TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
rfari wrote:Pre-action protocol letter not even once.
Was more expecting this to happen with Stacey or khadijha. But meem look for kamala dey nah
rfari wrote:It really makes you wonder that there may be truth in what he is saying.
16 cycles i don't think a civil matter like a defamation lawsuit can hamper extradition proceedings. I may be wrong.
rfari wrote:It really makes you wonder that there may be truth in what he is saying.
16 cycles i don't think a civil matter like a defamation lawsuit can hamper extradition proceedings. I may be wrong.
eliteauto wrote:No wonder the PP opposed the rapid rail, seems they had their own personal train
eliteauto wrote:No wonder the PP opposed the rapid rail, seems they had their own personal train
rollingstock wrote:eliteauto wrote:No wonder the PP opposed the rapid rail, seems they had their own personal train
:D:D
UML wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:http://www.tv6tnt.com/home/rotator/-The-Hardeen-Expose--2543---309186111.html?m=y&smobile=yPRE ACTION PROTOCOL ISSUED TO CCN TV6 HEAD OF NEWS
Last Updated on 24.06.2015
Published Date
CCN TV6 has been issued a Pre Action Protocol from Attorney Ravi Rajcoomar on behalf of Jitnarine Hardeen, who was the subject of an in-depth news report by CCN TV6 Journalist Mark Bassant.
The story which aired on Monday June 22nd, 2015 during their 7pm newscast was entitled 'The Hardeen Exposé.'
The Pre Action Protocol from the Law Firm of Ganesh Rampersad was issued to CCN TV6's Head of News Dominic Kallipersad on Tuesday afternoon.
It stated that Mr. Hardeen is not featured on the voice recording and is concerned that the report had "improperly, wrongfully and/or illegally named him and/or referred to him being the source of information on a purported audio recording held by Mr. Jack Warner MP."
It continued: "My client has listened to your broadcast and instructs us that he is not the person on the tape as alleged by you, your reporters and Mr. Warner, MP. In fact, he has no knowledge of the matters that were aired on your station and ascribed to him."
"Mr. Warner is well aware of my client's position on this matter and in particular since 2013 when my client was interviewed by Mr. Frederick John with the knowledge of Mr. Warner MP."
"My client further instructs me that he has no knowledge of its contents. My client is of the view that the tape is malicious and false, and Mr. Warner, MP is well aware that the tape is false untrue and that the person on the tape is not him."
The letter went further to state: "My client denies that he was paid or received any money from any person or persons including any Ministers of Government past present, former or otherwise in order to give a statement that he is not the person on the said recording. This statement by itself is defamatory of my client and calculated to lower him in the minds of right thinking persons' and calculated to bring him into disrepute."
To this end, CCN TV6 has been required to respond within 28 days before the matter reaches the High Court.
Former Government Minister and incumbent Caroni Central MP, Dr. Glenn Ramadharsingh, who was named in the TV6 report, also distanced himself from the claims.
He stated: "I listened with amazement at the defamatory statement made on TV6's television report entitled "The Hardeen Expose" aired on Monday 22nd June, 2015. I have expressed my horror that such an untrue statement was made. While I understand the need for free press, it must be a free and responsible press. Also, I have taken note that no one exercised the simple courtesy of a call for a comment on this matter."
* The following is the Pre Action Protocol letter:
GANESH RAMPERSAD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Invictus Chambers
No. 35 Richmond Street
Port of Spain
Tel: 624-7119/ Fx: 623-9531
Email: grampersad2@gmail.com
PRE-ACTION LETTER OF CLAIM
22nd June 2015
Mr. Dominic Kalipersad
Head of News
Caribbean Communications Network
Express House
Independence Square
PORT SPAIN
Dear Mr. Kalipersad,
Re: Television report entitled “The Hardeen Expose”
Reference is made to the matter at caption in which I instruct Mr. Ravi Rajcoomar on behalf of Mr. JitnarineHardeen.
We are instructed, inter alia, as follows:
My client is concerned that you have improperly, wrongfully and/or illegally named him and/or referred to him being the source of information on a purported audio recording held by Mr. Jack Warner MP.
My client has listened to your broadcast and instructs us that he is not the person on the tape as alleged by you, your reporters and Mr. Warner, MP. In fact, he has no knowledge of the matters that were aired on your station and ascribed to him.
Mr. Warner is well aware of my client’s position on this matter and in particular since 2013 when my client was interviewed by Mr. Frederick John with the knowledge of Mr. Warner MP.
My client further instructs me that he has no knowledge of its contents. My client is of the view that the tape is malicious and false, and Mr Warner, MP is well aware that the tape is false untrue and that the person on the tape is not him.
Mr. Warner MP has on numerous occasions attempted to have my client say that he is the voice on the said audio recording, and in fact has been in contact with him recently in the last few days in this regard.
My client confirms that he has no knowledge of what is on the tape and in particular what was played on your station last night.
Further, my client denies that he was paid or received any money from any person or persons including any Ministers of Governmentpast, present, former or otherwise in order to give a statement that he is not the person on the said recording. This statement by itself is defamatory of my client and calculated to lower him in the mindsof right thinking persons’ and calculated to bring him into disrepute.
There were clear indications in the public domain that my client was denying being the voice on the tape and my client speculates that this was the reason that you, your servants and or agents including Mr Mark Bassant invented the story and or commented that he had received money to change his original story.
My client further instructs me that in breach of the professional duties of your journalist, no attempt was made to seek a comment and/or verification and/or denial of the allegations made by your station and by Mr. Warner MP.
My client demands an immediate apology in terms to be approved by counsel together damages to be agreed upon andlegal costs to date.
You are required to respond within twenty eight (28) calendar days from the date of receipt of this letter by filling out the form attached and returning it to Mr. Ganesh Rampersad, Invictus Chambers, First Floor No. 35 Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain. Failure to do so will result in legal proceedings being commenced against you without further notice and you may suffer adverse consequences in costs and/or by any direct or order, the court sees fit to make against you.
Please take notice that this letter is a Pre-Action Protocol Letter to you for the specific purpose of peacefully resolving this matter before it reaches the High Court with its attendant costs, time consumption and unpleasantness.
In keeping therefore with the existing Pre-Action Protocol Directions issued by the Honourable Chief Justice as amended, the following should be noted:
(a) The sufficient concise details contained herein together with annexures should enable you to understand and investigate our client’s claims without extensive further information;
(b) We have enclosed copies of the essential documents, which my client relies on;
(c) We hereby request that you send a prompt acknowledgment of this letter to be followed by a full written response within (14) days from the date herein;
(d) If we do not receive a full response within the said time above, Court proceedings will be issued;
(e) You must identify and provide us with copies of any documents you may wish to rely on by way of response;
(f) You are required under the Pre-Action protocol directions to respond to this letter;
(g) Please be reminded that the Court is empowered to impose sanctions against you for your failure to comply and your non compliance leads to the commencement of Court Proceedings
which might otherwise not have needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred. The orders which the Court may make, includes:
- An Order that you pay the costs of the proceedings or part of those costs of my client or other party
- An Order that you pay those costs on an indemnity basis.
Please be guided accordingly.
Yoursfaithfully,
……………………………………………
GANESH RAMPERSAD
Attorney at Law
Cc: Mr. Jack Warner MP
Statement of Truth
I hereby certify that all the facts set out in this Pre-action Protocol letter dated 23rd June 2015 which I have read and confirmed are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
_______________________
JitnarineHardeen
Dated this 23rd day of June 2015
http://www.ctntworld.com/cnews2/index.p ... Itemid=707He offered me $.25m to lie
Renuka Singh
Published:
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Hardeen counters Jack’s claim:
Special Reserve Police Officer Jitnarine Hardeen is denying outright that it is his voice heard on a recording played for the media by Independent Liberal Party (ILP) leader Jack Warner yesterday. Hardeen issued a legal letter to Warner yesterday threatening action.
“There is no truth in any of these allegations nor the contents of any of your statements, nor the contents of the tape or tapes,” Hardeen said through his lawyer.
Hardeen, who was the retained driver for former minister of social development Dr Glenn Ramadharsingh, yesterday countered Warner’s damning recording of telephone conversations, alleging that Warner in fact offered him some $250,000 to agree that the voice on tape was his.
In a three-page legal letter, Hardeen’s attorney, Dennis Rampersad, picked apart Warner’s tape, denying every bit of the alleged conversation between Hardeen and Warner.
Hardeen, through his lawyer, confirmed he has been in contact with Warner but said it was Warner who “tried to influence him to unlawfully and illegally accept that he is the voice on these tapes and the provider of the information thereon.”
“In fact, you would recall that you offered my client the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to be part of your nefarious and sinister conspiracy to defame innocent persons. My client has consistently refused to be part of any untrue plot to defame innocent persons,” the letter stated.
The letter added that at Warner’s request, Hardeen was interviewed by Frederick John.
“And you are aware that he confirmed officially that he was not the voice on the tape and that the contents of any tape has nothing to do with my client,” the letter stated.
On one of the recordings played by Warner, the voice claims to have collected as much as $3 million as kickbacks for contracts awarded through Ramadharsingh’s former ministry.
“My client denies that he ever picked up any money from anyone for any illicit purposes. He has never received $3,000,000 from anyone or at all,” Hardeen said through his lawyer.
Hardeen also denied any knowledge of a relationship between Kristyan Gokool and Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, as alleged on the recordings played by Warner.
“My client is of the view that your statements are maliciously untrue and calculated to bring him into disrepute, odium and contempt among right thinking members of society,” the lawyer said.
“Your statements are calculated to defame my client and wrongfully accuse him of being involved in criminal matters.
“My client confirms that he has no knowledge of what is on the tapes in your possession or that the telephone number that you have mentioned publicly is his or belongs to him,” he added.
Ramadharsingh is also threatening legal action against TV6 for airing snippets of the same tapes played by Warner.
In a statement yesterday, he said, “I listened with amazement at the defamatory statement made on TV6’s television report entitled “The Hardeen Expose” aired on Monday 22nd June, 2015. I have expressed my horror that such an untrue statement was made.
“While I understand the need for free press, it must be a free and responsible press. Also, I have taken note that no one exercised the simple courtesy of a call for a comment on this matter.
“It is remarkable and I hope that they can prove that I was involved in bribing someone or got someone to change a statement or make a statement that was false. I have always supported the truth but it appears that the truth in this matter will emerge in the courts, as clearly the need for financial gain trumps professionalism and responsible journalism.”
Both Ramadharsingh and Hardeen are represented by the same attorney and it was Ramadharsingh’s secretary who issued Hardeen’s legal letter to the media last night.
When the T&T Guardian contacted Hardeen to find out the connection between the two, Hardeen quickly disconnected the call and refused to respond to subsequent attempts to reach him.
In a text exchange with Warner yesterday, the former national security minister called on Hardeen to sue him if any of the information he released was untrue.
“Well let them sue me,” Warner said.
Warner has been given 24 hours to respond to the legal letter.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2015-06- ... me-25m-lie
LOOK TROUBLE NOW
SmokeyGTi wrote:so hear nah..if warner offer allyuh a lil $1 mil to lie on Kamla/PP govt..allyuh go do it?
or yuh need more money?
dougla_boy wrote:we are all hoes inno...think about it
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests
