Submitted by BWWR

For many years, I was one of the few readers (and according to its counter there were very few) of the site www.keltruth.com. This was the website of the Knox family devoted, subjectively, to its side of the Kingsland Estates issue. If you click on to www.keltruth.com these days, you are directed instead to www.keltruthblog.com into which Keltruth.com has metamorphosed and you discover that this blog is the property of the Keltruth Corp. of Miami, Florida. If you take this a step further (online) and you do a free corporate search of the Keltruth Corp., you will find that it is a limited liability corporation capitalized at US$1,000. I am sure that if you searched further, you would find that it has one named director – probably the same one as Nelson Barbados Group Ltd – and that no shareholders are named. Given the difficulty and cost of piercing the corporate veil in the United States and the fact that the actual owners of Keltruth  are highly unlikely to have the funds to pay the damages for defamation awarded to anyone that sues Keltruth, it is an easy call for Keltruth to invite all and sundry to sue it and then claim because they do not that it is because they have not defamed anyone. It is akin to a man standing at the North Pole challenging a man at the South Pole to hit him.

Apart from the fact that I have never liked or trusted Madge Knox, I was prepared to take her side and I used to discuss the case of Kingsland (and I live in Christ Church) with all and sundry and in these discussions I derided all the people that Keltruth derided.

For about three weeks in 2005 I had dengue fever and I felt so ill, I thought my number was up. My temper was short and, when I was not being sick, my statements even more aggressive than usual. My eldest, never one to suffer his mother’s tantrums, had finally had enough and let me have it. One of the things he had to say was that he found it unacceptable that I, without hearing the other side, should take Madge Knox’s side. When the Privy Council ruled against Madge, knowing the care and research that would have gone into that decision, I prevailed upon a friend to provide me a copy of the Privy Council Record – and it is a very long record. It was also very embarrassing for me to realize that I had been conned by Madge Knox, a woman whom I never trusted in the first place.

I want to say that it was not difficult to get sight of the documents. By that time (2005) since 1998 Madge Knox and family had been slandering the names of all the defendants and, where corporate their officers, to anyone they could get to listen, in an effort to garner publicity and sympathy for their cause. Naturally, these defendants had set the record straight with their families and close friends, even to the extent of providing documentation to show their innocence of the slanders. Barbados is a very small island. Do I need to say more? The moment I started to write what you aptly called “The Other Side of Kingsland”, what had been a trickle of documents became a flood. You see, people do not like to see their loved ones unjustifiably held up to international ridicule and degradation.

It was a simple matter. Madge had claimed a preemptive right that, upon reading the articles of Kingsland, any first-year law student would have known did not exist in the circumstances. She had also claimed oppression by Kingsland, when clearly, as a director of Kingsland herself, she was unable to support such a claim and she had tried fraudulently to use her shares to support her appeals while preventing by injunction the people she was suing from using their shares to do the same. As a Bajan and an enthusiastic lover of cricket, this bad sportsmanship got to me probably more than the lies and half-truths that had been served up to me on Keltruth.com.

However, forget all that. Had I been Madge’s counsel having, as Madge’s counsel has, his fees paid by someone with as deep pockets as Peter Allard, I would have advised that Madge NOT sue at all, but simply hold on to her shares and wait for Classic and Mr Cox to make a legal error and then pounce. This way, she would have been a party to all the money that Mr Cox hopes to make out of Kingsland. Instead of that, the “all or nothing” approach was taken on exceedingly flimsy legal grounds. Well, this was still okay, but I would have advised that Madge NOT sue Classic as it would keep Classic in what was a nonsense action that she hoped to win by cutting off financing to the Kingsland shareholders. The minute she sued Classic, she was doomed, because she could not prevent or sue Classic for supporting and maintaining the defense of the other Kingsland shareholders. David, this is first year law. Before going further, let me explain that there are three common law principals involved here, only two of which will I explain, with the help of Wikipedia. These are MAINTENANCE, CHAMPERTY and BARRATRY. Wikipedia has it that:

“In common law jurisdictions, MAINTENANCE is the intermeddling of an uninterested party to encourage a lawsuit. It is “A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right.”.

Champerty is the maintenance of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer. Among laypersons, this is known as “buying into someone else’s lawsuit.”

In Barbadian Common Law, maintenance, champerty and barratry are not only civil wrongs (torts) but also indictable crimes punishable by custodial sentences AND/OR fines and, in tort, attracting costs and special damages. Had Classic not been sued by Madge and had it supported the defense of the Kingsland shareholders, she would have had a civil and criminal action for champerty. Stupid mistake Numero Uno. And trust me, this is first year law.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering what BARRATRY is, it is in Barbados a civil and criminal action that can be brought under the common law for the bringing of frivolous and vexatious litigation. Better watch it, Madge.

Champerty is a two-edged sword and at some stage someone was bound to get the evidence they needed to show that Peter Allard had “bought in to someone else’s lawsuit”. In other words, Allard had bought into Madge’s lawsuit. So to avoid this, a defense had to be provided for Peter Allard. Once again, it is first year law that champerty cannot be claimed against (a) immediate relatives of a party to the action or (b) the counsel of a party to the action. My advice would have been what was actually done, which is that one of Madge’s children borrow the money against some form of personal collateral from Mr Allard and thus there is no champerty. So, I agree with a mortgage being raised by Kent and Jane Goddard for $1.3 million against their $600,000 property at Hanson in St George. While it certainly would raise an eyebrow or two in respect of Mr Allard’s business acumen, it nonetheless prevented a successful prosecution (both civil and criminal) for champerty against him.

However, this is where I would have drawn the line and I would not have allowed my client, upon notice of proceedings against her shares in Kingsland, to fraudulently attempt to transfer those shares and then charge them in favour of Peter Allard. If she refused my advice, even if she retained counsel in a foreign country, I would have withdrawn from her case at once. I note that Madge’s Bajan counsel did not withdraw.

Having lost her unwinnable action before Greenidge J., I would then have sought the very alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that you, David, now advise. I would have filed the appeal on Madge’s behalf and asked all parties if they were agreeable to an ADR. By way of showing good faith and good intentions, I would have asked for a mediator whom all would have respected and agreed to – someone like Sir Roy Marshall or his sister, Dorothy Williams. In fact, as it was a corporate matter, one of the names I would have suggested on my short list would have been the late Freddie Clarke. In this way, there would have been give on both sides and I would have been confident of a satisfactory conclusion to the whole issue by about 2002.

This, of course, was not done and instead the appeal proceeded. And was lost by Madge.

At this stage, I would have applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but also I would have urged ADR with, of course, a weaker hand, but nonetheless confident of a good result for all parties. I would stress at this point that I have been privy to certain documents that show the willingness of Mr Richard Cox to meet and negotiate with Madge Knox LONG after any need on his part to do so had gone. Most people would not have done this and it is entirely to Mr Cox’s credit that he did – even if I still think of him in terms of a Great White Shark.

Mr Cox’s offers of negotiations and mediation were never taken up that I can see and Madge delayed and delayed the actual process of the Privy Council by an inordinate time for reasons that I cannot fathom, but which certainly would lend credence to the suggestion that by this time her counsel must finally have realized that she did not stand a hope in hell.

So, the matter went to the Privy Council with no ADR suggested by Madge (and as she had lost both at first instance and on appeal, it would have seemed to me as her counsel that it would have been up to her to make overtures for ADR).

There was a request for ADR from Madge before the Privy Council decision was given, but only after the Privy Council had heard the case, with the attendant expense and bellicose publicity from Patrick Hoyos on Madge’s side. I see from certain documents that have come my way that instructions were asked by counsel from all defendants the grounds for which were that, immediately following the hearing before the Privy Council on the very steps of the Privy Council Chamber, Miss Hillary Heilbron Q.C. acting for Madge Knox, advised opposing counsel that she had won the case, but was prepared to negotiate a settlement in advance of the actual verdict. Changing sides for a moment, had I been representing the defendants, I would have advised that such a request for ADR was far too late and that I did not share Miss Heilbron’s opinion of the way things had gone. However, from an abundance of caution that it might be a good idea to talk, if nothing else. This may have been suggested to Miss Heilbron, I do not know. However, Miss Heilbron must certainly have known before she started that she didn’t stand a chance and would have insisted if only discussion was suggested, on binding ADR and this would have been a non-starter for me as defense counsel. Too late, David, far too late.

ADR can only EVER work when it can be of benefit to BOTH parties. It can never work when it can be of benefit to only one party and that is the situation now. It can ONLY be of benefit to Mental Madge and Puny Peter.

The Motion for Jurisdiction comes before the Ontario Courts for one week of hearing commencing December 8^th. My experience of legal practice (and Pat can assist me here as she too has considerable experience in that area) is that for any judge to be able to apportion that amount of time, he must have done it some months ago. During those months, the legal bills have kept on ticking and there is no evidence of ADR having been suggested and the onus certainly has to be on the Plaintiff in this matter since in my view it has no case whatsoever.

Also, in my last blog, I reported that cross-examinations had now completed. Well, I since found out the scope of these cross-examinations and you can work out the costs of them for yourself:

• ITEM 1. Air transport to Barbados (first or club class) and return to Canada for 6 lead defense counsel and their staff and for 1 plaintiff’s counsel and his staff plus Ontario Court Reporters staff and equipment. I would guesstimate about 20 people at about US$2500 per ticket. You do the maths.

• ITEM 2.  Fees for same (and senior counsel in Canada now bill at $750 Canadian per hour x 6 days x 24 hours per day. You do the maths.

• ITEM 3. First class hotel accommodations for all 20.

• ITEM 4. Plus daily living expenses of US$1,000 per day EACH.

• ITEM 5.  Rental of conference room (at a first class hotel) for 6 days.

• ITEM 6.  Videotaping of cross-examinations. There are not many firms that are qualified to carry this out and Barbados is small and I am not naming the firm that did carry it out, but that is easy for any interested party to find out and ask what their fee was.

• ITEM 7.  Travel for all counsel to Calgary, Alberta to cross-examine the VECO Corporation. This includes the same club or first class airfares for 6 defense and 1 plaintiff’s counsel plus staff plus hotels and living allowances etc.

• ITEM 8.  Travel to Toronto for John Knox and Iain Deane for their respective cross-examinations there, plus hotels and living allowances etc.

• ITEM 9.  Expense of court reporting firm plus videotaping of cross-examinations etc.

I reported that Lawyer McKenzie had told a number of people that he knew that he was going to lose, but would simply re-file in another province and continue to do so in other provinces. How do you fancy his chances if a few of these people to whom he spoke swear and file an affidavit reporting his statements? I would think that even the Law Society of Upper Canada, a hag almost as old and as toothless as myself (except I have false teeth that bite real good – especially when I remember to put in a little Polygrip) will have little option but to cancel Lawyer McKenzie’s license to practice law and that this salutary lesson will not be lost on other members of that Law Society in case they are thinking of picking up where Lawyer McKenzie left off.

Then, there is the abuse of process and I understand that Lawyer McKenzie has performed in such a manner and with such blatant disregard for the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure that there is every likelihood that costs in the millions of dollars on a solicitor/client basis will be awarded against him PERSONALLY.

You have raised the issue of the publicity that attaches to this whole matter.

At the same time that the Miami Keltruth Corp. came into being, we saw the advent of Barbados Free Press. BFP used sensationalism with usually only a modicum of fact and strict “moderation” of any opinions counter to its own, to build a substantial readership (now all but eradicated by the popularity and far stricter and open-minded editorial policies of yourself). Then, almost immediately started the BFP promotion of a largely readerless Keltruth with comments like “Keltruth has provided an excellent commentary” etc. Very clever. You feed the gypsy-ness element of we Bajans and then direct us to a site that at that time almost exclusively dealt with the Kingsland matter in a totally one-sided manner with many clear instances of criminal and civil libel and no recourse for the parties to this.

If you Google the names of any of the defendants in the Ontario action, you are directed to the tirades of Keltruth and BFP and, if you are doing exploratory work prior to having dealings with Barbados or these defendants, these defamatory articles are what you get. So, I set about to redress the matter and it gives me no pause at all that when you Google the names of Kathy Davis, Madge Knox, Peter Allard and the Allard family, Stuart Heaslett, John Knox, Jane Goddard, K. William McKenzie, Alair Shepherd and others, you find them on the receiving end of what they tried to dish out. The have defamed Richard Cox, a CEO of a company that relies on his good name. They have criminally defamed Sir David Simmons and with him our justice system (which is infinitely more effective than the Canadian justice system). They have defamed Peter Simmons. I see still when I Google “Iain Deane Barbados” the suggestion that Sir David Simmons is hiding Iain Deane from what they misrepresent as criminal prosecution. They have implied that Clyde Turney is criminally liable in this case, as is our prime minister and former prime minister. Worst of all, they have defamed Barbados and tried to represent us as a bunch of ignorant, illiterate savages incapable of governing ourselves and requiring the take-over of Puny Peter.

The minister has said he is prepared to meet with Peter Allard, which, trust me, means that he has written to Peter Allard suggesting such a meeting and proposing a date for same. The minister has no need to defend himself in such a case, because he, like some of us, is very clear of his options.

The minister’s objective will be to try to keep Puny Peter in Barbados, but on the clear understanding that he will not intercede with the courts or try to alter the course of justice or our laws to suit Puny Peter and Mental Madge. If Puny Peter wants to have a discussion about Graeme Hall that does not have any conditions attached, but is solely about Graeme Hall, then the minister will certainly do what he can to reach an agreement and accommodation.

If no such agreement is reached, then Peter Allard will close Graeme Hall and in due course, when the wildlife is viewed as being at risk, the Barbados government – any Barbados government, including that of Mia Mottley, will invoke compulsory land acquisition and name a price at which it is prepared to purchase Graeme Hall – and it will be a reasonable price. Then, Barbados will own Graeme Hall and will maintain the nature sanctuary. Mr Allard will go his own way and so too, I think, will the Knox family (probably to join Kathy Davis in the United States) when they discover that, while their lives and legal rights are protected, Bajans would rather having nothing to do with them because of their treason to Barbados and its citizens.

The alternative is unthinkable. That would be that the government would cave in over Graeme Hall (that it can, if Allard doesn’t protect this sanctuary properly, acquire by law) and kiss goodbye to all the foreign exchange that has flowed out of Barbados in defense of this nonsense action in Canada. A lot of Bajans (one of them over 90 and many in their late 80s) who have paid a lot of money to defend the action will be destitute as a result, just because the government wants to cave in to some Canadian and allow him to dictate our laws and the application of those laws? For Barbados to negotiate on anything involving Kingsland now would be counterproductive. The matter for Barbados can only be salvaged by a decision in its favour by the Canadian courts and such a decision will assert clearly Barbados’ sovereign independent rights and its lawful and proper exercize of same – and Barbados has been left with no option now, but to assert those rights and the rights under its laws of its citizens. Remember, speaking of Caesar, which I see no name has raised, “Civis Romanus Sum”. If we Bajans cannot rely on our own government, laws and institutions to protect our civic and legal rights from foreign manipulators and “philanthropists” like Peter Allard and his family, then we may as well all leave Barbados and just let them take over and do what they want.

No, David. If I was advising the defendants, including the government, I would state without equivocation that the time for ADR is long past and to just let the matter now be resolved through the courts to the eventual ruin and disgrace of those who have tried so diligently and for so long to ruin and disgrace Barbados with their false, one-sided blogs.

Our final card is the Land Acquisition Act Cap 228 of our laws. Please note that. As far as I am aware, government is not a signatory to any part of the Graeme Hall scheme, there is no joint venture between government and it, Allard has announced his plans to close the sanctuary as of December 15^th and Allard has previously, unsuccessfully, placed it on the open market for sale. Allard has drummed up a public awareness for its maintenance and if he fails to maintain it, then Government will act on the will of the Bajan people and compulsorily acquire it in their names – and Allard will have provided government with more than sufficient grounds and ammunition to use against any detraction tactics he and his family may try through your media outlets. Remember also that Barbados is home to many media people, some that make Allarco look small – and they like it here and they like Barbados just as it is and they respect its laws, government and institutions.

Had there been a soothsayer available before Puny Peter’s birth, she/he might well have chosen to quote the poet Horace. “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus”. Translation: The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth.

Related Story

Canadian Lawyers Recommend Videos Of Cross-examiniations Kept Secret In Nelson Barbados Group Vs The Country Of Barbados And Others ~ The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part XI