Submitted by: BWWR
I see that Keltruth and its subsidiary, Barbados Free Press, have again “spouted”. This time, they have asked why PriceWaterhouseCoopers paid such a large amount for an FBI expert to give an opinion on the “threats” that they perceive Peter Simmons made in respect of Bill McKenzie.
I have three questions only:
First question. BOTH sides hired experts. Keltruth has provided us with a scan of the invoice from the expert for the defendants. Why has a copy of the invoice of the expert for the OTHER side not been provided for us as well? The “threat” complained of is contained in Mr. Simmons’ surreptitiously recorded conversation with (and by) “Fishy” Heaslet that Mr. Bill McKenzie aka Little Billy Goat should “walk good” and “watch his back” when he comes to Barbados. So, to the question:
Second question. If any of you were sued because 14 years ago you made in good faith a legal, but unsuccessful, effort to buy a business and you lost $400,000 when you failed; and then, 14 years later, somebody sued you and cost you tens of thousands of dollars for lawyers’ fees in Canada in a case that has no right being brought in the first place, let alone in Canada, would you maybe use strong language? We now know that PriceWaterhouseCoopers has paid for the opinion relating to its co-defendant, Peter Simmons. We assume that this is because PriceWaterhouseCoopers wants to move the matter along, which is perfectly natural.
Third question. Why is counsel for the plaintiff also representing Madge Knox? Who is paying for this representation? Is there a difference in principle between that and PWC paying for an expert opinion? Not for nothing is the Knox mouthpiece called “Quel Truth?”
I would also like to know how Quel Truth got a copy of the invoice it posted.
I will speculate that, having lost the motion that resulted in the Reasons published by BU, costs for the motion were awarded against Nelson Barbados by the Canadian court and a copy of that invoice was given to Little Billy Goat. Now, why do you think Little Billy Goat (and it could have been none other) would provide a copy to Quel Truth? Because Little Billy Goat is also representing the defendant, Madge Knox? But no, LBG would NEVER do anything unethical like that!!! Represent the plaintiff AND a defendant in the same lawsuit? Absolutely no way!!! Wash my mouth out with soap.
However, let us leave this trivial and transparent latest “news” from Quel Truth and BFP. As promised, here is the affidavit of Clyde Turney Q.C. sworn 21st May 2007 in the Canadian action involving Kingsland Estates Limited. We see from this that the central players are all Bajan, the property in dispute is Bajan, the laws to be interpreted are Bajan and therefore the only court that has the competence and jurisdiction to try the matter is the Supreme Court of Barbados.
Why then has this matter been taken to the Canadian courts?
Simple. Every matter complained of by Nelson Barbados Group Ltd.,/Nelson Barbados Investments Inc., aka Madge Knox and Peter Allard has already been tried by the Barbados Courts and is now res judicata (Latin for “a matter already judged”. It is, in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal). So, since there is no longer any chance of the two Nelsons and Allard and Madge Knox appealing the case to any court that has the right to try the case, Knox and Allard’s only means of having the whole thing re-tried is to go and try to get the Canadian courts to take it on.
And please do not be tricked into thinking that because Madge Knox is named as a defendant that she is not the real plaintiff. Just refer to the Reasons of Justice Bryan Shaughnessy in the Ontario courts (published by BU) when he says:
“It does not escape the notice of this Court that Marjorie Knox is represented in these proceedings by Mr. Sheppard [Mr. Alair Shepherd Q.C.], a lawyer practicing in Barbados. It is confusing as to why Mr. Sheppard has taken no position on this motion and why Mr. McKenzie sends correspondence relating to the Keltruth blog to the Commissioner of Police in Barbados on behalf of Marjorie Knox.”
And not just to the Barbados Police and I will send copies of other correspondence sent by Little Billy Goat on behalf of Madge Knox to David and BU. By the way, a little bird has just told me that Madge et al asked for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Shaughnessy, but Justice Shaughnessy refused and so they appealed to the Regional Court in Ontario and got refused there as well. Two more lost court actions to add to the enormous collection they already have. Maybe they will make it into the Guinness World Book of Records for Most Lost Cases.
It is also interesting to see that the judge declines to accept the suggestion of the same Little Billy Goat to ““finesse” around the issue of “threats“” and to make an order to compel Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. to collect and produce information found on the internet in defiance of and ignoring the sovereign status of Barbados and the Barbados Telecommunications Act on the basis of “to see what happens” [Little Billy Goat’s words]. See Reasons published by BU.
Now, if this is not an attempt to encroach on the sovereignty of Barbados by Mrs. Knox and Mr. Allard and their Nelson front, I do not know what is.
By Professor John Knox’s affidavit, also published by BU, we are given a hint as to why Cave Hill did not renew the contract of Prof. Knox to teach there, a complaint frequently voiced by Quel Truth and Barbados Free Press. Look at paragraphs dealing with the new prison facility at Dodds in the Prof’s affidavit published by BU.
He makes several points:
In 2001, a group of government officials, including the then attorney-general (Mr. David Simmons) was seen on lands in the Hanson/Staplegrove area by Charles A. Deane and by the Prof’s sister, Jane Goddard. Although neither of them were parties or privy to the subject of the meeting, they determined, by means unidentified, that it was about the new prison facility. The Prof fails to point out that in 2001, when this meeting occurred, Kingsland’s lands and shares were frozen by the operation of two, not one, two injunctions and could not even have been even compulsorily acquired.
Jane Goddard wrote to her mother’s solicitor about the issue, but the Prof does not record if she received an answer. A few days later, Jane Goddard wrote to the attorney-general, Mr. Simmons, but the Prof complains that his sister never received an answer from the A-G.
May I suggest, Mr. Simmons would have read the letter and asked himself if Mrs. Goddard was a shareholder or director of Kingsland. If she was a shareholder or director, which she is not, Mr. Simmons would have sent a copy of the letter with a compliments slip to the secretary of Kingsland for the Kingsland board to deal with. Otherwise, the A-G would, rightly, have considered it none of her business.
The Prof continues that Kingsland thus lost the opportunity for a major land sale for the prison to Dodds. Since Mrs. Knox was one of the holders of the injunction preventing the sale of any land of Kingsland, why is the Prof not leveling his accusations at his mother?
There has been a lot of talk about “big ups”. Well, the land the Prof thinks was being examined for the prison facility is slap bang in the backyards of the residents of Stepney, Boarded Hall, Dash Valley, South Ridge, Kent and Ridge. In other words, “Big Up Central”. Does any reader HONESTLY think that those Big Ups would have allowed ANY government of Barbados to put a prison in their backyards? Greaves, Haloute, Mrs Ram, Richard Edwards, Haddad, Paul Noel, Leacock et al.?
What do YOU think? Would YOU like a prison facility in YOUR backyard? And please, in answering, do not be influenced by the fact that Jane Goddard and Charles A. Deane would obviously have welcomed a prison in their backyards.
Can anyone seriously think that any government so dependent on the “Big Ups” would have contemplated building a prison right next door to their houses – far less held a meeting to discuss it? And, if they did, they obviously decided to save the taxpayers’ money and use a piece of land the government already owned. Dodds.
The Prof has done his homework on to the subject of Dodds. But has he!!! He has “commissioned” a search to be carried out at the Titles Registry going back 50 years and he can find no evidence that Government has purchased Dodds. Only in Canada could such a statement have weight. If he dared put that in an affidavit for the Barbados Courts, it would be laughed out.
We all know that Dodds was used for many years, certainly going back more than 50 years, as an underage male offenders’ facility. The Prof, who is over 50, knows this as well. It is likely that for almost 100 years it has been owned by the country of Barbados. The Prof has made sure that he has had a search done going back only 50 years, because he can then refer to the search, rather than admitting his own personal knowledge.
That is the height of dishonesty. That is the worst of bad faith. It might even be perjury. There are other areas of the Prof’s affidavit that are far less than frank. Now, would Cave Hill have discharged its duty to the youth of the Caribbean by renewing the contract of a man to whom the truth is such a stranger?
As for the Turney affidavit, it is very interesting in that we learn:
To date, Madge Knox has been involved in 7 actions (and this does not include appeals) before the Barbados Courts, two of which are pending and five of which she has lost. She has appealed decisions of the Court 5 times and lost two of those appeals. Of the others, one had been discharged due to lack of payment of an Order for security for costs payable into Court by Mrs. Knox. The other two are stayed pending payment into court of security for costs awarded against Mrs Knox.
To date, the defendants whom she has unsuccessfully sued in Barbados actions are out of pocket to the estimated tune of $10 million – and Mrs. Knox has not paid them one red cent of the costs ordered by the Courts.
Mr Turney gives evidence of an action filed in Ontario in 2007 by NELSON BARBADOS INVESTMENTS INC., but that the action was abandoned. However the paperwork did not go to waste. Using almost exactly the same pleadings, NELSON BARBADOS GROUP LTD. filed an action soon afterwards.
What odds am I offered that Nelson Barbados Investments Inc. and Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. both have the same address – and that address is the same as Little Billy Goat’s law firm?
But the corporate names mean nothing. The fact is that the true plaintiffs are Madge Knox and Peter Allard.
In paragraph 63 of the Statement of Claim in the Canadian courts, Madge Knox and Peter Allard complain that they cannot get a fair trial in Barbados because of the defendants, some of whom are politicians and members of the judiciary. They conveniently forget that they lost on these self-same matters before the Privy Council, over which the Barbados government and courts have no influence at all.
In fact, I believe that the only reason that the Barbados government and public officials are included in the lawsuit is to try to give some sort of perverted legitimacy to the retrying of the whole Kingsland issue. This is frankly the worst abuse of legal process I have ever seen. And it is to the great discredit of the Canadian courts that they have spent so much time entertaining it.
In my humble opinion, this case is a lot of hot air and it has taken up far too much time and space that could have been better used in addressing matters in government, the judiciary and in our society generally, that need to be addressed. Thus, matters of real importance to our country and to the man in the street that ought to be the main focus of the press, blogs like BU, our government, opposition and judiciary, are all being sidelined, hijacked, ignored and delayed by the illegitimate desires and frustrations of a Canadian billionaire and an old Bajan divorcee and her three children.
It is time that we, and they, moved on.
Related Links
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.