Not disputing the legitimacy of sex tapes that have been the focus of a scandal involving his client, self-proclaimed ‘Pope’ Philbert London, attorney Jerome Khan said yesterday that no crime has been committed and only his congregation should pass moral judgement.
“There is nothing that I have seen, as a lawyer, that is criminal in nature and he has not committed any crime,” Khan said in an interview with Stabroek News.
“It is the publisher of the images who has breached the privacy of both Dr London and any other persons whose images may be recognised. These are consenting adults. There are no children involved in any of the images that I have seen. There are no persons under the age of 16,” he added.
London last week found himself at the centre of a sex scandal after the videos as well as photographs featuring him went viral on social media. He continues to trend both locally and internationally and media houses in the region have also been reporting on the scandal. Memes featuring him have also been generated on social media and there continues to be numerous comments on the scandal.
When Stabroek News contacted him on Thursday, London had refused to address the issue and directed that all questions be taken to his attorney.
Khan informed that London was advised by him not to comment on the issue as there is a possibility that a lawsuit could come out of the matter. He said the matter is currently in the hands of the police to ascertain how the videos and images got into the hands of media personality Travis Chase and the public.
“The publication, I believe, started with one news outlet, one television outlet, with Mr Travis Chase, who I am instructed threatened to publicise the images unless he was given an interview prior to publication…. Dr London refused to give him an interview. I am further instructed that he said, ‘Oh he doesn’t want to come with me? After I publish he will come running to me,’” Khan claimed.
When contacted, Chase disputed the allegations. “I never ever spoke to London,” he said.
Stolen or not
Khan was asked if the tapes were stolen from London and he said they still do not know how the private images got to the public, but the tapes were on a SD card in a recording device. London has made a report to the Diamond/ Grove police with respect to missing an instrument. “We are trying to establish if this thing was taken, the SD card was then copied and put back. It is a complicated thing, you see. It is not the instrument only. The information was on an SD card. That SD card was uplifted and transferred possibly to somewhere else and this thing gone to Travis Chase and others. Was it put back in? We don’t know. This is an investigation. I don’t want compromise the investigation. I don’t want to compromise the police work,” Khan said.
“How the images moved from the instrument, where it was recorded… is a matter for the police, and how it moved… to various social media outlets, including Facebook and WhatsApp, is also a matter of police investigation.”
Distress
London believes the circulation of the tapes was a personal attack on him, and his attorney noted that he was concerned because not only was distress brought to his client, but much humiliation and slander were perpetrated on the women in the videos and images.
“The attacks on Dr London appear to be very personal and not in the interest of media work or journalism and the reckless and cavalier attitudes associated with publishing these images damage innocent lives [and] must be condemned by all right-thinking journalists and citizens… I can tell you that we are very concerned about the publication of images that appear to have been stolen from instrument or instruments that were his property… There is a recklessness that is associated with the continued publishing of the images, that while the images and subject matters may be Dr.London, there is recklessness in exposing other persons, innocent persons, who to the best of my knowledge, never gave their consent to any news media or outlet to publish same,” Khan stressed.
‘Morals are subjective’
Khan said he did not see what the interest was in his client’s private business and wanted the public to know that they were not the ones to judge London on morals or his teachings.
“I’ll tell you what, morals are subjective and not objective. There is no objective as to what determines morals. This happened in the privacy of a man’s surroundings. It is up to his congregation to make a determination. It is not up to me or you. The congregation has to make the determination whether… whatever happened or not, and they have to sanction him or accept him. I can’t do that and I can’t use a subjective test to determine that. It is up to the congregation,” Khan argued.
“The congregation, they have to meet. He has a following, and they will determine whether he has repented and if they will forgive or whether he will lead or not lead them. This thing has to be determined by the congregation of Dr London’s church. If he has done anything that is a crime or broke the law, the police will be involved or the DPP but this is a matter for his church. They have to handle it. There is the Beacon Ministries Miracle Centre, he is associated with that; they are the ones that must look at it, analyse the facts, analyse the circumstances, analyse what his statements are and if those statements are the statements they will accept. I can’t deal with that and neither can you. It would be presumptuous of me or anybody to tell the church how they must behave,” he added.
‘Double standards’
People’s Progressive Party/Civic parliamentarian Juan Edghill, himself a Christian pastor who calls himself Bishop, has weighed in on the matter, saying that one cannot change the word of God to suit him or herself.
“Whether it is the highest or the lowest standard that is set, we don’t change the word of God to suit the individual. The word of God is the word of God,” Edghill told reporters on the sidelines of a parliamentary forum held on Thursday at the Marriott Hotel.
But Edghill himself came in for sharp criticism from Khan, who said he was being hypocritical and should be the last person to pass judgement on anyone.
“Bishop Edghill…has gone in the public and commented… on this matter and he is the same person who said Jesus would have voted for a political party with which he is associated, as if he knows how Jesus would have thought and behaved. When you hear things like this, it becomes laughable,” Khan said.
“We have a Bishop that says Jesus would vote for a political party. Should his congregation sanction him for using the name of the Holy Jesus Christ, Son of God? I mean we can’t have double standards here. I am saying that any sanction is a sanction for his congregation to deal with. They will have to caucus, they will have to ask for an explanation for why this has happened but in the meantime I am appealing to the journalists out there to use their good sense and not hurt innocent people. While they are hounding Dr London, other people’s lives have been exposed … Use better judgement, in terms of showing the pictures. Be restrained, you are hurting a lot of people,” he added.
