Mr. Editor:

In your issue of May 3, 2004, I read an article under the caption, " A Rejoinder to the Misguided Taylor's Apologist" written by Jenkins K. Z. B. Scott who argues about the title of Legal Counsel to former President Taylor with Mr. James A. A. Pierre, Jr., Legal Advisor to President Charles Taylor as his boss, he were not an employee of the Liberian Government despite his occupying of a desk at the Executive Mansion and receiving monthly paychecks from the Liberian Government instead of personal checks from Mr. Taylor. He further went on to argue that as a Legal Counsel to the President, he was bound by the ethics of the legal profession to accept the President as a client who required his services

My first question to Mr. Scott is why did it take him three (3) consecutive years to react to Mr. Winsley's article?

My second question is, as a former Minister of Justice of Liberia who was the principal legal advisor to the Government of Liberia and as a graduate of an accredited American School of Law, why was he paid as a Legal Counsel to the President from the Liberian taxpayers' coffers and yet considered himself to be not an employee of Government?

My third question to the learned Lawyer and one time doyen of the Liberian Bar Association is, do the titles of legal counsel and legal advisor make any difference in meaning to classifying one as an employee of a government when that individual receives his or her paychecks from the government?

And, my 4th question is, do the titles of legal counsel and legal advisor not mean one who is also nothing but a legal advisor to one’s clients?

Since Mr. Scott has emphasized one telling the truth, is it not the fact that he has just now taken an issue with Mr. Winsley's article denying that he were a nongovernmental employee of Mr. Taylor because he was afraid of losing his job if he had dare to make such public statement as he has now made?

I have no qualms with Mr. Scott's denial that he did not commit any fraudulent acts as accused by Mr. Winsley because if one knows that he or she did not commit an act that he or she is accused of , he or she has every right to deny his or her alleged implication. But, I definitely have a serious problem with his connotation of why he feels that he was not an employee of Government in his capacity as a Legal Counsel to the former President while receiving pay from the Government for services rendered to the said Government.

I look anxiously forward to receiving Mr. Scott's answers to my questions asked
regarding his article under review.

I would be obliged were you to publish this letter on your popular Website.

Kindest regards.

E. Sumo Jones, Sr.