By Patrick Ferrari
(Read Pt 1: ‘Impulse’ is the new premeditated)
“The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
That they cannot find the culprit is not the result of an investigation. Dear God, no. It is mere policy, and not as funny. There is no reflection back or forward of it. It has no principle and is entitled to no respect. To get a better perspective of the sordid affair, consider this. And consider it good because it is a cesspool of ethics violations.
One of the ways of financing the airport was by the sale of lands. That was announced in 2005. In 2007, a private company, “Real Investment Ventures, Inc.,” was formed. Dr. Rudy Matthias is its CEO. In 2008, work on the airport under the control of Dr. Rudy Matthias. Dread, them dots is like magnets; them go join they self without invitation. If, God forbid, there was an “Office of Government Ethics”, what should have become of Real Investment Ventures vis-à-vis ethics compliance? (Wha dat?) Or with its owner? So, as it stands at this point, it is reasonable to assume a quid pro quo exists? If only by perception. If Jesus was in that position in that clubby ambience, He would be stretched to not advantage Himself, from time to time and more, with a spot of insider knowledge.
Let me get a not so little something out of the way. They say that the do not know who was responsible for “The Star.” Well, I know. It is the ULP’s procurer-in-chief. Their resident bull runks. The rags to riches scamp. He entered politics poor like a church mouse and is filthy rich now. Pun intended — for sure. He is the “administrative state’s” hit man and their agent of influence. The deputy CEO of the private company otherwise known as St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He is the only man powerful enough to walk up to the IADC cement stores (or anywhere his little heart desires) and say, “On behalf of the ULP, open sesame.” And everybody looks the other way. Didn’t they? Then tell me, what do you call what they did? Listen — without the wax in your ears: “There are some things that people don’t (want to) find out.” And with that, the “search” to find who was over.
That they cannot find out who is responsible is either, a); a flat out lie, or, b); totally honest. There is no in-between. It is pointless to pursue “a”. The second option is a horse of a different colour. (Let me disentangle myself: The Prime Minister uttered the words but he is not responsible for their veracity. He is simply the messenger.)
By golly, as much as we’d love to, we just cannot find out who is responsible is “contrived ignorance.” Ignorance purposely contrived to avoid learning the facts — for reasons that ought to be obvious — they know who. Exactly. Because it is easier to find the perpetrator than it is to find a haystack in a needle. “Contrived ignorance,” “wilful blindness,” “wilful ignorance,” and “conscious avoidance” are well known concepts. They are terms that carry weight in American anti-corruption legislation. Okay. So, we are not Americans, but it does not change the price of eggs — at least, not for moral beings.
If they chose the second option (cross my heart and hope to die, it is the truth), I think it is a mistake. If the Keystone Kops truly cannot find out who is responsible, then it opens a whole can of worms. For starters, it is a dispiriting testimony of the deep state. The deep state is a clandestine body of influential members of government agencies involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy. Did the Prime Minister know about the two-day project — at “his” airport? Did Matthias? Any of the supervisors? Besides simply not knowing, the Prime Minister said that the opening would not be politicized — presumable by the party’s symbol. The deep state showed him good who is who.
So, they are telling the truth. Then, they’ve dropped another clanger on themselves because (the short blanket), covering the culpability of their Svengali, it exposes a dysfunctional IADC; a supervisor’s scandalous failure to supervise, their wanton negligence that amounted to aiding and abetting. Surely, it makes a case for supervisory liability. Probably criminal liability, depending on their position.
Tell me a next thing: if, as they claim, they cannot find the brass-face perpetrator, operating in broad daylight, with bells and whistles, in full public view and under their noses, then, dread, is how they go what went on in the dark of night, behind closed doors between 2008 to 2017? Lying is tricky business, for sure. And the short blanket is a bitch. Truly.
Quotations from the links: “An evil design may be presumed if the officer purposely keeps himself in ignorance.” “Indeed, the doctrine of conscious avoidance is based on the premise that deliberate indifference can be a substitute for positive knowledge.” “[T]he rationale for the conscious avoidance doctrine is that a defendant’s affirmative efforts to ‘see no evil’ and ‘hear no evil’ do not somehow magically invest him with the ability to ‘do no evil.'” United States v. Adeniji, 31 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir.1994).
I am left scratching my head and wondering if the IADC is structurally designed by management to allow corrupt individuals to commit fraud. If not structurally designed, then maybe somebody in charge doesn’t give a f**k. Still, that does not cut it; it is obligatory for them to ascertain the facts. It has to go beyond a whimsical ipse dixit canard: there are some things people can’t find out. That no one was held accountable, (no one ever is, no one will be) the idea that a quid pro quo exists keep popping up in my head.
Here is a remark made by the U.S. Supreme Court on contrived ignorance, “(the) traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. . .. It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts.” Applied to our situation: some people hide in plain sight – and on a soap box. They cannot not know who is responsible. Alas, the party’s bull runks is “too big to fail”. So they blind themselves. That is party doctrine. This is not the first; but it is the first so clear.
The views expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions or editorial position of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected]
The views expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions or editorial position of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].