Tweet
September 15, 2010
Hon. Bruce Golding M.P.
Prime Minister of Jamaica,
Jamaica House
1 Devon Road
Kingston 10
Dear Sir:
Re: Claim of Defamation against you by Harold Brady
We act on behalf of Attorney-at-law Harold Brady whose instructions to us make it clear that he has been defamed by certain statements published by you of him at a press briefing at which you spoke yesterday.
You have been reported as alleging that our client acted contrary to your instructions in the manner in which he handled the retention and instructing of the lobby firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips (MPP) as a result of which the Government of Jamaica has been embarrassed. You are also reported to have used the following words: "Mr Brady was asked to resign from all government boards. Mr Brady is no longer a member of the party" which is clear innuendo that Mr Brady's actions in the entire MPP affair was somehow unethical, improper and in breach of instructions to the extent to which severe disciplinary action is merited and that his resignation from government boards is the resulting sanction.
Our client denies having been fired from any government board. Over the past two years, due to various reasons, he had gradually resigned from all government boards but not one single such resignation has been as a result of any disciplinary penalty arising out of this affair.
You have also been reported as saying as follows: "There is a question that has been raised as to whether or not a complaint should be filed with the General Legal Council (but) that is a matter that we have not decided on yet because of certain technicalities involved."
These words, in their natural and ordinary meaning and taken together with past pronouncements by you and your political party on this issue, could only mean that Mr Brady's conduct is in breach of the canons of ethics of the General Legal Council and that, subject only to "certain technicalities" our client should face professional disciplinary penalty.
Our instructions make it clear that you are fully aware that these imputations, allegationis and innuendoes against our client are completely false. Our client's instructions are that he took instructions on this matter only from you and has no other client in the affair. His further instructions are that he was introduced to the entire episode by way of a call made on your behalf to attend a meeting with you which was also attended by Dr. Ronald Robinson - a fact our client only discovered when he attended that first meeting at your request.
He was instructed by you to use his international contacts to try to resolve the political issues raised by the extradition request for Christopher Coke which you asserted was flawed evidentially but which you anticipated would result in adverse political pressure were the Government to be forced to refuse the request on that ground. Our client used his international political contacts who unanimously referred him to the firm of MPP who agreed to take on the matter of the treaty issues but pointed out to our client that this could only be done as a Government representative and under a paid retainer. Our client reported in full to you, at a meeting at which Ministery Daryl Vaz was present, and you instructed him to agree to MPP's terms but to ensure, as best as possible, that the Government did not appear to be involved. At that meeting, you delegated all the financial implications to be handled by Minister Vaz. Consequently, our client is unaware of the mechanics of the payment of the MPP retainer WHICH WAS NOT HANDLED either BY HIS LAW OFFICE or by him personally. Thereafter, all expenses relating the conduct of the MPP matters were dealt with by Minister Vaz and our client was not asked to pay any of his own expenses save and except for hotel accommodation abroad. Our client does not know the source of the funding for any or all of these expenses.
Our client denies that he has breached a single instruction he received from you. On the contrary, every single action taken by him was in furtherance of your specific instructions and he has never received any instruction from anyone else. MPP, on your instructions, delivered by our client, facilitated (both in person and in writing) discussions between the State Department and the Government of Jamaica which greatly assisted in trying to resolve the treaty dispute but the initiative became untenable once these activities were made public and you took a hands-off public stance.
Accordingly, this letter is written to invite you to take the opportunity to publish a retraction of the offensive words used at yesterday's press briefing and to offer a fulsome and unreserved apology to our client for the damage you have done to his considerable local and international prestige. Our client is an attorney-at-law of over 30 years standing and his reputation is not restricted to the shores of Jamaica. As a member of the Jamaica Labour Party, he has always done his best to assist that institution when he can but not at the expense of the country and certainly not at the expense of his own reputation. Failure to respond positively to this letter within seven (7) days will leave our client with no alternative but to file legal proceedings against you for defamation of character without any further reference to you.
Yours faithfully,
HENLEN GIBSON HENLIN
Hon. Bruce Golding M.P.
Prime Minister of Jamaica,
Jamaica House
1 Devon Road
Kingston 10
Dear Sir:
Re: Claim of Defamation against you by Harold Brady
We act on behalf of Attorney-at-law Harold Brady whose instructions to us make it clear that he has been defamed by certain statements published by you of him at a press briefing at which you spoke yesterday.
You have been reported as alleging that our client acted contrary to your instructions in the manner in which he handled the retention and instructing of the lobby firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips (MPP) as a result of which the Government of Jamaica has been embarrassed. You are also reported to have used the following words: "Mr Brady was asked to resign from all government boards. Mr Brady is no longer a member of the party" which is clear innuendo that Mr Brady's actions in the entire MPP affair was somehow unethical, improper and in breach of instructions to the extent to which severe disciplinary action is merited and that his resignation from government boards is the resulting sanction.
Our client denies having been fired from any government board. Over the past two years, due to various reasons, he had gradually resigned from all government boards but not one single such resignation has been as a result of any disciplinary penalty arising out of this affair.
You have also been reported as saying as follows: "There is a question that has been raised as to whether or not a complaint should be filed with the General Legal Council (but) that is a matter that we have not decided on yet because of certain technicalities involved."
These words, in their natural and ordinary meaning and taken together with past pronouncements by you and your political party on this issue, could only mean that Mr Brady's conduct is in breach of the canons of ethics of the General Legal Council and that, subject only to "certain technicalities" our client should face professional disciplinary penalty.
Our instructions make it clear that you are fully aware that these imputations, allegationis and innuendoes against our client are completely false. Our client's instructions are that he took instructions on this matter only from you and has no other client in the affair. His further instructions are that he was introduced to the entire episode by way of a call made on your behalf to attend a meeting with you which was also attended by Dr. Ronald Robinson - a fact our client only discovered when he attended that first meeting at your request.
He was instructed by you to use his international contacts to try to resolve the political issues raised by the extradition request for Christopher Coke which you asserted was flawed evidentially but which you anticipated would result in adverse political pressure were the Government to be forced to refuse the request on that ground. Our client used his international political contacts who unanimously referred him to the firm of MPP who agreed to take on the matter of the treaty issues but pointed out to our client that this could only be done as a Government representative and under a paid retainer. Our client reported in full to you, at a meeting at which Ministery Daryl Vaz was present, and you instructed him to agree to MPP's terms but to ensure, as best as possible, that the Government did not appear to be involved. At that meeting, you delegated all the financial implications to be handled by Minister Vaz. Consequently, our client is unaware of the mechanics of the payment of the MPP retainer WHICH WAS NOT HANDLED either BY HIS LAW OFFICE or by him personally. Thereafter, all expenses relating the conduct of the MPP matters were dealt with by Minister Vaz and our client was not asked to pay any of his own expenses save and except for hotel accommodation abroad. Our client does not know the source of the funding for any or all of these expenses.
Our client denies that he has breached a single instruction he received from you. On the contrary, every single action taken by him was in furtherance of your specific instructions and he has never received any instruction from anyone else. MPP, on your instructions, delivered by our client, facilitated (both in person and in writing) discussions between the State Department and the Government of Jamaica which greatly assisted in trying to resolve the treaty dispute but the initiative became untenable once these activities were made public and you took a hands-off public stance.
Accordingly, this letter is written to invite you to take the opportunity to publish a retraction of the offensive words used at yesterday's press briefing and to offer a fulsome and unreserved apology to our client for the damage you have done to his considerable local and international prestige. Our client is an attorney-at-law of over 30 years standing and his reputation is not restricted to the shores of Jamaica. As a member of the Jamaica Labour Party, he has always done his best to assist that institution when he can but not at the expense of the country and certainly not at the expense of his own reputation. Failure to respond positively to this letter within seven (7) days will leave our client with no alternative but to file legal proceedings against you for defamation of character without any further reference to you.
Yours faithfully,
HENLEN GIBSON HENLIN