Samuda gives testimony at Enquiry

first_imgRelatedSamuda gives testimony at Enquiry CONTACT: LATONYA LINTON Samuda gives testimony at Enquiry Office of the Prime MinisterMarch 2, 2011 RelatedSamuda gives testimony at Enquiry FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail Minister of Industry, Investment and Commerce, Hon. Karl Samuda, today (March 2), gave his testimony at the Commission of Enquiry into the extradition of Christopher Coke. Under cross examination from attorney-at-law, K.D. Knight, Q.C., Mr. Samuda said that the investigations he conducted were really to investigate the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) relationship with the United States (US) law firm, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips. “Public pronouncements by two functionaries within the party had reached a stage of some degree of impasse and therefore it was felt, as General Secretary, I should try and interact with both and try to calm the situation, because it had appeared that it was getting a bit heated. It is in that context that I had to investigate the situation,” Mr. Samuda said. Mr. Knight also asked Mr. Samuda to disclose the names of the four persons who approached Mr. Harold Brady to engage Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.However, Mr. Samuda declined to divulge the information noting that he has “no intention of revealing those names.” The Minister also stated that when he issued the press release on the investigations he carried out,  it was an attempt to allow the public to have a better understanding of the situation. Mr. Samuda also  said  he knew Mr. Coke  and that he was a supporter of the Jamaica Labour Party. “We have never viewed him as a political operative,” Mr. Samuda said. In the meantime, the JLP said it will not object to representatives of the US based law firm, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips assisting the Commission of Enquiry into the extradition of Mr. Coke. This follows Tuesday’s (March 1) disclosure by Chairman of the Commission,  Emil George, Q. C.,  that representatives from the law firm had expressed a willingness to assist the Enquiry, but could not do as they were bound by attorney client privilege.  The Chairman also received a letter from Prime Minister Hon. Bruce Golding outlining the government’s position on the engagement of the US law firm. “The Government has not, at any time, engaged or authorised the services of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips in relation to the request by the United States Government for the extradition of Christopher Coke or any other extradition matter,” Mr. Golding said. He added that the government therefore, was not in a position to claim privilege in relation to the law firm, while noting that the Government has no objections to representatives of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips testifying before the Commission. Mr. George then stated that he will inform the US law firm’s attorneys of the development and will await the firm’s position on the matter. The Commission of Enquiry will continue on Thursday (March 3) at the Jamaica Conference Centre, with the testimony of Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne. RelatedSamuda gives testimony at Enquiry Advertisementslast_img read more

Telegram contests Russian fine

first_img Tags AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 23 MAR 2018 HomeAppsNews Telegram contests Russian fine Telegram updates app to boost user socialisation Saleha Riaz Previous ArticleRural US carriers push 4G ahead of 5G spectrum battleNext ArticleSamsung shakes up board Apps Saleha joined Mobile World Live in October 2014 as a reporter and works across all e-newsletters – creating content, writing blogs and reports as well as conducting feature interviews…More Read more center_img Telegram dials in to video chat demand Author Telegram joins App Store resistance Related Secure messaging company Telegram appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding a RUB 800,000 fine ($13,984) imposed on the company by a Russian court.In 2016, Russia enacted laws to deal with terrorism, which required messaging services to provide authorities with the ability to decrypt user correspondence.It fined Telegram last year because it refused to disclose its encryption keys to the Federal Security Service (FSB – Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti). This was followed by an appeal to Russia’s Supreme Court, which was lost earlier this week.If the company doesn’t comply, it could face another fine and even have its service blocked in Russia, one of its largest markets.According to Vedomosti, Telegram complained to the EHRC that the fine violates the right to freely disseminate information without the interference of  authorities and regardless of state borders, guaranteed by article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.It also argued Russian authorities did not consider public security and the protection of the rights of citizens to respect for private life.According to Damir Gainutdinov, a lawyer representing Telegram, this will be one of the first cases in the ECHR dealing with electronic surveillance.“We hope that, from our filing, the court will begin to formulate European standards in this area,” he said.Telegram has had its fair share of trouble. Last month Apple blocked the app temporarily because of “illegal content, specifically child pornography”.In 2017, the Indonesian government threatened to ban the app for unlawful content, particularly radical and terrorist propaganda. Telegram recently raised $850 million in the pre-sale stage of an initial coin offering to develop and maintain its messaging apps, and also to work on its blockchain technology. Telegramlast_img read more

Solicitor settles action against solicitorsfromhell

first_img Lawyer issues libel claim against ‘solicitorsfromhell’ website A north-east solicitor yesterday settled his libel claim against the owner of a website that blacklists solicitors and law firms. Scott Eason, principal at Eason Law, had instructed libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to bring a claim for damages of between £50,000 and £100,000 and obtain a High Court injunction against Rick Kordowski, who runs Under the terms of a High Court order, Eason agreed to drop his claim for damages and costs if Kordowski removed allegations against Eason and Eason Law from the internet; undertook never again to publish allegations referring to Eason or his firm; and will write to Eason to apologise. Carter-Ruck said in a statement yesterday: ‘Scott Eason has today settled his libel action against Rick Kordowski, owner of the website Solicitors from Hell. Mr Kordowski has removed the false and defamatory allegations from his website, agreed not to publish them again and apologised to Mr Eason.’ Eason said in a statement released by Carter-Ruck yesterday: ‘I am happy and relieved that this case has now settled. I felt very strongly about what was published about me and I could not allow the allegations to remain on the internet. ‘I initially wrote to Mr Kordowski myself asking for the allegations to be taken down, but he refused to do this without payment. As a matter of principle, I refused to pay Mr Kordowski any money and he left me with no option but to issue libel proceedings against him. ‘I am glad that Mr Kordowski has accepted the allegations are false, taken them down from his website and apologised to me.’ Kordowski said today that he will not delete complaints about ‘Premium Players’ unless the person who made the original post or a High Court judge asks him to do so. Complainants do not have to pay to post on the site, but if they feel strongly about their story, they can pay £25 to have the firm listed as a ‘Premium Player,’ as long as their posting contains information that is useful to the public, Kordowski said. If listed as a premium player, a solicitor or firm cannot pay to have the posting removed, he added. Kordowski’s apology to Eason will read: ‘I would like to apologise for allowing defamatory allegations about you made by a third party to be posted on my website I did not know at the time of publication that the allegations were false, but I now understand that they are. On that basis, they should never have been published. ‘I have taken the allegations down from my website and agreed not to republish anything about you or your firm again. I understand that, as I have no funds, you have kindly agreed to waive your entitlement to damages and costs. ‘I am sorry for the embarrassment and distress the allegations have caused you to suffer.’ See also Website for blacklisted solicitors plans expansionlast_img read more