The Speaker of the House Michael Carrington QC has been ordered by Justice Jacqueline Cornelius of the High Court of Barbados to hand over $250,000.00 to a client. A transaction in abeyance for the last two years.The ruling confirms what the BU household has been posting about and what Barbadians already know. Lawyers in Barbados, whether junior or senior, have been managing clients’ monies in a less than transparent manner. BU commends John Griffiths who has shown he has the cajones to seek redress to the Courts of Barbados. Congratulations also to Justice Cornelius for ruling with speed, something the Courts of Barbados is unfamiliar.
Speaker Michael Carrington do the honourable thing and resign with immediate effect from the post of Speaker of the House, the highest Court in the land. Let the fact that you are a pal of the prime minister not deter you from making a speedy decision.
254 responses to “Tales from the Courts–Justice Jacqueline Cornelius Makes Speaker of the House Michael Carrington PAY XXIV”
We still can’t understand why it is still deemed necessary for people to have to trust Bajan lawyers. Not in 2015!
This has to be government sanctioned organized crime. Everybody knows that ALL Bajan lawyers ‘commingle’ client funds, at least, and steal them outright in the main. And the lofty law firms are no less guilty, as charged.
Would it not be easier to have an independent agency administering the transaction. An escrow agent. Surely, it must be an intolerable situation for citizens to have to continuously deal with this conflict of interest. Persons being both lawyers being escrow agents.
This is something the Bar Association should be happy to see set up. It may serve to protect their ‘reputation’. Unless they are part of the scheme and like it so.
Last time we had to buy a property and in order to avoid this conflict we paid Seller more 10% in exchange for the title documents. Of course, this could be a dangerous thing but we’ll rather take our changes than expose ourselves to lawyer skulduggery.
The average Bajan maybe surprised at the ‘who is who’ lawyers in Barbados, many occupying the highest court in the land, who have done and are doing similarly to Carrington.
Recall on August 29, 2014, DLP stooge, “Douglas”, posted an article on BU entitled “Lisa Marshall – Retrenched Worker from the Transport Board”, in which he sought to tarnish the reputation of Ms. Marshall in response to her using the forum of “Brass Tacks” to ask for her legally due severance payment.
Douglas wrote: “A lean clean and fully operational Transport Board need not be burdened with the likes of the Lisa Marshall types, rid the taxpayers of supporting uncouth thieves and criminals from the workforce.” And he also posted 5 memoranda from her personal file, some of which accused her of theft.
Bear in mind, the accusations of theft were just that…. accusations, since she was not terminated nor did the Transport Board call the police or took her before the law courts.
We must also remember the usual DLP sympathizers were on BU calling Lisa a thief, with the AC consortium leading the charge of tarnishing the lady’s character.
Against the background of not being charged for a criminal offence and in the absence of any evidence which would suggest the funds were stolen or not, but relying ONLY on a memorandum which asked Lisa to account for $403,the Legion of ACs were ADAMANT that Lisa was a thief.
Interestingly, the below contribution was posted to BU by one of the demons, in response to the Douglas:
“ac August 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM #: who said the law is an ass..WE HAVE MINISTER WHO ARE LAW BREAKERS AND EMPLOYEES RUNNING BUCK SHOTOVER THE SYSTEM AND THE LAW SAYS THOSE KIND OF ILLEGALTIES THAT GOES AGAINST OF WHAT IS RIGHT SHOULD BE KEPT SECRETLY UNDER COVER..THE LAWS IS AN ASS..PROTECTING EVIL AND VILLIFYING THOSE WHO ASK WHY.”
I hope BU notices how contradictory and hypocritical the Legion of ACs are, especially where, in this scenario with Carrington, they are seeking to vindicate him, despite the fact Carrington’s former client successfully sued the dishonest lawyer for withholding his [client’s] funds for 2 years.
The below are some of the contributions posted by the Legion of demons in response to Douglas’ article on Lisa Marshall.
Remember, Lisa was not charged by the police for theft, there was no court case where she was found guilty of theft and was incarcerated or asked to repay the alleged stolen funds.
“ac August 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM #
barbados has morphed into a nation of beggars.it seems as if no matter who is in charge from the smallest to the biggest everyone feels entitled.”
“ac August 31, 2014 at 8:44 AM #
are u blp yardfowls really angry that the files where exposed, if so ,this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black,cause the blp operatives have never by pass an opportunity to release sensitive govt documents in the public domain when the opportunity arise,,,,”
“ac September 1, 2014 at 2:03 PM #
a thief demanding her fair share,,,,enough to make dog stomach sick,,but the BLP yardfowls seem to be O,k, with that not a picking teet about this criminality,,,,”
“ac September 1, 2014 at 10:29 PM #
i got some dirt to throw pun wunna low life belly aching scalliwags who believe that employees thieving taxpayers money should not be exposed,,,what nerve,,,,,”
In this scenario, there was an actual court case, which meant dishonest Carrington committed some sort of malpractice by keeping his client’s funds, and the client successfully sued Carrington.
Now the “chickens have come home to roost”, all of a sudden the demons are experts in jurisprudence, seeking to inform BU about the philosophy and theory of law.
Question ..in what way /s has ac defended or supported or condone mr.carrington.it seems that ac/s comments relied heavily on the judge/s judgement rightly refraining from assumptions
signed AC consortium
@Pachamama January 12, 2015 at 8:59 AM #
Pach your post makes real sense and Barry Gale and the rest of fancy attorneys running the bar association should take note. How many more lawyers are to be sent jail. Is Cadogan, Leroy Lynch the Bethell boy still in prison.? We know Errol Niles is out and practicing again. The high living lawyers have to take stock and place their profession on a serious footing where the public can trust tem.
Right now not a cent of mine going to a lawyer. I would defend myself first. Its of interest that George Payne company blew the whistle on Carrington didn’t another lawyer Hinckson accuse Payne of big time skullduggery. What a sordid group and hundreds more qualify each year. To do what? Take the Carrington route?
Don’t talk about Richard Byer his situation with Harrisons Cave is beyond scandalous. That should be referred to the DPP to be made a criminal matter.
Well put, Artaxerxes @ January 12, 2015 at 9:37 AM and January 12, 2015 at 9:20 AM.
I am so impressed that you always take the time to show up the hypocrisy of the legion of ac’s.
We all know that the dems have no shame and that their party is paramount over anybody and anything.
Does the ac’s not notice that no one else is coming to Carrington’s defense. Had the dems not gone after the Nation so brutally since 2008, maybe, just maybe, they could have made an appeal to keep this out of the main stream media…….by the way, since I do not buy the Advocate, was there any mention of this there?
@ Artaxerxes January 12, 2015 at 9:37 AM
“Now the “chickens have come home to roost”, all of a sudden the demons are experts in jurisprudence, seeking to inform BU about the philosophy and theory of law.”
“The palest ink is better than the best memory”.- Chinese proverb.
Thanks, Artaxerxes, for those reminders of double standards and hypocrisy. A similar propaganda war with ammunition stored in a tinderbox of jurisprudence was waged by the legal firm of Ac & Partners to justify the actions of the dead King David and Leroy Greenverbs swindling of the CLICO policyholders.
Maybe Mr. Crook can call on his good friend the Primus into Parris to bail him out of the financial quagmire he has found himself.
Would he be declared a bankrupt in this corrupt Barbados?
I am hearing the moderator Ellis on VOB saying he will not be having discussion on the Carrington issue “because it’s before the court”.I posit the view that since there has been no appeal of the judgement,the matter is no longer before the court at this time.To deny public discussion on the issue informs Ellis’s assuming the role of public relations consultant and the sooner VOB sees this threat to democracy the better for Barbados.The court has delivered a judgement and it is in the public domain.What piffle is Ellis talking about.
Today’s Trinidad Express carry a story on Clico in which Lawrence Maraj is stating Clico has 17 billion in cash and the Bissessar cabal is denying payment of Clico policy holders 500 million dollars in policy holders funds.He also stated that the Bissessar govt is dragging its feet with the appeal to the Privy Council,such that the hearing is not going to be heard in March but now in July/August this year.
When will we hear what is the status of the Bajan Clico policyholders .
The deed done by Carrington is tantamount to malpractice, whereby the lawyer failed to use the ordinary skill and care that would be used by other lawyers in handling a similar problem or case under similar circumstances. Stealing a client’s money is malpractice, because the lawyer has a duty to use a client’s funds only for their case. The client may also consider suing the lawyer for malpractice in order to get the money back.
To win a malpractice case against an attorney, the client must prove four basic things:
• duty — that the attorney owed you a duty to act properly
• breach — that the attorney breached the duty: he/she was negligent, made a mistake, or did not do what they agreed to do
• causation — that this conduct hurt you financially, and
• damages — that you suffered financial losses as a result.
Griffiths affidavit clearly stated “Despite repeated demands from me and my current attorney-at-low, as of the date of commencement of these proceedings, the defendant had FAILED and or REFUSED TO RENDER A TRUE AND FULL ACCOUNT OF THE SUMS belonging to him which were received by him (Carrington) as my attorney-at-law.”
The judged ruled in favour of the plaintiff, in that she ordered Carrington to render an account of ALL sums belonging to the particular estate within 28 days. Carrington “was also ordered to pay interest at the rate per annum from May 13 until the entire sum is paid, and legal costs of over $7,700 incurred by Griffiths.”
Any sensible person reading the above don’t have to “assume” anything. It clear that Griffiths successfully sued Carrington for withholding and not giving a true and full account of his money.
It’s not a case where Carrington FORGOT to give the man his $208,900, he with-held it for over 2 years…….. is that not the same as stealing?
Carrington’s behavior was unethical and he is a THIEF………… plain and simple. If it were another lawyer, I would hold the same opinion.
@ Artaxerxes
Carrington’s behavior was unethical and he is a THIEF………… plain and simple. If it were another lawyer, I would hold the same opinion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You hit the nail on the HEAD.
Prodigal Son January 12, 2015 at 10:01 AM #
“…….by the way, since I do not buy the Advocate, was there any mention of this there?”
Prodigal, I can’t answer that question, because I don’t buy the Advocate either, however, I would read it, if one is given to me free of cost [a privilege which I’m seldom privy to].
But you can be sure there won’t be an article in the Advovate on this matter, and that the resident DLP lackey columnist, Guyson Mayers won’t be make mention of it in any of his articles “A Guy’s View” either.
I wonder what “NationBLPnewspaper” thoughts about the Nation are at this time. He is always complaining that the Nation gives Mia Mottley and the BLP front or back page status.
He can’t complain now, the Nation gave Michael Carrington [a DLP] back page exposure, since he has the entire page 36A of the Sunday Sun all for himself.
@Gabriel
This is when social media becomes relevant and the traditional media lags. We cannot depend on traditional media to drive necessary change.
Apart from the insurance companies abusing and disrespecting the court system while simultaneously refusing to pay legitimate claims to injured claimants, which is bad enough, this is another clear example of how the judiciary is being misused and abused by the political class of idiots in the DLP/BLP governments with utter contempt, disdain and disrespect being displayed by politicians, lawyers, doctors, executives and business people, they believe themselves to be invincible and untouchable.
Kudos to Justice Cornelius for doing her job and showing that the judiciary is not completely and irretrievably corrupt.
Michael Carrington should be disbarred from practicing law for stealing this estate from an elderly, disabled client, that is what lawyers in Barbados have been doing for decades, stealing from the dead, dying, young, old, practicing as both defense and plaintiff’s attorneys and selling out their clients. Some lawyers actually act as attorney for the plaintiff as well as the defense. Lie to and mislead their clients who are not familiar with the law.
Michael Carrington should be fired as speaker of the house of parliamentary vipers for stealing from a client and then adding insult to injury by dragging this elderly man through the court system for many years, wasting the court’s time and taxpayer’s money in the hopes that the client would die and the case would die right along with him. If memory serves me correctly, I believe Carrington himself nearly died TWICE during the course of that case. The old adage “when digging a grave for someone, always dig two” comes to mind and certainly applies right there.
Michael Carrington a minister in the DLP Fruendel Stuart government should be fired forthwith (not allowed to resign) for being a lowlife thief while pretending to be an upstanding politician, lawyer and minister misleading the taxpayers/voters.
If PM Stuart does not fire Carrington, everyone will have proof beyond a doubt that Stuart is just as corrupt and guilty as his ministers and executive friends he intends to protect and who commit crimes and then maliciously create legislation to frighten the citizens into silence by threats of arrest in an effort to cover up the minister’s crimes and shady indiscretions when people discuss them on social media. That is a direct violation of freedom of speech.
Michael Carrington should be in prison and made to jump out of his ass in fright.
I am sure the folks on social media are feeling some sense of vindication right about now.
@ ac January 11, 2015 at 4:24 PM #
“Artaxerxes January 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM #: The FACTS has indicated a DISHONEST lawyer with-holding a client’s funds for 2 years….”
“Now ! that is a bold faced lie even in the face of the” judgement handed ” some can;t help BUT to be untruthful then have the tenacity to preach about honesty,
THE NECESSITY to correct fowlshite splattered on BU is tempting but ac prefer to let those who advocate such to wallow in their ignorance…”
The judged ruled in favour of the plaintiff, in that she ordered Carrington to render an account of ALL sums belonging to the particular estate within 28 days. Carrington “was also ordered to pay interest at the rate per annum from May 13 until the entire sum is paid, and legal costs of over $7,700 incurred by Griffiths.”
Tell me “bald pooched cat”, Carrington LOST THE CASE, which meant the judge DID NOT RULE IN HIS FAVOUR. As the facts were presented, Justice Cornelius found that Carrington with-held his client’s $208,900 for over 2 years, hence her ordering him to repay the money.
Now tell me where is the “bold faced lie” in my statement? Perhaps you have been “wallowing in your ignorance” [about everything] for far too long.
Essentially, the FACT is Carrington’s actions were UNETHICAL and by those actions he has proven to be a DISHONEST INDIVIDUAL. And this is the BOLDFACED TRUTH….. like it or lump it!!!!!!!
@WW
Tell me how U really feel nuh!
SWEEEET fa days!
BIM badly neeeeeeds a top notch Benevolent Dictator to straighten this shyte out and bust these eggheads!
NOTHING will change with BS talk, too many benefitting from crumbs falling off certain tables! Hanggers on, political stooges abound!
Moneybrain…..lol…I know you feel me…lol
Wait until I out what really happens in the back office at CGI insurance company.. I hope Justice Gibson understands the level of corruption he now has to eradicate.
AC…..i don’t have the time, if it was available to me, I would really take a turn in your ass, you corrupt sliver of slime.
Using ac,s response to LM illegalties as a directive to or exemplify Theft or Fraud by mr.carrington is a whimsical defense,and as shown by the judge,s actions that mr.carrington actions were not an attempt to defraud his client and no conviction was recommended for such a charge
Furthermore any speculation or suggestion to the contrary leaves one vulnerable to civil action a concern of reality that “intelligent”person should take seriously
David
This matter with Michael Carrington is sub-judicae in that the Judgement requires Mr. Carrington to submit/render a financial statement and until he does so, anyone commenting on the merits or de-merits of the Judgement and/or the case itself, runs the possibility of being in contempt of court.
This is a fact. I am not for or against Mr. Carrington but we have to be careful when matters are still before the Courts for final determination(s).
Don’t let political yardfowls cause the Courts (which has wide and far reaching powers) cause BU be on the wrong side giving ‘them’ the opportunity to do what ‘they’ have always wanted………..to shut down the site.
@Fuller
Thanks for your caution but we are commenting on the decision not any financial determination.
@ ac January 12, 2015 at 11:30 AM #
“Using ac,s response to LM illegalties as a directive to or exemplify Theft or Fraud by mr.carrington is a whimsical defense,and as shown by the judge,s actions that mr.carrington actions were not an attempt to defraud his client and no conviction was recommended for such a charge…..”
“Jackass will jump and bray, let him bray, let him brayI say the Jackass will jump and bray, Lordy let him bray, let him bray, everybody!”: The Jackass Song – Harry Belafonte
Judging from the above nonsense you spewed, this particular AC does not know what they are “talking about”.
Firstly, the case between Carrington and his former client is a CIVIL LAW SUIT, [in this case, a private law issue between two persons], whereby Griffiths [plaintiff] filed a law suit in court against Carrington [defendant], to recover monetary damages, [i.e. as his claim he incurred a loss as a result of the defendant with-holding his $208,900 without being able to give any satisfactory explanation for this action].
Justice Cornelius examined the evidence to decide whether, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the defendant should be held legally responsible for the damages alleged by the plaintiff. By ordering Carrington to pay the $208,900, accrued interest and legal cost incurred by Griffiths, indicates she ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Secondly, Griffiths did not bring a CRIMINAL LAW SUIT against Carrington, whereby he charged that his former lawyer, by with-holding his [Griffiths] money, attempted to defraud him.
Therefore, Justice Cornelius could not convict or make a recommendation “for such a charge”, since this was a PRIVATE LAW ISSUE [between Griffiths and Carrington] and NOT a criminal law suit.
“A CRIMINAL LAWSUIT is any process in a court of law that seeks legal remedy for illegal actions committed against another party. The fundamental difference between criminal lawsuits and civil lawsuits is that with criminal suits, PUNISHMENT OR PUNITIVE MEASURES ARE SOUGHT AFTER, RATHER THAN JUST FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENTS. The punishments in criminal law come in three forms; incarceration, fines, or the death sentence, depending on the gravity of the crime and jurisdiction.”
As such your comments is “a whimsical defense, and as shown by” the above explanations and definitions.
Perhaps it would be better if the consortium were to consult with each other before making any further attempts to comment on this issue.
OFF TOPIC!!!!!!!! This is what Barbados has come to. So as to be updated on our Government’s day to day affairs the leading radio station in the country, the most listened to voice in Barbados a Starcom Network Station, bends over backwards in its quest to seek out the type of information that at this time is most important to Barbadians. What came over is what has obviously become the staple of the current cabinet of Barbados. IDIOCY. Well into its second term of governance we are supposed to accept that all that has gone wrong in Barbados is everybody else’s fault except those that we pay handsomely to manage our affairs. Dennis Kellman just told all within earshot that not only does drowning men clutch at straw, but they are willing to blatantly LIE to cover their inept asses. God knows this. BARBADOS DESERVES BETTER.
@ Grace Fuller
Those are the old, antiquated, rules. Nobody here can be coward by veiled threats.
In this here Court of public opinion we declare ALL lawyers guilty, even by association, of commingling and stealing property belonging to others. Not paying interest as accrued.
We will no longer wait on a court system which has long suborned legal criminality by lawyers!
David January 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM #…Thanks for your caution but we are commenting on the decision not any financial determination.—————
I expect that you have gone down this path often enough that you well know the law re a matter being ‘sub judicae’. I was a bit amused when the commenter Gabriel called David Ellis’ remarks on the judicial restriction ‘piffle’.
Ms. Fuller’s remarks sent me back to the ‘dictionary of things’, cause I was not so sure that your response was a solid defense to subvert a matter that is sub-judicae. ————-
” …, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day’s legal proceedings.
“Statutory contempt of court: Liability for statutory contempt of court is strict. This means that the publisher cannot escape liability by arguing that he had no intention of prejudicing on-going legal proceedings or that he did not know that the material was sub judice. The degree of prejudice which results from the publication is also irrelevant; it is sufficient that there was a risk that the proceedings would be substantially prejudiced.
“However, a limited number of defences to statutory contempt are available to a publisher, namely that the material comprised a fair and accurate contemporary report or a discussion of public affairs, and, more significantly, that publication of the potentially prejudicial material was made innocently. This last defence applies only where the publisher did not know and had no reason to suspect that the proceedings which featured in the material were active.”
But all moot I suspect. This should fall under “discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day’s legal proceedings”.
The lawyers can pontificate with clarity.
To the Honorable Minister Longtalk……..Your performance on Down To Brasstacks today was nothing short of an embarrassment to anyone with just a modicum of common sense, not to mention those that gleaned anything from the efforts of EWB that today you still mention as one of this party’s achievements. Do us a favor and just GO AWAY.
We however should avoid giving them Star Chamber like social circumstances, for we may end up with another faux Magna Carta Libertatum. Or calls for such.
We say go straight for the guillotine.
The good honest lawyers in Barbados should recommend a way to ensure that Client’s accounts are protected from abuse by dishonest Lawyers.
It is ironic that you have to hire and pay an HONEST lawyer to get your own money back from a DISHONEST lawyer.
Imagine what happens to a family if a member dies while he has money sitting in a client account.
This Client account issue is one where the “good guys” can leave a legacy by changing the status quo. The president of the Bar association could lead.
Hants
This is quite easy. Someone just needs to sue one of these lawyers for breach of trust. Funds received by a lawyer on behalf of his/her client are held in trust and the law is quite trite that the trustee of that trust cannot/should not benefit from that trust, namely, the trustee should not earn money (interest) on those trust funds or retain them for his/her personal use/benefit.
Also as fiduciary trustee the trustee has an obligation in law to set aside those monies (and notify the bank that those monies are trust funds) so that they are encumbered or risked by commingling with the trustee’s other business funds.
@ Grace Fuller
There is no lawyer, in Barbados, that bring such an action. Why would they?
so that they are NOT encumbered or risked by commingling with the trustee’s other business funds. Sorry.
@Hants
You sure Honest Lawyer is NOT an Oxymoron, especially in Bim these days?
My cousin is a Lawyer here in TO and she works for a richass Professional Bajan who owns property here and loads in Bim. He has begged her to return to Bim as he could save so much $$$$$ and give her so much business among his friends/ associates—she just does not want to disrupt her family life here. When she charges him $3k he laughs and says that the same situation would be at least $15k in Bim.
My cousin in Bim is also an honest professional Lawyer ( who you were at Kolij with), as best I can tell from my feedback and certainly believe, but what can he do when the system is broken? You require a ground swell to break the closing of ranks among the crooked Ls. ( I know a Kolij L who had to go out on his own to protect his reputation from the crooks he had in his office) Worked well as landed some large influential clients who said he would never have moved his business if he had stayed put!
The speaker should do the honourable thing and step aside and not wait to be asked. The old folks had a saying, ‘if you din went dey ya name couldn’t get call’. He is no longer Honourable in the eyes of the public, regardless. Who the hell can respect him now spouting orders from a Speaker’s chair. The other lawyers in his predicament are still allowed to practice even after being exposed. I don’t think he will be so lucky. He should be ashamed to show his face in that august chamber ever again and it wouldn’t surprise me if he skips town. He should never have been caught up in this scandal. Won’t be the first Speaker forced to run and hide. That is why I like U.S.justice. He would have been gone before the news hit the press. The other shoe will drop soon on further scandals. Stay tuned.
@artexeres
firstly ac does not have to defend any comments made in regards to LM record. her record clearly speaks for itself wherby as an employee and held to public trust under her supervision monies were unaccounted.
However the issue of carrington the source of your attacks seem however to be rooted in an ongoing tirade of retribution with a desire to convict carrington of theft contrary and totally in opposite to judges order or recommendation which now has become a blatant (although)unconvincinly effort on your part tocast a big net hoping to garner support branding mr.carrington as a Thief
However what is evedient is your failure to incorporate your personnel tirades sufficiently as an attachment to the court ruling.
In the meanwhile (short as it maybe)you might have gathered support among the few handful of followers here on BU .
However in the Court of Justice and law you have failed miserably to convince and as of now nothing else matters
Hav a nice day
The Honourable Minister of Housing embarrassed me and I am sure this nation today on brass tacks. I cannot believe that this is what Cabinet is made up of. The P.M. must cringe to think that his hands are virtually tied with the likes of this man. His constant references to blue peter shark is sickening. Mr. Minister, take a bow and step off – stage left. .It is times like these that I really miss David Thompson.
Miranda
On the issue blue peter sharks, did the Hon Minister get around to mentioning his other favourite, Bill Hawk turtles?
He cannot even get the name called correctly, its Hawks Bill turtles.
It must sting, or does it, when a CEO of a Sagicor mentions in public he plans to rap the knuckles of a minister by writing a letter to his ‘boss’. Barbados we weep for you!
David January 12, 2015 at 2:18 PM #
It must sting, or does it, when a CEO of a Sagicor mentions in public he plans to rap the knuckles of a minister by writing a letter to his ‘boss’. Barbados we weep for you!
…………………………………………………………………………………………
And the list of Members of Parliament who should be downgraded goes on.
(a) David Estwick,……….. Best Actor, 2014
(b) Dennis Lowe …… ……Doctor Do-Little
(c) Michael Carrington… Action Speaks louder than words.
(d) Dennis Kellman……… Lord Haw Haw
That’s why my attorney is a Trinidadian. He was recommended to me by an honest, hardworking, compassionate, British- trained attorney who doesn’t drink at the Barbados Bar. He’s down- to- earth and can be reached by telephone. He works swiftly and is upfront about his fee expectations. So far, so good!
I find it very funny (not ha ha funny) when I hear a call for the exhaulted one to fire The Speaker, MoF, MoT, MoH or any other minister for poor performance. Would that not bring the government down, deny those hard working people of their pension, cut the travel privilege of the exhaulted one, disrupt the gravy train for so many and maybe save the once fatted calf which is now only a skeleton? Come on people, to do so would be to put Barbados first for the first time by this lot.
What happened here is this band of (pick a title) were surprised that the sensible people of Barbados would have replaced OSA and team by an untried and untested team so once elected did not have a game plan. There was no expectancy that this aberration would recur hence certain skills had to be acquired quickly and a mad dash to see who could collect the most marbles quickest within term of office. When the results of the last election became clear in spite of the previous level of HIGH performance, you now had a very experienced band of (enter word of your choice) people again without a game plan and a lot of time on their hands. There’s an old saying ” If you don’t know wher you’re going, any road will take you there” hence the financial roads travelled.
Do the honorable thing? really? Honorable people don’t hold onto people money like this guy did. chuspe! People like him will only stop when somebody put a hard lash in one uh them for this crap. There is no fucking way that somebody can hold on to my money for that long without being very very afraid. Barbados is truly a nation of thieves, from the highest in the land to the lowest – thieving seems to a a national past-time.
@ ac January 12, 2015 at 1:56 PM #
“I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.” Galileo Galilei
It seems as though the coherent of the incoherent ACs has been commissioned to fight the consortium’s case on this issue.
I’m not going to continue on any “back and forth” discussion with you any further. It is evident to all and sundry [with you being the exception] that you have FAILED miserably in trying to defend a lawyer who with-held a sum of money from his client, by mentioning he is NOT GUILTY of being dishonest.
“firstly ac does not have to defend any comments made in regards to LM record. her record clearly speaks for itself wherby as an employee and held to public trust under her supervision monies were unaccounted.”
Similarly, Carrington’s RECORD, as a lawyer, “clearly speaks for itself, whereby as a lawyer and held to his client’s trust under his supervision monies were unaccounted” for.
Carrington breached that trust by with-holding Griffiths’ $208,900 for period of over 2 years, and when asked by the client [and subsequently his lawyer] to account for the funds, Carrington was unable to give a satisfactory explanation.
Consequently, the former client had no choice but to sue the t’iefing lawyer so as to recover his money.
“However what is evedient [EVIDENT] is your failure to incorporate your personnel tirades sufficiently as an attachment to the court ruling.”
By explaining the difference between a CIVIL SUIT and a CRIMINAL SUIT, I succeeded in explaining the court ruling. Once again, I will re-state the definitions for your contemplation. The case brought against Carrington was NOT a CRIMINAL SUIT, and as such, he WAS NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Therefore, Justice Cornelius COULD NOT HAVE RECOMMENDED THE DISHONEST LAWYER TO BE INCARCERATED. Now tell me what about this you CANNOT understand?
Do not blame me for your ignorance and failure to understand the law. However, I must commend you, in the face of adversity, for remaining loyal to the DLP and your obviously blind allegiance to a member of that party who has done his client wrong.
This “January 12, 2015 at 1:56 PM” post by this particular AC was an eloquent piece of shiite………. and no matter how many “pretty statements” you use, it does not take from the fact that Carrington’s, by his actions, to wit, with-holding his client’s funds, is a SERIOUS breach of lawyer/client trust and indicates Carrington is a DISHONEST INDIVIDUAL.
Maybe you should explain to BU why Carrington with-held Griffiths’ $208,900 for a period of over 2 years?
Just as Mia can ill-afford to get rid of Kherrie Symmonds from the Senate, the PM can ill-afford to outwardly fire Michael Carrington as speaker. He just does not have the wiggle room.
When U surround yourself with DOGS you likely to get up with FLEAS!
there is no denying that carrington did wrong, as has been pointed on at least occasions a civil suit was brought against him by one of his clients – in the newspaper report it is stated that ” Carrington did not contest the claim which was first lodged in the court mid-2014″. Surely the fact that he didn’t contest the action is proof of his wrong doing, QED.
@Adrian Hinds
I must say I am very disappointed that no one has really placed a gun in one a these fools mouth as yet or beaten the crap outtta dem! Nothing works better than a very harsh wake up call!
But then again these jokers instinctively know who to mess wid!
You can add Suckoo and Ronald Jones to the downgrade list. I would like someone to explain to me exactly what is Suckoo’s purpose in Cabinet. I can never make any sense of what she says in her breathless tones and Jones seems to be always ready for a brawl with his shameless self. Hey! Wait just downgrade the whole barrel of these useless politicians, bite the bullet and call elections. And while we are at it, throw in the clown from the Central Bank. All these folks seem to have an agenda to bring Barbados down to its lowest level, demean its people and stand by for civil unrest so they can ‘crack heads’.