Tales From the Courts – The Ongoing Saga of Chief Justice Marston Gibson XXVII
Vernon Smith QC
Barbados Today has carried a report – Court Twist – of a recent court proceedings in the matter of Vernon Olivier Smith v the Attorney General and Sir Marston Gibson. This report includes the comments of Sir Henry Forde QC. The spectre of secret court hearings on matters of national interest as attempted by Marston Gibson are, frankly, terrifying.
See Press Release issued by Vernon Smith
BU has been able to obtain a copy of the proceedings filed by Mr Smith QC and, in the national interest we are pleased to publish:-
I VERNON OLIVIER SMITH of “Veronda” Brownes Gap in the parish of Christ Church and Island of Barbados, Queens Counsel MAKE OATH AND SAY as follows:
-
I was born on the 25th day of June 1930 and I qualified as a Solicitor on the 24th day of December 1974 having obtained the Final Part II Certificate of the Law Society of England.
-
I was admitted to the Registrar’s Roll of Attorneys-at-Law in Barbados on the 28th day of April 1975 and have been practicing as such Attorney-at-Law in Barbados since that date.
-
I have also been admitted to the Roll of Solicitors and Barristers in Dominica and St. Vincent and the Grenadines where I have also practiced.
-
From the date of my admission to the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law in Barbados, I have been a member of the Barbados Bar Association (“The Association”) and have always obtained my practicing certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Legal Professions Act Cap. 370A of the Laws of Barbados.
-
Up to 1996 I have paid my annual subscriptions to the Barbados Bar Association.
-
When the Value Added Tax Act Cap. 87 of the Laws of Barbados was introduced in Barbados 1997 I tendered my Bar subscription by way of cheque but it was refused and returned to me on the ground that it did not include VAT. Under cover of letter dated the 29th January 1997 I again tendered the cheque to the Bar Association stating my legal opinion that the subscription was not subject to VAT and undertook that if and when a Court of competent jurisdiction declared that VAT was payable in respect of the Association’s subscriptions, I would pay such VAT and any interests that had accrued thereon. The payment was refused. I attach a copy of the said letter as exhibit “VOS 1”.
-
I immediately returned the cheque to the Association under cover of letter dated 30th January 1997 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “VOS 2”) giving the Bar my written undertaking that when a Court of competent jurisdiction in Barbados declared that the Bar’s annual subscription was subject to VAT, I would pay such VAT together with the interest that would have accrued thereon.
-
The payment was refused and the cheque was returned to me.
-
I tendered my annual subscription in the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 with the same result. I attach hereto the letters of tender with the cheques attached as a bundle marked exhibit “VOS 3 a-f”.
-
Accordingly I have been awaiting from the Association the declaration of the Court of competent jurisdiction in Barbados that VAT is payable on the annual subscription or the notification of the Bar that it would accept my subscription free of VAT. I further state that VAT does not form part of the Bar’s subscription but a tax imposed by the Government of Barbados in respect of such bodies that carry on business in respect of the sales of goods and services which are not offered for sale by the Bar Association which comes within the definition of a trade union which is an exempt person under the Act. In fact VAT is enforceable only by the Revenue Authority of Government if not paid as required by the VAT Act. I am still awaiting the requested declaration of the Court and/or the advice of the Association of its willingness to accept my annual subscription free of VAT.
-
In support of my contention that VAT was not chargeable in respect of the subscription of the Bar Association, I submitted to the Association the authoritative case on the matter namely: “The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales v. Customs and Excise Commissioners 2 ALL ER (1999) 449 HL”.
-
In the year 2005 I was admitted to the inner bar.
-
The approved Minutes of the annual general meeting of the Bar Association held on the 1st day of November 2008 disclosed that discussions were held between the Registrar, the then President of the Bar Association and the Chief Justice Sir David Simmons with respect to the non-payment of annual subscriptions on the part of some members of the Association and a resolution was passed at the meeting to the effect that the Bar would take no further action in the matter of non-payment of subscriptions by members because of the expense that would be involved in pursuing the matter. I attach hereto a copy of the relevant record of the Minutes of the Meeting as exhibit “VOS 4”.
-
As result of the Bar’s refusal to accept my annual subscriptions without VAT, I have not considered myself a member of the Association and the Association has never considered or treated me as a member by refusing to list my name on its website as an Attorney-at-Law on the Roll of Attorneys-at-law in Barbados, by omitting my name from its annual published lists of Attorneys-at-Law to whom a practicing certificate has been issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court and by refusing to email to me the Supreme Court list of cases emailed to it by the Registrar for circulation to all Attorneys-at-Law to whom a practicing certificate has been issued and all other matters of the Bar communications circulated to its members. I further state in so doing the Bar acknowledged that my consent and its own consent were required for membership of the Association and accordingly I have never considered it necessary to raise the constitutionality of Sections 44 and 45 of the Legal Profession Act Cap. 370A of the Laws of Barbados as a ground of not being a member of the Bar.
-
By letter dated 16th June 2014, Mr. Barry Gale, Q.C. the then President of the Bar Association wrote the defendant as Chief Justice identifying the Attorneys-at-Law who had not paid their subscriptions to the Bar and upon receipt of the same the Defendant by letter dated 19th June 2014 (a copy of which is attached hereto as “VOS 5”) replied to Barry Gale that he would instruct the Acting Registrar, Mrs. Laurie Ann Smith-Bovell to inform the Attorneys-at-law listed in Mr. Gale’s letter that their practicing certificate were not valid in the absence of the Bar Association subscriptions and to direct them to return their practicing certificates to her as soon as possible. I have never had notice nor sight of First Defendant’s letter dated 24th June 2014.
-
I am informed by Mrs. Laurie Ann Smith–Bovell and verily believe that on receipt of a letter sent to her by the First Defendant in accordance with his letter dated 24th June 2014 she requested the First Defendant to submit to her the law, statutory or otherwise that gave her or him the authority to take such action. I am further informed and advised by Mrs. Laurie Ann Smith-Bovell and verily believe that the Defendant has never submitted to her the information requested.
-
Since the 1st day of January 1997 I have appeared before all the Judges of the Supreme Court of Barbados including the First Defendant, the Disciplinary Committee, the Privy Council and Caribbean Court of Justice representing parties in the matters before the Courts and I have never been refused audience because I have always held a practicing certificate issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Barbados.
-
On 16th February 2015 when the Supreme Court Action No. 99 of 2015 entitled Clico International Life Insurance Limited v. Leroy Parris, Branlee Consulting Services Inc. and the Estate of David Thompson in which I was retained to represent the Second Defendant was set down for hearing before the Honourable Mr. Justice Chandler. Before entering the Court for the hearing, Mr. Barry Gale, Q.C. spoke to Mr. Hal Gollop, Q.C., Mr. Michael Yearwood and myself informing us that he was going to raise the issue of the non-payment of the annual subscription with the Judge and will ask him that we be not given audience because we did not have practicing certificates. I thanked Mr. Gale for letting me know and for the professional courtesy be extended to me in giving me notice before hand, but stated that I had never refused to pay the Bar subscription.
-
Mr. Gale was present in the Court when the hearing began before The Honourable Mr. Justice Chandler but he never raised the issue with the Judge.
-
On Tuesday the 14th day of April 2015 Mr. Gale did not inform Mr. Gollop, Mr. Yearwood nor myself that he would raise the issue of non-payment before the Chief Justice who was presiding at the hearing on that date. I appeared before the First Defendant presiding in the High Court on the hearing of the said Supreme Court Action No. 99 of 2015. After appearances were entered by Counsel appearing for the parties in the action, Mr. Barry Gale, Q.C. who had no locus standi in the proceedings in the Court, and is not the President of the Barbados Bar Association, sought the first Defendant’s permission which was granted to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Counsel namely: the Claimant Vernon O. Smith, Q.C., Mr. Hal Gollop, Q.C. appearing in association with Mr. Michael Yearwood appearing as Counsel for the First Defendant had not paid their subscription to the Bar in accordance with the Legal Profession Act Cap. 365 of the Laws of Barbados and had no right of audience before any Court in Barbados as they were not in possession of a valid practicing certificate. Such a statement was and is false; accordingly Mr. Gale knowingly and maliciously misled the Court in breach of Section 82 of the Legal Profession Code of Ethics.
-
In the premises, it was evident to me that the First Defendant and Mr. Barry Gale, Q.C. had agreed and arranged to have Mr. Gale appear before the Court to raise the issue of non-payment of subscriptions on the part of Counsel. Furthermore, I state that the Bar Association has discriminated against me. I am informed by my colleague Mr. Michael Springer, Q.C. that on the 16th day of April 2015 the Bar Association accepted his annual subscription without VAT and fraudulently issued to him its receipt with the VAT Registration Number endorsed thereon without VAT having been received or claimed. I attach hereto the said receipt of the Association marked Exhibit “VOS 6”.
-
I have just received a letter dated 11th July 2014 sent to Mr. Sanka Price, Reporter of the Nation Newspaper from the First Defendant which states as follows: “I would be grateful if you would publish the contents of this email unedited so that my response will be read by the public of Barbados in the same way as it was able to read the article published in yesterday’s Sunday Sun. It has been my policy, in the spirit of Alternate Dispute Resolution (“ADR”), to avoid disputes if there is another way to resolve them by private meetings. But there are times when that policy must yield to a public explication of positions I have taken. As we “speak”, I am presently in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad attending a Caribbean Heads of Judiciary meeting about locating money for justice improvement given the present economic crisis. However, I received calls at my hotel regarding the article and felt that an urgent response was necessary. At the outset, let me express my deep disappointment at the article. The newly elected Bar President, Mr. Tariq Khan, and the Bar Council were voted into office on 30 June 2014. A week later, Mr. Khan requested a meeting with me and I readily agreed to have the meeting on 23 July 2014. In addition, I indicated to him that we would schedule a meeting of the Judicial Council for early September 2014 since I neither wished to meet in the August vacation nor to meet at a time when judges were of on vacation leave in July. I am, therefore, not sure what the publication of the article accomplishes when we have not yet met and the date is but 10 days away. But since we are in the public arena, let me say now what my wish list is for that meeting on 23 July. First, I want to find out what is the Bar’s plan to tackle the growing instances of attorney dishonesty. The twitter in Barbados is that there are several attorneys who are in the same position as the attorney whose case is presently pending before the Court of Appeal. The problem is that the Disciplinary committee of the Bar, under the indefatigable leadership of Mrs. Marguerite Woodstock-Riley QC, has been unable to get its head above the staggering backlog under which it labours. Yes, the Disciplinary Committee has a huge backlog of complaints against lawyers! Doubtless, several of the those complaints will be found meritless, but several require investigation. This is an issue which the Bar has not dealt with, at least not publicly, and the Disciplinary Committee needs help. Too many Barbadians view attorneys as belonging to some sort of secret organisation which protects itself even when its members commit defalcations against clients accounts. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Disciplinary Committee meets in the Supreme Court building every Tuesday and works until late in the evening. The suggestion which I plan to make on an interim basis is for volunteer lawyers to assist the Committee with its work but a long term solution is desperately needed if the Bar is not to lose out in the crisis of trust which presently exists. The Disciplinary Rules require that complainants complete an affidavit but we may need to consider the possibility of permitting “whistleblower” complaints by lawyers against lawyers on a confidential basis. Even I have heard of lawyers who owe hundreds of thousands of dollars and who are being permitted to repay the money piecemeal, without any formal complaint being filed with the Committee. This is intolerable and cannot be permitted to continue.
Secondly, the issue has arisen where certain attorneys have refused to pay their annual Bar fees despite the clear language of the Legal Profession Act. I have recently sent a letter out to the Judges and Magistrates directing that such lawyers have no right of audience in the Courts. To their credit, the two Presidents of the Bar with whom I have worked have raised this as a major issue but until recently with the suggestion of Mr. Barry Gale QC, there has been no discussion of the appropriate remedy. This is another matter which I wish to have discussed at our 23 July meeting.
As to the other issues raised by the Bar, I say only two things. With regard to security, I have toiled over this one. I am aware that the lawyers are reluctant to be searched before entering the Supreme Court building but an incident occurred two years ago where an attorney walked into the Supreme Court building with knives. Now truth be told, the knives were to be used as evidence in a case, but the fact that he never voluntarily put the knives through the magnetometer, or even alerted the custodial staff remains a huge problem for us. Security is a major matter of concern and I can tell you that in some metropolitan countries, all persons entering court buildings, including lawyers, are subject to search. As to the parking, it continues to be a bugbear. I note only that when we occupied the old building at Coleridge Street, there was literally no parking, and we managed.
There are some other minor issues with which I will not trouble you or the public at this point. But let me serve notice that with the Court’s new website, the launch of which is impending, the Courts will be a lot less willing to be a “shrinking violet.” We will have a page where our positions will be made clear to the public. Until then, we will use this medium to set straight any records liable to be misunderstood.
I thank you for your kind consideration.
I remain,
Yours very truly,
Marston C.D. Gibson,
Chief Justice of Barbados”
This letter clearly establishes that the First Defendant conspired with persons known and unknown to disbar me without legal authority and/or without due process in breach of my legal, fundamental, constitutional and human rights guaranteed to me under Section 16, 18 and 21 of the Constitution of Barbados. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “VOS 7”. I shall seek leave of the Honourable Court at the hearing hereof to refer to the letter for its full contents, context, significance and import -
I immediately pointed out to the First Defendant that I was in fact the holder of a valid practicing certificate dated 23rd February 2015 and issued to me by the Registrar of the Supreme Court which remained valid until 31st January 2016; that the hearing of Mr. Gale’s intervention was irregular and improper and that his statement to the Court was false in the light of the fact that I have never refused to pay the annual subscription to the Bar Association. I also indicated that the only authority that could remove my practicing certificate was the Court of Appeal on the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association for a breach of the code of ethics of the legal profession.
-
Nevertheless the First Defendant then summarily and without further enquiry or proper evidence and due process informed me that he will not allow me audience before him in the Court and thereby disbarring me. I accordingly asked him whether his decision was an order or declaration and he answered “No” As a result I took my leave of the Court.
-
As a result of my disbarment from representing my client at the hearing of the matter I was deprived of my retainer fee which was agreed between me and my client in the sum of $120,000.00 because the First defendant proceeded to hear the matter without giving my client the opportunity to retain senior counsel in my place or to allow my client to be represented by Queen’s Counsel of his choice.
-
Subsequently, by letter dated 16th April 2015 I wrote the first defendant a letter complaining that my disbarment by him without due process constituted a serious breach of my constitutional, fundamental and human rights which have been guaranteed to me by Sections 16, 18 and 21 of the Barbados Constitution. I attach hereto a copy of the said letter as exhibit “VOS 8”.
-
I have not received a reply from the first defendant to my letter.
-
Subsequently, by letter dated 22nd April 2015 I again wrote the First Defendant requesting that he supply me with the reason for his decision within 7 days. Up to the date hereof I received no response from the first defendant.
-
I have never refused to pay the annual Bar subscription and will remain willing and ready to pay the subscription but without VAT.
-
I make this affidavit in support of my claim filed herein for the following relief:
-
A Declaration that in the events which have happened, a decision and/or administrative act and/or advice and/or recommendation of the First Defendant to refuse the Claimant audience in the matter suit 99/2015: Clico International Life Insurance Ltd. and Leroy Parris, Branlee Consulting Services Inc., The Estate of David Thompson and by extension the right to represent his client Branlee Consulting Services Inc. in the said matter was:
-
an administrative act or omission that was unauthorized and contrary to law;
-
an excess of jurisdiction;
-
a failure to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law;
-
a breach of the principles of natural justice;
-
an irregular or unreasonable or improper exercise of discretion;
-
an abuse of power;
-
an exercise of bad faith which was precipitated by irrelevant considerations;
-
an example of acting on representations of an unauthorized person;
-
a conflict with an Act of Parliament;
-
an error of law;
-
based on an absence of evidence on which a finding or assumption of fact could reasonably be based,
-
a breach of omission of his duty to perform a duty; and
-
a denial of my civil and constitutional rights.
B) An order of certiorari to quash the decision and/or administrative act/or advice and/or recommendation of the First Defendant to deny the Claimant audience before the Courts of Barbados thereby disbarring him as an attorney of law qualified to practice in the Courts of Barbados
C) Injunction to restrain the First Defendant by himself or otherwise from any further action which may lead to a denial of the Claimant’s right of audience before the Courts of Barbados and any further act of disbarment.
D) Damages for loss of fees during the Claimants’ period of disbarment
E) Costs
F) Further or other relief
Barbados Underground 
David
I would like to raise a side issue which does not impact on Mr. Smith’s case which came up in his pleadings.
Mr. Smith transcribed a letter to Sanka Price in his affidavit. The sentence which starts with: “The Twitter in Barbados…” constitutes a serious breach of ethics to my mind. That was a clear reference to the case of Therold Fields which was then before the Court of Appeal. It would appear that the Chief Justice’s mind was made up before the case was concluded. I hold no belief for Mr. Fields but again to my mind, he suffered injustice by having the Chief Justice preside over his case.
I am not now concerned about Fields’ innocence or guilt but by what is a clear miscarriage of justice. It is clear now that Sir Marston in his role of Chief Justice is chewing on more than he can bite off. It is time that he and the powers-that-be recognise that they have the wrong man for the job and negotiate his graceful exit from the office of Chief Justice.
LikeLike
This indeed one of the most serious matters of judicial impropriety that Barbados is faced with
Where can one begin?
At the substantive issue of the levying of VAT by the Bar?
At the issue of the UnConstitutionality of the actions?
At the obvious and nefarious bias of the Chief Justice?
As you go through this list of sequential horrors cited by the Plaintiff Vernon Smith delivered in a non-prolix style (thanks to Jeff Cumberbatch for that word) you arrive as what is a serious indictment to the Halls of Justice on a number of levels, the complicity of its stewards (nearly said stewarts) this is a system that is rotten to the core
When one of their own can come out and squarely lay all of their dirty linen in the eye of the public one can only just understand what the common man and woman experiences every day in Bulbados
This is frightening.
Almost as frightening as de ole man waking up because of the noises of things that go “bump in the night” like the scythe of the Harbinger.
Wunna think the common man or woman here i Barbados sat down to read this article?
Or will sit down and read it?
This cuntry is in a mess
LikeLike
I rarely comment these days, for which I apologise, but life has been extremely hectic and my friend Bushy has been saying, more amusingly and much more briefly, what I would have said anyway. However, on this issue, being one of those who (wrongly) supported the appointment of Marston Gibson, I have to say that he has got to go, whether gracefully or kicked out, is irrelevant. But out he must go.
Casewell, you are absolutely correct on the matter of Fields. I too hold no brief for Fields, but Fields and every Bajan has the right to expect impartiality. If we deny it to Fields, then somewhere down the line someone will try to use the Fields template and deny it to any one of us. I will add to what you have said. The clear prejudice of the Chief Justice in the Fields matter constitutes gross misconduct and is clear grounds for the process of his removal under the Constitution to be started by the one person with the authority to start it. The Prime Minister. So, PM, we have ears to hear, so let us hear….your words, PM.
I am not going to pretend not to know the details of Mr Smith QC’s case. Of course, I know the details, as does every lawyer whose head is not stuck in the sand at Cattlewash, in the Caribbean, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. They are all watching it with great interest and total disbelief at the conduct of Gibson and Gale. The international press is also watching it and I have been asked by one of my Canadian colleagues to alert him to any developments for a major press organ, because of the fact that the Government of Canada, concerned at the position of Canadian investors in Barbados about the lamentable state of Barbados’ justice system and its equally lamentable chief justice, funnelled CDA$20 million through the CCJ to Barbados to be used to correct the system – and Gibson has done NOTHING!!!! So where has the money gone? On trips to China so that Gibson has learn about secret court lists and secret courts from the Chinese so he can implement them in Barbados? Are we about to see dissenters taken out and publicly shot in the head in the National Stadium after secret court cases and the bills for the bullets sent to the families?
I also read in BT of the attempt by the AG and the CJ to have Mr Smith QC’s case struck out. These are the tactics of desperation when the CJ has no defence – and knows it. So too do the AG and the assistant Sol. Gen., but neither of them has any expectation of success with that tactic, unlike the CJ – which is alarming.
I knew that Mr Smith QC was elderly, but I did not know he had passed his 85th birthday. It is an indictment of the entire legal profession and the executive that it takes an 85+ year old man to have the guts to do what they should have done and take this CJ down. In terms of war, this would have led to the equivalent of a Victoria Cross or a Congressional Medal of Honour for outstanding valour. Maybe it is time for Mr Smith QC, who has given so much to the legal system, to be accorded the same knighthood as a CJ who has not only done so little, but seems hell-bent on unravelling the justice system for his own egotistical benefit. First class flights, VIP receptions and, of course, cocktail parties…..many cocktail parties. All at the expense of the Bajan taxpayer whose rights he seems intent on denying and subjugating so that he can tell those in New York State who, for abundant reasons that are now apparent to us, blocked his advancement there, “Look at me now. I is a chief justice.”
@ pieceuhderockyeahright. Terrifying if he is not kicked out on his sorry ass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it not distressing to read that the office of Chief Justice would ignore correspondence from a citizen and officer of the court? It begs the question what other forms of injustice lurks in Whitepark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@David.
Just one more observation I have to make, after having read Mr Smith QC’s press release. It relates to the fact that the CJ sent a letter to the Registrar and all judges and magistrates instructing them to deny audience to counsel listed by Mr Gale QC and the BA.
The CJ has no authority to instruct any judge in their own courtroom as to whether or not they should deny audience. The CJ cannot instruct any judge as to the conduct of their respective courts. We know for a fact that the then Registrar refused the instruction and we know for a fact that almost all of the judges and magistrates have refused the CJ’s instructions, as is their right.
However, because of that written instruction, the bench, as far as I know, 100% of the bench, has taken a position on the matter. Therefore, for any currently sitting judge who received the CJ’s instructions to hear the case would certainly raise the appealable ground of prejudice. To a man/woman, they all have to recuse themselves from hearing the case. Justice Worrell has already done so for the reasons set out by Mr Smith. This, in the case of Justice Worrell, is in accordance with the universality of the Pinochet case and Lord Hoffman that came before the House of Lords where a decision given by a panel that included Lord Hoffman was vacated due to the fact that Lord Hoffman’s wife was counsel for an interested party, namely Amnesty International. The matter had to be re-heard.
It has also become the practice in Barbados for the CJ to select judges to hear cases, not the Registrar and one might also question why Justice Worrell, a criminal law judge, was selected to hear a civil case of this extreme import, particularly as the CJ was fully aware of his conflict of interest in the first place.
The solution is simple, of course, but, as a party to the action, the CJ should not be allowed to choose a judge to hear the case. It is, in my view, therefore, necessary to go out of the country and select an un-conflicted and uncontaminated judge. Otherwise, all that is being done is to waste court time with hearings that will have to be adjourned as judge after judge is forced to recuse him/her self. These enormous expenses have to be borne out of the public purse, i.e. you and me.
If the CJ refuses to go quietly, which, given the severity of the allegations, the clear adverse position and lack of support of the bench and the lack of confidence in him by Bajans, then the PM has a little problem. His only way forward, it seems to me, is to advise the GG that the CJ must be suspended, pending the outcome of a Royal Enquiry, appoint an acting CJ and leave it to the acting CJ to identify and select an un-conflicted and uncontaminated external judge to hear the matter.
If Marston Gibson actually had the good of the justice system at heart, he would step aside voluntarily so that justice could not only be done, but seen to be done. And if Marston Gibson actually imagined he had a defense, he would be prepared to make his re-instatement dependant on the outcome. So why has he not done that, instead of wasting court time and our resources and using tactics unbecoming the courts, far less its CJ?
Therefore, I conclude that Mr Smith is indeed correct in his judgement that he cannot receive justice from the Supreme Court. As Mr Smith has said, he has appeared before almost all judges and magistrates post the CJ’s letter to them instructing them to deny audience, instructions that they, as was their right, refused. The ONLY conclusion that can be reached is that it was their opinion that the CJ lacked the authority and was wrong in law. How can any of them then reverse themselves in favour of the CJ without the clear conclusion of bias? And if they rule for Mr Smith, then the CJ can claim as appealable grounds that they had already pre-judged the case.
The eyes of the Region and of the World are on this one. The Executive, i.e. the PM, simply cannot afford to screw it up, nor can unnecessary and easily rectifiable delays be permitted. For with each delay, investment counsellors worldwide will be advising their clients strongly NOT to invest in Barbados.
LikeLike
@Amused
If any JA out there believes BU is making this stuff up as detailed in Tales of the Courts and Lawyers in the News, we remind you of the talk show held last weekend with Andrew Pilgrim and Gregory Nicholls.
LikeLike
@David. By JA, do you mean Justice of Appeal or Jack Ass?
LikeLike
@Amused
Do not forget Jenny, we do not want to be accused of discrimination.
LikeLike
@David. Good one. Like it. LOL. Very PC, or is that “ac”?
LikeLike
The BLP MIA and Owen .From 1997 to 2015 VAT is a fraud upon the people with UDC , even crook lawyers need not be robbed ,What have we seen for 18 years of 15% vat ?Now 17.5%=18% for we have no pennies or cents ,they now have it at 20%VAT with out a person doing the Math, Spend a Dollar and pay the Vat, will they charge you 15% and stop at the 5 cents? or take it to the 20 for there nothing in the middle for change in Barbados between 17.5 and 20 to be return in your hands
LikeLike
@Amused, as a non-lawyer I read your exposition with keen interest. Clearly your legal acumen shines through brightly so thanks for the well reasoned commentary.
My only concern, or dismay really, is the fact that on the one hand you acclaim the valor -in the face of apparent judicial tyranny – of an 85 year old stalwart and on the other you indict yourself and others of your profession for allowing this type tyranny to take root and spread.
Today we speak voluminously about CJ Gibson and his seeming overreach of power and authority but surely the overall issues raised here on BU are not located directly and only at the feet of this CJ; they did not start with his installation.
Remarkably, whenever there is a mention of a court case the issue of exorbitant fees is inextricably linked (And then we wonder about average Brathwaites or Clarkes getting their day in court).
I accept your solid logic on why this case heard by a local judge is automatically ‘appealable’. As I understand your discourse, that is based on the fact that no local judge could be considered impartial and unbiased. But I ask: really and so what?
Do we fundamentally expect that judges are always truly ‘impartial’ in little Barbados. What I certainly expect is that even in the face of that initial leaning to one direction that they can yet manage the case with stoic certainly and provide a ruling based on the evidence and the law: in sum, be judicial and issue an absolutely impartial ruling.
But regardless it will go to appeal. So on to the CCJ where their impartial ruling will be ‘accepted’.
Afterall, even if an outside jurist hears the case at first instance will it not STILL be appealed whatever that outcome.
Sir, this case signals to me the absolute and complete game we call life. The legal system in Barbados has been its own cesspole of nepotism and friends across friends in the well and so on for donkey years. The system is like the wonderful old time Bridgetown Club type atmosphere of ‘collegiate adversary’ .
So the old bull (respectfully so named) is now locking horns with a young usurper who clearly has miscalculated and perhaps has provided the best form of ammunition to his own execution….unless of course the bull’s biological clock calls time.
Amazing that Mr. Vernon Smith one of the ultimate insiders of privilege and political heft could be the one to ‘reshape’ our judiciary.
LikeLike
The Law of Nature insofar as” Nature abhors a vacuum” is such an instructive thing in matters like these.
Even today, in this sector of our lives, where those of the very fraternity who have created this abhorrent vacuum, the so-called “Law and Justice, a la Bulbados, located at Coleridge Street (or is it now Whitepark Road?) now have a falling our among themselves
Here is this rangling among the select brotherhood of the Legal Fraternity which decided the cases among themselves, behind closed doors, and customarily discommodes the very clients that have taken fees to represent, now is “vomiting” because the very vacuum upon which they have profiteered dishonestly for all these years, now turns back to bite them in their respective pooches, Alair Shepherd notwithstanding.
While many have hopes for change and other have, and still plan, a violent revolution, the Law of Nature which many of us know to be the very hand of God, now disposes the very critical “revolution” which we know MUST COME
It is an equally sad observation though that, even as the BU-ians have jumped into the Fray and battle with WHOEVER IT IS, Big or SMALL, that the very Opposition Party, with its so called luminaries, DALE “SMILEY TEEETS” MARSHALL and MIA AMOR MOTTLEY, both former Attorneys General, the very onse we would expect to be championing this for the masses, ARE, AS USUAL, MISSING FROM THE ACTION.
We WILL GET RID OF THE DEMS BUT WHAT DO WE PROPOSE TO REPLACE THEM WITH??
LikeLike
Piece
That’s a very good question, and I think you already knew the answer, but you’re playing fool to catch wise.
LikeLike
Do the following statements ring true ——
a state of society without government or law
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control
lack of obedience to an authority
confusion and disorder
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual
What do the above statements define — ANARCHY
LikeLike
Perhaps more of us are beginning to understand what Plantation DEEDS has be going on and on about now for years…
LikeLike
Wily Coyote
Whether you wish, like, care or want to admit it, in what appears from one perspective as disorder there is always some form of order.
The question the becomes however: does man need a system abstract laws and the persons to enforce them to do the right.
Well, John Locke, argues that in order for man live in harmony with his fellow human that it is necessary for him to formulate a Social -Contract.
Locke further argues that without this Social – Contract and laws to govern human life, man is subject to the contest of wills and the man with stronger will often rules.
LikeLike
Mr Smith’s missive must have the DLP dilapidated think tank mechanism well and truly stumped since Mr Smith is a DLP and the BLP operatives cannot be accused of castigating the Chief Justice because he is from a poor black family.
LikeLike
I hope you all will spare a thought for those accused persons languishing at Dodds because of the backlogs and inefficiencies in the Judicial system.
The law of averages suggest that there are innocent people in jail along with the guilty.
LikeLike
languishing ! backlog! inefficiencies 1 accused ! good analysis hants would u like to add anything else to your short list of recitations / ammm how about remedies
LikeLike
Are you some sort of retard?
Why should a commentator living in Canada be cajoled into giving solutions when you and your merry band of idiots not only have no solution but have brought a kangol wearing hat idiot to so clearly phvck it up?
LikeLike
I know this issue is much bigger than this but though I hope justice will eventually be done it is good for Mr. Smith to feel the pinch of the shoe now that it is on his foot. Karma indeed!
LikeLike
I despair.
LikeLike
@Amused September 18, 2015 at 3:38 AM “However, on this issue, being one of those who (wrongly) supported the appointment of Marston Gibson.”
I told you so.
LikeLike
@Caswell Franklyn September 18, 2015 at 12:41 AM “but by what is a clear miscarriage of justice. It is clear now that Sir Marston in his role of Chief Justice is chewing on more than he can bite off. It is time that he and the powers-that-be recognise that they have the wrong man for the job and negotiate his graceful exit from the office of Chief Justice.”
Why graceful?
If you ever held a job on which you were “chewing on more than you could chew” did your employer permit a graceful exit or did they just fire your ars@?
LikeLike
Vernon Smith was born on the 25th day of June 1930. The life expectancy of Bajan men is 75.2
Perhaps this case will be resolved not by law but by biology.
LikeLike
The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
LikeLike
ammm i was just kidding ole man would not expect a brain frozen bajan canadian to have remedies after all being an armchair critic is much easier . remedies is all about having a brain that is not frozen, one that is workable.
amm btw the way retard sounds good to me. makes one unaccountable for actions,,
LikeLike
this whole fiasco sounds kinda shitty to me ,,which reminds me that MIA MOTTLEY is yet to show proof of her LEC to the public a legal requirement by LAW,,,
LikeLike
Thine hignorance knows no bounds.
LikeLike
Yes and to be a little more ignorant let me also imply the arrogance of Mottley refusal shows a contemptuous attitude .This is an issue that needs to be sufficiently vetted, especially in this society all kinds of strings are pull to favor the political class, this issue would not be swept away but would remained relevant until the individual involved act accordingly.
What law and why was she given special privilege when other lawyers with similar references had to go through the full process,
Mottley is one not to hid from confrontation ,however on this issue of the LEC she has remained silent only allowing some of her confidants to address an issue which applies solely to her
LikeLike
Every single blog you demonstrate the ability to reduce the discussion to nothingness. All you do is to remind some of us the definition of yard fowl.
LikeLike
Is AC not EXACTLY reflective of this DLP government?
So what else do you expect….?
Of course you could always ban her A$S….
but then some of us may not be faced with the reality that a government could be SO….
..lets just say that …’their hignorance could be SO boundless’.
…so leff she… 🙂
LikeLike
Huh Yardfowlism . Really, Well if questioning the integrity and accountability of one who seeks the highest office in barbados {BTW which many of the articles on BU does with relentless vigor of the present Govt,} is yardfowlism so be it, could not care less what you think. However i am pleased that the issue of MIA LEC has rattled your cage,
LikeLike
When you learn to string a coherent sentence together then anything you write may resonate.
JA
LikeLike
Why does the Discipline Committee of the Bar Association investigate matters which appear from the get go to be criminal in nature? Is this not the role of the Police and DPP.
IT IS PURE FUCKERY THAT BAR ASSOCIATION POLICES ITSELF. PURE FUCKERY.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BU would have loved to pose the question to Andrew Pilgrim last week whether he believes the role of the BA and President useless. There us a common thread to many of our problems, for example:
Minister Steve Blackett confirmed this week the CCB has 7 child care officers but double the number is required to do a better job BUT the government has no money. The same is true about improving the delivery of justice in Barbados. Here is a silly question, how can Blackett and Gibson gain credibility or be seen as honest if they promise they have put measures in place to improve the situation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a silly question, how can Blackett and Gibson gain credibility or be seen as honest if they promise they have put measures in place to improve the situation?
++++++++++++++
Dat is an easy question D….
…because a promise is a comfort to a BB….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can someone please tell me whether lawyers are registered for VAT?
If they are, then the VAT charged by the Bar Association is presumably a valid input tax credit which can therefore be offset against VAT charged by the lawyer to clients.
If offset, the VAT on the subscription Is not actually a cost left with the lawyer.
What sort of person continues a 28 year campaign about a cost he is not actually incurring?
LikeLike
Oh and was it not Mia who started the ball rolling in Parliament armed with yard fowl bile and accusations .
LikeLike
AC, you must be awarded the piped piper award for the BU blog. You have the annoying ability to lead astray all bloggers.
This MIA lec matter is one of your sickly songs with an obvious lack of rhythmic commonsense. The burden is not on Ms Mottley to show anything, oh silly blogger. The burden is on the legal system that allowed her to practice.
The mere fact that your AG (well ours too) has said not a word on this matter since his pronouncements in Parliament should be enough to warn you of the old saying “fools rush in, where wise men fear to thread”.
We fully understand that you and your entire crew who raised this matter are too clueless to see how abjectly unschooled you are.
Logic defeats you. But you do get bloggers to follow your songs of folly, don’t you!
LikeLike
@Dee Word
You forgot to mention MAM continues to practice in the Courts of Barbados. The CJ has the option to debar her like he did Smith maybe? What a farce!
From where ac sits in the US she is clueless about the day to day machinations of the Courts.
LikeLike
@St. Georges, as much as Mr Smith’s long years of dispute may appear trivial or contrived based on your assertion that in fact he could off-set the VAT, if one considers or believes that the action which is prescribed is unlawful then his actions seem reasonable.
I do not pretend to speak on the legal technicalities but Smith’s actions over the years have been based on a principle of law as he sees it. This matter should have been resolved in the courts or by act of parliament years ago.
Like him or loath him and all attorneys who we perceive pervert the very legal system they pretend to hold sacrosanct but unless we can stand up on (little) aspects of the law which we believe assault our basic rights we will fall (as they say) for anything.
So on principle it seems Mr. Smith has a very valid point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is Smith’s beef with the CJ based on the affidavit just about VAT?
LikeLike
David, based on AC’s pronouncements I would vehemently disagree (LOL) with your assertion.
Forget, “day to day machinations of the Courts”. Plain and simple: “….s/he is clueless…”
So let today be our last effluence ever on Messrs ACs’ clueless pronouncements (LOL)!!
LikeLike
Well David, based on the fact that the VAT issue caused Mr Smith to be unable to add to his retirement a/c I would suggest that the ‘restraint of trade/disbarment’ finality engendered by the CJ’s action is very much the origin of Mr Smith’s claim.
Of course being the astute and learned legal tactician he is he has taken the opportunity to throw an entire kitchen sink of legal issues at the CJ.
So not ‘just about’ and not to play semantics but it’s very much ‘all about’ the VAT.
From that stems his ‘illegal disbarment’, thus inability to make income, an assault on his integrity, defilement of the legal system, abuse of power etc etc. Yes, the alpha is the VAT issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Incidentally David, we all feel it but don’t want to say it that there is more here. Some personal or other subplots.
The fact that the CJ decided to make Vernon Smith the poster boy on this BA fees/certification e matter could be coincidental, age discriminatory (smile), generational (another smile) or more sinister.
At the end of the day a battle is only as well formed as the outcome and the collateral damage along the way. Thus far it seems the CJ has been a very poor tactician in this particular battle.
It cannot be good for a Chief Justice when his entire top level legal coterie refute his ruling as flawed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dee Word
Yes, there is more.
LikeLike
Again I ask, how is it none of the lawyers complained when David Simmons former corrupt CJ, did more to harm the supreme court and the people of the country who are not legally savvy, than Justice Gibson, can even fathom, did these same lawyers do anything to strip away the rot that has held the supreme court under siege for the last 20 years.
Besides being openly critical, are any of these lawyers helping Justice Gibson undo the nasty corruption, that he did not create in the supreme court. The likes of Vernon Smith helped create the mess, I am happy to see it now biting him in the ass….lol
None of these frat boys and girls are addressing Peter Harris’ blatant disrespect for the supreme court, are they all on his payroll.
What about all the victims who had/have personal injury cases before the court and are being screwed, the people with land issues, that the land thief David Simmons caused so much misery, some of those people have gone to their graves, Simmons still has a case going on in Canada for land theft in Barbados.
These shitty little sissy issues about Therold Fields ( who should have been introduced to Gaston Glock for the thief that he is), Vernon Smith, another nuisance, are nothing compared to how the public are treated by their attorneys and their friends, the defense, when they have cases before the court.
“IT IS PURE FUCKERY THAT BAR ASSOCIATION POLICES ITSELF. PURE FUCKERY”.
And I agree, no one is speaking for the people victimized by lawyers, Justice Gibson is right to take back the supreme court from the demonic lawyers who believe it’s their personal playground to do with as they please and sell to whomever they please.
We want an investigation into the money laundering by these criminals and their masters.
LikeLike
I am glad Donna reminded me……
Which attorneys are speaking out for the clients of other attorneys who now have to do their own legal research, send messages to Bar President Tariq Khan and Justice Gibson, fight to keep their own cases on track, visit the Registrar for advice because their attorney continually, deliberately and maliciously give them bad advice; while busily fighting with their clients and trying to find ways to destroy their cases, because they are being paid by the defense. These clients cannot just change attorneys at will, because the next attorney could be worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Well Well
You have called a spade a spade and have not left the rotted decaying boards in the front house because they are planks of another administration.
It is interesting that you have spoken of the Unibrow lawyer Tariq Khan and cited the practice that he and many before him adher(ed) to in hiding the nefarious dealings of the ubiquitous “Michael Carrington’s” that abound across the legal sphere of Bulbados waiting like rapists to PHVCK us all.
The entrenched practice of (i( dipping into client accounts (ii) withholding consumated proceeds of land sale, (iii) of hypothecating their client’s properties as if their own, or (iv) replacing the legitimate owners of lands through fabricated title deeds passed to the Wayne Forde’s of this world for kickbacks, is now accepted as the norm.
PURGE THE CARRION is the only solution, by tsunami or natural disaster because the imminent alternative that stares us in the face is their replacement, the total crushing of the DLP by the BLP in 2018, moving us from “the descending colon into the region of the Sigmoid Colon” but, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LOCALE, It is all SHYTE!!
LikeLike
@de Ingrunt Word September 19, 2015 at 8:39 AM “the old saying “fools rush in, where wise men fear to thread”.
Not thread as in sewing, but tread as in to walk.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread/to walk.
LikeLike
d@e Ingrunt Word September 19, 2015 at 9:10 AM “From that stems his ‘illegal disbarment’, thus inability to make income.”
I don’t know that an 85 year old has the right to make an income/to work for wages. If 85 year olds have the right to make income/work for wages how is it then that governments in Barbados and all over the world compel people to give up working for wages once they reach a certain specified old age?
LikeLike
And how is it that private employers compel workers to retire once the reach 60 something. Where are the lawyers who will stand up and fight this age discrimination? If it is indeed age discrimination
And they expect the public to be sympathetic to an 85 year old?
Stupseee!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Simple Simon
I would argue with some degree of certitude that employers cannot compel employees to retired because in this part of the world we have what is known as Age Discrimination Laws which takes care of that problem.
However, what most employers do these days it to penalized those persons of have reached the designed age of retirement, but who decide to work beyond this stipulation.
Moreover, these persons who have reached the designed age of retirement and are determining to stay will forfeits a certain percentage of their retirement annually.
So it isn’t really within their best interest to stay on, especially when some of them are forfeiting up to 4% their retirement annually.
LikeLike
and don’t forget where there is smoke there is fire …something to think about,
LikeLike
@Simple thanks for the correction, I am sure my English teachers would look terribly askance at my threading that needle along a walking path. I am glad you pay close attention otherwise we could have found ourselves confounded with wise men and angels knitting and walking!!!
I will not blame the spellcheck as one blogger does regularly. Suffice to say that I know the word well enough to be aware of other use a la ‘threading’ as performed by a ‘fowl-cock’.
And yes angels and wise men. No intent to describe anyone as an angels so I should have been pellucid and affirm I intended to paraphrase.
Pray tell why you would deny any his/her right to work for as long as they desire…if they are self employed!
Let’s not mix apples and ants…oh no that should be apples and oranges…a ruling of mandatory retirement in public or private business is absolutely unrelated to this matter of Smith’s ability to work if a client has so retained him.
If you want to empathize with Smith so be it, but I missed where that emotion was suggested in any of the remarks. Neither did I glean any semblance of how this could be age discrimination (other than my off-hand joking remarks).
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/cle.jsp?menu=community
Well some body better stand up and explain to the JAs sses with simple clarity and terminology how it is that Mia was exempted from having to obtain her LEC to practice Law in Barbados when other lawyers under similar circumstances had to follow the legal rules and guidelines signed and agreed by the Barbados under caricom law Something smell musty in Bubbados,
The sorry a,ss excuse given by Sir Henry not going to wash.
LikeLike
Simple Simon
Do you see how shrewd and savvy the business class is here in the States? And how their closely resembles the criminal and politcal class because look how so easily their founded inventive ways to circumvent the Age Discrimination Laws here with respect to retirement?
That is why I shall continue to hold tightly to the view that until there is a radical change in man’s nature, he will be forever driven by the destructive forces of greed and self-interest over the collective-interest of others.
LikeLike
SO what happened to this case did she or did she not pay
of interest is how the defendant use a similar argument as Smith not to pay her fees
while the President claim that her argument was inconclusive and not legally binding
LikeLike
http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2015/05/08/seven-grounds/
LikeLike
@ac September 19, 2015 at 6:43 PM “explain to the JAs sses with simple clarity and terminology how it is that Mia was exempted from having to obtain her LEC to practice Law in Barbados when other lawyers under similar circumstances had to follow the legal rules and guidelines signed and agreed by the Barbados under caricom law”
Now I don’t want to be mean spirited. Instead I just want to be truthful. But we all know that not everyone with a legal education certificate came at the top of the class. As a matter of fact some of them came at the very bottom of the class. And they know who they are.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So ac why don’t you leave Mia alone.
And I am NOT a member of the BLP nor of the DLP.
LikeLike
Interesting news from Europe:
The president of a Court of Appeal in the central state of Europe warned a judge that he is underperforming. The performance of the said judge was only 68 % of the average level in numbers of cases. The dispute came to the court for internal matters of judiciary. The appeal court for internal matters of judiciary decided that the warning did not violate the principle of judicial independence.
LikeLike
This column is the song of the Barbados Castrati choir.
LikeLike
Why don/t ac leave Mia Alone
just like everyone else does on BU in their quest for accountability from this govt ac have a constitutional right of the same, it maybe that Mia was or wasn.t . an established lawyer and qualified accordingly to UK standards ,in any case the only way to remove that question mark is for a detail copy of her received qualifications by the UK through legal accreditation and procedure be seen publicly.
To some political yardfowls this issue might be of little significance but to others the scrutiny surrounds the fact that there is a cloud of suspicion which is merited with an overriding view that others with similar accreditation were denied that level of privilege
Also under UK law there are different levels of accreditation necessary before an individual unless has been fully accredited can present legal cases in the court of law,
LikeLike
“David September 19, 2015 at 7:46 AM #
It is unfortunate Dr.Robinson who is known to frequent BU has allowed Walter’s views to go unchallenged. In the mean while we have minister Kellman using his FB page to do the impossible?”
It is unfortunate as well that Bu has not allowed Mr Cumberbatch who commendably frequently avails Bu of his legal knowledge to challenge Mr Franklyn’s assertions about the legality of Mr Gibson to assume the post of Chief Justice of Barbados.
LikeLike
“The entrenched practice of (i( dipping into client accounts (ii) withholding consumated proceeds of land sale, (iii) of hypothecating their client’s properties as if their own, or (iv) replacing the legitimate owners of lands through fabricated title deeds passed to the Wayne Forde’s of this world for kickbacks, is now accepted as the norm.”
Piece…I know the like-minded lawyers would not want to hear and read the truth, but…too bad, how sad. And their time shall also come, very shortly.
The word on the ground in Barbados, is that they tried to burn the Land Registry in the Al Barack building in Warrens, but were not successful, these demons shall be purged.
LikeLike
Page 3 of Barbados Today has a story about Hydroponic Weed selling for $10,000 per pound.
Maybe this is a Medical Marijuana grow op in the early trial stages.
Wha you tink David.
LikeLike
I think that some person or persons unknown trying to get rick quick by turning some more of our young men foolsihy, foolishy. Did you see the statistic last week that there are three more times more men than women in the Mental. The taxpayers have had to pay to build a whole new 42 bed ward. I hope that the “medical” marijuana grower is charged and that he [almost certainly a he] is made to pay the taxes due on his crop.
If I have to pay taxes on my $1 a pound sweet potatoes, there is no reason why he [almost certainly a he] should not pay the taxes due on his marijuana crop. Perhaps the tax collected can build another new ward male at the Mental.
Barbados Revenue Authority should send somebody up there tomorrow to evaluate the monetary worth of the crop.
LikeLike
Then collect the taxes due.
LikeLike
Let me break down the problems in the courts for you people who claim not to know. Sleepy was 1000% right when he made certain remarks. Many judges are where they are because of political friends in the right places, coming from the right social class or from the right lodge.
Barbados is considered to have the worst judges in the Caribbean. That is the reason that they cannot get a pick on the CCJ. The people at the CCJ ain’t foolish, they want judges who are professional, courteous, accustomed to work, will work and are intelligent. With a very few exceptions, very few of the judges here distinguished themselves in practice before being appointed. They do not command the respect of either the bar, their judicial counterparts in the Caribbean or the parties who come before them.
It is no secret that the big man they brought in does not have a clue about the judicial system here. It aint rocket science, a referee in the U.S is a step below a magistrate in some states because they cannot make certain decisions. How can you improve a system that you don’t understand? How can you run a system when your judges do not respect you or each other and will not listen? How can you run a system when you give your judges leave all through the year when the court has recess in August and December and then you have no one to hear cases set down from months before because your judges are still on leave. It is well known that a serious error was made bringing in the big man but no one has the guts to admit that a serious mistake was made.
The problem with the judiciary is a political one. The real demise of the judicial system happened when you let a man move from being a politician to being Chief Justice. When we start to appoint persons based on merit and intellectual capacity and actually look to see if they have the aptitude for the job, then the system will work. There are certain people who will never make it as judges because they come from the wrong place. The quicker you people realise which Barbados you and your children live in, the better you will sleep at night. There are some people that will not be touched no matter how much the masses scream and rant from down below. You simply do not have the power to touch them. Before you curse the odd lawyer that is in the paper for client money think about the millions being stolen from elsewhere by the untouchables that will never be be reported anywhere or even investigated. Ask your self why was Therold Fields’ matter brought out at the time that it was? What was going on in the wings that was being hidden. Ask yourself if Laurie Ann Smith Bovell’s request for the law in response to the letter from the big man had anything to do with her not getting the Registrar pick and being unceremoniously returned to Boarded Hall as a Magistrate. I will say no more because this site is heavily monitored.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Snoopy
No, tell us more.
On 22 September 2015 at 20:17, Barbados Underground wrote:
>
LikeLike
“The real demise of the judicial system happened when you let a man move from being a politician to being Chief Justice. ”
That is not true. It began with the 1974 constitutional amendments which placed the appointment of the Chief Justice in the hands of the political directorate.
LikeLike
Balance
You are so right but not only the judges,all the senior civil servants like PS’s and the Public Service Commission and the Police Service Commission all of these are contaminated by politicians and the late and great EWB was the architecto supremo.The fact that Tom came to prominence as a result of that debate,pales into insignificance when all his raving and ranting about the dangers of amending the Constitution by introducing those far reaching changes meant nothing because he failed to return to the status quo ante,so we have the poor rakey guys and ragged dolls continuing with the same baloney.We now have a glass wielding top judge where once upon a time we were used to actual judgements and nuff respect shown to the hooded or wigged unsmiling arbiters of action and few words.
LikeLike
So right Mr Gabriel
LikeLike
Mr. Gabriel?
LikeLike
Piece
Gabriel.Not Gabrielle.
LikeLike
Hahaha I was mistaken and thought the nom de plume was the (androgenous) Arc Angel of God so chosen but which hid sex, forgive me, no slight is intended to your masculinity but some moons ago someone who knows you here “spoke” and I imputed incorrectly.
Sorry
LikeLike