– Ramjattan client claims those posturing as voices of conscience are themselves without conscience, cites his contention is based on case of perjury and fraud
A PROMISSORY note, followed by a judgement and a court order precipitated a series of events that eventuated in Attorney-at-Law, Sheila Chapman, being taken before the Legal Practitioners Committee on charges of perjury and fraud.

Complicit in this matter is Chapman associate, Attorney-at-Law Raphael Trotman, by way of an affidavit drawn on 20th November 1996 by himself, Sheila Chapman, and Avril Trotman.

Legal documents attest to Drupatie Persaud having obtained a Guyana High Court Judgement by Justice Lennox Perry against the estate of the late Baldeo Ramgolam, based on a promissory note dated 28th March 1983 for the sum of two hundred and ninety-four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five (United States) dollars.

Speedy probate of the assets was promised by counsel for the Ramgolam estate executrix Chandra Ramgolam, Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman, but this did not fructify in a timely manner.

Persaud’s story is reflective of the Government’s contention that those with very dirty linen, including Raphael Trotman’s culpability for PNC’s record of destruction to this nation, are attempting to wash off their dirt onto the various functionaries of the Government in a bid to hoodwink the gullible public into believing that they are honourable persons who have the welfare of the public at heart, but who are instead predatory beasts that would destroy the peace of this land (which they have) in efforts to attain power through the back door.

In the interim the relatives of Baldeo Ramgolam were dissipating and further devaluing, through vandalism, the assets of the estate which, through devaluation of the Guyana dollar could only provide part-payment of the debt.

Because the judgement awardee Drupatie Persaud resided in Canada, upon her request Justice Kenneth Barnwell on 21st July 1986 appointed Prakash Persaud receiver of the Ramgolam estate in partial settlement of the indebtedness to Drupatie Persaud, with the consent in court of both executrix of the Ramgolam estate, Chandra Ramgolam, and her Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman.

Both Chandra Ramgolam and her Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman nominated the brother of the executrix, Deeneshwar Ramgolam, to hand over the assets of the Ramgolam estates to Prakash Persaud, and on 31st July 1986 in the High Court before Justice Kenneth Barnwell, Deeneshwar Ramgolam submitted hand-over statements to Prakash Persaud.

Upon instructions from Justice Barnwell for speedy probate Chandra Ramgolam and her attorney Sheila Chapman stated by way of affidavit of 5th June 1986 that they expected to obtain probate within two months, but this was not honoured and probate was not obtained until August 1992 – six years later, and disregarding legal requirements Prakash Persaud was not informed when probate was granted.

In the application for probate via a supplementary affidavit by Chandra Ramgolam drawn by Sheila Chapman she categorically avers in Paragraph 2 “that on the 21st day of July 1986 Mr. Prakash Persaud was named receiver by Mr. Justice Barnwell and he has been in possession of all the assets since that date.”

This document indicates the knowledge of both Chandra Ramgolam and Sheila Chapman that all the assets of the deceased were now legally in the possession of Prakash Persaud the agent of the Plaintiff, who was merely awaiting probate of the estates.

However, in the affidavit for probate, sworn by Chandra Ramgolam and drawn by Sheila Chapman, all the immovable properties were declared by their transport numbers except for 768 acres of lands with sawmill and related equipment at Plantation Clemwood, Demerara River. These, being a part of the Ramgolam estates, were also included in the judgement award and legally belonged to the Plaintiff Drupati Persaud.

But an illegal Agreement of Sale on 6th October 1993, witnessed by Sheila Chapman and one Lorna Bayley, purported to give by the vendor Chandra Ramgolam to the Purchaser Mahendra Jettoo “immediate possession” of the Clemwood properties.

Sheila Chapman proved herself in complicity with the questionable sale when, on the same day she wrote, representing Chandra Ramlagan as attorney, to caretaker Jerry Dhanpaul, advising him of the sale and terminating permission for his residing on the premises, in full and confident knowledge that these properties were the legal entitlement, under judgement and court order, of Drupatie Persaud, with Prakash Persaud as legally-appointed receiver.

After signing the illegal Agreement of Sale Sheila Chapman on 30th April 1996 – three years later, signed as Attorney-at-Law for Chandra Ramgolam and instructed the Registrar of Deeds of Guyana to advertise the transport of the 768 acres of land at Plantation Clemwood. The transport number was not mentioned, nor advertised, which is a legal prerequisite.

This was in response to challenges by Mr. Prakash Persaud on the legality of the sale, with those culpable attempting to authenticate the sale with an affidavit drawn on 20th November 1996 by Attorneys-at-Law Sheila Chapman, Avril Trotman, and Raphael C.C. Trotman, praying for an order from the High Court of Judicature for Chandra Ramgolam to sell the Clemwood properties, which had already been sold to him three years back, on 6th October 1993, when “immediate possession” had been given to the Vendor, who still retained possession of the properties up to that point.

Prakash Persaud then wrote to Madame Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, seeking her intervention. She responded favourably and the applicants then abandoned that course.

In the interim Persaud attempted assiduously to obtain the transport for the Clemwood lands but they had apparently been already removed.

Through a highly-irregular Consent Order No. 958, in which a transport number was not indicated, dated 27th October 1998, Chandra Ramgolam and Sheila Chapman conspired to pass a transport for the Clemwood properties – No. 1956/98 to Mahendra Jettoo, which obviously involved the complicity of a member of the Deeds Registry.

Chief Justice Carl Singh, upon complaints from Persaud, enquired on the matter of Sheila Chapman, to which she informed him that Prakash Persaud was only entitled to receive the movable assets from the estate of the late Baldeo Ramgolam, knowing this to be a false claim.

Six months after Jettoo obtained the questionable transport, the Clemwood properties were advertised for sale in the Official Gazette. The sale was challenged by Persaud and Justices Carl Singh and Roy, sitting in the Full Court, found that all the assets, including immovable properties, which included the Clemwood lands, were indeed in receivership, with Persaud being the receiver.

By way of Order No. 95 of 2002 they restrained Jettoo from effecting any conveyance of the property to anyone or any entity.

On 14th February 1999 Ramgolam executrix, Chandra Ramgolam, voluntarily visited Persaud at his home and expressed remorse for her actions, claiming to have been “misled and misguided” by her attorney.

She promised to hand over to Persaud the unspent amount that had been received from Sheila Chapman after the irregular sale of the Clemwood properties to Jettoo.

For the inconvenience of loss of time measuring years, the loss of properties and income, and the stress related to the fraudulent acts perpetrated against him and his mother-in-law, which he feels contributed in a great measure to his ill-health, Prakash Persaud, acting upon advisement of then Attorney-General Doodnauth Singh, took Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman before the Legal Practitioners Committee upon charges of fraud and perjury.

He appointed Khemraj Ramjattan to represent him in the matter and paid him in advance. However, Ramjattan did not appear to represent him but instead severely admonished him in strong language, ending his tirade with “I have to consider fraternity.”

Persaud also charged that, in the midst of the legal engagements on the matter, Ramjattan had told him warningly that Trotman had questioned him why he was fighting such a case when the court had already ruled.

The Petitioner said that he was treated before the Legal Practitioners Committee as if he was the one on trial and that, when he had requested a copy of the case file, to which he was entitled, he discovered several pertinent documents missing.

A copy of the “fly Leaf” of the proceedings of the case was in the file and Persaud said he was appalled by the comments that there was “no lawyer and client relationship.”

But Cap. 4: 01 – 24 states that an application can be made by “a client or other person aggrieved…”.

Persaud claimed that the actions of this attorney, backed by her associates, caused him much loss, as the Ramgolam estate was insolvent and could not have covered the full indebtedness of the deceased.

He said the only part of the estate that had some degree of value was the Clemwood lands, the full value of which he was robbed; yet until today he could get no redress – either through the Legal Practitioners Committee or through the justice system, and all the attorneys complicit in this situation, including his own attorney, Khemraj Ramjattan, whose non-representation has enabled the statute of limitations to be exhausted, have not been sanctioned in any way.

Like many Guyanese he is questioning the viability of the justice system in Guyana.

However, Ramgolam’s widow Parbatie, who had been witness to the promissory note handwritten by her husband, and who was aware that her husband’s insolvent estate could not adequately compensate for his indebtedness, had agreed wholeheartedly to the transferral of the Ramgolam estates to the Plaintiff, Drupattie Persaud, and had given full responsibility for that undertaking to Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman and their relative Chandra Ramgolam before she departed Guyana; and she is appalled that such despicable acts were committed by persons whom she entrusted to honour her late husband’s memory by dispensing with his indebtedness to the extent of the ability of his possessions to do so.

She has consequently appointed another executor of the estate to take legal action against those who committed those fraudulent acts.

Persaud’s story is reflective of the Government’s contention that those with very dirty linen, including Raphael Trotman’s culpability for PNC’s record of destruction to this nation, are attempting to wash off their dirt onto the various functionaries of the Government in a bid to hoodwink the gullible public into believing that they are honourable persons who have the welfare of the public at heart, but who are instead predatory beasts that would destroy the peace of this land (which they have) in efforts to attain power through the back door.

And what do they plan to do with that power? The case above effectively answers that question.