Diggin' for Dirt
Below is a Press Release from the Premier. All i can say is, how low can the media go!
Just as the public is well informed on the work of its elected officials, it should also be kept abreast on the work of some of its media organizations.
To that end, the public should know The Royal Gazette has spent the week very closely searching through the Premier’s and his wife’s personal backgrounds. One example stretches back ten years.
During a time in the late 1990’s when Premier Brown and his wife were selling their single family home in California, the eventual buyer believed the broker was operating unethically. The buyer decided to file a civil lawsuit against the broker. It never went to trial. However, in the lawsuit the Browns were named, not because the suit was filed against them, but because they owned the home in question.
The Royal Gazette has tracked down the person who purchased the home in California from the Browns. Her name is Candace Cooper.
Perhaps to the dismay of the reporter Ms Cooper said: “At no time did I have any issue with Dr. or Mrs. Brown. When I made my offer to purchase, the house was already empty and the Browns were already living away from California. All of the problems were between myself and the real estate broker.”
Ms Cooper’s lawyer has gone a step further and agreed to make himself available to any reporter with a question about this ten-year-old real estate transaction. Ms Cooper’s lawyer is Joseph E. Porter III, ESQ of California.
Premier Dr. Ewart F. Brown said of the recent media movements: “I have been leader since late October, but it would appear the keen interest in my background has only materialized when political opponents have assumed an election is near. I want to make sure the public is keenly aware of these tactics. Since this aimless attempt to dig dirt came up empty it will be interesting to see what is ultimately printed.”
- admin's blog
- Login to post comments
Blog
Recent comments
- Thesis
1 year 5 weeks ago - We all have to start
1 year 5 weeks ago - Thanks
1 year 5 weeks ago - Best to you
1 year 5 weeks ago - Thanks for pointing that out
1 year 5 weeks ago - Clarifications
1 year 5 weeks ago - Moving over
1 year 5 weeks ago - Wow
1 year 5 weeks ago - Clarification
1 year 5 weeks ago - Thank You
1 year 5 weeks ago
Forum
- Making Our Building Codes Better For Hurricances
- Expanding The Bus System
- Speedbump Power Generation
- Fast Ferries For Flatts?
- 'Solar Trees' for Hamilton?
- Why has limey and his brigade infected the plp blogs?
- The Bermuda Regiment - Discrimination based on Convenience
- Crime in Bermuda: Does it Affect You Directly?
Syndicate
Comments
back in time
I really feel like we are moving back in time...these underhanded tactics and attempts to discredit a black man at the helm of our country seems to take us back. These people will stop at nothing to try to maintain their interests and to try and stop our progress. When it is all for nought, i wonder what they will do.
Red Herring
This is not about race, it's about governance.
Right??
So where were you between 1964 and 1998?
Doh
Not yet voting.
LMAO
It was a poor attempt.....
thats irrelevant
Just because you were not yet voting doesnt mean you didnt have political views.
that is the entire problem.
some of you think that politics only started in '98 and lets judge the PLP in one manner but we can forget all the BS of the past.
it doesnt work like that mate.
Two wrongs don't make a
Two wrongs don't make a right... imagined or otherwise.
What appears to have happened in the BHC is abjectly wrong in 2004 and 2007, can we agree on that and stop slinging mud?
Wow. What a desperate and
Wow. What a desperate and ridiculous press release. Surely, the point here is that the press investigated and haven't published anything because they didn't find anything. Is Brown suggesting that the press shouldn't be investigating the conduct of public officials when information is provided to them that prompts further inquiries? Perhaps he would have preferred it if the press simply published allegations made by a third party without bothering to check things out first. Brown never ceases to amaze me with his self-serving and defensive conduct.
Look...
I know you are a PLP supporter, and good on you for it.
I have a feeling that you are a Dr. Brown supporter as well, but I could be wrong about that.
What I take issue with is the statement that this is because Dr. Brown is black.
Are you saying that no-one should play political games (and I'm 100% with you that much of this is about political games) if the other person is black?
I think we, as a society, as voters, as citizens need to take a step back and start looking objectively at the political goings-on around here and, when an issue like this comes up, look at it from the other side... or maybe even from NO side, if possible.
We all have bias. We all see things in our own way.
If Mr. Chapman's suggestion was taken up and there was a Royal Commission investigating Mr. Dunkley, you'd be all for it, wouldn't you?
If ANY UBP member was accused of this sort of wrongdoing, especially when in office, you'd be all for them digging into his past, no?
Would that be because he's white, or because he's UBP?
I know accusations fly around and defensiveness shoots up, but the fact of the matter is this:
The UPB aren't the White Community and the PLP aren't the Black Community.
They are political parties and support or opposition to them doesn't constitute hatred of a race.
People aren't "after" (or my favorite "hating on") Dr. Brown because he's black. It's for many other reasons (I'm not saying that racism doesn't come into play for some folks, but I believe this NOT to be true for the majority of folks). They don't need to be listed again, do they?
I always find it interesting
I always find it interesting when the apologists accuse people of trying to tear down Brown because he's black. You didn't hear this kind of stuff about Lois Browne Evans. You didn't hear this stuff about Jennifer Smith, and you didn't hear this stuff about Alex Scott. People may have disagreed with them politically or, perhaps, disliked them, but you didn't hear allegations of corruption about them. Regardless of whether the present allegations are true, the vast majority of people who are making these allegations are doing so, not because he is black, but because - rightly or wrongly - they believe him to be corrupt.
Interesting...
Its not Demeaning, Embarrassing or Insulting for the Premier to answer these probes, with all the details offered and even an invitation to investigate and ask questions.... although this was not even disclosed through the media as far as I know and it actually was something to do with the Premier's PRIVATE life, yet it would be Demeaning, Embarrassing or Insulting to answer the allegations that are circulating about the BHC issue??!! Something that the PUBLIC has a right to ask about as it occured in the Premier's capacity as the leader of our country!!
OK, great. Now is Brown
OK, great. Now is Brown going to ask the attorney and real estate agent who handled the sale of of his Flatts property to the BHC to make themselves available for questioning by the press?
ok,so
So now your mad because Dr.Brown can prove his case.If that's needed then maby he will.
Wow
Soon they will be digging through the premier's garbage for evidence of wrong doing.
Earning that consulting fee
It's a good thing government has hired all of those "consultants" over at GovTV and his office (versus actual "employees" thereby avoiding the need to advertise the position amongst "average" Bermudians permitting hand picked yes men to serve in high paying roles) so they can start handling dissemination of these "official" remarks.
What's next? Preemptive rebuttals by the Premier regarding unpublished stories hoping to set the record straight before the media make it public? Oh wait a second ... that was just done above ...
Of course its quite interesting that the Premier issues a press release about something that occurred 10 years ago but is completely unwilling to address concerns regarding the here and now!
More threats
From the news: "Dr Brown said the ruling could open the way for police files on other investigations to be leaked, damaging the reputation of innocent people. He cited the example of Opposition Leader Michael Dunkley who was questioned when an employee was prosecuted for smuggling drug and UBP Chairman Shawn Crockwell who served time in jail for stealing drugs from court."
Ummm, except these two cases did go to trial and the evidence was laid before the courts. So, is the Doc indicating that he wants to go through government files to find more mud to throw into this mess?
Things fall apart.
Digging
**Conspiracy Alert** (to be taken with a grain of salt)
Perhaps Dr. Brown could further comment on whether or not he has previously reviewed the "stolen" files himself.
I understand he has/had access to them in his capacity as Premier (as evidenced by Alex Scott's earlier remarks) and seriously question how files which were (presumably given the security assurances) in the direct custody of the Commissioner could actually go "missing".
Having previously avoided any questioning whatsoever from the police perhaps Dr. Brown would now like to sit down with them and set the record straight?
Perhaps the DPP (no longer guided by Mr. Ratneser - who coincidentally received a "consulting" contract following the initial BHC scandal) will revisit the file and direct and/or support the police's efforts to finally get to the bottom of this matter as Justice Ground's comments clearly indicate there is something stinky here and all these efforts by the Premier to cover it up (which are literally costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars ... not to mention the immeasurable damage to our reputation) can finally be redirected towards setting the record straight and truthfully answering simple questions.
After all if the police investigation "exonerated" the Premier of any wrongdoing ... why all this fuss and bother? Don't we, as a country, have far more to lose the longer this debacle drags on?
DIGGING II
Whistleblower legislation does not protect thieves, nor should it. Whistleblower legislation would protect workers who follow certain steps to let others know of inequities or wrongdoing so that those inequities or wrongdoing can be properly investigated. Nothing in any whistleblower legislation would protect someone in the police department (whose very duty is to maintain public confidence) when that person steals a confidential police file and gives it to members of the Public.
If that person in the police department thought that something was wrong with the BHC investigation, his course was to alert someone who could alert the Governor, or to alert the Governor himself. The Governor has province over the Police, and could have used whatever resources he needed to see that all was as it should have been -- this would include properly requesting to have the police file in its entirety brought to him. It should be noted that the investigation took place during the tenure of this Governor so it would have been easy to do this.
Meanwhile, the Auditor General's constitutional remit is to oversee the government's fiscal conduct. He reports to the Governor and is charged specifically with auditing the accounts of the Assembly, and the accounts of all government departments and officers -- he has no responsibility or province whatsoever beyond that. So, when he took possession of a stolen police file, he was acting on his own, not in his professional capacity since his professional capacity did not and does not extend to that. That is why the FCO and the Governor have not stepped in to help him. They know he was off the ranch. He acted like a common criminal and he was treated like one.
As a sidebar, it is also clear from the actions of the Auditor General that his intent was not to whistleblow to correct something in government. If he wanted to do that, he would have talked to the Governor, to whom he has instant access. His intent was to smear the Premier and the government. Why else would he give the contents of the file to the two who were originally arrested and whose arrest led to his arrest?
Agree up to the end...
I think Vanz has a good point about the whistleblower act - it probably wouldn't apply to the police force in the same way as a typical corporation.
However I have to question Vanz's assertion at the end of the post that the Auditor General gave the documents to the two who eventually passed them on to the MON - I've been following pretty closely and have not heard that accusation. The two seemed to be pretty open about where they got the files no?
And it still ignores the fact that no-one on here seems to be sure that him having the files was outside of his remit. If it were surely he'd still be in jail? Or fired?
Really?!!
"He acted like a common criminal and he was treated like one"
If we were to go by recent arguments used by the PLP leadership and spokesmen, he was EXHONERATED! No charges were made, and he was released on his own recognizance
sorry slowhand - i was wrong - you should hang me
http://www.s6k.com/real/images/sektor6tcotn/1900_lynching_before%5b1%5d....
Hey, it's the Ann Coulter
Hey, it's the Ann Coulter school of political 'debate'!
Libellous?
Why else would [the Auditor General] give the contents of the file to the two who were originally arrested and whose arrest led to his arrest?
Vance, I hope you're right about that, otherwise you are risking both yourself and this site being sued for libel.
limey - i chkd the internet laws so stop lying
you know that anyway
Well ...
... so much for that compliment.
Is it me
or does anyone else find it difficult to believe that Vance actually penned the above post about whistle blowing? It is far too lucid, thought out and generally well punctuated than anything else I have seen him write. It is also lacking in the usual racial taunts.
C'mon Vance. Admit you copied it from somewhere/someone.
Yes, but it compensated for
Yes, but it compensated for the lucidity by the inclusion of a paragraph that is almost certainly libelous. Damn, I almost forgot: Chapman, Q.C. 'chked' the fabled 'internet laws' before posting, so he'll be fine.
32n64w
i was replying to limey re; libel b4- thank u for the compliment
Much appreciated
Vanz ... I sincerely appreciate your well thought out and clear post. Thank you!
I think your last paragraph may need some future editing as the Auditor General was not the person or party responsible for providing the files to the persons who ere locked up.
Additionally I think it has yet to be proven that Mr. Dennis took possession of a stolen police file.
just wondering
does any party that becomes Govt do they have the right to mismanage the funds the taxpayers have paid just want to get some feed back on this