Submitted by BWWR
I am loathed to write anything about Kingsland Estates to BU at this time, simply because there are so many other issues of far greater interest and importance to Bajans at the moment. However, I received today the Judgment of Howden J. of the Ontario courts and I am attaching it here for you.
To recap for your readers, BU published the Reasons of Justice Shaughnessy in which, among other issues, the surreptitiously taped conversation by Fishy Heaslet with Peter Simmons and any threat arising therefrom was addressed by Shaughnessy J. It was found that there was no threat. Madge Knox/Peter Allard aka Nelson Barbados, sought leave from Justice Shaughnessy to appeal his decision, and they were refused. Therefore, they applied for leave to appeal to a higher Ontario court and this court too refused, hence the decision of Howden J. that is posted here.
The issue of intemperate remarks made by Peter Simmons has caused Quel Truth to use its favourite series of words – again and again and again….and again. Outrageous, outrage, outraged. Quel Truth is, as we have all now seen, quite limited, particularly in its ability to answer any questions it doesn’t like. I have tried on several occasions to put Peter Simmon’s angry remarks into perspective. However, Howden J. does it indisputably and with an ease that makes me feel stupid. He says, at paragraph [28] of his excellent judgment:
“By their nature, Courts deal with many situations of animosity and even visceral hatred. The expression by one party of his interpretation of the anger of others towards the other party is neither unique nor unexpected. It should be noted that the alleged threatener in this case later indicated his total disapproval of any resort to violence. In this case, I see no error in the motion judge’s consideration of this issue”.
In other words, like anyone else, Peter got angry and the anger got the better of him for a short time during a conversation he was having with Fishy Heaslet, whom he reasonably considered to be, not only a colleague, but also a family friend whom Peter had invited to break bread with himself and his family at his home. Poor old Peter was guilty of bad judgment in his choice of friends and confidants, nothing more, when he vented his frustrations to Fishy. Anyway, that is quite obviously the view of the Ontario courts. I agree.
There have been other areas that Quel Truth, severally, has: (a) found outrageous; (b) been outraged by; (c) found to be an outrage. And I am not going to comment on them all. I will, however, confess to being amused by Mr. Alair Shepherd Q.C.’s letter to Mr. Clyde Turney Q.C, dated 8th July 2008 and posted by Quel Truth.
Blithely ignoring the fact that Madge Knox owes well over $10 million in court costs, with this amount escalating daily in post-judgment interest (about 8% p.a.), and has paid not one red cent of any of it, Mr. Shepherd protests vehemently to Mr. Turney that his client, Madge Knox, is not impecunious and that Mr. Turney has misled the Honourable Court (in the person of Madam Justice Kaye Goodridge – decision posted by BU previously) into thinking that his client is impecunious. Well, Quel Truth and Alair, if she is NOT impecunious, why she don’t pay her court-ordered debts?
Another issue rises out of Alair’s letter to Clyde. It confirms the view that Madge Knox owns the 28,570 shares in Kingsland claimed by Nelson Barbados to ground its action in the Canadian courts.
“Hmmmm”, as Quel Truth and BFP would say. Might this be the same Alair who represents Madge Knox (on record only as we all know) in the Canadian action? If so, why has Alair not assisted the Ontario courts by having his client (or maybe even the great Professor (retired) John Knox on behalf of his mother) swear and file an affidavit in the Ontario action stating that Nelson has no standing, as his client, Madge Knox, owns the shares in Kingsland and NOT, as it has claimed, Nelson? Simple answer. Madge Knox and Nelson are one in the same. It would appear that Mr. Shepherd has adopted, or maybe, as he is Queen’s Council, formulated and invented the Hal Gollup approach to the practice of law. I wonder if it will catch on.
I have always considered Alair to be a competent lightweight – sort of the type who follows ambulances. But I do think that even so, to ask Clyde Turney what he ought to advise Madge Knox puts Clyde in a dreadful position, as Clyde must have many suggestions for both Alair and Madge that it would not be becoming for a gentleman to utter.
Today, I have seen the latest from Quel Truth on the subject of Kingsland and this time roping in the late Muriel Deane. So, let us cut through the rhetoric to a few questions – and this time I DO have the answers. The questions are based on certain indisputable facts. These are: (a) In October 1998, Madge Knox sued her elder sister, Muriel Deane and prevented Muriel Deane from selling her shares in Kingsland in order to finance her support in her old age; (b) In 2001, Muriel won and Madge appealed and the injunction preventing Muriel from selling her shares to give herself some ease in her old age was continued until the appeal has been decided; (c) In 2003, Muriel (i) had to go into a home which was financed (and I wonder why) by the people suing her, namely Peter Allard and Jane Goddard, (ii) Muriel won the appeal and, (iii) Muriel also died.
So to my questions:
- Because of the completely altruistic and disinterested generosity of Jane Goddard and Peter Allard, did Muriel Deane make them executors of her Will?
Public records show that she did NOT. Muriel appointed her two nieces (one of them also being sued by Madge) namely Tess (the late Lee Deane’s daughter) and Rosemary (Keith Deane’s daughter) as her executors. Following Muriel’s death, Tess and Rosemary had to be substituted for Muriel in the case when it came to the Privy Council – so both of Muriel’s executors ended up being sued by Madge.
- Did Muriel leave ANYTHING to Madge Knox or her children or to Peter Allard?
She did NOT. The public records show that Muriel left her worldly belongings, including her Kingsland shares, to Lee Deane’s children, grandchildren and to Rosemary. Not a single mention of her “benefactors” Jane Goddard and Peter Allard.
It is typical of Quel Truth that, desperate as they now are to find something that someone, other than Barbados Free Press, will believe, they (and Barbados Free Press) have resorted, instead of dredging the gutters, to EXHUMATION. Using someone who is dead and cannot answer for herself.
BUT MURIEL DEANE’S LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT ANSWERS FOR HER!
Finally, I have it on excellent authority that the High Court in Barbados has set the date to hear the Writ of Summons for fraud against Madge Knox for late January 2009. Therefore, Madge is summonsed before the High Court of Barbados where we shall all have the chance to see this 85 year old divorcee examined and cross-examined.
Pat, chile, if you want some material for the TV series you writing on Kingsland and the Deanes, you got to go to that trial. See you there.
Related Links
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.