True Crime – the first factual timeline of the Daniel Langlois murder case with supporting documents – PRWire

PRWire:

First factual timeline emerging from the evidence at trial of DANIEL LANGLOIS & JONATHAN LEHRER – call for State Department intervention

SOUFRIERE, DOMINICA, March 18, 2024 /PRWire/ — Factual narrative emerging from the evidence at trial, (May 2023). Daniel Langlois position that the road is public is not supported by the government.

* all supporting documents (by number) listed in the site notations can be found here

Since January 24, 2017, Langlois has been on a campaign to have the Government support his position that the disputed road is a public road. This campaign has failed at the levels of the Minister for Tourism (1), the Director of Surveys (2), the Minister for Public Works (3), the Prime Minister (4), and Minister for Finance (4), and at the level of the Attorney General (3).

The government has not supported the position that the disputed road is a public road. Government’s lack of support stems from the fact that in law Langlois is unable to satisfy Roads Ordinance (33) statutory definition requiring a “public user” a “public expenditure” in relation to the disputed road.

This 1165 feet of this private plantation road (“the disputed road”) is in law and in fact not a public road by virtue of the Roads (Amendment) Ordinance 1966 as argued, and on the evidence in this trial. Langlois’ claims must fail, and the counterclaims must succeed.

The legal case – evidence timeline

1915 Roads Ordinance enacted: Section 2 (6) defined “road” or “public road” as a road open to public use and repaired by money from the Treasury.

Section 9 (7) Regarding the construction or maintenance of roads, the Government may take land without compensation. Provided that where a road is discontinued as a public road, the land shall revert to the person who would be entitled to it if it had not been taken.

At trial, Langlois was not able to provide any evidence showing the road was ever open for use by the public or repaired by public expenditure from the Treasury between 1915 to 1966.

2011 – Lehrer purchased the Bois Cotlette Estate where the disputed road is sited. Shortly afterwards, tourism-related activities are conducted on his property.

2012 – Langlois lies about the phone cable ownership (9) to Lehrer. In addition, villagers who sold land to Langlois for his Coulibri project were also led to believe that he owned and had exclusive use of the telecom infrastructure.

October 11, 2016 – Government approves a road diversion at Bois Cotlette. The Physical Planning approval (10) will divert traffic, including the claimant, away from Bois Cotlette’s historical ruins, now thought of as architectural treasures, to ensure their safety and preservation.

January 24, 2017 – Langlois wrote to the Minister for Tourism (1) on January 24, 2017, requesting, inter alia that … “the Government supports the position that the road is public…”. It is believed that Langlois wants public access to the archeological site on Bois Cotlette property..

At trial Langlois was not able to provide any evidence that the Ministers or Government supported his proposal that the road is public.

January 24, 2017: Claimants wrote to the Director of Surveys (2) and Commissioner of Lands asking for his confirmation “that the road which runs from Soufriere through Bois Cotlette to Morne Rouge is a public road.”

At trial Langlois was not able to provide any evidence that the Director of Surveys or Commissioner of Lands supported his proposal that the road is public.

5th September 2018 – Having no success, Langlois next wrote to the Minister for Public Works (3) and to the Attorney General (3) complaining inter alia that a prescribed process be followed for blocking or relocating a public road.

Langlois was not able to provide any evidence at the trial that road was a public road.

7th September 2018 – Physical Planning notifies Flow (35) that Lehrer’s application for a road diversion has been properly obtained and approved by the government.

23rd October 2018 – Letter to Planning Division notifying them of the plan to implement the fully approved road diversion and redirect traffic (16) accordingly.

26th October 2018 – Langlois’ attorney serves a pre-action letter (18) on Lehrer after business hours on October 29th Repeating all of the failed allegations that the ministries chose not to take action on, the pre-action letter further asserts that the road diversion was not done properly. It is notable that Langlois proper course of action would be to have the Planning Division issue a Compliance Order (27) or a Stop Order (26). However, this avenue is not possible for him because the diversion was implemented properly and legally. Lehrer has until November 5th to respond to Langlois’ pre-action letter.

29th October 2018 –Langlois’ engineer, Ace Engineering, informs Langlois that in his opinion the bypass needs three minor adjustments (19) to be safe.

30th October 2018 – In order to motivate the Judge to issue an exparte injunction, Langlois sends his employees a mile down the road from Bois Cotlette to illegally set a fire in the road (17), and to create a riot, and to notify the local news outlets about the disturbance. While the rampage is being broadcast live the judge moves forward and issues the injunction.

February 5th, 2021 – Lehrer’s new legal team led by Lennox Lawrence Chambers files a Re-amended Defense and Counter Claim. (22) Of critical importance are new sections 70 – 75(24) which require Langlois to prove that the disputed road is in fact a road in law. Previously Langlois had argued that having a public road notation on an ancient Bois Cotlette Certificate of Title Survey Plan (29) document was sufficient evidence to establish a road status.

June 17th, 2021 – Court order dated May 20th, 2021 (21) is published. Langlois objections to sections 70 to 75 are overruled. The newly Re-amended Defense and Counter Claim are deemed properly filed and valid. With this ruling, Bois Cotlette effectively wins the lawsuit. Langlois will be unable to prove the disputed road is a public road in law as per section 2 of the Roads Ordinance.