Submitted by BWWR
The latest development in the case that is truly entitled Mental Madge Knox and Almighty Peter Allard and others v the Country and People of Barbados and others is the cross-examinations that are scheduled to take place in Barbados within the next few weeks. Some of the defendants, including the Country of Barbados have filed a motion objecting to the Ontario courts having jurisdiction in this matter. In support of this motion, certain defendants have filed affidavits and the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provide that opposing counsel can cross-examine the affiants on their affidavits.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Nelson, tried (and failed) to show that all cross-examinations ought to be carried out in Ontario, on the insulting basis that Barbados (and even Toronto) were not safe for him, his staff, his family and Barbados resident and terminated-for-cause low-level lecturer at Cave Hill, John Knox. In support of the failed application, the plaintiff placed before the Ontario court (and I attach) subsequently discredited security reports by OBN Securities (attached as OBN1 and OBN2) and Global Risk International Inc. (attached as GRI Inc 1, GRI Inc 2 and GRI Inc 3). I post them, not because there is any merit in them, because there isn’t – but so that the BU family can refer to them if needed. How many of you and how many of our many repeat visitors recognize Barbados from these so-called security reports?
In denying the plaintiff’s application for, among other things, an order that cross-examinations should take place in Canada Justice Bryan Shaughnessy addressed the matter of the scope of the cross-examinations and made certain Orders. I repeat them here as follows:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR DIRECTIONS
[104] Counsel for the defendants bring a motion for directions and to which counsel for the Plaintiff, with a few exceptions, agreed.
[105] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendants had an opportunity to review a proposed draft Order at the hearing of this matter. They have agreed (save and except paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order detailed below) to the following terms:
1) The cross-examinations upon the affidavits delivered in support of the Defendants’ motions to contest the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court is limited to questions relating to the proper subject matter of the said motions, and in particular that:
(a) Such cross-examination will be limited to matters relevant to the Defendant’s motions to set aside service ex-juris, or permanently stay the action, on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction with respect to the matter or, alternatively or in addition, Ontario is not a forum conveniens; and
(b) without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the said cross-examinations shall not touch upon matters concerning the merits of the action, but must be limited to issues relative to jurisdiction simpliciter, juridicial advantage, natural justice, due process, public policy, fairness and forum non-conveniens, those being:
(i) in the case of jurisdiction:
1. the connection between the forum and the plaintiff’s claim;
2. the connection between the forum and the defendant;
3. unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction;
4. unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction;
5. involvement of other parties in the lawsuit;
6. the Court’s willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis;
7. whether the case is interprovincial or international;
8. comity and standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere.
(ii) and in the case of forum non-coveniens:
1. the location of the majority of the parties;
2. the location of key witnesses and evidence;
3. contractual provisions that specify applicable law or accord jurisdiction;
4. avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings;
5. the applicable law and its weight in comparison to the factual questions to be decided;
6. geographical factors suggesting the natural forum; and
7. whether declining jurisdiction would deprive the plaintiff of a legitimate juridicial advantage available in the domestic Court.
2) It is the Order of this Court that the cross-examinations be videotaped at the expense of the parties making the request.
3) All reply affidavits on the jurisdictional motion are to be delivered within 30 days of the release of these Reasons.
4) The cross-examination of the Barbados affiants in Barbados (excluding John Knox) will be arranged by Counsel for the parties and will not exceed 6 days in total length of time.
5) For each of the other non-resident affiants including John Knox, the cross-examinations will not exceed one day for each affiant.
6) Notices for examinations will not call for documents that go beyond the scope of this Order or that go to the merit of this action.
7) Mr. McKenzie will have the option to decide whether Mr. Knox is cross-examined in Barbados or Toronto.
This Order did not please counsel for Nelson, the goat named K. William McKenzie (Little Billy) and he has been doing all he can since to try to turn what is a cross-examination on affidavits sworn in a motion relating to jurisdiction, into an examination for discovery (that would take place only in the highly unlikely event that the Ontario courts decide that they have jurisdiction). So you got to axe the question. If Little Billy is so sure he got a case and Ontario has jurisdiction, why he don wait for he chance? Does he accuse the learned Canadian judge of judicial bias?
It appears that Little Billy knows full well that Ontario does not have jurisdiction, so he has to push for examinations for discovery so that he can try his best to get something….anything….to re-file the case in another country. So Little Billy is now trying to get everybody to agree to, as Shaughnessy J. puts it, putting the cart before the horse.
So here are the issues that are being squabbled over:
1. VENUE IN BARBADOS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATIONS
Defense counsel has written to Little Billy asking him that as Little Billy himself has endorsed the Barbados Hilton through Alan Bell’s “security report” posted above, that Little Billy book the Hilton for the cross-examinations. Naturally, look to Little Billy to try, desperately, to twist this – in which attempt he fools no one but himself and other goats. He replies in a letter dated September 18, 2008 (See LBG Let Sept 18):
“The irony of your pedantic letter is enticing. You seek now to rely upon that which you earlier denounced. If you are content to rely on Mr. Bell’s entire report, I would be supportive, but attempting to excerpt single passages ignores the overriding concerns that have faced us as we made the arrangements.
Your comment “There is clearly much more going on than meets the eye” is presumably directed at the non-disclosure by the defendants as to the ownership of the Hilton. You speak of the Hilton as being “neutral ground” and we have recently discovered that is not correct. The hotel is owned by a company, Needham’s Point, owned and controlled by the Government of Barbados. This fact alone creates a direct and insurmountable conflict of interest that makes it unacceptable. Under these circumstances, neither can we stay there, nor can we conduct examinations there………”
I have come to the conclusion that Little Billy is of mixed blood. One half only is goat and the other half is jackass. Because you know where he suggests the examination be held as being neutral ground? The conference room at INN CHAMBERS, the head of which is none other than our old friend, Alair Shepherd who is representing Mental Madge in the action, so can hardly be claimed to be neutral.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Little Billy’s client relies for standing on the claim that it is the owner of Madge Knox’s shares in Kingsland. Alair (better known as “Lilli Marlene”) must even now be preparing to go into court January 21st to defend Madge against an action for fraud that, if successful (and it looks to me like it will be) will see any transfers or charging of Madge’s shares set aside and those shares handed to the late Colin Deane’s estate to sell – as many as is necessary in settlement of its costs and charging order against Madge. So Lilly Marlene is trying to stave off an action in the courts which, if it succeeds, leaves Nelson without the necessary standing to bring their case at all. BUT ACCORDING TO LITTLE BILLY, THE HILTON IS NOT NEUTRAL, BUT LILLY MARLENE’S CHAMBERS ARE???!!!
2. TO VIDEOTAPE OR NOT TO VIDEOTAPE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Defense counsel then tries to get agreement that all the cross-examinations should be videotaped. Little Billy agrees, but then doesn’t. Little Billy cannot seem to bring himself to join other counsel in choosing a firm to carry out the videotaping on behalf of all. And as we know, Barbados has lots of firms who are very familiar with the whole process. Little Billy does not want to hire professionals, however. Oh no, he himself wants to be able to set up his camcorder to feed the video on to his hard drive so that it can be duplicated and copied and, although he doesn’t say so, edited so that it can be carried by Keltruth and the other Knox mouthpiece run by Jane Goddard, BFP – in an edited AND SUPPLEMENTED form. So Little Billy apparently thinks that the rest of the world just came down in the last shower of rain. Here is the relevant portion of Little Billy’ letter of September 19 2009 (LBG Let Sept 19) and reply from defense counsel (Def C Let Sept 22)
3. ORDER OF CROSS-EXAMINATIONS
It appears that Little Billy does not want to provide any order or schedule for cross-examinations which have to be completed, as you will see above, within 6 days in Barbados. He states that all those to be cross-examined must hold themselves available at his whim for all six days. So each morning, all the people to be cross-examined troop down to the place where the examinations are to take place – FOR SIX DAYS. Little Billy states that he will start with “David Simmons” but does not know when he will get round to the rest (ill mannered little half-bred goat thinking he can insult our country by not giving our citizens their titles – but there again, why not since his own supporter, Almighty Allard, has taken the same position through his two blog mouthpieces, Keltruth and the Jane Goddard-run BFP). So, if the Prime Minister of Barbados is to be examined, he must hold himself ready at the convenience of Little Billy for six days – and forget bout he job. Attached is the relevant portion of Little Billy’s letter of September 19 2008 called LBG re CJ.
And the Barbados press considers that this insulting behaviour is not worth reporting and instead chooses to hide behind the completely out-of-order excuse of sub judice? PRESUMABLY LIKE THEY THINK THE CANADIAN PRESS WOULD DO IF CIRCUMSTANCES WERE REVERSED!!!! Father, help thy children, cause the Nation, the Advocate and VOB sure as hell aren’t going to. Little Billy and Almighty Allard could arrange a Sidney Burnett Alleyne expedition to take Barbados over militarily and the Nation, Advocate and VOB would have their heads- or whatever part of them they store their few brains in – firmly buried in the sand at Cattlewash and not even notice, or of they did notice, not tell anybody bout it cause it did a secret.
4. EXAMINATIONS FOR DISCOVERY
It seems that Barbados’ system of discovery is deemed unacceptable/non-existent by the great experts on Barbadian law in Ontario. Indeed, the suggestion is that Barbados does not have any system of discovery – which is news to me and will be surprising to members of our legal fraternity and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The people who are debating this, all Canadian lawyers, are not, so far as I have been able to discover, members of the Barbados Bar or officers of the Barbados courts nor have they right of audience before Her Majesty the Queen in council. So, they lack the necessary professional standing to deliver such an opinion?
The most disturbing aspect of this whole issue now is the stated intent by Canadian counsel to withhold details of what is going on from the people of Barbados IN IMITATION OF THE BARBADOS PRESS. These Canadian counsel complain that the blogs have reproduced and posted correspondence in this matter – which is very true – but SO WHAT? Barbados and its people are parties to this action and you, Mr and Ms. Canadian lawyer, are having your inflated fees paid by us. Therefore, with no respect whatsoever, your claim that your duty as an officer of the Canadian court gives you the right to withhold information from the people whom you represent and who are paying your accounts is b*******. Next, please consider that this is not a matter involving national security nor any criminal investigation and the documents that you are seeking to withhold do not pose a potential threat to the lives and freedom of Bajans (or Canadians), nor do they contribute in any way to disrespecting the courts (of either country) – therefore kindly do not try to treat us as children – because we will find out what is happening – one way or another. No sort of official secrets legislation can possibly apply here and if a country is sued, its citizens must steadfastly demand the right to be informed.
5. VIDEOTAPING
HOWEVER, I agree on the matter of stringent security for the videotapes of cross-examinations. I do not think these should be released outside the confines of the court until after the case is determined – but when that happens, they MUST be released. I also believe firmly that these videotapes should be kept under lock and key by one party only and copies should NOT be sent to all counsel – instead if counsel requires copies, written transcripts should be provided them – and me and I undertake if I get my hands on copies to post them on BU.
I FIRMLY believe that the release of the videotapes and the opportunities given to ill-wishers of our country (headed by the Knox family and Almighty Allard) to tamper with these tapes, would constitute a national emergency and a considerable threat to the well-being of Barbados. We have seen how a tape recording of a conversation between Fishy Heaslet and Peter Simmons can be commented on for weeks on end by two blogs (namely the Knox/Allard-controlled Barbados Free Press and Keltruth), but never actually produced for people to read and form their own opinions. Once BU published the transcripts, the inherent lack of threat of violence that Keltruth and BFP claimed was there was revealed to be a figment of the agendas (not imaginations) of Keltruth and BFP. Recently, using half truths and outright lies, Keltruth, supported by Jane Goddard aka BFP, has written to each and every delegate to the UN trying to negatively impact a speech by our new prime minister and to embarrass him before the UN. Therefore, I have no doubt whatsoever that if Keltruth and BFP ever got hold of the videotapes of the cross-examinations, they would not post them accurately. Instead, using the mega-millions of Peter Allard, they would edit them and insert statements into them that were never made, in an effort to achieve their agenda, the ruin and disgrace of Barbados. In my view, this is tantamount to a declaration of economic war.
Keltruth itself has provided a precedent for this accusation of probable tampering with things electronic. I only just got to the bottom of that claim by Keltruth of judicial wrongdoing by Greenidge J. in excluding an audiotape that Mental Madge tried to introduce. I see that John Knox and Jane Goddard secretly and surreptitiously recorded a conversation they and their mother, Mental Madge, had with an unsuspecting Mr Richard Cox back in 1998. It was not a complete or formally identified recording and, when they tried to introduce it into evidence before Greenidge J., they failed to provide the court with actual copies of the recording OR transcripts of same. Instead, they quoted selected portions ONLY to the court and then complained recently that Greenidge J. threw it out and refused to consider it. Now explain to me why would a judge accept selected statements in an affidavit purporting to be supported by an audiotape that is not produced along with a full transcript?
I had promised the BU family that I would do my best to provide the videotapes once the examinations are completed. I have reconsidered and even if I were able to get copies of these, which I am advised seems extremely doubtful, I would consider that I was as much a traitor to my homeland if I posted them as Madge Knox, John Knox, Jane Goddard and Kathy Davis are. I have no doubt that Keltruth and BFP and Allard and the Knox family and Little Billy would immediately “doctor” and falsify the videotapes and publish them as gospel truth on the worldwide web. I believe that we are dealing with completely immoral liars in the Knox family and Almighty Allard.
Once again, Little Billy is carrying on about his safety in Barbados and once again I urge all Bajans to run true to our great national characteristic and to treat Little Billy and his staff and family and friends as we would ourselves and our families and to look out for and after their safety and protection, so the falseness of their portrayal of we Bajans as violent, ignorant savages will be apparent to all. We must smile and laugh a lot every time we see them. And we must bid them a fond farewell when they, safe and sound and tanned, return to Canada with their duty-free Barbados rum. They may never visit us again. After all, as Little Billy has been advised, Canada (except for the Holiday Inn in Barrie, Ontario) is a very dangerous place and goat meat is much in demand there.
As for the “legitimate press”, I want to start economic sanctions against them. As of today, I will not be purchasing the Advocate or the Nation nor will I tune in to VOB. Instead, I will read the blogs and subscribe to the Official Gazette (the Government could probably use the money).
I have just read Keltruth. The headline, which apparently is the first of a series, is: Why Crooks Love Bearer Shares. Well, Keltruth does not seem to really understand the subject and apparently has very limited knowledge on how to spot bearer shares. For instance, the shares of Kingsland Estates Limited and Mental Madge owns are NOT bearer shares, but common shares. However, Mental Madge has gone and transferred her shares fraudulently and removed the share certificates from Barbados to Canada. If these WERE bearer shares, then there might be a problem, but they are NOT bearer shares, so the courts in Barbados can simply order Kingsland to cancel those share certificates and re-issue them. In fact the only reason that Keltruth has brought up the subject of SRLs is because it hopes that, like it, visitors to Barbados will not really know what these are or that practically every country in the world has them with the same laws and conditions attached as in Barbados. So Keltruth hopes to suggest that SRLs are peculiar to Barbados and its violent, criminal population and government. No need to actually read the article on Keltruth. It is, as always, rather like what we wash out of the pig sty/goat pen every morning.
Related Links
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.