Home' Trinidad and Tobago Guardian : August 20th 2014 Contents Attorney General Anand Ramlogan
yesterday provided six legal documents
to the T&T Guardian.
They all relate to an action in the Superior
Court of California at Santa Clara.
The most substantial of the documents
is an action for defamation, among other
things, against unknown defendants, named
as "John Doe, Jane Doe and Does 3-100,"
who Ramlogan says libelled him in or in
connection with the E-mailgate scandal. He
is claiming some of these as-yet-unknown
people fabricated and then sent the e-mails
as if they came from him and other govern-
Four of the other documents are in support
of this lawsuit for libel.
They were compiled and submitted to the
court by the Computerlaw Group of Palo
Google is based in Mountain View, Cal-
The sixth document is a consent order
(agreement) from April this year that Google
will release the information Ramlogan is
seeking about the Google accounts associated
with E-mailgate, once he sends an e-mail
from his personal e-mail address requesting
The documents do not show whether
Ramlogan sent the request or received the
information from Google.
1 Deposition subpoena for production
of business records, issued on June 25,
Addressed to Google Inc, this seeks an
order for the company to produce certain
records on July 16, 2013.
Ramlogan was seeking information relating
to the e-mail addresses: email@example.com,
and the variations on those addresses which
appeared in the E-mailgate printouts.
The information includes:
• the names, addresses and phone num-
bers of people who registered the e-mail
• the date and time and the IP address
from which the account was registered
• the type of device/s from which the
account was accessed
He also wanted information to identify
the senders and recipients of any e-mails to
or from those accounts from September 1,
2012 to the date of his application.
2 Ex-parte application for expedited
discovery, endorsed by the court on June
The application outlines the E-mailgate
revelation in Parliament, referring to "29
The statement of facts says: "Plaintiff has
never maintained a Gmail account using any
of the addresses listed. He does maintain an
authentic firstname.lastname@example.org account operated
by Google, but he never sent any of the e-
mails from that account. The persons who
actually sent and conspired to author and
send them are the Doe Defendants, who
have compounded this action by falsely pub-
lishing and accusing Plaintiff of being the
The document then quotes incriminating
sections of the e-mails which it claims show
the purported author as corrupt, abusing
political power, threatening a journalist, and
"using coarse, insulting and vulgar language."
It cites forensic expert Jon Berryhill as
concluding that the e-mails are "likely for-
In support of his demand for the infor-
mation from Google, Ramlogan s attorneys
argue that Google can help identify the people
who opened the accounts and sent the e-
mails. This information, they argue, will
enable Ramlogan to "direct discovery requests
seeking corroboration of his innocence and
proof of their guilt from the senders and
They argue that expedited discovery should
be granted, rather than waiting the prescribed
ten days, because Ramlogan has been unable
to find out the identity of the senders by
other means, and "despite making every
effort to show the e-mails are forgeries, and
to assert the truth, Mr Ramlogan has been
made the object of official investigations,
including a criminal inquiry by the police.
The controversy has shown remarkable stay-
ing power...In order to rehabilitate his rep-
utation, Plaintiff is forced to seek relief from
3 Order granting Ramlogan s ex-parte
application against John and Jane Doe
and Does 3-100 for expedited discovery.
Endorsed by the court on June 26, 2013,
this order was granted by Socrates P
Manoukian, Justice of the Supreme Court.
It gave Ramlogan permission to serve his
deposition subpoena on Google Inc imme-
diately and waived the ten-day waiting peri-
4 Attachments to deposition subpoena
for production of business records.
Addressed to Google, Inc, this bundle of
documents is signed August 26, 2013, by
Jack Russo of Computerlaw, but is not
endorsed by the court.
The first is Attachment 3, which defines
and lists the information listed in document
1 as being sought from Google.
Attachment 4, labelled "Content of inter-
est," is the transcript of the e-mails read out
These attachments are followed by a doc-
ument signed by Russo on August 26, 2013
and labelled "Notice to consumer or employ-
ee."The addressee is named as Kamala (sic)
The document informs her that Plaintiff
Anand Ramlogan is seeking her records from
Google for examination, and that she must
register any objection. The document is not
signed by Persad-Bissessar.
It is followed by a similar document
addressed to Ramlogan, also unsigned by
Each of these two notices is accompanied
by an unsigned proof that the notice has
5 Civil lawsuit notice endorsed by the
court on June 26, 2013, and listed for a
case management hearing on October 22,
2013, before the Honourable Peter Kirwan.
The lawsuit is categorised as a defamation
suit and the remedies sought are monetary,
a declaration or injunctive relief, and punitive
Ramlogan s complaint is for:
1 Conspiracy to ruin
3 Negligent misrepresentation
4 Intentional infliction of emotional dis-
5 Negligent infliction of emotional dis-
6 False light invasion of privacy
The defendants are John and Jane Doe
and Does 3-100, who are given 30 days to
file a defence.
In the 12-page statement of claim, the
attorneys say the venue is a proper one for
the case "because much of the evidence
necessary for determination of this dispute
is, on information and belief, located in this
county, and Doe 1 entered into a contract in
this county." The claim explains later that
this contract entailed opening a Gmail
They explain that the defendants are
"unknown at this time and Plaintiff pleads
them as fictitiously named defendants,
whether individuals, corporations...At such
time as defendants true names become
known to Plaintiff, Plaintiff will ask leave of
this court to amend this complaint to insert
their true names and capacities."
In the background facts, Ramlogan s
lawyers say he has "always enjoyed an excel-
lent reputation for honesty and uprightness
of character and he is a leader in his com-
munity as well as a minister in the govern-
ment of the Republic of T&T."
Ramlogan alleges that defendants Doe 1
and/or 2 "wrote messages originating from,
and replied to messages received at, an
account using the pseudonymous e-mail
addresses," and in so doing published "scur-
rilous, illegal, and both civilly and criminally
wrongful statements purporting to be
authored by Mr Ramlogan." The claim then
quotes incriminating sections of the e-mails.
Doe 1 and Does 2-100, he says, then "fur-
ther republished the ersatz statements in the
pseudonymous e-mails" by sending them
to Opposition Leader Dr Kenneth (sic) Rowley,
who read them in Parliament, since when
they had been repeatedly published in T&T,
the US and internationally, and had fed "dis-
cussions, rumours and innuendo" online
The damage Ramlogan suffered in con-
sequence, says his claim, was that he was
discredited as an attorney, as AG, as a politi-
cian, within his party, and among his supe-
riors and colleagues, fellow citizens and the
The sixth cause of action, "false light inva-
sion of privacy," is related to defamation but
is an offence recognised separately in some
US states, which involves malice in putting
the plaintiff in a false light and is highly
offensive or embarrassing.
As well as the statement of claim, the
lawsuit is accompanied by a transcript of
the purported E-mailgate messages and 15
printouts of reports and comments on the
scandal from the Web sites of T&T- and
US-based media houses.
6 Amended consent order, endorsed
by the court on April 21, 2014.
In this document, Ramlogan and Google
agree that within ten days Ramlogan will e-
mail Google at google-legal-
email@example.com from his e-mail address
In the e-mail he will state that he is the
only user of the account and will consent
to Google disclosing to his attorney "the
content of any Gmail communications
received from firstname.lastname@example.org or sent
to email@example.com from
firstname.lastname@example.org between September 1, 2012
and September 30, 2012."
Within ten days of receiving that e-mail,
Google will disclose the specified content to
Google has no obligation to make the dis-
closure until it receives the e-mail from
Ramlogan s account.
The order resolves any legal action or court
orders directed against Google in the matter.
The consent order is signed by Russo on
Ramlogan s behalf and by Kevan Fornasero
of Perkins Coie LLP for Google and ordered
by Superior Court Judge Patricia M Lucas.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014 www.guardian.co.tt Guardian
US lawyers seek
source of leak
Anand Ramlogan says
he has been fighting a
year-long legal battle
against Internet service
provider Google, but it
may come to an end
this month, bringing
closure to the E-mail-
Ramlogan said yes-
terday he expected to
get a sworn, signed dec-
laration from Google
clearing him, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar
and other colleagues "from a malicious political con-
spiracy" brought to Parliament in May 2013 by Oppo-
sition Leader Dr Keith Rowley.
Speaking to the T&T Guardian yesterday, Ramlogan
said the legal battle was a lengthy process and at the
end of it he hoped to sue Rowley both locally and
"I was forced to take pre-emptive and proactive
legal action to ensure that relevant information was
not deleted from the Google servers. Google would
obviously not have an indefinite retention policy for
e-mails on its servers. We are now awaiting approval
to get a sworn, signed declaration from Google cer-
tifying the results. It is my hope that will be completed
before the end of this month or as early as the end
of this week," Ramlogan said.
Ramlogan said he instituted legal proceedings against
Google so that he could finally clear his name in the
"I did this so I can sue those responsible for this
malicious political conspiracy that was designed to
assassinate and damage the character and reputation
of the Prime Minister, myself and my colleagues to
extract political mileage on a fraudulent document
and a matrix of lies."
Ramlogan said that instead of seizing the electronic
devices of government officials, law enforcement offi-
cers should have explored the servers at Google to
verify the source and content of the e-mails.
But he said Google resisted his initial attempts to
"Google has erected several formidable legal hurdles
because it strongly resisted disclosure of the requested
information on the basis that it will create a precedent
that could lead to an avalanche of similar requests
from tens of millions of subscribers internationally.
In fact, Google indicated that it routinely receives and
refuses such requests," he said.
"Whilst they were happy to provide the requested
information via e-mail, they did not want to give a
signed sworn affidavit declaration, which my lawyers
argued for and insisted upon," the AG said, adding,
"My subpoena was served on Google a long time ago
and we have only just been nearing the finish line."
He said both the Prime Minister s and his e-mail
accounts had been searched.
Six lawsuits filed in California
Links Archive August 21st 2014 August 19th 2014 Navigation Previous Page Next Page