A d v e r t i s e m e n t Banner

spacer
Newsday Logo Banner
spacer
Friday, October 24 2014
spacer

Latest

spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer

Entertainment

spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer

Opinion

spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer

Newsday Archives

spacer

Classifieds

Business (7)
Employment (154)
Motor (88)
Real Estate (145)
Computers (4)
Notices (10)
Personal (46)
Miscellaneous (25)
Second-hand stuff (1)
Bridal (46)
Tobago (86)
Tuition (56)

Newsletter

Every day fresh news


A d v e r t i s e m e n t


spacer
Search for:
spacer

A d v e r t i s e m e n tBanner



AG will be vindicated

Friday, August 15 2014

The California lawyers for Attorney General Anand Ramlogan have advised they feel he would be “vindicated” in allegations of an email conspiracy by him and Government officials, including Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, over the early proclamation of Section 34 in 2012.

Christopher Sargent, of the law firm, Computerlaw Group LLP, out of Palo Alto, California issued this response in a question and answer (Q&A) format emailed to Ramlogan, who is currently on vacation in the United States. The correspondence was forwarded to Newsday.

This follows Ramlogan’s disclosure on Wednesday that he had taken legal action to get Internet giant Google to act on requests to authenticate emails reported to be from his and the Prime Minister’s accounts which were revealed by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley on May 20, 2013.

Rowley, in his motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister and Government, in the Parliament, revealed a document containing 31 emails purportedly exchanged between Persad-Bissessar, then Local Government and current Works Minister Suruj Rambachan, then National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister and now current National Security Minister Gary Griffith and Ramlogan. The contents showed a criminal conspiracy to harm a journalist, spy on the Director of Public Prosecutions and have him removed from office, and the payment of money by unknown individuals in connection with the early proclamation of Section 34.

The seven-part Q&A sent from Computerlaw via their client, Ramlogan, indicates that action against Google was filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court on June 26, 2013, nearly a month after Rowley’s disclosures which the Government subsequently referred to the police for investigation. The police probe is still ongoing.

One of the questions read: “Has Google been cooperative? Do you anticipate that the requested information will be provided?”

The reply, attributed to the firm’s managing partner Jack Russo, stated, “In the future, just as in the present, Google is playing a larger and larger role in the management of information critical to litigation, and without Google’s cooperation in the collection and return of accurate data about what was actually an email address and what was actually emailed through their Gmail (and other) systems, it will be difficult if not impossible to obtain the truth; thus, we fully support Google cooperating with all parties to obtain all authentic and genuine records in the Google system and we have ourselves in multiple rounds of subpoena process over Google with the same truth finding goals on behalf of our client, the Honorable Anand Ramlogan, whom we fully expect to be vindicated by all this.”

The law firm also stated it was hopeful that Google will provide a “sworn statement” soon on the matter. On the litigation, the law firm disclosed that the defendants were listed as “John and Jane Doe” as it could not state who was behind the “wrongful conduct” against Ramlogan.

The question on this read: “Was the gravity of the allegations against the AG and other officials outlined in the legal application?”

The answer: “The action my firm filed for Attorney General includes claims by Mr Ramlogan under California law for conspiracy to ruin, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and others. The defendants named in that action were and are “John and Jane Doe” as we are not currently aware of who caused the significant harm my client has suffered, and upon discovery of the actual person behind this wrongful conduct, any such persons will be named as the defendant in the pending action in California.

“Furthermore, it has been and continues to be my understanding that the statements made against Attorney General Ramlogan underlying the claims we filed are quite serious, and if substantiated, could lead to criminal charges against Mr Ramlogan. Our client seeks further vindication that these alleged emails were not sent from or received by his email account to support the institution of legal proceedings in the appropriate forum against those responsible for these damaging and defamatory allegations against himself and the Prime Minister.”

On a question on if Google refused to comply to the subpoena, the law firm replies: “The California courts have the power to compel Google to comply with the subpoena and can issue increasingly severe sanctions should Google refuse to comply. Here, Google agreed to search the email accounts of the Honorable Attorney General and Prime Minister, and our client has insisted on sworn testimony regarding the search and its results. As noted above, we are currently awaiting a sworn affidavit.”

The statement also indicated Computerlaw Group was hired by Ramlogan “in his personal capacity” and all payments to the law firm were made from Ramlogan’s personal account.

spacer
Click here to send your comments on this article to Newsday's Ch@tRoom
spacer
    Print print
spacer
spacer

Top stories

 • Constitution reform for TT Football Association
 • Our Caribbean future
 • Dubious praise by Bharath for Ravi
 • Respect the Courts
 • TT must step up
 • WICB interested in itself

Pictures & Galleries


spacer
spacer
spacer

The Ch@t Room

Have something to say ?
Click here to tell us right now!

RSS

rss feed

Crisis Hotline

Have a problem ?
Help is just phone call away.

spacer
Copyright © Daily News Limited | About us | Privacy | Contact
spacer

IPS Software by Agile Telecom Ltd


Creation time: 0.648 sek.