The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part IV

In response to the following comment by BU earlier today we received this fairly detailed response from BWWR:

justice

Interesting submissions indeed. This matter becomes more intriguing by the day. It reminds us of a boxing match! A little inconsistency does rear its head BWWR. If Peter Allard is allegedly financing Madge, and after so many cases which have been lossed and much money spent, it shatters the assumption often made that people who have money would have created a disciplined behaviour which serves to protect it. This case begs the question to both sides. How long is too long?

David – Barbados Underground

Dear David,

The only new light I can throw on your question about Mr Allard’s involvement and continued involvement with Madge Knox is the attached affidavit of Jane Goddard, Madge’s daughter. If you add this up with documents you have already published – the decision of Justice Greenidge in the matter of the charging order against Madge’s shares, the Shaughnessy Reasons and the decision of Justice Kaye Goodridge, what emerges is:

1. Jane Goddard and her husband, Larry Goddard, borrowed $4,322,400.00 from Peter Allard on the security of their house at Hanson – value in 2002 was probably $600,000.00 maximum. Yet, Mr. Allard loaned the Goddards over $3.5 million more than the house was worth. Interesting. Presumably, the solicitors Mr. Allard employed in Barbados to act for him failed to persuade him that a mortgage of 720% (or 7.204 times) more than the property was worth, was not good business

2. At some point, however, someone must have thought that the collateral for the loan was inadequate, so they asked that Madge Knox’s shares in Kingsland Estates be used to support the collateral supplied by the Goddard house.

3. Ignoring the fact that she had received notification by way of legal proceedings served on her that there was an application before the courts to get a charging order on her shares, Madge Knox transferred those shares into a trust in favour of her children of which she was allegedly trustee.

4. Now, I saw in one of John Knox’s affidavits that I have not sent to you, but I will as soon as I can get it back from my “supplier” that this “trust” was a Miami-based trust in the control of his sister, Kathleen Davis. Meanwhile, the share certificates themselves, for reasons of “security” according to the Prof, are located in Canada. Please note, David, that the implication in the reference to the shares by Prof. Knox is as if these shares remain the property of his mother.

5. If you look at the Reasons of Justice Shaughnessy on page 14, Footnote #1, you will see that Peter Allard was believed by Fishy Heaslet to have sold his “upside” in Kingsland to Little Billy Goat’s law firm. Presumable “upside” refers to Madge Knox shares in Kingsland.

6. So, who owns Madge Knox’s shares? If it is Madge Knox, as I contend and as Greenidge J clearly also believes, then what is Nelson Barbados doing bringing this case? What has it got to do with Nelson?

Peter Allard is a Canadian lawyer. It does not make sense to me that a lawyer, no matter from what country, would loan almost $4.5 million on collateral of only $600,000. Also, I am told that Mr. Allard has lived in Barbados since about 1992 and owns a house at Chancery Lane and, of course, the Graeme Hall Swamp – and yet this Canadian lawyer would apparently wish to have us believe that he had no knowledge of Barbados land prices. Also interesting that Mr. Allard goes after the Kingsland shares that he MUST have known would be subject to a charging order and that there was a very strong probability that the transfer would be set aside. In connection with that, also very interesting that Mr. Allard has not gone after the Goddard house when for him to take possession of that in settlement of the debt that Larry and Jane Goddard owe him would be far less difficult than trying to enforce a probably unenforceable lien against Madge’s shares.

I have attached the documents I have referred to, except the one I will try to get for you. Apart from the Jane Goddard affidavit, you have published them all before.

My conclusions? I cannot make sense of it no way. Too many questions left unanswered and with no discernable answers to them and Quel Truth is not giving anything away. I agree with you there are gaping holes. It is a well known fact round Barbados that Allard derives his money from a family trust and that he inherited, rather than earned, his money. Maybe it is simply that Allard and McKenzie and the Knox family are stupid. After all, they have not answered a single one of my questions. If they were acting in good faith, the answers should not be withheld and, even if they were all of them stupid but still acting in good faith, they would be able and WILLING to answer at least some of the questions. So, I don’t know what to tell you.

All I am sure of is that it is a nonsense case attempting to retry a case they lost and conducted in such a way as to try to cause a lot of harm to Barbados. Chile, I got a problem with that. A big problem.

Related Links

6 comments

  • I was looking at Keltruth this morning. It seems that a body gone and taken a little billy goat and put it pon Madge’s back steps. Keltruth has put out an appeal to anyone who has lost this goat to contact them.

    Keltruth should phone the firm of Crawford, McKenzie, McLean, Anderon & Duncan and see if it has lost its goat. But if so, I want to know how it eluded Barbados immigration, specially with these new (and timely) proposed regulations.

    Keltruth tells us that, if unclaimed, their goat is going to the RSPCA. Goat stew coming up, girls and boys.

    Also, it is encouraging as it now appears that Keltruth may have stopped taking advice from farmyard animals.

    Keltruth says that there are some people who think the appearance of this little billy goat is a threat. But I think it is a maunfactured threat – like the others. The truth is that the goat was just looking for its mummy – but, son, Mummy turning you over to the RSPCA. Wonder if she gon eat some of the stew.

    But, goat asided, WHAT ABOUT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

    Like

  • How very confusing. We are not lawyers of course but we are challenged to comprehend how Madge’s shares could have been inserted in a trust when it was known that there was a challenge via the court. What would have motivated Madge or anyone for that matter to ignore the court notification?

    What are we missing here?

    Like

  • David,

    Nothing missing. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand. Just take one old divorcee and her three soocially challenged children and a Canadian billionaire and, of course, don’t forget the goat and Fishy and why do you think the laws that apply to the rest of us should apply to them? Don’t you know that they are above the law? And if they appeal to that law and the law doesn’t go along with them, then they are PERFECTLY entitled to go and take their case to whatever country they choose.

    I gave an estimate that this case in Canada had cost Bajans about $2 million in lawyers’ fees so far. A Canadian lawyer friend of mine tells me that I am wrong. That the fees now would be more like $3 million Barbados dollars.

    Whether you like Sir David Simmons and the attorney general and the PM or not, can you see any of the three of them permitting a case like this one in Canada to be entertained by the Barbados courts if, as is clear, the correct jurisdiction was Canada? No way. Barbados has too much respect for Canada. Pity this respect is not reciprocated by Canada.

    That the Canadian courts have entertained this case, whether the judge likes it or not and given the fact that it is regurgutating issues already tried by the Privy Council and that the plaintiff has no standing, destroys any comity or respect that the judge may like to think that his court enjoys internationally.

    Frankly, Billy Goat McKenzie has acted in a manner unbecoming a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, although, given the pitifully low standards of that organization, maybe his conduct is not unbecoming. It would be unbecoming in Barbados and it would be disbarrable in England and Wales. But Canada, being only recently self-governing, enjoys far lower standards.

    No, David, you are missing nothing. You have the whole, disgraceful issue right in front of you.

    In a nutshell, the Canadian courts are sitting in judgment on Her Majesty the Queen and on the sovereign independent state of Barbados.

    Like

  • Pingback: The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth So Help Me ?~The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part V « Barbados Underground - bringing the news to the people

  • Pingback: » Kingsland Directors Do It Again! AGM called in Violation of Company’s Act Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA.

  • I have been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts on this
    sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web
    site. Studying this information So i’m happy to exhibit that I have
    an incredibly good uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed.
    I most definitely will make certain to do not put out of
    your mind this website and give it a glance regularly.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s