So how did he do it?
Excerpted from the defence of Matt Peltier and the Times Newspaper in the suit filed by Roosevelt Skerrit – Sept 2007
1. At the time he delivered his address to the nation on 12th August 2007 Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit was the beneficial owner of the following:
1. 2.989 Acres of real property situate at the Wall House Estate with a market value of $EC650,000.00;
2. 2.06 Acres of real property situate at Hartington Estate, Trafalgar with a market value of EC$448,000.00;
3. One Mitsubishi Pajero valued at EC$150,000.00;
4. 0.5 Acres of real property situate at Picard, with a market value of EC$260,000.00.
2. Roosevelt Skerrit concealed the fact that he owned these properties and in fact represented that he was the owner only of land in Vielle Case on which he proposed to build a house at the cost of EC$400,000.00;
3. Even though the market value of the Wall House Estate property was EC$650,000.00, a memorandum of transfer was submitted to the Registrar of Titles by which the previous owner of the land purported to transfer the said property to Roosevelt Skerrit for the sum of EC$140,283.00, that is to say at a price of $1.00 per square foot when property in the vicinity was being sold at $5.00 per square foot;
4. The application for the certificate of title for the Wall House property was not accompanied by a valuation as is customary and the transfer fee was calculated on the basis that the price stated in the Memorandum of Transfer was the value of the property. The application was approved by the Registrar within seven days of submission of the application, without any request being made for a valuation, a period of time much shorter than that experienced by other applicants;
5. Mr. Stephen Isidore, Mr. Skerrit’s Attorney at Law, who made the application for the Certificate of Title, later admitted that he made a mistake in the calculation of the fees in respect of the Wall House property and vowed to rectify it, but he did not say what the mistake was or what was its cause;
6. Mr. Skerrit’s Attorney at Law, Mr. Isidore, also submitted the application for the Certificate of Title for the Trafalgar property. That application was accompanied by a Memorandum of Transfer signed by Marina Ingrid Shillingford in which she stated that she transferred the property to Roosevelt Skerrit for the price of EC$90,000.00, receipt of which sum she acknowledged. Unlike in the case of the Wall House Estate, this application was accompanied by a valuation of EC$90,000.00, the same amount as the purchase price stated on the Memorandum of Transfer;
7. The transfer fee was calculated on the said price of EC$90,000.00, even though the true market value was EC$448,000.00. The stated purchase price of EC$90,000.00 represented a price of $1.01 per square foot when property in the vicinity was being sold at $5.00 per square foot;
8. In the premises, the transfer fees paid by Roosevelt Skerrit were substantially lower than that which should have been paid and which ordinary Dominicans have paid in relation to comparable land purchases;
9. The Wall House Estate property was purchased on 22nd August 2005 while the Trafalgar property, according to the Memorandum of Transfer, was purchased on 2nd August 2005. The Pajero was purchased on 6th October 2005;
10. Despite her signature on the Memorandum of Transfer attesting to the sale of the Trafalgar property to the Roosevelt Skerrit for EC$90,000.00, Ms. Shillingford later stated that she had made a gift of the property to Roosevelt Skerrit. Since this statement flatly contradicted the signed memorandum of transfer in which the receipt of a sum of EC$90,000.00 was acknowledged, an explanation was warranted;
11. Mr. Skerrit’s Attorney at law, Mr. Isidore, attempted to provide that explanation. In his public statement, he claimed that the Trafalgar property was a gift to Roosevelt Skerrit and that necessarily meant that the Memorandum of Transfer signed by Ms. Shillingford and duly witnessed and which he submitted along with the application for a certificate of title, was a false document prepared by him and signed by Ms Shillingford. He said that he prepared this false document and inserted the figure of EC$90,000.00 because it was his “understanding of the law and practice that (he) had to use the form contained in the Schedule of the Title by Registration Act and that (he) also had to state a figure or value on the Memorandum of Transfer for the purpose of transfer fees.” He said that after discussion with colleagues, he now accepted that he “should have stated the consideration as ‘love and affection and $1.00 ECD’ and submit the valuation to show the value for the calculation of transfer fees”;
12. Mr. Isidore’s claim that he was not aware that one should state the consideration for a gift as “love and affection and $1.00 ECD” is flatly contradicted by the following:
1. A memorandum of transfer of land dated 18th May 2004 from Mr. Glenworth O.N. Emanuel to Mr. Isidore, the consideration for which is stated to be $10.00 and “the Respect and Affection which I have for the purchaser;”
2. A memorandum of transfer of land dated 24th October 2003 from Anora Lee to Phillip Saul Lee and Anora Lee as Joint Tenants, the consideration for which is stated to be $1.00 and the love and affection which exists between the transferor and transferee. This memorandum of transfer was prepared by Mr. Isidore;
13. In the premises, Roosevelt Skerrit’s Attorney at Law has provided a false explanation as to why he prepared a memorandum of transfer showing a consideration of $90,000.00 when the transfer was supposedly a gift and has not given any reason for his false explanation;
14. The application for a certificate of title in relation to the Trafalgar property was approved within a day, thereby avoiding scrutiny of the true value of the property;
15. On the assumption that the Trafalgar property was a gift, it was not of a trivial nature and was liable to be handed over to the State under section 35(5) of the Act, had it been brought into operation;
16. Likewise, on the assumption that the Wall House Property was purchased for $140,283.00, it was purchased at an undervalue thereby constituting a gift which was not trivial and likewise was subject to forfeiture to the State under section 35(5) of the Act, had it been brought into operation;
17. At the relevant time, Roosevelt Skerrit’s only known salary was $4,875.00 per month, which was insufficient to afford properties of the value of EC$1,000,000.00 plus a Pajero valued at $150,000.00 all purchased within the space of a three month period in 2005;
18. Given the false explanation given by Mr. Isidore for putting a price of $90,000.00 on the Memorandum of Transfer, the true reason for putting a price of $90,000.00 is either that the true purchase price is much more than the value of $90,000.00 and was put in order to reduce the transfer fees payable, or the value of $90,000.00 was put to pretend that the property was not a gift and so to avoid the consequences of section 35(5) of the Act or any scrutiny thereof by the Commission once established.
Further or alternatively, the words complained of constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely the financial wealth of Roosevelt Skerrit as Prime Minister, his ability to acquire such wealth on his known income as Prime Minister and the truth of his declaration of the property which he owned.
Audio Podcast
Jama-B Said it Best in his Popular Calypso
-
- At the time he delivered his address to the nation on 12th August 2007 Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit was the beneficial owner of the following:
-
-
- 2.989 Acres of real property situate at the Wall House Estate with a market value of $EC650,000.00;
- 2.06 Acres of real property situate at Hartington Estate, Trafalgar with a market value of EC$448,000.00;
- One Mitsubishi Pajero valued at EC$150,000.00;
- 0.5 Acres of real property situate at Picard, with a market value of EC$260,000.00.
-
-
- Roosevelt Skerrit concealed the fact that he owned these properties and in fact represented that he was the owner only of land in Vielle Case on which he proposed to build a house at the cost of EC$400,000.00;
-
- Even though the market value of the Wall House Estate property was EC$650,000.00, a memorandum of transfer was submitted to the Registrar of Titles by which the previous owner of the land purported to transfer the said property to Roosevelt Skerrit for the sum of EC$140,283.00, that is to say at a price of $1.00 per square foot when property in the vicinity was being sold at $5.00 per square foot;
-
- The application for the certificate of title for the Wall House property was not accompanied by a valuation as is customary and the transfer fee was calculated on the basis that the price stated in the Memorandum of Transfer was the value of the property. The application was approved by the Registrar within seven days of submission of the application, without any request being made for a valuation, a period of time much shorter than that experienced by other applicants;
-
- Mr. Stephen Isidore, Mr. Skerrit’s Attorney at Law, who made the application for the Certificate of Title, later admitted that he made a mistake in the calculation of the fees in respect of the Wall House property and vowed to rectify it, but he did not say what the mistake was or what was its cause;
-
- Mr. Skerrit’s Attorney at Law, Mr. Isidore, also submitted the application for the Certificate of Title for the Trafalgar property. That application was accompanied by a Memorandum of Transfer signed by Marina Ingrid Shillingford in which she stated that she transferred the property to Roosevelt Skerrit for the price of EC$90,000.00, receipt of which sum she acknowledged. Unlike in the case of the Wall House Estate, this application was accompanied by a valuation of EC$90,000.00, the same amount as the purchase price stated on the Memorandum of Transfer;
-
- The transfer fee was calculated on the said price of EC$90,000.00, even though the true market value was EC$448,000.00. The stated purchase price of EC$90,000.00 represented a price of $1.01 per square foot when property in the vicinity was being sold at $5.00 per square foot;
-
- In the premises, the transfer fees paid by Roosevelt Skerrit were substantially lower than that which should have been paid and which ordinary Dominicans have paid in relation to comparable land purchases;
-
- The Wall House Estate property was purchased on 22nd August 2005 while the Trafalgar property, according to the Memorandum of Transfer, was purchased on 2nd August 2005. The Pajero was purchased on 6th October 2005;
-
- Despite her signature on the Memorandum of Transfer attesting to the sale of the Trafalgar property to the Roosevelt Skerrit for EC$90,000.00, Ms. Shillingford later stated that she had made a gift of the property to Roosevelt Skerrit. Since this statement flatly contradicted the signed memorandum of transfer in which the receipt of a sum of EC$90,000.00 was acknowledged, an explanation was warranted;
-
- Mr. Skerrit’s Attorney at law, Mr. Isidore, attempted to provide that explanation. In his public statement, he claimed that the Trafalgar property was a gift to Roosevelt Skerrit and that necessarily meant that the Memorandum of Transfer signed by Ms. Shillingford and duly witnessed and which he submitted along with the application for a certificate of title, was a false document prepared by him and signed by Ms Shillingford. He said that he prepared this false document and inserted the figure of EC$90,000.00 because it was his “understanding of the law and practice that (he) had to use the form contained in the Schedule of the Title by Registration Act and that (he) also had to state a figure or value on the Memorandum of Transfer for the purpose of transfer fees.” He said that after discussion with colleagues, he now accepted that he “should have stated the consideration as ‘love and affection and $1.00 ECD’ and submit the valuation to show the value for the calculation of transfer fees”;
-
- Mr. Isidore’s claim that he was not aware that one should state the consideration for a gift as “love and affection and $1.00 ECD” is flatly contradicted by the following:
-
-
- A memorandum of transfer of land dated 18th May 2004 from Mr. Glenworth O.N. Emanuel to Mr. Isidore, the consideration for which is stated to be $10.00 and “the Respect and Affection which I have for the purchaser;”
-
-
-
- A memorandum of transfer of land dated 24th October 2003 from Anora Lee to Phillip Saul Lee and Anora Lee as Joint Tenants, the consideration for which is stated to be $1.00 and the love and affection which exists between the transferor and transferee. This memorandum of transfer was prepared by Mr. Isidore;
-
-
- In the premises, Roosevelt Skerrit’s Attorney at Law has provided a false explanation as to why he prepared a memorandum of transfer showing a consideration of $90,000.00 when the transfer was supposedly a gift and has not given any reason for his false explanation;
-
- The application for a certificate of title in relation to the Trafalgar property was approved within a day, thereby avoiding scrutiny of the true value of the property;
-
- On the assumption that the Trafalgar property was a gift, it was not of a trivial nature and was liable to be handed over to the State under section 35(5) of the Act, had it been brought into operation;
-
- Likewise, on the assumption that the Wall House Property was purchased for $140,283.00, it was purchased at an undervalue thereby constituting a gift which was not trivial and likewise was subject to forfeiture to the State under section 35(5) of the Act, had it been brought into operation;
-
- At the relevant time, Roosevelt Skerrit’s only known salary was $4,875.00 per month, which was insufficient to afford properties of the value of EC$1,000,000.00 plus a Pajero valued at $150,000.00 all purchased within the space of a three month period in 2005;
-
- Given the false explanation given by Mr. Isidore for putting a price of $90,000.00 on the Memorandum of Transfer, the true reason for putting a price of $90,000.00 is either that the true purchase price is much more than the value of $90,000.00 and was put in order to reduce the transfer fees payable, or the value of $90,000.00 was put to pretend that the property was not a gift and so to avoid the consequences of section 35(5) of the Act or any scrutiny thereof by the Commission once established.
Further or alternatively, the words complained of constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely the financial wealth of Roosevelt Skerrit as Prime Minister, his ability to acquire such wealth on his known income as Prime Minister and the truth of his declaration of the property which he owned.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TRUE HOW IS THAT WE HAVENT HEARD FROM THE IPO COMMITTEE
Krispin please take into consideration that the IPO is a bunch of people paid by the Govt of the day.Would you risk being kicked out and go against the hand that feeds you? would you?
their hands are tied behind their backs , they are being dropped into frigid waters and the only lifejackets are from this current Government …..Please do the MATH
These aligations are to be submitted to the nation, but who is it to be?. Unless the constitution is changed, these aligations will go without being probed into.
One cannot report Skerrit to Skerrit. There should be a sort of higher authority responsible to deal with such issues.
These woould be a select four or six retired good outstanding senior citizens respected by various constituenciecs. A sort of six just persons in office for two years only, then replaced. These voluntary people would receive very little salary in return for services rendered to the state.
Astonished disappointed, dumbfounded; I became while listening to some she said, he said in a conversation between Ian Douglas, and some other creep. I could not help but laugh when I heard Douglas claim that all he does is in the interest of the party, meaning the Labor Party.
You see that has been the problem in Dominica all along!
It is always in the interest of the party, and ” self.” What about Dominica, and the poor suffering people of the country?
For one who claims to have some sort of law degree he falls short where it pertains to the English language, if he has a law degree, I wonder who he had in his Conner, and how he obtained his degree, the man’s vocabulary is so poor no wonder his alternative is politics. Probably he could not survive in an environment where he would need to utilize the English language effectively, and efficiently.
I am aware that our Dominica accent sometimes play against us, nonetheless, an accent should not cause one who claims higher learning to find themselves in a position where their vocabulary similar to that of a passant, and in some cases even peasants speak proper English by the simple fact they listen to and learn from people who they revolve around.
Ian Douglas: It is not ” cole water.”
The pronunciation perhaps should be cold water!
The kind of he said this and that about me: meaning Skerrit is bad talking you have exposed the division within the Labor Party.
Haven’t you heard.
” United We Stand Divided We Fall.”
People who are young should project a better vision for the nation than the older washed up politicians, but is seems to me that the young politicians are so busy concentrating of how much they can get out of poor Dominica before the bottom of the economy falls out, they spend all of their time back-stabbing, and backbiting each other.
It is a shame.
The late Michael Douglas, former Dominica joker, fired by Patrick John in the 1960 for running off his mouth, talking about Dominica under the labor party will become a socialist state. Rosie Douglas, the greatest waste of time ever, and notorious political comic; siege power and did nothing for the country, though he proclaimed during his campaign that in five days after he is elected he would transformed Dominica; to what we have yet to find out.
He was nowhere to be found when his brother Michael died, yet he returned to Dominica from out of space, and declared ” my brother Michael told me to take his place.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Now; father and brother has departed this earth, may their souls rest in peace: the nephew and son Ian seems to be wearing the crown of stupidity.
It is a good thing such nonsense that they speak are only listened to by Dominicans in North America, and in England to some extent:
Such hog-wash conversations make many of us Dominica sons, and daughters feel like idiots, and are ashamed of our country men.
Who else but a Douglas would dress up all day in a coat in Dominica, where at 10:00 AM the temperature is eighty degrees, and who else would travel from Canada to Dominica after overnight stay in Antigua, gets up in the morning, dressed in shirt and tie, and yellow sweater boarded LIAT, and flew to Dominica?
None other than a Douglas?
If anything Ian instead of thinking of yourself of one or the main person who is going to cause the Labor Party to win the upcoming election, if you ask me you have placed a tremendous number of obstacles in the way of your party, and Roosevelt Skerrit, you have damage yourself and your party in the interim!
Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque
Not Edited:
ever heard of alexander selkirk? theconstitution protects all pm's of dominica.it was put in place by patrick and miss charles.REPUBLIC