But the client is identified!

“real talk/gird your loins”

Barbados Labour Party Blog.

Well, irrespective of whether they have a case, if they do bring one, we will see if BFP is still a live entity in 2023, when the case eventually makes the court, to be either sustained or thrown out (which I believe that you have it right).

My comments are simple.

A person is out of the country and not earning, either personally or corporately. In other words, they have no taxable income. Inland Revenue comes along and says that they have not paid their taxes for a time when there was nothing to tax and, inexplicably, are therefore liable (how?) in law. I ASSUME that the person accused said this to Inland Revenue (either personally or through an attorney) and produced back-up evidence to support their contention WELL in advance of the matter coming to court. Instead of this evidence being examined and the Inland Revenue charges dropped, the matter goes to court where Inland Revenue is proved to have laid baseless and defamatory charges. Meanwhile, to compound their error and insult, Inland Revenue publishes a list of people charged and that innocent person’s name is on the list.

I refuse to believe that Inland Revenue did not have full and complete knowledge of the defence available to the person they chose to accuse. I refuse to believe that Inland Revenue was not fully aware of that person’s innocence.

So exactly who in Inland Revenue took the decision to continue with these baseless charges? Exactly who in Inland Revenue was tasked with making an assessment of the case? What idiotic megalomaniac in Inland Revenue decided to defame the person wrongly accused by placing their name on a public domain list that members of the Fourth Estate and the social media could report on and to refuse, faced by incontrovertible evidence, to vacate their complaint?

That a grave injustice and defamation has been done to those who have been demonstrably and KNOWINGLY accused by Inland Revenue, is clear and indisputable. The fault lies squarely at the door of Inland Revenue.

That said, I agree with David that threatening the social media, even BFP, because it carries verbatim a report published by the Nation both in print on and the internet, is highly questionable and I would be interested to see what efforts have been made to place the blame squarely where it properly belongs. On Inland Revenue.

BU hopes that Donna Symmonds extended professional courtesy to her client when dealing with this matter because to date one would have to conclude she does not desearve one red cent!

Why post a comment in the comments section?

Why address it to Managing Director instead of Blogmaster or some other relevant term?

Many of these lawyers need to be humbled but yet they continue to rule Barbados.

Did we read somewhere that Verla Depeiza who is on that Nation list of 26 was appointed to the Board of the BTA recently?

Did we read she is the sister of Francis Depeiza who is Deputy Chairman of the QEH, another lawyer!

Did we also read that Francis Depeiza’s wife (Weeks) is also associated with the BTA Board?

It appears croynism and ‘incestuism’ is alive and well.

@ David

Isn’t Francis Depeiza married to Dr. Kerry Hall?

I got it .. I got it … Donna “Blue Blood” Symmonds, from the house of Jill Asses, wukkin’ together with BFP to drive traffic to that site. Ha ha da trick din wuk with me tho’, they got to come better than that …! Ha

@ac. With respect and in, unbelievably, defense to BFP (will wonders never cease?) the blogs did not fail to check the story, the Nation published the story and the blogs merely pointed out the Nation story and reproduced it, along with the many internet sites to which th Nation is associated.

I ask you, therefore, to reconsider what you said. Especially given the source of the story in the first place, which is Inland Revenue.

I ask you also to consider if you, as a rational and non-ego-driven being would have drawn attention to your client by posting a bullying letter in the comments section of the particular blog. Or if you would, in your best judgment, have either merely set the record straight in the comments section or politely requested that the blog in question do so for you, absent demands that such receive your sanction and approval or the sanction and approval of your client and advance a spurious claim for possible damages.

What say you?

When Bajans in the diaspora as well as those on the rock need legal services at home, they need to feel that there are in a contract with someone who will be thorough and treat to their situation as if it were their own. “Their own” raises an issue.
It is an issue if you as a service provider allows your name to be sullied with a charge of tax evasion. To me the only way you could be fully exonerated and be perceptively restored as a service provider worthy of providing to me the level of service that you would give to yourself, is if the D.o.I.R never sent any notice to pay; a point on which dropping all charges of tax evasion would not suffice. If no prior notices were sent and the first time that you were made aware that you may owe back taxes is via a charge being laid, then you should seek a legal opinion on such, because this why any injury to your reputation would have occured. Since there is no record of the D.o.I.R being sued in repect to this matter, nor of the D.o.I.R issuing an apology, then I can assume that communications were sent and were probably ignored until the summoms to court.
I wouldn’t have much confidence that someone who allows this to occur with their personal obligations, if indeed it did occur, could handle my personal matters without concern. Am I wrong?

To add to Kammie’s point, blogs published by BU are automatically posted to David’s facebook and Twitter pages and from there the message is retweeted or shared in the fb community. It is indeed awesome the power to influence which rest in the hands of ordinary citizens. The traditional media has been forced to get on board as a means to feel the pulse of the people.

@Adrian. Then the question is: Had the taxpayer discharged their duty and informed the tax authority? If yes, the onus is on the tax authority. Would you agree? So who erred in this case?

But be that as it may, once the charge was brought, there would have been abundant wriggle room for the accused to contact the tax authority with their evidence and defense BEFORE such a matter arrived in court and, if the tax authority found the defense to be acceptable, to remove the accused’s name from the list that found its way into the hands and pages of the Nation. Matter done.

However, one has to question the judgement of any counsel who, instead of writing privately to the social media asking that a correction be made, chooses instead to heap publicity on it, demand all kinds of stupid things – and to been made (as I see has been done now) to look very silly indeed. But what do I know – maybe I am wrong and the answer is to threaten instead of making a reasonable request. But I am poor, peaceful and polite and I am going to stick with my approach – it works for me.

@Amused

“Amused | April 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM | @Adrian. Then the question is: Had the taxpayer discharged their duty and informed the tax authority? If yes, the onus is on the tax authority. Would you agree? So who erred in this case?”

Once again you beat me to the punch. The lawyer should have informed the tax department of her departure from the island and “unemployed’ status before she left for her studies. It is NOT up to the tax authorities to find this out for themselves. It is a bona fide business relationship.

@ David

check the letter link. A letter appears with all names and then the redacted one below that. PLEASE EDIT. thanks, Pat

I think the Bourne person was referring to that in his mangled way.

@Amused

I dont bet sweetheart. Have not bet on anything since my race days in the 60’s at the garrison. I put my faith in the DOIR. he, he, he.

@Amused
At the heart of this story is truthfulness. No matter the source.
As to how i would have approached it. Personnely I think Mrs Symmonds action was intended to clear up the story via media with the sole intent of clarifying what the facts were while at the same time redeeming her clients image in the public arena. If she had choosen another way of dealing with the matter only those involved would have been privy to the truth and the perception of her client being a tax cheater would have remained fixed inthe mind of the public.

@ac. David is right, you know. From what BFP has said, now BU has drawn the issue to their attention (they appear to have missed Ms Symmonds’ comment on their site claiming a preposturous number of comments yearly of which very few apparently make it on to their site) they would have responded favourably to a private and polite e-mail from Ms Symmonds and updated their information. At least that is what they indicate. Instead, their response is…………well……….bellicose.

David, I agree with your last comment to ac. I too think she could have handled the discrepancy better. it comes across as if the other blog is the culprit and defaming her client.

I hope she feels satisfied with in my opinion the superficial yet thoughtfully written response from the blog she was so eager to hang dry.

Could she have been underestimating that blog and going after the weakest link or was there something more by posting in the comments?
Man to man is so unjust do we really know who the hell we can trust?

@ ac “… legal action against BFP for defamation of Character which in itself is libelous. They got off easy!

ac are you serious? do they know who are the rightful owners of that blog? Furthermore where they hide out? Just asking

At the end of it all performance is the judge and if Donald Trump were the client he no doubt would be saying to Donna Symmonds, you are fired!

@ David
Hell know! Donald Trump loves a “Winner” ands Mrs symmonds got ALL of what she wanted. I think He would have fired BFP for not putting up a good fight and standing up on Principle.

@ac: “Mrs Symmonds got ALL of what she wanted.

I agree with ac here David.

What is interesting is how so many, when facing a lawsuit, think they’ve been given a death sentence and will bend over backwards to make it go away….

(I have to admit to this myself — as you and many know, I was threatened with a lawsuit by C&W for defamation for daring to speak the truth publicly. I stupidly accepted my solicitor’s advise to not take this “to the wall”, and the “problem” magically went away.)

I need to understand something.

Can BFP be sued for reporting on an article the Nation Newspaper published?

@ac, I’m not criticizing the blog for offering up an apology if that’s what it takes. At times we have to do what we have to do. It’s what it is but does that written apology comes across sincere to you?

I fail to see how these two jokes for lawyers could have set out to “get what they wanted” by posting a libel threat on a blog. What is it you say they got? They got an opportunity to clear their a name? Could I add that they also got notority for being dragged into court not withstanding that the matter was dismissed, and that fact cannot be dismissed away as the charge was. Whatever the circumstances, justified or not, it leads potential clients and future associations to ask why? Why is important to anyone thinking of doing business with this individual as such associations has an element of trust and trustworthiness attached to it. The average person is not dragged to court on charges of tax evasion and even though this person has proven that they did not owe any taxes they may have been neglectful in their personal obligations, to prove their case in a timely manner and may have as a result injured their reputation.

@anon
Of course! No law against frivolous law suites. A better question could be; — could the plaintiff/complainant win such a case?

@Anon,

I believe so. From my memory, something to do with re-publication (not the right word, but cannot remember now) of a libel.

I could be wrong though.

Remember, even if the second publisher thinks that the first has done their due diligence, that is not the issue. The issue is that the second publisher is still committing the act of publishing a libel, merely on the ‘belief’ that the first is correct.

Now, if the second publisher actually did the research right, checked the court records, published the charge and the dismissal, that is merely reporting the facts of the event and therefore not a libel, because it would have shown the subsequent dismissal, important to the issue at hand.

@Crusoe et al: “Now, if the second publisher actually did the research right, checked the court records, published the charge and the dismissal, that is merely reporting the facts of the event and therefore not a libel…

Ah, but interestingly, under Barbados Law, one can be telling the absolute truth but if it is damaging to another party it can still be considered Libelous.