TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
rspann wrote:I now understand rfari and habit7.All the time they talking like if they impartial and wanted to get the truth,but come now to prove otherwise.If the anan@gmail does not exist,how could it send to suruj........,or recieve from suruj......,even if the suruj is a real address?Check in the opening of this thread and see the times the suruj...address was used.It was only between anan and suruj.
rspann wrote:Makes sense,a real message from a fake address!Perfect sense,to sheep that is.
bluespeed wrote:rspann wrote:Makes sense,a real message from a fake address!Perfect sense,to sheep that is.
it's called PMN logic...
.rspann wrote:I now understand rfari and habit7.All the time they talking like if they impartial and wanted to get the truth,but come now to prove otherwise.If the anan@gmail does not exist,how could it send to suruj........,or recieve from suruj......,even if the suruj is a real address?Check in the opening of this thread and see the times the suruj...address was used.It was only between anan and suruj.
Habit7 wrote:The criminal probe is not if the AG, PM and other cabal members can email each other, it is whether the content of the email is criminal.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Joan Honore-Paul says acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams’ statement on the investigation into the e-mails disclosed in the House of Representatives on May 20 was irresponsible and “grossly reckless.” Honore-Paul was referring to comment Williams made in relation to the probe into Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley’s disclosure of the contents of 31 alleged e-mails exchanged between Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, Local Government Minister Suruj Rambachan, national security adviser to the PM Gary Griffith and Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar on May 20.
In a release yesterday, Honore-Paul said a newspaper headline had quoted Williams as saying the e-mails were fake, and he had not denied or disclaimed the headline. She described the timing of the statement as curious and said it “must give one pause.” She said though she was reluctant to participate in any public discussion, she felt compelled to say that if the statement had been made by Williams during the investigation, it was “at best shockingly irresponsible and grossly reckless.” Understandably, she said, the investigation had attracted widespread attention and comments on the ability of the police to do a thorough and impartial investigation. Honore-Paul said Williams’ statement showed he was not sufficiently alive to the fact that his speaking to the media would allow others to opportunistically and conveniently misuse his comments.
“And thus may have contributed to the erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the investigators and indeed the investigation.” Honore-Paul said it was even more unfortunate that the investigators were hand-picked by Williams himself, and his comments would be demoralising for them. “This investigation naturally and obviously,” she pointed out, “includes an interrogation of the messages sent between the respective e-mails addressed during the relevant period and the collection of evidence if available, which is to be found beyond the borders of T&T.”
DPP’s office, cops not stalling probe
Specifically, she explained: “The United States of America has strict laws governing disclosure of user data. In the circumstances, warrants must be based on probable cause before a service provider can be compelled to disclose a user’s private communication or documents stored online. “As such, any request for assistance in this matter must be made through the Central Authority under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act,” she added. Honore-Paul said Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardson would continue the investigation.
In a recent interview, attorney for the Prime Minister Israel Khan, SC, insinuated that the DPP’s Office was responsible for slow pace of the e-mail probe. Addressing this issue yesterday, Honore-Paul said: “Any suggestion that this investigation is being deliberately delayed by the Police Service or the DPP’s Office, or that the investigation should be brought to an end, is self-serving, misguided, disingenuous and wholly without merit.”
Richardson, the lead investigator for the e-mail fiasco, said on Wednesday that he had been advised not to make it a public inquiry. Attempts to contact Williams yesterday were unsuccessful as he is in England on official business. Efforts to contact Anand Ramesar, president of the Police Service Social Welfare Association, for comment also went unanswered yesterday and he did not return messages left.
~Vēġó~ wrote:let them do whatever the fack dey want.......I give up on all of them and want to hear nothing....I have stopped listening and reading all local news....found myself becoming even more of a horrible person....
AllTrac wrote:~Vēġó~ wrote:let them do whatever the fack dey want.......I give up on all of them and want to hear nothing....I have stopped listening and reading all local news....found myself becoming even more of a horrible person....
i think u crave alco.
PM, AG SUING ROWLEY
Story Updated: Jul 22, 2013
Kamla Persad-Bissessar
The e-mail controversy has taken a new turn and is heading to the courts.
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Attorney General Anand Ramlogan intend to sue Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley for statements made on the public platform with respect to emailgate and published in the local media.
The two senior members of the Cabinet yesterday filed pre-action protocol letters citing statements Rowley made at a public meeting on Thursday, May 23. The meeting came one day after the debate on the motion of no confidence was defeated in the House of Representatives.
During that debate Rowley disclosed what was purported to be controversial e-mail exchanges among high office holders. But once he stepped out of the Parliament, the legal immunity which he enjoys is removed with respect to any words uttered.
Addressing the public meeting and referring to the decision to send him to the Privileges Committee, Rowley said: “If they then now come and convene themselves into a committee where they have the majority and decide to take action against me and to send me to jail I prefer to be in the jail in Golden Grove or in Frederick Street with the criminals than to be with the criminals in the Parliament.”
The pre-action protocol letters, filed by attorney Donna Prowell on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, contend that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, “I prefer to be in jail...with the criminals than to be with the criminals in the Parliament” were intended to refer to the Attorney General and the Prime Minister; and that both office-holders were guilty of conspiring with other members of the Government with the predominant intention of:
1) killing a journalist, contrary to the Offences against the Persons Act
2) bribing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act
3) performing acts which were in breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act.
The two letters state that Rowley’s words are meant and were understood to mean that the Prime Minister and the Attorney General are involved in corruption and scandal of proportions analogous to the Watergate scandal. The lawyer letters stated that Rowley’s words meant and were interpreted to mean that the Prime Minister and Attorney General were “attempting to hide bugs to secretly eavesdrop on conversations in offices of independent office holders and was part of widespread spying and sabotage designed to keep her Government in office as had happened in the Watergate scandal”.
The two letters, which are identical (save from the name and office of the intended claimants), state that Rowley’s words “meant and were understood to mean” that the intended claimants (the Prime Minister and Attorney General) are guilty of misbehaviour in public office; are guilty of graft, corruption, abuse of power and/or misconduct in public office and are unfit to hold public office and lack integrity in the discharge of the duties of such office and/or calling.
Each of the intended claimants is seeking an “unqualified apology” in terms to be approved by Senior Counsel; a written assurance and undertaking from Rowley not to repeat the defamatory words and statements or any similar words and statements; payment of a sum of damages for the injury to their reputation and for the embarrassment and distress caused to them and cost incurred to date.
Rowley has 14 days to respond to the letter. But should he repeat the statements in the meantime, “immediate injunctive relief” would be sought.
There are ongoing police investigations in the e-mails which have been initiated as a result of the Prime Minister’s referral of the issue to the Commissioner of Police. Furthermore, the Integrity Commission is likely to investigate the matter.
According to the letters, at the public meeting on May 23, Rowley said the public officials named in the e-mail documents were facing violation of the Integrity in Public Life Act because the documents suggested that they were buying and selling freedom and violation of the Interception of Communications Act because there was a reference to them bugging the DPP’s office.
The letters added that Rowley stated that he checked the e-mails and told the meeting that he got confirmation that they were the e-mails of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Advisor of National Security and the Local Government Minister.
Rowley then stated, according to the letters: “But I tell you one thing tonight. If they gather themselves, all 26 of them, as they have done and voted in support of themselves happily and cheerily patting each other’s back on what a wonderful vote they have won in the Parliament. If they then now come and convene themselves into a committee (of Privileges) where they have the majority and decide to take action against me and to send me to jail I prefer to be in the jail in Golden Grove or in Frederick Street with the criminals than to be with the criminals in the Parliament.”
rfari wrote:*$kїđž![TRADE MARK SIGN] wrote:Will rowley be charged and sued for this nonsense?
Well dais the thing. If kamla et al feeling lucky and proceed with litigation or even disciplinary action it may require a thorough investigation which is quite undesirable from the persons named in the fake emails for one reason or the other
CoP: I never said e-mails were fake
By Jensen LaVende jensen.lavende@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Jul 24, 2013 at 11:10 PM ECT
Story Updated: Jul 24, 2013 at 11:10 PM ECT
ACTING Commissioner of Police, Stephen Williams, yesterday denied that he ever said the e-mails in the emailgate probe were fake.
During the Police Service’s press briefing at the Police Administration Building in Port of Spain, Williams described as a “deliberate misrepresentation” an Express article headlined “E-MAILS FAKE” on July 8.
The Express had reported Williams as saying, “On the face of it, to any Trinidadian, those are not authentic e-mails.”
The police are now investigating 31 e-mails that were read out in Parliament during Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley’s no-confidence motion against the Government on May 20 implicating high office holders in wrongdoing.
Williams said there would have been people who acted on the assumption that the story was true. He added that was evident as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Joan Honore-Paul, issued a statement and made “some strong comments”.
On July 18, Honore-Paul in a media release described Williams’ statement as shockingly irresponsible and grossly reckless. She said that the statement demoralised the officers investigating the matter and gave others a chance to “opportunistically and conveniently” misuse his comments. She added that following the article Williams never refuted the claim.
Williams yesterday said he would not comment on Honore-Paul’s statement since she made them based on the article. He said that he respected both Honore-Paul and the officer she holds, adding that it was unfortunate that she made the comments when she could have contacted him by telephone and verify if he made the utterance or not.
Williams was out of the country on official police business from July 6 to July 22.
Williams said: “During my interview with Asha Javeed I never told her that the e-mails were fake. Seeing the headline by way of a submission sent to me by the then acting Commissioner (of Police) (Mervyn) Richardson was very shocking because I would have to be someone going out of my head in saying that and I am not insane as yet. I don’t know what would happen in the future, but I would have to be somebody insane to tell a reporter that the e-mails are fake... It is rather unfortunate that she would have taken the liberty to add ‘e-mails are fake’ in a story to capture some kind of headline.”
Williams said he told Javeed, “These documents are being investigated to make a determination whether the contents of the documents are consistent with the e-mails.”
“Tell me how could somebody jump from that to say the e-mails are fake?” Williams asked, adding that he pointed out to Javeed during the interview that it was her choice of words to say that the e-mails were fake.
Williams pointed out that police are not investigating any e-mails since his “young grandson knows” that e-mails are electronic mails. He added that the police have in their possession hard copy documents and the contents of the documents are being looked into.
When asked why he chose to correct the “misrepresentation” 17 days after it was published instead of issuing a statement, Williams said yesterday was his first opportunity to do so. He added that in his opinion the best way to address it was on his return and that a release might have convoluted the issue more.
Williams said that he would be considering meeting with the leadership of the Express “to express my concern...” He added however that he had not yet decided when he would approach the Express since he has to prepare for the Police Service budget presentation.
What the top cop said
Story Updated: Jul 24, 2013
On July 5, acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams sat down with Express journalist Asha Javeed for an interview on the fifth floor of the Police Administration Building which lasted for about 76 minutes.Topics of the interview included Anand Ramesar, crime, the budget and bad cops and focused primarily on whether the pronouncements by politicians on the political platform on the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) had negatively impacted on the public’s perception of the TTPS and its ability to handle the country’s crime situation. During the interview, the competency and capability of the TTPS were questioned given the lack of convictions under its belt and the number of big cases such as the CLICO probe, the investigation into the New Flying Squad Investigative Unit (NFSIU) and emailgate which have yet to be concluded. To this end, the issue of the TTPS’ ability to properly handle the emailgate matter was questioned given that it was a high-profile investigation and that it allegedly involved the country’s highest office holders as well as other officials who had been dragged into it such as chairman of the Integrity Commission Ken Gordon, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard and Chief Justice Ivor Archie. The following is a partial transcript of the interview with Commissioner Williams which was the basis for the story published in the Express on July 8 with the headline, “E-mails Fake.”Asha Javeed (AJ): Commissioner, there is debate as to who should be conducting the emailgate investigations. What is the correct agency to handle the investigation into emailgate? Is it the Integrity Commission or should Dr Rowley have made a report to the police?
Stephen Williams (SW): The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service is the only legal agency to address any kind of criminal investigation. In this instance, a probe has to be conducted because there is no established criminal offence. A probe into the content of the e-mails should help us determine what offences, if any, were committed. If there was an offence, no probe would have been necessary and the police would have acted. Has there been breaches? If so, who was responsible? On the face of it, a probe into the issue presented will give us a lead into who was responsible.
AJ: So, Dr Rowley should have reported the e-mails to the police?
SW: I repeat, the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service is the only legal entity to conduct a criminal investigation in Trinidad and Tobago. Do you know that the Integrity Commission refers matters to the police for investigation?
AJ: No, I was not aware of that.
SW: There are many people calling for all sorts of international agencies to look into the matter. That suggestion is so foolish and it’s coming from people who are supposed to be intelligent. I repeat, the only legal authority to investigate this matter is the TTPS.
AJ: Commissioner, the TTPS is being furnished with statements by IT professionals hired by the people under investigation…
SW: That is out of their own volition.
AJ: Would these statements be of any use to the police in the investigation?
SW: I can tell you, it is not an aid to us.
AJ: Commissioner, when can we expect this investigation to be concluded? You had initially said that it should be concluded in a short space of time.
SW: The speed at which the investigation takes place would depend on the cooperation of the parties concerned. If they are not cooperating, then it slows down the process especially if you have to go three and four times to engage an individual to get something. But this is a probe in the first instance, so participation is voluntary. You cannot force someone to sit down and talk to you. People have legal rights and you have to respect that. The extent to which they cooperate is being managed by them. So I cannot force anyone to sit down and talk to me. It is their right to choose to talk. And these things slow down the probe as yet we do not have an established criminal offence.
AJ: What exactly is the police probing? The e-mails?
SW: Those documents purporting to be e-mails but they are not.
AJ: So are they fake e-mails?
SW: They are fake. But it was constructed to give one a reasonable impression that they are e-mails.
AJ: So you’re not investigating whether the e-mails are authentic?
SW: The authenticity is one facet of the investigation. On the face of it, to any Trinidadian, those are not authentic e-mails. But do those documents read by the Opposition Leader represent the content of e-mails or exchanges? That is what the police is looking into.
AJ: So the content is under investigation?
SW: Yes, the investigators will have to go through line by line of the document to determine if any criminal offence was committed.
AJ: Instead of targeting Google, why haven’t the police just approached TSTT?
SW: The investigators will explore all facets of the investigation and I am sure all service providers will be targeted.
AJ: Commissioner, do these e-mails represent intercepted communication which the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) is capable of providing? Will the police approach the SSA for help on this matter?
SW: I cannot comment on that. I do not speak for the SSA.
