30211: Re: 30176: Paul comments: Sealed evidence in the IDT Haiti bribery case is revealed (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

> From paultrouillot@hotmail.com

These are very disturbing news if true!!!

Has this story been reported by somebody else than this Ms. Komisar?
I would like to read more about it.

I am not sure then why the SA gvt is paying for Aristide's mansion in
SA. He seems to have enough in the Turks.



              Editorial/Op-Ed
            Want to send this page or a link to a friend? Click on mail at the 
top of this window.

            More Editorials
        Posted August 4, 2006 
Americas  / By Mary Anastasia O'Grady                                  New 
Jersey and Aristide, Perfect Together
  There has never been a shortage of "off-the-record" allegations that Haiti's 
Jean-Bertrand Aristide stole liberally from the public purse. But a case being 
heard in federal court in Newark, N.J. might actually prove it.
  It is there that Michael Jewett has alleged that in 2003 his then-employer, 
politically influential New Jersey-based telecom giant IDT, entered into a 
shady deal with then-Haitian President Aristide in violation of U.S. law.
  In court documents Mr. Jewett claims he was wrongly fired because he objected 
to the agreement. The deal, as he describes it in his complaint, was also 
highly unethical because it facilitated the theft of Haiti's telecom revenues - 
one of the few sources of hard currency for the starving nation.
  Mr. Jewett's claim has enough credence that the U.S. Department of Justice 
has been investigating it, according to his lawyer in court documents. But now 
federal magistrate judge Mark Falk has issued a blanket protective order 
prohibiting Mr.Jewett from talking to Justice about whatever IDT deems 
confidential in the discovery phase of the case. It leaves one wondering what 
IDT, which did not return phone calls for comment, doesn't want Justice to find 
out.
  This case has implications that go far beyond the rights of the plaintiff. 
Based on what has already been revealed in the case, it seems quite possible 
that if he is allowed to tell his story, Mr. Jewett could help Justice get the 
truth about Mr. Aristide's financial misdeeds, allegedly aided and abetted by 
IDT and other U.S. corporations during the decade that he controlled the 
country.
  In the past two weeks at least 30 people have died in gang violence in 
Port-au-Prince and 300 others were forced to flee their homes. The Economist 
Intelligence Unit reported on Monday that "U.N. representatives fear that the 
recent attacks in the capital's slums may be designed to exert pressure on 
[President René] Préval to allow Mr. Aristide to return to Haiti." U.N. 
peacekeepers may not be the most effective fighting force but they tend to be 
in the know about who is behind trouble. Their observations support the claim 
that until Mr. Aristide is convicted and put in jail for his many 
transgressions - alongside Panama's Manuel Noriega - Haiti cannot begin to 
stabilize.
  The interim government of Gerard Latortue (March 2004-May 2006) compiled a 
mountain of evidence against Mr. Aristide, alleging the theft of revenues from 
the telecom monopoly Haiti Teleco. In a civil lawsuit filed in a federal court 
in Florida in November, Haiti alleged that Mr. Aristide had given foreign 
carriers preferential settlement rates in return for their agreement to 
payments in offshore bank accounts belonging to him. This precisely what Mr. 
Jewett's claim against IDT alleges.
  Unfortunately, Haiti has withdrawn its case in Florida, citing troubles with 
legal fees. The case may be refilled, but until then, the keys to unlocking the 
wider truth of the Aristide telecom business lie with the Jewett case and the 
Justice Department.
  In the early stages of the case, IDT thought it could avoid scrutiny by 
claiming that Haiti Teleco deal was a trade secret. In May 2004 it submitted a 
sworn affidavit saying just that. Judge Falk concurred and permitted the 
sealing of the pricing agreement in the complaint. But Mr. Jewett's attorney, 
William Perniciaro, later showed the affidavit to be false by presenting to the 
Federal Communication Commission regulations that state that the FCC sets a 
single price for all U.S. carriers doing business with a given foreign 
monopoly. Mr. Perniciaro also showed that, according to FCC rules, agreements 
between U.S. carriers and foreign monopoly carriers must be publicly disclosed. 
Whereupon, IDT agreed to have the price unsealed. What was revealed was a deal 
that gave IDT access to to the Haiti Teleco network at nine cents a minute, 
while the FCC's set price was 23 cents a minute. In other words, IDT had broken 
the law.
              What is it that IDT doesn't want the Justice Department to know?

  That's bad enough. Now, months later, in barring Mr. Jewett from discussions 
with Justice, Judge Falk has cited a new IDT affidavit that again claims the 
Haiti Teleco deal was a trade secret.
  In court filings, Mr. Jewett claims that the quid pro quo for the cut-rate 
price was an IDT agreement to deposit payments in an offshore account called 
"Mount Salem," for the benefit of Mr. Aristide. This is otherwise known as 
bribery. The Haitian complaint in Florida also alleged that there was a 
similarly named offshore account for the benefit of Mr. Aristide.
  The federal court in Newark seems to be making discovery of this information 
also difficult. Mr. Perniciaro, Mr. Jewtt's attorney, was given permission to 
submit 20 questions to each of the 12 defendants. Since the law stipulates that 
to prove a whistleblower case, you have to prove the connection between the 
firing and what the employee alleges went on, Mr. Prtniciaro submitted 
questions related to the Teleco Haiti deal.
  Federal Judge John Lifland ruled that the questions went against his 
instructions to keep the inquiry narrow and issued an order for Mr. Perniciaro 
to show why he should not be held in contempt. When the attorney argued the 
importance of motive in proving his case, Judge Lifland admonished him: "You 
are on thin ice by going into that, Mr. Perniciaro. It has very little to do 
with the reason we are here today." Mr. Perniciaro was held in contempt.
  Under Judge Falk's gag order, Justice will have a hard time learning more 
from Mr. Jewett. If the plaintiff speaks to federal investigators he have to 
keep clear in his mind what he has learned in discovery and what he knew 
already. It he makes a mistakes, he could be sanctioned in some manner by the 
court.
  Herb Denton, president of Providence Capital, a New York investment firm, has 
this to say about Mr. Jewett's allegation: "If it is true then one has to ask 
questions about the dozens of other notoriously corrupt countries throughout 
the Caribbean, Latin America, and Russia and its former republics where IDT 
does business."
  That suggests one possibility for why IDT doesn't want Justice to know what, 
under FCC regulations, should be a matter of public record. It doesn't explain, 
though, why a federal court would want to assist in this effort.
  Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal, OPINION, of Friday, August 4, 2006.
            Wehaitians.com, the scholarly journal of democracy and human rights
            More from wehaitians.com
            Main / Columns / Books And Arts / Miscellaneous


---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.