It is over; in Canada, at least. (Those who are not interested in this matter please use the page down key)

BU has learned that the case of Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v the Country of Barbados and others has ended with the Plaintiff, Nelson, and its officers, backers and insurers paying out undisclosed millions of dollars in legal costs to Barbados and its fellow-defendants. We now wait to see if another related action, this time directed at the blogs and bloggers, filed in Florida (see the Florida Action) will be pursued.

There is no doubt that Nelson and its officers and supporters settled the matter of costs because of the massive amount of evidence against them and in the hopes that this evidence would never become generally known. But Bajans have the right to know. We were sued.

Readers of Barbados blogs will recall that this was a case that started with much public fanfare and condemnatory finger-pointing in the direction of Barbados by certain other blogs (namely Keltruth and Barbados Free Press) giving the impression that Barbados was to be called to account for conspiring with prominent Bajans to defraud Marjorie Knox and her foreign backers. And for Barbados’ temerity in challenging the dictates of those foreigners. It ended with a strangled whimper from those same plaintiffs and with silence from Barbados’ blog detractors.

Readers of BU will recall that Nelson lost the right to have the case heard in Ontario and the judge ruled that Barbados was the only country with jurisdiction and competence to try it – and it has already been tried in Barbados. And lost.

Subsequently, Barbados and its co-defendants filed a claim for their legal costs on a (unusual in Canada and usual everywhere else) “full indemnity” basis, meaning that Barbados and others wanted all their costs back. These costs were estimated at in excess of 3 MILLION Canadian Dollars. Nelson, meanwhile, was revealed to be a shell company, set up solely for the purposes of the (as admitted by Nelson’s lawyer) meritless litigation.

Barbados and others also chose the highly unusual (in any country) procedure of going after Nelson’s lawyer, Kenneth William McKenzie, and his law firm, Crawford, McKenzie, McLean, Duncan and Anderson LLP personally for costs. Nelson’s fronting principal, Donald Best, was also pursued for costs.

There was strong suspicion that Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary boss, Peter Andrew Allard, was the backer and instigator of this matter. However, at the time of BU’s last report, his connection was not proved sufficiently for the purposes of a court. Now it has been proved and Allard, Marjorie Knox, John Knox, Kathleen Davis and Jane Goddard were all added to the list of persons against whom Barbados and others were claiming costs. All were served with proceedings.

BU now reports to the PEOPLE of the defendant Country of Barbados on the weighty evidence that came to light since its last report. Citizens of Barbados have the right to know how they were victimized and held up to ridicule in the eyes of the international community. And how Barbados been exonerated.

BACKGROUND

It started as a family feud in 1998, 12 years ago. Classic Investments Ltd (a Barbados-registered company) made a bid to buy out the shares of asset rich, but cash bankrupt and disastrously mismanaged Kingsland Estates Ltd (another Barbados-registered company).

Even by family feud standards, however, it was unusual as it involved the future of over 1% of the total land that comprises the Country of Barbados. Land situated at the key areas of Christ Church and Saint George and featuring 2½ acres of prime beach front property on Maxwell Coast Road (formerly best known as the Banana Boat Nightclub).

One of Kingsland’s shareholders, Marjorie Knox, supported and maintained, it was alleged, by Canadian Peter Andrew Allard, objected to the sale to Classic and claimed that she had a right of first-refusal to purchase of the shares of Kingsland’s other shareholders. These other shareholders were her brothers and sister or their heirs.

Knox also claimed that she, a former director, had been oppressed as a shareholder, a claim she lost in the Barbados High Court and later abandoned in her Judicial Committee of the Privy Council appeal, only to re-file it in a separate lawsuit upon which judgment is currently reserved (inexcusably for the last 2 years or so) by Mr. Justice Randall Worrell.

The Barbados Courts (Greenidge J.) took a year and a half and eventually ruled that Knox had no right of first refusal. The Privy Council concurred with the Barbados High Court and with the Barbados Court of Appeal’s 9 month awaited judgment (Justices of Appeal Errol Chase, Frederick Waterman and Elliot Belgrave). The Privy Council, after just 8 weeks or thereabouts handed down its judgment written on behalf of the panel by Lord Hoffman, on 28 June 2005 in which it dismissed Knox’s appeal with costs.

There is, we are advised, a mechanism in the Constitution of Barbados to remove these recalcitrant judges – and it is time it was put into effect. Regardless of whether or not their judgments are upheld when appealed. Justice delayed is justice denied.

It is noted that apart from orders for security for costs, Knox has paid absolutely NONE of her millions of dollars of court-ordered costs.

MATTERS FINANCIAL

Knox’s financial backer, Peter Allard, made an offer for Kingsland BUT only after Classic had succeeded in its bid and binding contracts had been signed. Allard and the Knox family determined to go behind the contract and take the deal away from Classic, regardless.

There was also a lot of bad blood between Allard and Classic’s CEO, Richard Ivan Cox. Originally, Allard and Cox had been business bed mates, through the agency of former GEMS chief, David Shorey. However, Cox had gone behind Allard’s back and pipped him to the Kingsland post. The Broad Street Journal published the now-infamous Richard Cox memorandum to Peter Allard in which Cox explains away a $10 million miscalculation with the words, “WHAT IS $10 MILLION BETWEEN FRIENDS?” A statement that will resonate in Barbados for many years to come, not only because of its utter imbecility but because $10 million would mean a lot to this country and its people. Clearly Cox and at that time Allard stood to gain so much that $10 million was a mere bagatelle to them.

In an effort to revenge himself on Cox, Allard purchased the services of the Knox family, expecting at the very least to be able to carve a considerable role for himself simply through nuisance value and Knox’s almost 15% shareholding in Kingsland. But try as Allard might, no one was prepared to settle.

Cox and Shorey subsequently fell out, but by then the deal had been done. It is noted that Cox first fell-out with business partner Allard and then with business partner Shorey. Later, the Allard/Knox team were quick to seize on the Cox-Shorey break-up by trying to enlist the services of Shorey themselves. See McKenzie-Cox-Shorey.

BU has been able to acquire copies of letters of agreement between Allard and Knox and makes them available to its readers. According to these documents, the provenance of which is proved and sworn, Knox conferred on Allard first 15%, and subsequently 33.33% of the results of their joint endeavours in the Nelson Barbados Group lawsuit in first Barbados and then Canada (with the ground work done for yet another action in Florida). See Knox to Allard to Best.

There is a charging order in Barbados in force against the Knox shares, action on which was commenced in 2002. There is also a fraud action in Barbados part heard before Justice Randall Worrell (so don’t look for quick continuation OR a quick decision) by which the enforcement of the charging order is sought. Currently, Mr Allard’s takings from Marjorie Knox’s Kingsland shares looks like being 33.33% of zilch. Which would explain the savagery of the attacks that, during the course of the Ontario action, were directed at Iain Deane, the successful charging order applicant and plaintiff of the fraud action. If Mr. Deane succeeds in his action, then the whole charging and transfer of Knox’s shares to Allard will be set aside. Then the flood gates will be open to all those who hold orders for costs against Knox.

Briefly, in the Barbados action that culminated before the Privy Council, all the defendants, except Iain Deane, had gone to the courts and received an order for $1 million for security for their costs. This order was later fortified by the Privy Council to a further (according to Nelson’s lawyer) £300,000. Deane preferred to apply for a charging order against Marjorie Knox’s Kingsland shares and not to participate in the $1 million held by the court. The fraud action, the statement of claim of which was previously posted on BU, alleges that, upon Deane making his intentions known officially, Marjorie Knox transferred and charged her shares in order to pre-empt the charging order. Deane was granted the charging order and filed an action for fraud against Marjorie Knox to have the transfer and charging of her shares reversed.

BU has been able to obtain copies of a whole lot of documents (to be found in its library) that blow the whole issue wide open and prove that Allard, GHNS, Heaslet, McKenzie, Knox and Best are all guilty of exactly the actions that they accuse Barbados of. Trying to threaten and intimidate and of launching a blog campaign the objective of which was to keep tourists and investors from our shores to the detriment of Barbados and its people.

They also prove the oft-stated opinion of BU that Graeme Hall and Kingsland are inextricably linked.

It is noted that Richard Cox is a former regional executive with the Royal Bank of Canada who was dismissed from his job, it is alleged, due to his fondness for the concoctions of that bastion of white Barbados, the Barbados Yacht Club. Mr Cox subsequently removed himself to the United States (Boston, we are told) where he is alleged to have brokered a deal to enable him to return to Barbados a conquering hero with the financial backing to become a major player. The source of the backing is as yet unknown, but we are working on it and intend to follow up with whatever information we can obtain about Mr Cox and the source of his money (whether it be from Boston or Belize) and for whom he and Classic are, it is suspected, fronting. We hastens to say that we neither impute nor suggest any wrong-doing or illegal activities to Mr Cox and Classic or their backers. We merely believe that Bajans have a right to know what is happening with such a large amount of Barbados. As such, we rely upon the fact that this matter is one of national interest. It stands to reason that, given Cox’s past and his statement to Allard about the $10 million, this man has to suspected of being a front and not an instigator. Mr Cox is legally represented in Barbados by Mr Clyde Turney Q.C., whose reputation is well known and established and who was himself a defendant in the Ontario action.

Allard, a Vancouver lawyer, in 1991 inherited his fortune from his late father, Dr Charles A. Allard, including an interest in Allarco Entertainments Inc., that owns/owned Canada’s the SuperChannel. Allard Snr is best known and remembered for once having owned the Edmonton Oilers. Allarco, without Dr Allard at the helm, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009. .

In or about 1992, Allard, inheritance in hand, arrived in Barbados and established residency here for tax purposes.

ALLARD’S BARBADOS RESIDENCY AND GRAEME HALL

Originally, Allard rented a house on our West Coast. He was befriended by local businessman, Anthony Hunte, and ended by purchasing the house owned by Hunte for which no other purchaser at the time could be found. This house, Seaview, is located at Chancery Lane, Barbados and overlooks Long Beach. It is noted that ALLARD has posted frequent items on the worldwide web in which he provides his Barbados address and thus it must be viewed as being public domain and BU has not breached any confidentiality or privacy in repeating it here. We also note the petitions to prevent the development of the Chancery Lane area on much the same grounds as the objections to the development of the lands surrounding the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary.

Allard went on to purchase the Graeme Hall swamp and, as a commercial venture in which the Government of Barbados was not a joint venture partner, he set up the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary, directed at the international eco-tourism market. It proved to be a commercial failure and was put up for sale and was subsequently closed to the public in late 2008 amid acrimonious, venomous and on-going press statements by Allard directed at the Government of Barbados. Along with ludicrous threats of legal action under Barbados’ Bilateral Investment Treaty, all, predictably to be launched in Canada.

So, ALLARD had failed in his venture before the Privy Council and Graeme Hall was also a failure commercially. The question was how far would Allard go to get what he wanted on all fronts?

We have since discovered just how far and the answer has caused even the most experienced and hard-bitten lawyers in the world to shake their heads in disbelief.

ENTER KENNETH WILLIAM MCKENZIE & NELSON BARBADOS

ALLARD, himself a lawyer, needed a lawyer of dubious to non-existent legal ethics to pursue his nefarious activities and plans for vengeance and dominion. Help was very close at hand. All Allard had to do was ask within his immediate family and…… enter Canadian lawyer, K. William McKenzie, a close friend of Allard’s twin brother, Charles “Chuck” Allard, who currently heads the embattled Allarco. We note that McKenzie has been extensively used in the past by Allarco and its other interests, in litigations in Canada. BU has previously provided a list of these.

McKenzie falsely asserted that he was hired by an Ontario corporation named Nelson Barbados Investments Inc., which is not and never has it ever been an Ontario corporation (or a Barbados corporation for that matter). Nelson Barbados Investments Inc. had the same address as McKenzie’s law practice. Indeed, McKenzie, who directed operations in Barbados High Court Action No. 1683 of 1993, unsuccessfully nominated this non-entity to the Court to be appointed receiver of Kingsland Estates Ltd.  McKenzie, through and along with Alair Shepherd deliberately sought to mislead the Barbados courts.

Later, McKenzie changed the name of his supposed employer to Nelson Barbados Group Ltd, a very recently incorporated Ontario corporation that, coincidentally of course, also shared the same address as Mr McKenzie’s law firm and that he claimed had been incorporated by his law firm, Crawford, McKenzie, McLean, Duncan and Anderson LLP.

The law firm emphatically denies any such involvement on their part. The truth surrounding the incorporation of Nelson Barbados Group Ltd., is very different to what Mckenzie would have everyone believe.

ENTER DONALD ROBERT BEST, FUGITIVE FROM CANADIAN JUSTICE

The principal of Nelson is purported to be one Donald Robert Best, a former member of the Ontario Provincial Police who had become a private internet fraud investigator, working under deep cover.

See Related Links

• The Secretive World Of Peter Andrew Allard And The Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary: Does Barbados Need Any Of It?

• Donald Best Sentenced To 3 Months By Ontario Court For Contempt In The Nelson Barbados Group Versus Barbados Matter: The Secretive World Of Peter Andrew Allard – Part II

• LawPro Lawyers Ask For Surprising Adjournment In Nelson Barbados Matter: The Secretive World Of Peter Andrew Allard – Part III

As has previously been reported, Mr Best was sentenced by the Ontario courts to 3 months imprisonment for contempt of court, a sentence that remains outstanding, as he is on the lam and may have availed himself of one of his many pseudonyms and its alleged false documentation.

THE US$ ½ BILLION STATEMENT OF CLAIM

The Statement of Claim before the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE filed by Nelson in the amount of HALF A BILLION US DOLLARS was opposed (successfully on the grounds of the court’s lack of jurisdiction) by the over 70 defendants named in the law suit, including “THE COUNTRY OF BARBADOS”.

One of these defendants named (but not opposing – indeed, she provided as Nelson’s spokesperson and sole affiant in her only son, John Knox) was Marjorie Knox herself.

Marjorie Knox was purportedly represented in the Canadian law suit by none of other than Alair Paul Shepherd Q.C. of the Barbados Bar, who has listed himself as being “First Friend”, a term that continues to baffle legal professionals worldwide. Shepherd is not now nor has he ever been a member of the LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA. But that was hardly significant as any legal work that Knox and Shepherd needed done in Ontario was willingly provided by plaintiff’s (and, secretly, Knox’s) Ontario counsel, McKenzie. McKenzie’s bizarre defence of Knox was remarked upon by the judge, JUSTICE J. BRYAN SHAUGHNESSY.

See Related Links

• Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v. Cox, 2009 CanLII 22563 (ON S.C.)

• Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v. Cox, 2008 CanLII 4265 (ON S.C.)

• Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v. Cox, 2008 CanLII 29602 (ON S.C.)

• Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v. Cox, 2010 ONSC 569 (CanLII)

It was only when the matter of costs came to be decided and McKenzie’s law firm was itself sued for costs (along with McKenzie himself) that the whole sordid KNOX/ALLARD-SUPPORTED set-up came to be exposed.

Miss Jessica Duncan, a former law partner of McKenzie, on behalf of the re-formed (post departure of McKenzie in December 2009) firm, now Crawford, McLean, Anderson and Duncan LLP filed an affidavit with copious attachments being exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M , Jessica Duncan Affidavit.

Miss Duncan, in attending the cross-examination of McKenzie states that she noticed certain irregularities and inaccuracies in the sworn evidence given by McKenzie. It would appear that Miss Duncan is the mistress of understatement. Therefore, after consultation with her partners, she, laudably, set out to correct matters on behalf of the law firm.

The cross-examinations of McKenzie and Duncan are available in the BU library, accessible online by clicking here.

From the dockets of the law firm and other exhibits, we are able to ascertain that:

• McKenzie first arrived in Barbados in or about August/September 2005 for meetings with Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary boss, Allard, Jane Goddard (née Knox) the daughter of Marjorie Knox and John Knox (a former low-level lecturer and self-styled professor, dismissed from the University of the West Indies, due to student and staff complaints against him). and with ALAIR SHEPHERD. It is noted that in his copious affidavits in this matter, John Knox ascribed his “dismissal” from the UWI Cave Hill as being because of his support of the Nelson action in Ontario. He further sought to blame Leonard Nurse, who had been joined as a defendant in the action.

• When McKenzie asked Allard who his client would be, Allard replied that it would be Marjorie Knox.

• McKenzie also provided Allard with an estimate of the success of the action that clearly demonstrates that he knew (as did Allard) right from the start, that the action that has cost Barbados millions of dollars would not survive the jurisdictional challenge. It was only 40% likely to get “traction”, according to McKenzie. Indeed, McKenzie prophesied the jurisdictional motion. He and Allard and Knox determined to bring it anyway. Readers will note that the following document also establishes the blog campaign by McKenzie, as well as highlights meetings with an Adrian Loveridge, who has no discernable role in the matter.

• McKenzie also set up the framework of a blog campaign through which he not only sought to try the case in the court of public opinion, but also to use the blogs to influence the course of Barbados’ general elections, to the benefit of his clients, Allard and the Knox family.

• Initially, Allard had retained the firm of Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP and, startlingly, we learn that McKenzie was one of the people instructing solicitor Sean Moore of that firm. Mr Moore was later joined by former Canadian judge, Patrick LeSage. We note the report carried by the Broad Street Journal credited to Patrick R. Hoyos, whose recent inexplicable silence on this matter (he broke the story and he usually has so much to say on everything) has surprised many. By the way, the Tony Hoyos mentioned in connection with this case, is the highly respected and reputable tax accountant Anthony C. Hoyos who, yes coincidentally, is the brother of Patrick Hoyos. It is proven by the documents in the BU archives that Tony Hoyos was acting for Richard Cox in negotiations with Allard/McKenzie/Knox family.

• We also learn that these strategy-meetings/instruction-sessions were carried out in the presence and with the active participation of Alair Shepherd, which is not surprising as it turns out that MARJORIE KNOX WAS MCKENZIE’S CLIENT ALL ALONG!!!

• We learn that McKenzie’s law firm did not incorporate Nelson as claimed by McKenzie in his cross-examination previously published by BU. Instead, this was done by one private individual using the premises and address of the law firm. Lisa Carolyn James, a sole legal practitioner in Ontario. Miss Duncan reveals that Lisa Carolyn James is in fact McKenzie’s wife and further research and the admissions of McKenzie himself reveal that the matrimonial home and all other property occupied by McKenzie is now in the name of Lisa Carolyn James. Miss Duncan also reveals that Mrs James/McKenzie was hired by McKenzie’s law firm during the time of the incorporation of Nelson as an interior designer and, while interior designing, appears to have made use of the law firm and its address and incorporated Nelson. Is there no end to the talents of Mrs McKenzie?

• It will be recalled that Marjorie Knox, in affidavits to the Barbados courts and to the Privy Council, claimed that her shares in Kingsland were no longer hers, but had been transferred by trust in favour of two of her three children, namely Jane Goddard and John Knox.

• Meanwhile, in order to give some semblance of grounding to Nelson to bring its action, Peter Allard purported to have conferred a percentage of his “up-side” to Nelson, conveniently ignoring the charging order against those shares granted to Iain Deane, an appeal for which was filed by Knox and later abandoned and dismissed by order of the Barbados Court of Appeal (MOORE A.J.) without possibility of revival. Due diligence does not seem to be a feature of the practice of Canadian corporate law.

• ALLARD and his crew also conveniently forgot that there is an action for fraud against Knox that seeks the cancellation of the trust set up by Knox in respect of her Kingsland shares. Indeed, until recently, the only trust document provided any court was one in which Knox purported to have transferred her shares into a trust for her two children Jane and John.

• Later, an affidavit by John Knox sworn in the Ontario action (and posted by BU), gave the lie to the false information before the Barbados courts and claimed that these shares had been made the subject of a revocable trust in Florida in favour of the two children named and also Marjorie Knox’s eldest child, Kathleen Isabella Davis (née Knox), a resident of Florida and US citizen.

• The evidence of Miss Duncan and the law firm reveals and even here McKenzie and Allard had their hands. McKenzie was charged by Allard/Knox with the task of finding a Florida law firm to create a revocable trust under his (McKenzie’s) instructions, on behalf of Marjorie Knox. And the trustee of the Marjorie Knox Revocable Trust? None other than Kathleen Davis. A copy of this Trust Deed is to be found at Exhibit “B” of the McKenzie affidavit, filed in rebuttal to that of Miss Duncan in BU’s library.

• McKenzie chose Florida counsel Michael Dribin and Mark Raymond to represent Marjorie Knox and Kathleen Davis in Florida. We note that these counsel seem to have a particular interest in gaining access to the privileged information of Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited. See Exhibit L to the Duncan affidavit.

• The documents also evidence that Alair Shepherd’s fees for defending Marjorie Knox against McKenzie and his client Nelson, and, indeed, for representing Marjorie Knox in Barbados, were paid by ………Nelson Barbados/Allard. Conflict of interest? Fraud? Abuse of Process? What do you think? AND sanctioned and conspired and colluded in by one of Her Majesty’s council for Barbados. How stands the Barbados Bar Association on this, we ask?

• These dockets (Exhibits A and B to Jessica Duncan’s affidavit) show that McKenzie drafted and finalized documents for Shepherd to file with the Barbados courts and, indeed, directed the operation of all actions before the Barbados courts involving Marjorie Knox, including the fraudulent plea to Goodridge J. to appoint what Shepherd misled the Court into believing was an Ontario-registered corporation, as receiver for Kingsland.

• The dockets and accounts also show that McKenzie attended trials in Barbados and was on hand to brief Shepherd. Indeed, there is evidence to show that McKenzie was trying (through the Law Society of Upper Canada) to obtain right of audience before the Barbados courts so that he could present Marjorie Knox’s cases in Barbados himself, while all the time suing her over essentially the same subject matter in Ontario. Nice!

• The dockets show that the chosen (by McKenzie) Florida law firm (Broad & Cassels, by its counsel Michael Dribbin and Mark Raymond) had its fees for the setting up and maintenance of the “Marjorie Knox Revocable Trust” paid by McKenzie as go-between for Allard. Indisputably Messrs Dribbin and Raymond took their instructions from McKenzie/Allard. And they had litigation back-up from Florida attorney, one John P. Kelly of the Kelly Law Firm. Mr Kelly was supposed to (and has) come into play by bringing the action in Florida previously referred to, when Ontario denied jurisdiction, as McKenzie knew it must. Mr Kelly has now prepared and filed an action for defamation on behalf of Marjorie Knox and Kathleen Davis based on two blog statements, doubtless hoping to obtain an order to force Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited to reveal the name or names of the bloggers. See Kelly Law Firm Bill and following:

Related Links

• Sunny Ware (Peter and Chuck Allard)

• Sunny Ware (Peter and Chuck Allard – 2)

• Memo to Allard

• Email from Bill McKenzie to Michael Dribin

• Kathleen David v John Smith Complaint

• Email from Bill McKenzie to Mark Vrem

Bloggers are warned to abstain from posting comments on blogs supportive and displaying a bias to the position of Marjorie Knox and Peter Allard. We have already seen in the affidavit of John Knox how blog statements and comments have been attached as exhibits. It is not any leap at all to the next attempted step by those who offer anonymity on their blogs, only to NOT honour their undertakings. It is clear that at some time the courts of all countries will have to address the question of entrapment by such tactics and whether or not privilege should apply. After all, the offer of anonymity comes from blogs themselves, including BU.

• McKenzie started to orchestrate his PR strategy early. On October 19, 2005, he was in contact with news investigative reporter, Mark Jan Vrem of, among other Canadian news desks, KFJM, KRAD, KKXL, CJIB, CHBC, CHEK, CHAN, CITV, CICT, RDTV, CISA, ROBTV, BCTV, ICBC. Of all these extensive credits, the one that is of most note is CHEK-TV. The station is carried on BELL-TV (remember that McKenzie and Donald Best were involved in a case on behalf of Bell TV) and by SHAW DIRECT channel, that, purely coincidentally of course, Allarco has quite an interest in. Nothing appears to have come of this contact. BUT plans were made to film the GHNS, as well as lands that are the subject of other court cases in Barbados. AND AN INTERVIEW WITH MARJORIE KNOX.

• The dockets demonstrate that Nelson Barbados/Allard paid for trips to Ontario and Florida for Marjorie Knox, her children and Alair Shepherd for meetings on the subject of the fraudulent Marjorie Knox Revocable Trust. See the exhibits to the Duncan affidavit.

• One Wanphen Panna was retained by McKenzie/Allard to conduct “internet research” and paid by Nelson/Allard. Miss Duncan reveals that Wanphen Panna is the wife of fugitive from justice Donald Best and resides in Thailand where, it was later revealed by Miss Duncan, McKenzie and his firm’s staff accountant, Sunny Ware, were frequent guests of the Bests, despite McKenzie’s sworn statement (as well as one made to the Alberta courts in a different matter) that he did not know where to contact Donald Best and that he was “somewhere in Thailand”. Ms Ware is yet to be heard from. Wanphen Panna was paid over US$175,000 for her “research”.

• Miss Duncan also reveals the involvement of Donald Best’s children, Douglas Best and David Best, in this massive Allard-financed conspiracy.

• The preoccupation of McKenzie, Knox and Allard, John Knox, Jane Goddard and Kathleen Davis with the blogs is clearly demonstrated in the dockets’ multitudinous entries and it is beyond question that they themselves published these blogs under the direction of McKenzie who himself composed many (if not all) of them with what clearly appears to be the assistance of Barbados-based bloggers whom, as has been seen, he was paying $650 per week. McKenzie was paid almost Canadian$ 400,000 for blog-related activities.

• It is also noted that meetings described with bloggers in Barbados curiously coincided with meetings between McKenzie and Adrian Loveridge. We ask BU’s frequent contributor on matters of tourism and the GHNS, Adrian Loveridge, to explain to the BU family the precise nature of his involvement with Kingsland that would lead McKenzie to charge Allard fees for meeting with him (Loveridge).

• We also see that Nelson/McKenzie/Allard paid Kathleen Davis fees for web hosting for the Keltruth blog, of which she is the admitted principal.

• There are entries showing the instructions of McKenzie to have one “Nathan” infiltrate the blogs to collect evidence for McKenzie. NATHAN, it is later revealed by Miss Duncan, is the “undercover” codename for Donald Best. As we know, infiltration is Donald Best’s speciality.

• We note the meetings scheduled at Seaview between “Nathan” and others, including John Knox and Jane Goddard.

• We have now proved, not by a balance of proof, but beyond a reasonable doubt that the attempts by certain blogs to silence BU through complaints (real or threatened) to WordPress were orchestrated and instigated by the very people whose nefarious conduct against Barbados and its peoples, BU was in the process of exposing. We copy this report to WordPress to save these parties the trouble. This was done for the sole purpose of silencing BU on a matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.

• There are frequent references to a corporate entity named NIS, which is a company owned by Donald Best, the accounts of which are/were paid by…….Allard.

• The exhibits to Miss Duncan’s affidavit reveal the depth of the conspiracy whereby Stuart Heaslet, head of GHNS, was instructed by McKenzie to collect evidence by recording his telephone calls with Peter Simmons (former Barbados High Commissioner to London and brother of Barbados’ outgoing Chief Justice, Sir David Simmons) in telephone calls originated by Heaslet and made from Allard’s Vancouver home. The tapes were later transcribed by one of Allard’s Peterco employees. Peterco is Allard’s Vancouver-based trust.

• Evidence also suggests that a private investigator was hired to investigate the possibility of shifting through the garbage of elected and appointed Barbados officials, in the Allard-sponsored search for evidence to ground his ludicrous claims. The possibility of phone taps on Barbados residents was also investigated. See Exhibit A of Jessica Duncan.

• Evidence shows that Allard was behind an attempt to decry Barbados’ security arrangements even during the visit to Barbados of Canadian PM Harper. It is noted that Allard and McKenzie both had strong ties to the Canadian High Commissioner to Barbados and to his office. In any event, the visit by Prime Minister Harper took place with his security detail DECLING TO CARRY FIREARMS because of the safety and effectiveness of Barbados’ security arrangements.

• There is evidence that McKenzie attempted contact with English counsel, Hilary Heilbron Q.C., who had gone down to defeat in her representation of Marjorie Knox before the Privy Council. It is also noted that McKenzie was in frequent contact with the Privy Council agents for the parties to the Privy Council Appeal, namely David Raymond Miles of Glovers Solicitors, as well as solicitors from Withers Solicitors (Jeremy Scott and Stephen Ross) and a specialist solicitor on costs named Jack Levin of the London firm of Knapp Richardson. So, the moral of the story appears to be that if you fail with the Privy Council and cannot get them to change their costs orders, just go behind it all in the Ontario courts. If they do that with the Privy Council, what will they try to do with our Caribbean Court of Justice? It is further revealed that McKenzie’s business in England centred on getting the Privy Council to vacate an order of fortification of security for costs against Marjorie Knox in the amount of £300,000.

Allard, according to McKenzie, said he is experiencing financial difficulty in paying his bills. But then again McKenzie hints that this is because Allard is pissed at having lost and because they have been rolled on by McKenzie’s former law firm. See the McKenzie cross-examination transcripts. We consider:

• Allard and Knox have not paid one cent of the many costs orders granted against them by the Barbados courts.

• Allard’s allegedly fraudulent claim to have loaned Marjorie Knox Bds$24 million (US$12 million).

• Allard’s clearly desperate attempt at a totally untenable claim of US$35 million from the Barbados Government over the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary.

• The closure of the GHNS, citing a broken sluice gate. Matter now resolved, so we await the Grand Reopening.

• The financial protection into which Allarco has had to be placed in Ontario.

• We also note the fact that Allard has paid out some millions of dollars to McKenzie on this action, on which a considerable amount appears to be unaccounted for. In this connection, we ask:
  • Did this money go to McKenzie’s personal account?
  • Did it go to the Knoxes (being Marjorie, Kathy Davis, Jane Goddard and John Knox) personal accounts?
  • Did it go to Donald Best?
  • Was any applicable tax paid on it and if so, by whom?

• We also note that McKenzie was in the habit of paying off Jane Goddard in cash for services rendered under some agreement between Allard and the Knox family. We have to ask the questions:
  • Were these payments declared by Jane and Kent Goddard on their tax returns in Barbados and if not, why not? Inland Revenue, please note that the accounts of McKenzie’s law firm are there for you to download and investigate and we trust that you will do your due diligence and apply the necessary remedies if you find anything amiss. We do not accuse, we merely question.
  • We also note that at one stage McKenzie proposes taking into Barbados the sum, in cash, of US$13,000 in clear defiance of Barbados’ laws (Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (Prevention and Control) Act CAP. 129 ) which clearly states that any amount of cash in excess of $10,000 must receive approval from the Central Bank of Barbados. We also note that McKenzie was well aware of the law in this respect. We do not know if McKenzie subsequently broke this law, but it must be strongly felt that any possible infringement of anti-terrorism laws must be investigated for the safety of all. Arrangements have been made to copy this to all relevant law enforcement and prevention of terrorism agencies. We do not accuse, we merely question.
  • We also note that former Barbados Town Planner Mr Leonard St Hill was alleged by McKenzie to have been paid fees in cash. In his cross-examination of May 5, 2010, McKenzie said that Mr St Hill demanded cash payment and refused to provide invoices for his services. Is this true? So much of what McKenzie says is clearly a lie that we have to question.

In his defence to the accusations of his erstwhile partners led by Miss Jessica Duncan, Mr McKenzie filed an affidavit posted here, along with its two exhibits “A” and “B”. This affidavit provides evidence of the ongoing fraud in Barbados to which the people of Barbados have been subjected in that it shows the attempts by Allard, Marjorie Knox, her children and her counsel, namely Alair Shepherd, McKenzie, Michael Dribin, Mark Raymond and John Kelly to subject Barbados’ laws and property to Florida law, thus negating Barbados’ rights of self-determination and sovereignty. We intend to ensure that US Attorney-General Holder (of Barbadian descent) is made aware of the conduct of these Florida attorneys.

In order to bring you this story involving an international conspiracy to hijack the country of Barbados, its laws and public offices and officers by persons almost all of whom are white, BU has withstood attempts engineered by McKenzie, Allard the Knox family and Best to identify its bloggers, sources and, indeed, to close it down. BU has taken a proactive stance with these attempts, invoking international accords and laws. BU now believes that it has taken the matter far enough for the international Fourth Estate to report on this as one of the world’s worst abuses of legal process, spanning Barbados, Canada and the USA.

This report is copied to the RCMP, US Homeland Security, Scotland Yard, the Royal Barbados Police Force, the Barbados Defence Force and the Regional Security System, due to the allegations of false identities, post office boxes and drop boxes masquerading as residential addresses and the allegations of false Canadian and US passports to support these false identities and addresses. We accuse no one and are merely fulfilling our obligation to report matters like this that might have a direct affect on the national security of all the affected countries.

By the way, it has always been generally thought that the name “Nelson” was designed to be a further insult to Barbados’ historic past. But it seems this is not the case at all. Worse. Nelson is the pet parrot of Donald Best, named (whether as a compliment or an insult we do not know) after Nelson Mandela.