many people believe it couldn't.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">``Our intelligence was, and it probably still is, that the gangs in Tivoli Gardens had a huge arsenal of weapons,'' said security consultant Mark Shields, a former Scotland Yard investigator who became deputy commissioner of police here.</span>

``There is a huge sensitivity to the fact that one of the largest civil confrontations in modern times with the police was in Tivoli Gardens.''

In 2001, police trying to raid Tivoli Gardens were met by sniper fire, which led to a three-day standoff that killed 26 people.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">``Arresting Christopher Coke would require a major police and military operation,'' said a U.S. law enforcement official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. ``It would take hundreds of people.''</span>

Tivoli Gardens residents say Coke keeps their neighborhood safe, and they like it that way.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">``Jamaica is at a crossroads perhaps more than ever before, in where one road leads to restoration of law and order and the other road leads to narco-statehood,'' said opposition lawmaker Peter Phillips, a former National Security minister.

``Right now, we have to say we are leaning toward narco-statehood, if we are not there already.''
</span>
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/15/v-...l#ixzz0o3090zfe

**evanovitch** · 05-15-2010, 10:16 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

the interesting ting is dat dose quoted hoe pon di odda greens

US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads