Jet Set Disaster

[NALs]

Yesterday’s evening took a detour when driving on the highway by Bridgeport, Connecticut and once again was shocked for several reasons.

1. To see the Dominican flag next to City Hall again. (Shocked to see it back in March too.)

2. To see the Dominican flag in half-staff (has to be official mourning of Bridgeport for the Jet Set tragedy.)

3. To see the Dominican flag is still up. It must be a record in CT concerning flag poles that belong to a municipal or state government.

To see such a thing in places like Lawrence, Massachusetts; NYC; Paterson, NJ etc isn’t shocking given how many Dominicans are concetrated there (Lawrence even has a Dominican major.) In Connecticut Dominicans don’t from even 1% of the state’s population and not city or town has even 5% of it’s population composed by Dominicans. No town or city has a Dominican major either.

 

[DrNoob]

Procuraduría inmoviliza bienes del conglomerado de empresas de Antonio Espaillat

La Dirección de Persecución del Ministerio Público ha puesto en marcha varias “diligencias procesales” sobre las empresas y propiedades de Antonio Espaillat como parte de la investigación.<br>

listindiario.com

"The Public Prosecutor's Office has sought to impose a precautionary measure against any stock or asset transactions involving companies linked to Antonio Espaillat, owner of the Jet Set nightclub," said a source close to the investigation, noting that the same proceedings are being carried out under Law 155-17 on Money Laundering.

 

[MariaRubia]

Next will be an impedimento salida in his passport, they're not going to let that guy run.

 

[CristoRey]

Next will be an impedimento salida in his passport, they're not going to let that guy run.

Is he back in the Dominican Republic now?

 

[Ecoman1949]

Next will be an impedimento salida in his passport, they're not going to let that guy run.

MR. I totally agree. He ain’t going nowhere. The President did his Pontius Pilate routine and washed his hands of any responsibility when he announced a few days ago the building was privately owned and didn’t require government inspection or approvals. The government needs someone to redeem them.

That leaves only one person to prosecute, and that’s the owner. The only report released so far on the collapse points the finger directly at him for multiple reasons. He’s well connected and rich and we know that the rule of law in the DR is different for the rich. He may not end up in jail but his wallet might be a lot lighter after the court finishes with him.

 

[josh2203]

MR. I totally agree. He ain’t going nowhere. The President did his Pontius Pilate routine and washed his hands of any responsibility when he announced a few days ago the building was privately owned and didn’t require government inspection or approvals. The government needs someone to redeem them.

As far as I know, and please feel free to prove me wrong, that's not exactly what he said. The news article I saw, which I also linked on this site, stated that Abinader admitted that the laws of the country had a hole for which reason private buildings weren't required to be inspected the same way as govt owned, regardless of the purpose of the building. He continued that they would be working on getting this part of the legislation fixed. So as far as I understood, that was not "washing his hands" per se but admitting that there is a problem, which would be fixed. If you see any other information, by all means please let me know.

This statement from the president, of course, may not have any difference with the current case with this building, but would work as a preventative action in the future (yes, many times an unknown concept in the DR...)

 

[MariaRubia]

Is he back in the Dominican Republic now?

If he has come back he is completely stupid.

 

[keepcoming]

Next will be an impedimento salida in his passport, they're not going to let that guy run.

He is not going to run or hide. Trust me he is not stupid at all. I am sure he is following the advice of his legal counsel which is totally normal.

 

[Ecoman1949]

As far as I know, and please feel free to prove me wrong, that's not exactly what he said. The news article I saw, which I also linked on this site, stated that Abinader admitted that the laws of the country had a hole for which reason private buildings weren't required to be inspected the same way as govt owned, regardless of the purpose of the building. He continued that they would be working on getting this part of the legislation fixed. So as far as I understood, that was not "washing his hands" per se but admitting that there is a problem, which would be fixed. If you see any other information, by all means please let me know.

This statement from the president, of course, may not have any difference with the current case with this building, but would work as a preventative action in the future (yes, many times an unknown concept in the DR...)

You’re correct but , in the DR, things are never as they seem. The underlying intent was to avoid any government liability with the JetSet disaster. It was an admission of an omission with the stated intent of planning to address the issue at a later date. Abinader has a relatively short time left in office and any initiatives he starts could die a bureaucratic death in the next election. To implement what needs to be done requires legislation and enforcement. The DR has lots of legislation but lacks enforcement. I can say with a degree of certainty that we will be discussing future disasters of the JetSet type, hopefully not the same scale. Someone posted the changes required would result in significant costs to building owners and won’t happen. That’s probably true.

Abinader’s announcement puts the legal focus squarely on the owner. That was the also intentional.

 

[CristoRey]

Someone posted the changes required would result in significant costs to building owners and won’t happen.

Si. Mañana.

 

[aarhus]

You’re correct but , in the DR, things are never as they seem. The underlying intent was to avoid any government liability with the JetSet disaster. It was an admission of an omission with the stated intent of planning to address the issue at a later date. Abinader has a relatively short time left in office and any initiatives he starts could die a bureaucratic death in the next election. To implement what needs to be done requires legislation and enforcement. The DR has lots of legislation but lacks enforcement. I can say with a degree of certainty that we will be discussing future disasters of the JetSet type, hopefully not the same scale. Someone posted the changes required would result in significant costs to building owners and won’t happen. That’s probably true.

Abinader’s announcement puts the legal focus squarely on the owner. That was the also intentional.

I am not really against Abinader. He is a reasonably good president. I was criticizing him for not saying much after the disaster. Normally I like him for that. As opposed to other leaders who thinks they need to have an opinion on everything. But is it really established legally that the authorities have no responsibility. He seemed to say that. So is he making the owner the only responsible. Or the company that owns the nightclub. The scapegoat.

 

[JD Jones]

Death toll is now 232.

 

[Ecoman1949]

I am not really against Abinader. He is a reasonably good president. I was criticizing him for not saying much after the disaster. Normally I like him for that. As opposed to other leaders who thinks they need to have an opinion on everything. But is it really established legally that the authorities have no responsibility. He seemed to say that. So is he making the owner the only responsible. Or the company that owns the nightclub. The scapegoat.

I agree he is a good President or has tried to be by tackling long festering issues like corruption. His announcement was about the liability of a system he inherited from other administrations. He’s simply the messenger. Will he attempt to rectify the problems? Yes. Will it affect a change enhancing public safety? No if it’s not enforced.

If the disaster had occurred closer to the date of the next election, it might have had the momentum to affect positive change. If the case against the owner is dragged through the DR courts, it could still be in voter’s minds during the next election and might affect some positive change. The DR justice system and political system are a crapshoot. I wouldn’t bet on either.

 

[aarhus]

What about the mayor of Santo Domingo Carolina Mejia. Has she said anything ?

 

[cavok]

While maintenance and inspection issues would fall squarely on the owner, what about the engineering/construction company that did the remodeling removing the columns and adding the reinforced concrete beams? The design could have been inadequate and/or poorly done. It seems they're going to be in the hot seat, also(?).

 

[Ecoman1949]

While maintenance and inspection issues would fall squarely on the owner, what about the engineering/construction company that did the remodeling removing the columns and adding the reinforced concrete beams? The design could have been inadequate and/or poorly done. It seems they're going to be in the hot seat, also(?).

I agree. The owner’s lawyers will spread as much of the blame as possible to reduce the legal liability and compensation costs on him. That’s smart. I still say he won’t get a jail sentence. If he does, it won’t be time in one of the DR hellholes. If he is free to go after the trial, I can’t see him spending a lot of time in the DR. He will be a constant reminder of the disaster. I wouldn’t want that on my shoulders.

 

[keepcoming]

I agree. The owner’s lawyers will spread as much of the blame as possible to reduce the legal liability and compensation costs on him. That’s smart. I still say he won’t get a jail sentence. If he does, it won’t be time in one of the DR hellholes. If he is free to go after the trial, I can’t see him spending a lot of time in the DR. He will be a constant reminder of the disaster. I wouldn’t want that on my shoulders.

He will not go to jail. The blame will go back and forth. It may cost him but jail time, no. I am sure there are a number of people who need to carry this reminder on their shoulders.

 

[aarhus]

He will not go to jail. The blame will go back and forth. It may cost him but jail time, no. I am sure there are a number of people who need to carry this reminder on their shoulders.

I don't quite understand all the Spanish here in this article. But it looks interesting. Was he trying to protect the assets of the company to avoid liability ?

Procuraduría inmoviliza bienes del conglomerado de empresas de Antonio Espaillat

La Dirección de Persecución del Ministerio Público ha puesto en marcha varias “diligencias procesales” sobre las empresas y propiedades de Antonio Espaillat como parte de la investigación.<br>

listindiario.com

 

[josh2203]

g. Was he trying to protect the assets of the company to avoid liability ?

It does not say that directly, but it does state that the state is taking measures to freeze any and all assets pertaining to the companies he has to do with, also as a precaution during the investigation to secure that all the victims could get what they would be granted to get. He's apparently not suspected of anything, this is just a normal procedure. But it does beg the question, why would he try to do any such action right now? Interesting indeed.

 

[keepcoming]

It does not say that directly, but it does state that the state is taking measures to freeze any and all assets pertaining to the companies he has to do with, also as a precaution during the investigation to secure that all the victims could get what they would be granted to get. He's apparently not suspected of anything, this is just a normal procedure. But it does beg the question, why would he try to do any such action right now? Interesting indeed.

I would say he is following the advice of his legal counsel, just like anyone else in this situation would.