Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Bajan Bloggers Go To Court~The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part X

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by BWWR

I have just received the exhibits from the affidavit of Mr. John Knox of the 12th November 2007. The affidavit itself is already posted by BU. Certain members of the BU family had asked for sight of certain of these exhibits. I had omitted to post them with the affidavit because it is nuff paper. 177 pages and I have had to post them to BU in three separate e-mails, otherwise it will not go through. These are Exhibits A – H, Exhibits I – P and Exhibits Q – U.

Featured in the exhibits are comments from certain bloggers, some of them members of the BU family. We have Pat and Reality Check and Hants and Now I Am Vex and Wishing in Vain and Sapadillo and Yardbroom – everybody – even you, Bimbro are there big and bold as brass. Most prolific of all is none other than our own Anonymous. And all your comments are now enshrined in the Canadian action brought by Madge Knox and Peter Allard with the assistance of one Goat and one Fish under the alias of Nelson Barbados Group Limited in the Ontario Superior Court of Appeal.

However, I would like to direct attention to Exhibit “C” and I ask that you tear yourselves away from the contemplation of your own aliases and comments and have a look at Exhibit “C”. Exhibit “C” is a letter written to Kathleen Davis (allegedly and certainly better known as Keltruth) by US Consul General Robert Fretz on April 19 2005 in response to Kathleen’s letter of February 9 (year omitted) to the US Ambassador, which letter is NOT exhibited. There are several items to note in this letter of Mr. Fretz, but before I get there, I would like to ask a favour of Keltruth – we have Mr. Fretz’s letter. Please post the letter of Kathleen Davis to which it responds. You managed to post Exhibit P on its own. Indulge we poor Bajans with Kathleen’s letter. I certainly am all agog to see its contents.

So back to Mr. Fretz’s letter from which we learn:

First: Kathleen Davis holds dual nationality (Barbados and USA) and her letter deals with her fears for her personal safety should she visit Barbados. So presumably she got to get Mummy to come visit she in Miami these days – or has she overcome her fears of we Bajans – presumably with a little professional help?

Second: Kathleen Davis seeks the intervention of the United States Government on behalf of her mother, Madge Knox, a Bajan, in respect of a land issue respecting land her mother allegedly owns in Barbados. Clearly, Mr. Fretz, obviously an experienced diplomat who sees no reason to run to the US President and State Department and Pentagon and urge that they, Iraq-like, invade Barbados on Madge Knox’s (make that Madge Knox/PETER ALLARD) behalf or to seek that they institute sanctions gainst we,  avoids the lamentable diplomatic faux pas of his Canadian counterpart, Mr. Michael C. Welsh (Canada’s High Commissioner) at Exhibit “P” of the same affidavit.

In other words, the Americans, unlike the Canadians, recognize and uphold Barbados’ sovereign rights and independence and laws.

In re-reading these exhibits, I cannot help but question Keltruth and specially BFP as these exhibits raise the suspicion that both Keltruth and BFP are here and probably financially supported for one sole purpose. To use the words of Bajans contributing to the blogs as a means (and a potent one) of addressing certain issues in Barbados (that need to be changed by us Bajans and our government and institutions) in order to represent us to the international community as a bunch of illiterate violent savages incapable and undeserving of governing ourselves.

But hey, many members of the BU family have now had their words enshrined in the files of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and for that we must be grateful and thank Mental Madge and the little Knoxs, with special mention to the Goat and the Fish and, of course, to our own, or Guyana’s own (which as we know is the same thing) Alair Shepherd. And when you see Mental Madge and the little Knoxs on the street, remember they are deities not subject to the same laws as we mortal Bajans. So avert your awe-struck gaze and turn silently and respectfully away, least they in their dreadful wrath and ire sue the Country of Barbados in Venezuela.

Related Stories

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

36 responses to “Bajan Bloggers Go To Court~The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part X”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    BWWR

    If I have spoken what I believe to be the truth and if I have not defamed or libeled anyone, why would I worry about who reads or hears my words?

    It is called freedom of expression.

    See if you can find Prime Minister David Thompson’s FEAR NOT speech in the Nation’s archives and that will give you an idea of what it has been like in Barbados.

    I’ll give you a clue. It is in today’s paper!!

    It reflects much of what you will find on the blogs in the past.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    BWWR

    Man, dese files tekking for evuh to download.

    Try scannin dem at 1 bit resolution next time ef dum is jes tex.

    I en able to wait to see ef de Anonymous in dem was the same as me.

    Whoever provided the vent for many Bajans to freely say, with no fear, the things the PM is saying in today’s paper needs to be given a medal.

  3. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ BWWR

    Please point me to the relevant exhibit. I cant wade through all dem 1777777 pages of stuff that the Professor John Knox submitted. So, it seems to me, that BFP was set up to mine our expostulations based on the incomplete, sensationalized information which they themselves put up on the net, to support the case of Madge Knox? Now we know who is sleeping in whose bed. What deviance.

    So, what gives them the right to criticize and run down others when they themselves appear to have feet of clay? Well stone the crows! I am damn glad that you posted some of the documents up here and that I am ‘lucid’ enough to read and understand what they say.

    hmmmmmmm …… I wonder what those donkeys would say, if the defendants mined this site and submitted it as exhibits to their affidavits. Just goes to show how smart those people are. As smart as the Professor!

  4. Bimbro Avatar
    Bimbro

    Does this mean that I’m famous!! Can I guh home an res now?!!

    Laaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddddddd!!!!

  5. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Pat, it is Exhibit “C”. I will re-post just that exhibit to David later on.

    Anonymous, how do you know that your comments are not legally defamatory? Are you a lawyer? Your comments to date would suggest to me that your expertise is fishing rather than law.

    As for the PM, he can give as many speeches as he likes encouraging people to speak out, but unless he changes the laws of defamation, when you implement his suggestions and “hold forth” in a defamatory way, let me assure you, you are going to get sued and do you seriously think the PM is going to enact legislation to save you just because you did as you think he said you should do? More fool you. I am quite sure that a lawyer with the experience of David Thompson and also with Mr. Thompson’s respect for the intelligence of the people of Barbados (and he has great respect for that) assumed (wrongly in your case it seems, but rightly for everybody else) that we Bajans would all realize that his call for free speech did NOT extend to legally defamatory and possibly criminal utterances.

    At paragraph 4 of the reasons of Shaughnessy J. of the Ontario Court, the judge sums up what is sought by Nelson/Allard Knox thus:

    “[4] There are three contested motions which are argued before this Court:

    (a) The plaintiff’s motion for directions respecting the location of the cross examinations of the defendant affiants who are resident in Barbados or alternatively an order that the defendants pay for personal security for the cross-examinations.
    (b) The Plaintiff’s motion for an order to compel Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. to collect and produce information found on the internet.
    (c) The defendant Price Waterhouse Coopers (Barbados) motion which is supported by most of the defendants for an order for directions relating to the conduct of the cross-examinations.”

    [4] (b) is the one to look at. If the Judge had issued the order asked for by Nelson and had ordered Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. to reveal the details (names and addresses) of bloggers and if the Barbados courts could have been persuaded (as Nelson’s counsel believed they could) to enforce the order of the Ontario courts then you can be sure that defence counsel would have sought that the order be expanded so that those bloggers whose blogs are exhibited had their real names and addresses revealed and confirmed by C&W.

    That is when the legal circus would have begun. You would have had lawyers estimating our net worth and investigating our assets and then the lawsuits would have begun – for defamation, Anonymous. The only people who would have been safe are bloggers who, along with their providers, are outside of Barbados – AND BLOG SITES WHOSE PROVIDERS ARE OUTSIDE OF BARBADOS. Like Keltruth and most likely BFP. And, the way I do things, me and, I would hazard a guess, Anonymous. The rest of wunna? Well, one of my grandsons has a saying that I particularly dislike, but it fits the bill here, but if he uses it in front of me, I will wash his mouth out with soap. But to quote him, the bloggers with a Bajan provider would have been “screwed, blued and tattooed”.

    Additional, therefore, to the morass of nonsense litigation (she has lost every single one so far) launched by Madge Knox, there would have been a massive amount of libel lawsuits (some of them for criminal libel) clogging the Barbados courts to the extreme financial detriment of the bona fide bloggers who, with their providers, are in Barbados. Blogging, which can have such a positive effect for the betterment of our society, would have been all but eradicated by Mental Madge and the Knoxettes with special guests Almighty Allard, Billy Goat and Stewed Fish.

    That, folks, is what they were aiming at.

    And who would have come off with no problems? Keltruth and, I am betting, BFP.

    Anyway, it did not work for MM and the K-ettes and their guests to the fête for the dissolution of Barbados’ independence and its annexation by Canada (having failed with the good old USA) and they are left with a $450,000 bill (so far) for their little get-together. As sharks go, I am coming around to the view that Mental Madge, the Knoxs, Allard, Goat and Fishy make poor old Cox and Classic look like a guppy.

    Bimbro, of course you are famous. How could it be otherwise?

  6. Bimbro Avatar
    Bimbro

    Hi BW, thanks for the compliment bro. but my sole, true desire is simply to be allowed to express my unfettered, opinion and be released from the silly, ban by BFP!!

    Thanks, anyway!!

    Regards!!

  7. David Avatar
    David

    Fill in the blanks someone.

    How does the Court give credence to commenter’s comments submitted under monikers filed to Bajan blogs?

    We are lost!!!

    PS. The 3 PDF documents contain several pages. BU family members can click on the icon which looks like a binocular and search for information by typing ‘keywords’.

    David

  8. Juris Avatar
    Juris

    The court will give no credence to bloggers’ comments, David. I don’t know what kind of lawyer would include them in a court action.

  9. Sapidillo Avatar
    Sapidillo

    This seems like a joke that you can’t even laugh at.

  10. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @Juris

    Did you not see one of John Knox’s affidavits? I was surprised, and I am no legal begal. I assumed he prepared it himself – rambling, incoherent, lacking flow and poor writing. That one he had sworn at the Canadian High Commission in Bridgetown. Who can say whether he prepared this one himself?

    I would love to read all thos pages, but it is harvest time. I have to process, freeze, can and dry my crop. Less time to blog and read all those exhibits.

    @Sapidillo

    Just goes to show how “smart” some people are. Especially some educated at the Barbadian taxpayers expense.

    @BWWR

    We had that conversation re C&W and the identity of bloggers more than a year agon on BFP. But, if my recollection is correct, they said that the BLP, were the alleged demanders of the identities of us bloggers. I did not really care one way or the other.

  11. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Sorry, Pat, I don’t remember that one at all.

  12. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    OFF TOPIC

    Everyone must try Google Chrome.

  13. David Avatar
    David

    Please update the BU family, what is the status of this case?

    When will it END!?!

  14. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    David,

    My information is that on December 8, the Ontario Court will begin hearings to decide if it has the jurisdicition and competence to try the case. It is generally thought that it will rule that it has not and that the case must be tried in Barbados by the Barbados courts. That ought to be the end as far as Canada is concerned.

    Several of the defendants and the plaintiff’s affiant, John Knox, have sworn affidavits relating to the jurisdictional hearing and prior to that hearing, it is the order of the judge that cross-examinations may take place of the affiants of these affidavits. The judge has further ordered that the scope of questioning must be strictly limited to matters pertaining to the jurisdicitional hearing and none others.

    Therefore, logically, all cross-examinations ought to take place by mid-November. All the cross-examination except for those of John Knox and Iain Deane (see, I spelled it right, no name and anonymous – same person, I suspect). Those of Mr. Knox and Mr. Deane will take place in Ontario, either in Toronto or Barrie, likely Barrie as the Goat has expressed his fear of coming to Toronto – seems he feels at risk in both Toronto and Barbados.

    However, the Goat is not through yet. He is now trying to go behind the Order of Shaughnessy J. and introduce lines of questioning that have been specifically excluded. If I were the judge, I would place him in Her Majesty’s goat pen until he learns manners (or law – but that may be asking too much).

    All counsel have responded to the Goat saying that no way will their clients be examined on issues excluded by the judge, so we will have to wait now to see what happens. I have been sent a copy of the Goat’s letter where he tries it on for size and I will have sent to BU. In the unlikely event that they are willing to assist us, I ask Keltruth to provide copies of defence counsels’ responses. I do not have those. I know that Keltruth does, but don’t anyone hold their breath.

    If the jurisdictional motion is heard December 8, then we can expect the decision of the Court by about mid-January. However:

    I see from the Barbados court callender that the hearing of the fraud action brought by Iain Deane (got it right again, nn/anon) is set down for January 22 and 23. By this action, Iain seeks to have the Court set aside the transfer of Madge’s shares and order that the share certificates be delivered up to him. I would say that this is a no-brainer. Once the Order has been issued, all Iain has to do is to get Kingsland to re-issue Madge’s shares to replace those being held in Ontario and then offer them for sale ON THE OPEN MARKET. Classic and Owen Deane (who apart from Madge are the only shareholders) may assert their preemptive rights, but ONLY if they meet the price offered to Iain from outside. Madge, of course, can redeem the shares by paying Iain what she owes him. Therefore the question of fair value will arise and, since Madge is trying to claim that her shares are worth over $100 million, it is likely that, if she chooses to redeem the charging order, the matter will have to be referred to the Courts for a decision as to the value of the shares. Iain is allowed to sell only so many of the shares as will satisfy his claims against Madge.

    However, the entire transfer will be voided and therefore Nelson will no longer have grounds and standing to bring its action. But when has a little thing like standing ever bothered the Goat, Almighty Allard and Mental Madge and the Knoxettes.

    Logically, therefore, it ought to end around January. However, I would not hold my breath, because we are dealing with people who lack logic – and respect for and knowledge of the law. In fact they have no respect for anyone and anything unless it conforms to their wishes and desires.

    I think that to fully address your question, however, I ought to add that once Iain has satisfied his claims against Madge, she will then have to face a rash of charging orders from other defendants and there is no doubt that these will be granted.

    It then depends on the value of the shares as to whether or not Madge gets anything out of her interest in her father’s company that she has so willingly risked for the furtherance of the desires and revenge of Peter Allard. Personally, given her unspeakable conduct and the way she has tried to portray herself to the Bajan public and the World as an indigent black widow, intead of the spoiled, privileged, old, divorced red woman that she is, she ought to end up in the way in which she has portrayed herself. But that is a matter for the Almighty – and I do not mean Peter Allard.

  15. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    If you look immediately above to what I wrote earlier, you will see that David has added a link. This link is to a letter received by all defence counsel from the Goat. I have also attached a copy of Rule 34.12(2) to which the Goat refers, as well as the relevant section of the Osborne Report, to which he also refers.

    Hmmmmmmmm. It appears that the suggestion for the change to the Ontario Rules (which suggested change the Goat wishes to adopt) does not find favour with Mr. Osborne Q.C. and he vetos it in his report to the Ontario Legislature. Yet, the Goat wants everyone to apply a suggested change of proceedure that i not and never will be, in force.

    We also see that the Goat will probably be in Barbados in October. It is our duty as Bajans to demonstrate to the Goat and the World that we are not as we are protrayed by Keltruth and BFP, that is to say a bunch of ignorant, illiterate savages. But rather we are an educated, peaceful and friendly people who go to great lengths to ensure the safety and enjoyment of everyone who visits us, even goats.

    Therefore, if any of us happen to run into McKenzie, we must realize that he may have difficulty in understanding us when we speak to him in English (he certainly will not understand Bajan) and we ought therefore to address him in Goat – it is not a complicated language. It only has one word. Baaaaaaaaaa!

  16. no name Avatar
    no name

    BWWR,

    I am not “anonymous”.

  17. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Very glad to hear it, no name. Just a guess on my part – similar styles, but that of course doesn’t prove anything and it was merely a suggestion on my part. Thanks for putting my mind and suspicions to rest. At least I was not trying to out anyone – I think that people who do that on the blogs are just plain rude. Almost as bad as people who attach blogs as exhibits to pleadings to support an application for orders to have providers identify their bloggers, thus opening a whole can of worms and endangering us all. Don’t you agree?

  18. no name Avatar
    no name

    BWWR,

    Not really. I try to keep an open mind until I have enough information to draw my own conclusions.

  19. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Very wise, no name. VERY WISE! I am doing my poor best to make all the information available, but I don’t have access to everything and so there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. It would be SO helpful if Keltruth would help us all by posting the documents some of us have asked for. There are the financials that Brutus has asked for and which I myself would really like to see and yesterday I asked to see the letter that Kathleen Davis wrote to the America Ambassador to Barbados that occasioned the response from the Consul General. So many things we have asked to see and not got. There is also the bill for Nelson’s security studies (2 of them) that we have never seen, but, of course, we have seen the one that Keltruth said was to be paid by PwC on behalf of Peter Simmon, but it turned out that Nelson had to pay it instead. Don’t you agree that it would go a long way to answering our questionsif we could see these and other documents that we have requested from Keltruth and which it so clearly has? It would certainly help you to get enough information to reach an informed conclusion. Don’t you think so? Things can go so wrong and so many errorenous conclusions can be taken if people don’t hear both sides or if one side refuses to allow relevant documents in its possession to be seen and considered. I realize that you, no name, probably have no close connection with the Knox family at all, but if you happen to know anyone who does, maybe you could ask them to be so generous as to answer our outstanding questions and post the documents we have asked for. You yourself will benefit by being able to draw a conclusion – and since you always comment on this matter, one must assume that you would be happy to be able to draw your conclusions and share them with them with me.

  20. Straight talk Avatar
    Straight talk

    BWWR:

    As the official spokesperson for our defence of this action, please answer this question which is gnawing at me.

    Why would Price, Waterhouse, Coopers a company with no known association with Sir David Simmons, even consider paying for that linguistics “expert”‘s analysis?

    They must have been approached to even consider funding the opinion.

    Why would anyone approach an auditor and solicit funds to help their defence, and for what reason would an accounting firm fund a project far outside their professional remit?

    From what I’ve read up to this point, everything is following the correct legal procedure, except the jarring fact of why our Chief Justice needs to be funded by a private company to help with his defence.

  21. no name Avatar
    no name

    BWWR,

    Guess we all will have to watch and pray.

  22. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ BWWR

    I just read the letter from the US Embassy to Kathy Davis. One can infer from the reply that Barbados is now home to the “Sopranos”, so Ms. Davis does not feel safe to visit there. It would appear that she considers it ‘little Sicily’!

    However, I wonder how an educated woman can have the nerve to write the American Government to ask them to interfere in an internal Barbados matter. Where Barbados is a sovereign nation and her mother a citizen of that said nation. But wait, I forgot. George Bush invaded two other sovereign nations…… hahaha

    Secondly, when Mrs. Davis took out her American citizenship she would have been informed that when returning to her “country of birth” her full Barbadian citizenship reverts and the US would have little recourse in disputes with the government.

    All she has done is make those Americans see her as dense. I wonder what she did after she got that reply. I wonder why she did not give her brother her letter to attach to his affidavit. I really dont see what purpose it serves. Silly family. Ouch! not you Iain.

  23. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Straight talk, unlike this old black woman, you do not read. There is no mention of the CJ in this. The mention is of Peter Simmons. Now, since you appear to be an oly child, let me tell you how this works. I have three sisters and two brothers. I love them dearly, but from the time we became adults, we looked after our own needs.

    As to who PwC acted as it did, I have already explained my theory on that MONTHS ago. Go back and read.

  24. Straight talk Avatar
    Straight talk

    I read your justification for their financial backing of a co-defendant, and that left me to wonder why would PwC offer to fund the expert witness to propound that supposed threats were nothing of the sort.

    The “threats” don’t involve PwC at all, indeed as you say it leads me to think in terms of your family analogy.

    All ranks closed, and helping each other.

    Who approached whom, and why?

    Some would say this is the sign of a strong family,
    others may say it smacks of an intriguing conspiracy.
    If as you say, because the country is also a defendant, we are all part of this “family” why not answer the question?

    You appear to know everything else.

  25. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Straight talk, I have made a supported statements and I certainly have not offered “justifications”. If you do not UNDERSTAND what is going on then, to quote Pat, “Methinks you understand not what you readeth”. Well, I can appreciate that what may be straightforward to Pat and myself and the vast majority of the Bajan population worldwide may be difficult for some to understand. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let me simplify this by setting out the proposition on which your question (or was that “accusation”) was based and asking you some questions.

    The proposition, nothing more, nothing less, is:

    A/ You, a Barbados resident, are sued along with 66 other people, including some large, multi-national corporations the subsidiaries of which (being the parties sued) are located (along with their officers) in Barbados.

    B/ The lawsuit, filed in Canada, is on the subject of conduct in Barbados, assets in Barbados, people in Barbados and corporations in Barbados in which Government is NOT implicated, no matter what efforts are made to try to implicate it.

    C/ On this basis, you and your fellow defendants say, “Hey, Barbados is a sovereign state and is not a vassal state of Canada and therefore we will object to the jurisdiction being Canada and ask the Canadian courts to declare themselves not the right jurisdiction and therefore incompetent to try the matter. So, before the matter can be tried, the Canadian courts are asked have to decide if they can try it in the first place.

    D/ As a result of your objecting to the jurisdiction, you and other defendants (almost all of them) have filed affidavits to support your objection. That means that opposing counsel has the right to cross-examine those who swore the affidavits (affiants) objecting to Canada as the jurisdiction.

    E/ The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure that govern the conduct of court cases in Canada, dictate that if the affiants live outside of Ontario and Canada, they may opt for and insist that they be cross-examined in their country of residence. For instance, since I have learned to spell his name properly, Iain Deane has probably insisted that he be cross-examined in the United Kingdom where he lives, so the Goat and Iain’s counsel will be on a plane to the UK to examine Iain. To be able to insist on Canada as the venue for cross-examinations in the face of objections by the people to be cross-examined, you must show compelling reasons why this should be the case.

    F/ TO THE RESCUE, enter Stuart “Fishy” Heaslet and some unknown blogger. Fishy embarks of three fishing expeditions all carried out from Peter Allard’s Vancouver condo by way of telephone calls (two of them recorded without the recipient’s knowledge) to his colleague, Peter Simmons, trying desperately, and failing, to elicit information to place before the courts in Canada that will demonstrate that plaintiff’s counsel, K. William McKenzie (now universally known as Little Billy Goat or The Goat for short) and his “staff and family” are under threat in Barbados. Meanwhile some unknown blogger posts on Keltruth an alleged threat (real or fictitious) to the safety of Madge Knox and there are sundry other alleged (but not specified or evidenced) threats to the safety of John Knox, other than that John Knox claims he lost his job (as a low level lecturer which he and his family represent as being a professorship) at UWI Cave Hill because, Knox claims, of bias. As for the blog threats (on Keltruth, of course) against Madge Knox, the blogger in question could have been anyone and there is nothing to say that the blog was not written by friends of the Plaintiff, the Knox family and their supporters, or even the Goat itself, and dispatched from an Internet Café in Barbados simply to give credibility to the Goat’s motion.

    G/ However, these diverse bits and bobs are then handed over to two, not one but TWO, security experts in Canada for a report to be written that says Barbados is not safe. Defence counsel reads these and decides that the position of the plaintiff is not sound and that there is no credible threat and that the “expert” opinions are extremely subjective (a position with which the court agrees, as it happens, both at first and on appeal). By the way, if anyone is interested in seeing these reports for the plaintiff (both of them) along with the affidavit of Stacey Ball to which they are exhibited, I received them this morning and will happily post them.

    H/ Along with secret recordings and blogs and the two (2) reports from their security experts, the plaintiff goes to the court and asks that examinations take place in Canada as Barbados is, in the opinion of the Goat, not safe. But not just Canada. It seems that the Goat thinks that the long arm of Barbados will reach even unto Toronto and is scared to go there as well and elects that the Holiday Inn in Barrie, Ontario (round the corner from the offices of both plaintiff and Goat Pen) is safer.

    I/ You, along with 57 other defendants, resist the application, asking that examinations take place in Barbados, for whatever reason – you may have a pregnant wife, one of your children may be very ill, you may have a business that you cannot leave – the reasons are unimportant – what is important is that you do not perceive that Barbados is a threat and you wish to be examined there as is your right under Canadian law. So you resist the Goat’s motion.

    J/ THIS IS IMPORTANT. The common ground is that you do not wish to go to Canada to be cross-examined.

    K/ So, you must now address and overcome the plaintiff’s case, including the two expert reports. Now, Straight talk, are you telling me that you do not think that the defendants have a right to level the playing field by assisting the court with their own expert’s report? If so, I will be happy to do a little straight talking to you. However, I am sure that, like all Bajans (if you are a Bajan at all) you are a lover of fair play. Therefore, the defendants – ALL OF THEM – need to retain an independent expert and see if, in her (or his) unbiased opinion there is a threat (and the courts will soon spot if there is any suggestion of bias – well they held there was a LOT of bias in the two Nelson reports) OR NOT. My legal and business experience dictates to me that this is a cost that would have had to have been undertaken to be borne by ALL the defendants opposing the plaintiff’s motion, not just Peter Simmons.

    L/ If the plaintiff wins and the cross-examinations are ordered for Barbados, then its two expert reports would have to be paid for by the defendants who resisted its motion. BUT as the defendants won the court would have ordered that the plaintiff pay for the defendant’s expert report.

    That is the matter in as simple terms and as close to a nutshell as I can make it.

    Now here are your questions.

    1. Given the above scenario, would you as a defendant call for a cost estimate of the expert report? I would and I am assuming that this was in fact done, but not being a defendant, I don’t know.

    2. Having got the estimate and sent off a cheque to your counsel for your share, would you not consider it reasonable that the funds be paid into one holding account with one legal firm and that one counsel (instead of several) take on the job of locating, engaging and PAYING the expert? I would think that this is reasonable since they would all be sharing (as it were) the report.

    3. The lawyer for one of the multi-nationals can in all probability help you there and the best one is chosen at a meeting of defendant’s counsel and everyone pays their share into that lawyer’s firm and asks that lawyer make the arrangements and pay the bill? It does to me.

    4. So, when the lawyer writes to the expert (and the expert would require that he do so) submitting all the material to be studied, that letter would also state to whom the expert’s bill ought to be sent, although as the letter commissioning the expert is on that lawyer’s a statement as to whom to send the bill is not necessary – it is implied). Would you agree? Or do you think each man should be sent his own bill and have to pay them individually and the expert asked to generate 57 different invoices? And if you say yes to that, then, my friend, you need to find a job with few (if any) demands.

    5. Now, the Plaintiff lost the motion and is ordered to pay costs and disbursements. Among those disbursements is the bill for the defendants’ (including you) expert. So who do you think is going to send in that bill as evidence of the cost to the Goat? Well, it would be the lawyer who paid it with, among others, your funds – which is not your lawyer, but one whom all the defendants have chosen to deal with the matter of their expert’s report. I think we can safely leave the matter of your recouping your initial outlay in the safe and secure hands of your lawyer and your co-defendant’s lawyer.

    6. The Goat, meanwhile, realizing that he has two blog sites financed by Allard the Almighty and Mental Madge, sends a copy of this bill off to our friends at Keltruth who, because the report is primarily focused on two surreptitiously recorded conversations between Fishy and Peter Simmons, reckons that, because Peter’s brother is CJ, they will make political hay out of it, in which endeavour they can count on the trumpeting and support of the other Allard-supported blog, BFP. Keltruth does not post the bills of its (Knox/Allard/Nelson) own two experts, only that paid by all the objecting defendants in their COMMON cause and routed through the PwC lawyer for the sake of convenience – to have their examinations conducted in Barbados. Have you noticed this omission on Keltruth? If not, go back there and tell me I am wrong.

    Finally, I have to ask did you fall for this scam by Keltruth and BFP. Actually, forget it. I will answer that for you. YES, YOU DID.

    I wish I did know everything, Straight talk. However, as you will see above, I am still waiting for Keltruth to fill in many blanks for me – we all are. I, as a Bajan, am trying to figure out just why I am being sued.

    Anyway, I trust that answers your question and if not and you wish to dispute what I have said, instead of taking it up with me, there are many lawyers in Barbados and I sincerely doubt that any Bajan does not count among his friends at least one lawyer. So, Straight talk, take this reply from me and ask one of your lawyer friends if she/he agrees with me. I think you will find that they will agree – with me.

    Pat chile, lucid and well considered as always. I have not seen Iain for over 30 years and last time the blood didn’t tek. Maybe it will be different if I am spared to meet him again. Sorry if I mis-spelled his name. I looked it up on the internet and I see that his is the Scotch spelling and then I rememberd that his late mother (a very nice woman) was Scotch.

  26. no name Avatar
    no name

    I am not sure I understand this.

    We taxpayers are paying for the Government to defend us and itself in this Canadian case. Right? Is the Government one of the “objecting defendants”?

    If so, you are saying that the Government chose PwC “paid by all the objecting defendants in their COMMON cause and routed through the PwC lawyer for the sake of convenience” the monies to pay an expert for an opinion?

    Cannot get my head around that one.

  27. no name Avatar
    no name

    The taxpayers of Barbados will have to give serious thought to how our tax money is being spent in this Canadian case.

    What is the name of the lawyer who is defending us (taxpayers)? We have the right to have a say in how our money is being spent and how we are being represented.

  28. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Well, no name, if you look at Keltruth, you will find the names of the lawyers and who represented what defendant. If you look, however, at BU, you will find posted the decision on the appeal and that, in the “style of cause” will show you if the government of Barbados objected.

    The rest of your comments, though interesting because of your thought process, do not quite add up. You are saying, in effect, that, having elected a government to look after you, you still think that you should have a say in how the government is run. How the government conducts the affairs of the nation – down to which lawyer they ought to hire to represent the interests of the country.

    Well, no name, you do have a say. It is called a general election and we just had one. In the not-too-distant future, there will be another one and you will then, with your vote, decide whether the government has done its job or not and, if so, presumably, you will vote to keep them on – and if your view is the majority, then it will prevail.

    This is how a democracy works. I would add that if you want to have the powers you say, then, repectfully, go stand for parlaiment and don’t wait for a handout from an Allard annexation or, if you lose the election, fail to pay over your deposit and then sue the country in another country.

  29. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think I am madly in love with BWWR. Keep it up girl!

  30. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    Thanks BWWR.

    However, Iain’s mother was a Scot. Scotch is the alcoholic beverage – which I enjoy. I excuse you on this instance. lol! You are getting on in years and that was a long explanation to Straight Talk.

    Be carefull how much information you give out. You dont want the folks at Keltruth to figure out who you are. I already have you down to two possibles. If you have such details on the family, if they have any smarts, they will start figuring.

    On the other thread, Iain responded to one of my posts. We met in the past when I worked in the Courts, but I never linked him with the case. We may touch base again in Bim.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    BWWR

    It is your finely developed motherly instincts that tell you that all’s not well with Iain. That probably explains why over 30 years ago the “blood didn’t tek”

    You see, it’s really a sad story, he had an unfortunate childhood, parents sent him away early on and I don’t think he ever forgave them.

    In some ways he is still a child but if you are firm with him and keep him in his place he can be an absolutely lovely person.

    Give him a chance.

  32. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    Thanks anonymous. People change – me too. Sorry Pat. Scots. I like Scotch too.

  33. David Avatar
    David

    BWWR let us join the many who seem to be asking you questions.

    Do you think the Bajan media should be highlighting/exposing this case to Barbadians, or is there merit for them to retreat in the cloak that the matter is sub judice?

  34. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    David, do I think it is a matter that ought to be covered by the “legitimate” organs of the press? Hell yes. Do I think it will be? No. I think the biggest problem is that, unlike some of the blogs, the reporters for the “legitimate” press lack the necessary qualifications IN THIS AREA to do other than make a hash of any report they may write. Look at the mess that Patrick Hoyos made of those very subjective and biased reports from the Privy Council – having read them and that judgment, one wonders if Mr. Hoyos was in the correct court.

    Sub judice. Won’t fly here as an excuse for the local Bajan press. There can be no impropriety in reporting a case that is sub judice, not in Barbados, but in Canada. I think they have a duty to report it – a regional duty, since I understand that Almighty Allard has shifted the sphere of his operations to our sister islands of Dominica and Grenada. They ought to be warned. Next thing you know, you will have Stuart Heaslet telephoning highly placed people in those islands from Peter Allard’s property seeking to entrap them.

    So, sub judice does not an excuse make for the local “legitimate” press. Not in the Canadian case. In a Barbados one, yes. But this is not a Bajan case.

    This is a case where it could happen to ANY Bajan or Grenadian or Dominican. It has happened here and the press has to report it as a warning. Will it? NO. Even though they all have lawyers who can advise them on matters of defamation.

  35. BWWR Avatar
    BWWR

    David, after writing my reply to yours, I went out shopping and all the time your question stuck with me. I have to ask you this: If Canada and its PM and opposition leader and A-G and CJ were being sued in the Barbados courts, do you think tha the Canadian press would be in the slightest bit reticent about carrying full reports on it? I think that all the Canadian TV and radio networks and all the major papers would carry the story and commentaries and expert opinions. They would not be bound by the sub judice principal, simply because the action was filed in Barbados. So, since this case is the other way round, why are our TV and radio and newspapers hiding behind the sub judice excuse? I do not understand. Do you?

    I think it ought to be aired fully and not the one sided reports that made me suspicious as hell with photos of Madge and chickens pretending to be something she is not, never was and never will be – and, of course, the Hoyos reports before, during and after the Privy Council hearing.

    By the way, question. I forget whether it was the Advocate or the Nation that carried the daily Hoyos reports from London from the Privy Council, but I find it so difficult to believe that either Advocate or Nation paid for Hoyos’ trip. Did he pay for it himself, or was it a kind benefactor or “philanthropist” who paid for that?

  36. » Did David Simmons make an offer for Kingsland on behalf of a Company that did not exist? Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. – Miami, Florida, USA.

    […] behalf of S.B.G. The offer included an offer to buy Spion Kop for BD$1.2 million! The Directors of Kingsland recommended that this offer be […]

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading