Nancy Doe runs to court
By E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor
Former Liberian First Lady, Nancy Doe, widow of slain President Samuel Kanyon Doe has run to court, dragging her lawyer, Cllr. Milton D. Talyor, for US$10 million damage.
President Doe was killed in September 1990 during the Liberian Civil War by INPFL rebels loyal to now Senator Prince Yormie Johnson of Nimba County.
“The main purpose of my press release is to announce that I am suing Cllr Milton D. Taylor for $10,000,000 U.S. dollars for defamation of character”, Madam Doe said.
According to her, Cllr. Taylor has publically humiliated her by publicizing her case on radio and in several newspapers on multiple occasions only to embarrass her.
“Since we are on a win no fee contract, we have no outstanding debt to Cllr Taylor. The Intestate Estate of Samuel K. Doe, Sr acquired Cllr Taylor services in 2011 to secure our properties and monies owed within Liberia. Let it be known that Cllr Taylor has breached several major ethical issues and failed over the years to provide The Intestate Estate of Samuel K. Doe, Sr., with decent and adequate representation,” the ex-First Lady narrates.
Mrs. Doe also said an additional reason for her legal action against her personal lawyer is that Cllr. Taylor allegedly demanded that she pays him $250,000 and 50% of VAMOMA House, private property at the intersection of Airfield and Sinkor despite being fully aware that VAMOMA is a private corporation with its own list of shareholders, which has not hired his services.
“We have 87% shares in VAMOMA, yet in his letter of Memorandum of Understanding, he has demanded such ridiculous amount for payment and I refused to sign it. Cllr. Taylor refused to eliminate this charge and insisted it was valid. Cllr. Taylor’s continuous threat to not present the VAMOMA case to the judge if VAMOMA’s Memorandum of Understanding was not signed, as the case is due to be heard in court,” she said.
Madam Doe claimed that Cllr. Taylor also charged her son, Samuel Kanyon Doe, Jr., US$1 million for the Samuel K. Doe, Jr. Vs. Archibald Bernard Case, which he allegedly equated to 40% of the overall worth of the land.
She said when the lawyer was asked to specify and detail his charges, he attempted to intimidate them by threatening to drop the family’s case at the ECOWAS Court.
Continuing with her narration, she said Cllr. Taylor also put her under duress with his excessive fees for the ECOWAS Case, and as the case was due to be heard in Nigeria, he coerced the estate into increasing the percentage from 25 to 35 percent because the Doe Family had no recourse to new counsel at the time, noting that this was calculative and he took absolute advantage over her vulnerable position.
“We have many outstanding cases, either on appeal or awaiting assignments. Yet over the years, Taylor has refused to provide updates on all our cases. We have reason to believe that Cllr. Taylor personally sabotaged our cases, received illicit payments and connived with our opponents, for example, VAMOMA’S case was won in the civil law court in 2015, yet we have never taken possession of it. The defendants were supposed to file an appeal, up till now it was never filed. Six years on, Taylor has refused to explain why we cannot take possession of our property and why the appeal was never dismissed or heard. I was sued by Archibald Bernard to repossess the land that he sold to my late husband”, she explained.
She said in the lawsuit, Bernard confirmed that he sold the property to her late husband without their children’s permission, though both Bernard and the children’s names are on the deed, adding that after one week of hearing, Cllr. Taylor advised her to drop the case and turnover the property without any financial restitution or negotiation.
“I refused and cried bitterly initially. He later explained that is the only way he would represent me. I now understand that Taylor’s advice was not prudent and he may have purposely disrupted my case for kickbacks,” she observed.
Mrs. Doe continued in her statement issued in Monrovia on July 29, 2021, that as a result of his abysmal representation, Cllr. Taylor has caused her and the family great despair, embarrassment, undue hardship, and suffering due to loss of financial revenues.
She said since Cllr Taylor’s services were terminated, he has called many people to ‘bad mouth’ her with claims that the Doe Family never paid him a cent, but he failed to publicize that he received US$45,000 payment after the late President Samuel Kanyon Doe’s pension case was concluded with full annuity payment.
Meanwhile, Madam Doe is requesting a thorough investigation into Cllr. Taylor’s alleged conduct and opening of all of their cases, which they believe have mostly been damaged by him and therefore requests that in an age of egregious and unethical activities undertaken for personal aggrandizement, the lawyer should be reprimanded with a suitable punishment consistent with the law. Editing by Jonathan Browne