TALES FROM THE COURTS – Vernon Smith QC Has Sued the Barbados Bar Association XXIX
Vernon Smith QC
Hot on the heels of his suit against Marston Gibson, Vernon Smith QC has sued the BA. It is reported that the BA has responded by filing and serving […]an acknowledgement under signature of BA president Tariq Khan, with their counsel of choice TBA.
The heat is on Khan, because, first, the BA must file a defense within 15 days as of filing of the acknowledgement; and, second, to involve themselves in this case means that the BA must have it sanctioned and agreed by its membership. Otherwise, Mr Smith may move to have the BA noted in default and ask for summary judgement. Thus the inappropriate advice given by then Chief Justice Simmons to his then-prospective son-in-law and then BA president Wilfred Abrahams back in 2008, not to pursue the matter because it would be expensive, seems to be coming to pass.
If the BA admits fault, then it drops Marston Gibson right into the fire Smith has already got going for the barbecue on which to grill him, appendages and all.
Many of the BU family have weighed in stating that this is merely a case of a lawyer trying to make money (or save money) by avoiding VAT. However, most respectfully, we suggest that no one ought to have to arbitrarily pay VAT in cases where VAT is NOT payable, whether lawyer or not.
BU has also published a great many comments critical of the BA, especially when it comes to taking action on complaints made against attorneys-at-law. BU agrees that the BA is, in this respect, not-fit-for-purpose and is constantly letting the public down. BU wants now to revisit its report of some time ago regarding the fund into which every attorney-at-law must pay annually, the object of which is to, in part, reimburse victims of attorneys-at-law who have cheated them – Compensation Fund: Another Screw-up By the Barbados Bar Association . BU has been able to ascertain that this fund now holds $2.5 million dollars and, despite findings of culpability in regard, but not limited to, Fields, Nicholls, Lynch et al, never has so much as one red cent been paid by the BA out of that fund to victims. Never! Instead the ONLY funds paid out of that account has been to advertise the estates of deceased attorneys-at-law. This is iniquitous and a downright betrayal of public trust and sacrifice of public confidence, which is at an all-time low anyway as far as the justice system of Barbados is concerned.
One of BU’s legal eagles was able to have sight of Smith’s claim and make notes for us. Here is what we are able to report and we stress that as the Claim has been filed, this report is fair comment and reports a document in the public domain:
Smith asserts:
-
He was admitted to the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law as Attorney-at-Law number 158 the 28 April 1975 and has practiced since then. He is also on the Roll of Solicitors and Barristers in Dominica and St. Vincent and has practiced there.
-
As of the date of his admission as an attorneys-at-law in Barbados he has been a member of the BA and at the beginning of every succeeding year he always obtained his annual practicing certificate in accordance with Section 11 of the Legal Profession Act and paid my annual membership subscription to the BA in accordance with Section 44 of the Legal Profession Act. He therefore asserts that the payment of the membership subscription as imposed by the Legal Profession Act is a statutory requirement and cannot be considered as trading or as a taxable activity.
-
When the Value Added Tax Act commenced on the 1st January 1997, after obtaining his practicing certificate he tendered my subscription to the Defendant in form of a cheque, but it was refused by the BA and returned because it did not include VAT.
-
By letter dated 29th January 1997 [BU notes this was when Alair “Botsy” Shepherd was president] he retendered the cheque to the BA giving his legal opinion that the subscription was not VAT chargeable and giving his written undertaking that when a court of competent jurisdiction in Barbados declared that VAT was imposed on BA membership, he would pay the VAT and any interest to have accrued. Nevertheless, his payment was refused. Mr Smith tried again in January 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, only to have his payments refused by the BA.
-
Mr Smith points out that the BA is a statutory (chartered) corporation of all present and future Attorneys-at-Law on the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law of Barbados who constitute the legal persona known as the Barbados Bar Association and as a statutory corporation all its powers, authorities, duties, functions, aims and objects are contained in the enactment. The BA has no power or authority to carry on a business of any sort. The BA subscriptions are for the purpose of carrying out its aims and objects. Therefore, the association is not a business as defined in the VAT Act, nor is it a profession, vocation, trade, manufacturer or undertaking, adventure or concern, in the nature of a trade. The BA does not carry on a “taxable activity” as defined by the VAT Act.
-
Instead, the BA is a regulating authority to protect the public interest. [BU says: What a joke that is]. The supply of service of the Association, by its constitution, is made solely and only to itself. The BA is not an unincorporated body (e.g. an association, club, society, union and is not an activity that involves the admission for a consideration of persons to any place or premises. It is also not an organization the membership of which is voluntarily.
-
In effect, Smith asserts, the BA is a Trade Union as defined by the Trade Union Act. “Trade Union means any combination whether temporary or permanent the principal purposes of which are under its constitution. The negotiation of the relation between workman and employer or between workman and workman or between employees and employers whether such combination would be or would not, if this Act had not been executed have been deemed to have been an unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade.”
-
Smith then references and quotes Section 10 of the VAT Act, “that the supply of goods or services specified in the Second Schedule is exempt from the tax imposed by the VAT Act on the supply of goods and services.” He then quotes Paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule: “a supply by a Trade Union within the meaning assigned by the Trade Union Act to a member of the Trade Union or to another Trade Union where the supply is made in the ordinary course of fulfilling the objects and purpose of the Trade Union.” Smith posits therefore that the supply of service of the BA is an exempt supply and does not attract Value Added Tax.
-
Smith continues that he has never withdrawn his undertaking to pay the annual membership subscription. That every year the BA has sent its membership a notice that it will not accept the annual subscription without VAT. Smith has been awaiting the declaration of the Court of competent jurisdiction in Barbados that VAT is payable on the annual subscription or the BA’s notification that it will accept his membership subscription without VAT.
-
Smith states on the basis that he has never ceased to hold a practicing certificate and has never withdrawn his written undertaking to pay the annual membership subscription, he is and remains a member of the BA.
-
On 14th September 2015 Smith wrote to the president of the BA asking whether he acknowledged that VAT was not on the annual subscription and to inform him accordingly within 14 days. The BA has never replied.
-
By its refusal to accept payment of Smith annual subscription and contrary to the provision of Section 44 of the Legal Profession Act, the BA has removed Smith’s name and place of business from the list of members and his place of business from its list published on its website and mailing lists in breach of its statutory duty owed to him under Section 5 (1) and 5 (2) and Rule (6) of the Statutory Rules of the BA.
-
The BA has always been aware that Smith has never ceased to practice as an Attorney-at-Law [BU notes: How could they not be, as he was commissioned as a queens counsel in 2005 when, presumably according to the BA, he was no longer entitled to practice]. Therefore, the exclusion of Smith’s name from the BA’s lists of members and its website, means and is intended to mean, on the part of the BA, that he not a registered Attorney on the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law in Barbados, that he has been purporting to be an Attorney-at-Law and has been practicing in Barbados, which is fraudulent and in breach of Section 12 of the Legal Profession Act, which is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
Smith asserts malice on the part of the BA and sets out the particulars:
-
The BA without authority repeatedly refused to accept his annual subscription, knowing full well that it was depriving him of his membership and putting him in breach of the Legal Profession Act. [BU notes that this commenced in 1997 under the presidency of Alair “Botsy” Shepherd when “Botsy” was on the other and losing side in the Kingsland Estates matter, a spectacular loss for “Botsy” and his paymaster Mr Allard].
-
The BA requested that the Judges of the Supreme Court of Barbados disbar Smith without due process even though the BA knew that the Smith held a practicing certificate for 2015.
-
Smith references the Minutes of the annual general meeting of the BA held on the 1st day of November 2008 (published by BU previously) on the consultation between the Registrar, the then President of the Bar Association (Senator Wilfred Abrahams) and Chief Justice David Simmons and a resolution passed by the BA that the Bar would take no further action in the matter of non-payment of subscriptions by members, because of the expense. In spite of that resolution and with no further resolution by the Association to re-raise the issue, the BA chose to pursue the matter on the 14th April 2015 by requesting the Chief Justice (Gibson) to refuse Smith audience in the Courts of Barbados [BU notes: For which Smith is now suing Gibson].
-
On 7th October 2016 the BA issued a memorandum to all its members stating that the annual subscription for 2016 must be paid with VAT.
Smith therefore claims:
-
A declaration that the BA is not a person who carries on a taxable activity as defined in the Value Added Tax Act, 1996-15.
-
A declaration that the BA is a Trade Union as defined in the Trade Union Act and is accordingly a supplier of an exempt supply on which VAT is not imposed under the Value Added Tax Act.
-
A declaration that VAT does not form part of the annual subscription of a member of the BA and accordingly cannot be claimed by the BA as part of the subscription.
-
A declaration that the BA has no competence or power to refuse to accept the annual subscription when tendered by a member of the BA.
-
A declaration that the receipt of the annual subscription of members is not a taxable activity.
-
A declaration that the BA has no authority to impose any measure or sanction against any Attorney-at-Law who has refused to pay VAT.
-
Damages for defamation. [BU notes: This is a real kicker, as if the BA is unsuccessful, it is looking at seriously high damages, which would certainly explain the expense that David Simmons advised the BA it would likely incur].
-
Damages for deprivation of the Claimant’s rights, privileges, benefits and entitlements of membership. [BU notes: Another massive possible hit in the BA’s pocket].
-
Exemplary Damages. [Likely the largest award the BA may have to pay out].
-
An order that the Defendant forthwith include and publish the name of the Claimant and place of his business on its website and on its mailing lists.
-
An order that the Defendant accept the Claimant’s subscription without VAT.
-
Further or other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit.
-
Costs.
BU now awaits sight of the defence from the BA’s TBA counsel and will certainly report on it. HOWEVER, it may be of some consolation to know that the BA cannot pay any damages or costs to Smith out of the fund reserved for payment to members of the general public who have suffered loss as the result of misconduct of attorneys – but not much as nothing had been paid out of that fund EVER! BU expresses the hope that when this action comes on for hearing, there is some way that the lack of any use of this fund can be brought before the courts by Mr Smith QC.
BU is able to report that Mr Smith is not the only counsel to be considering action against the BA and BU will faithfully report it if and when such further actions are filed.
Marston, you are going, whether you like it or not. Why not show a little dignity and class and leave quietly? Oh, but of course, you are waiting for a golden handshake for completely failing to do your job, aren’t you? Feel free to write us by e-mail as you did Sanka Price and enlighten us. We undertake to publish it without expurgations. Come on, engage us and the people of the country of which you are chief justice.
Barbados Underground 
Sometimes it is good to sit and think because very often you get a thought passing through your head that makes it all worth while!!
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/66298/smith-parris-team
LikeLike
Mr. Smith may very well regret his “principled” stand on VAT!!
It may end up costing him bigtime.
LikeLike
$232.75!!
LikeLike
So who is suing who(m) in this CLICO action from which Mr. Smith has been excluded for non payment of his fees?
LikeLike
Smith more than likely never paid BA membership fees, quite a few lawyers now elderly refused. Let’s see him swing this one past the court. Ridiculous.
LikeLike
As was the case with Leslie Haynes the soundness of the argument means nothing to you, only your blind anti lawyer position. BU will side with any lawyer who challenges the judiciary.
LikeLike
David……believe it or not, am all for challenging the judiciary…..lol, particularly because of it’s current sorry state, but, challenges must be tempered with reason and good cause, devoid of get out of jail loopholes, cover and save one’s own ass clauses, as is in this case with this lawyer.
LikeLike
Let’s leave Lesley alone for a very short period, he has made himself quite special, he desrves nothing less than special attention..lol
LikeLike
You are entitled to your opinion, the Court will decide.
LikeLike
David November 9, 2015 at 5:32 AM #
BU will side with any lawyer who challenges the judiciary.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
….. ok, so explain your position on Alair Shepherd!!
It seems to contradict your lofty words!!
LikeLike
Man David, If Shepherd wants BU’s support give him nuh….
Bushie is willing to support ANY of them who moves to expose the shiite system…
It takes a thief to catch a thief…
…..besides … that sorta shiite does mek God laugh… 🙂
LikeLike
@Bush Tea
Obviously we all understand Alair skinning his pale skin botsie at the judge but BU support pledged to Smith is obviously given within the boundary of the system.
LikeLike
… but Miss Kentish gelded Vernon Smith a while back, kicked him out of her court I seem to remember, and now the CCJ and CJ have eviscerated him.
The court has rendered Mr. Smith a has been and his efforts with VAT are a waste of intelligent people’s time.
Why would BU waste its time with him?
LikeLike
If I were Vernon,I would call it a day at the bar.At 85,I don’t need to be insulted by all these top flight judges like Kentish,Gibson and Byron.Vernon aligned himself with a younger and fresher turk at the bar and look what happen.Gollops are marked men too.
LikeLike
@Gabriel
There is obviously a story to be told here.
LikeLike
Somebody got an axe to grind with Vernon Smith and they sure have found a place to do so.
LikeLike
Both the Smith family and the Gollop family are without doubt among those referred to as patriotic bajans even if it is conceded that their political affiliation casts some doubt on their reading of the sincerity of this present breed of those practising DLP politics.As a matter of fact Barrow wouldn’t honour most of this cabinet but he would definitely remember Kyffin as a bigtime supporter from way back when plantations started to change usage and were sold out for housing(Frere Pilgrim,Sandford,Union,Sandy Lane,Porters,Mt Standfast,Hanson,Haggatt,Belle,Warren etc)
LikeLike
I don’t believe anyone has it in for Smith, it’s his continous attempts to manipulate the system using points of law that really wastes a lot of unnecessary time is the problem. There really is a serious backlog at the supreme court, a project has been created in an attempt just to get rid of the backlog, adding more nuisance cases could affect the court even more, then you will hear everyone complaining that nothing is being done, let’s hope there is a very swift resolution to this or we will all be drooling in our diapers before this is over.
LikeLike
The only body with an axe to grind is Mr. Smith …. he has been looking for someone to sue since 2012 … read all about it on BU!!
https://barbadosunderground.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/registrar-and-registry-exposed-to-action-for-defamation-by-senior-lawyers/
https://barbadosunderground.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/update-registrar-exposed-to-action-for-defamation-by-senior-lawyers/
LikeLike
Well all i have noticed recently v ia one individual comments is an kngoing tirade to drag Mr Smith over the coals because he used a legitimate right of preference to file a lawsuit regarding vat payments on membership fees
Regardless of his intention which has been publicised it now seems as if an all out war against Mr.Smith has been launched publicly by one unknown source called John who have chosen to remain anonymous while attacking Mr. Smith credibility
What is so amusing is that big John hides cowardly behind his moniker while Mr.Smith openly with no pretense or disguise tells the public his intention.
What a jerk
LikeLike
@David November 9, 2015 at 5:32 AM “BU will side with any lawyer who challenges the judiciary.”
Even if it is a foolish challenge David?
LikeLike
The long and short of it is Smith is not a registered member of BA, should not be allowed to practice, but has the nerve to sue because he does not want to pay a couple hundred in vat, for which he can apply for reimbursement at the vat office. If he is allowed to do that then other people registered with associations in Barbados who pay vat but are not allowed to charge their customers vat can and should also sue somebody. Lawyers are allowed to charge their customers vat because it is a service they offer. Other associations also offer a service, pay vat but cannot charge their customers vat……a nuisance case from a nuisance lawyer.
LikeLike
@Well Well
You are free to disagree with Smith but try to represent the argument fairly. If it us one thing we all should try to be is fair. The issue of not paying VAT is not for the reason you posted.
LikeLike
David……read Act 94 again many acts are subject to several interpretations because of several considerations.
LikeLike
What I have learned over the years is that the law was not designed to be airtight, you will always find a loophole with enough wiggle room that presents everyone with a just-in-case clause.
LikeLike
If the Court ruling agrees with your position good, if the Court ruling disagrees with your position we will go with your ruling. Matter settled then.
LikeLike
Let’s hope that is soon, for the taxpayers sake.
LikeLike
ac November 9, 2015 at 10:56 PM #
Well all i have noticed recently v ia one individual comments is an kngoing tirade to drag Mr Smith over the coals because he used a legitimate right of preference to file a lawsuit regarding vat payments on membership fees
Regardless of his intention which has been publicised it now seems as if an all out war against Mr.Smith has been launched publicly by one unknown source called John who have chosen to remain anonymous while attacking Mr. Smith credibility
What is so amusing is that big John hides cowardly behind his moniker while Mr.Smith openly with no pretense or disguise tells the public his intention.
What a jerk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If Mr. Smith wastes his time on this blog (sometimes I do so he is allowed to) he knows exactly who John is.
If he doesn’t I am confident that here are those who do waste their time here (and they are allowed to because I do it too) who also know who John is and who will run and tell him.
I am counting on it!!
Lack of knowledge of the identity of John is not an issue for Mr. Smith!!!!!
Mr. Smith is quite capable of taking umbrage if he can find anything I have said which is not true.
Mr. Smith has chosen to fight his battles in the press.
He is a public persona.
I am merely commenting on what has been made available to me …. and you …. in the press.
If you choose not to comment, no sweat … but if I have something to say and I have checked my facts, what exactly is the problem!!
I have checked my facts on the issue of “Abuse of Process” in the decision of the CCJ.
What is your opinion on a lawyer caught engaging in the abuse of process?
Do you even have any?
Clearly I have strong opinions on that issue.
As I have said numerous times before I do take the trouble to read and keep myself informed.
I think you will find that my record shows I have a diverse set of interests and am not a one trick pony!!
….. and hey, if you want to enter the fray with contrary opinions I would welcome it!!!
I enjoy diversity!!
LikeLike
I wait with abated breath for ac’s opinions, contributions.
So far, only the one contribution (if you could call it that) which I think I have sufficiently dismissed.
LikeLike
Dear John
You behave like a man who is hurting. Have you EVER abused the Courts of Barbados?
LikeLike
John aka the “unknown”white shadow to most in the BU classroom i have posted a couple of comments on this issue right on the pages of BU in agreement with a cause of concern and negative fall out from Mr smith actions
Howerver i am equally conern about your malicious intent to draw “”upon” Mr. Smith actions to demonise him publicly within the protective custody of a right to free speech especially fully aware of the fact that Mr Smith would not give or pay any attention to your mouthings.
Your repeated condemnations are akin to bulling tactics to produce a souring effect in the public minds
LikeLike
@Well Well & Consequences at 4:14 AM . There are myriad other cases wending their way slowly through the court system as you know. We have also been indicted by the CCJ for that sloth behaviour.
Thus I am unclear why this matter should be more onerous on the taxpayers than any of the other pressing matters where for example people are on remand at taxpayers costs.
Where I join your ‘I hope soon’ cry is with respect to the legal system and transparency.
When a Chief Justice is enjoyed directly rather than via his office in a legal suit then that case definitely needs to be expedited…afterall everything in the legal system falls under this man’s direction so he should be operating free of all ‘encumbrances’.
Just my layman speak.
LikeLike
David November 10, 2015 at 8:29 AM #
Dear John
You behave like a man who is hurting. Have you EVER abused the Courts of Barbados?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never appeared in court as a litigant so the answer is simple …. no!!
LikeLike
ac November 10, 2015 at 8:38 AM #
John aka the “unknown”white shadow to most in the BU classroom i have posted a couple of comments on this issue right on the pages of BU in agreement with a cause of concern and negative fall out from Mr smith actions
Howerver i am equally conern about your malicious intent to draw “”upon” Mr. Smith actions to demonise him publicly within the protective custody of a right to free speech especially fully aware of the fact that Mr Smith would not give or pay any attention to your mouthings.
Your repeated condemnations are akin to bulling tactics to produce a souring effect in the public minds
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you actually serious or just thrashing around looking for something to say????
LikeLike
Dear John
You behave like a man who is hurting. Have you EVER abused the Courts of Barbados?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never appeared in court as a litigant so the answer is simple …. no!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s called leading with your chin !!!
I am also not a litigator, unlike Mr. Smith or his associates, so it is impossible for me to have ever abused the Courts of Barbados!!
… but then you knew that!!
What a question!!
LikeLike
De Igrunt….one more nuisance case, like you am sure they are others, only adds to chaos and confusion, not to mention the backlog. Like you, I hope the CJ expedites this matter immediately, just in case it was added to the docket just for the delaying and confusion factor.
Regarding the remanding at taxpayers expense, the remand who they want to and give bail to whom they want, as we saw with the dude with the gun and marijuana charge. They do as they like, because it’s taxpayers money and they receive a salary anyway. All of this is unfair to the taxpayers.
From experience I know litigators are very abusive of the court system. That is what Justice Gibson must put a stop to, it has destroyed the process and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions, wasted money wasted time.
LikeLike
John no !was just trying to tie together the hanging pieces falling from your garbage.
LikeLike
Let me get this right.
The CCJ has found Mr. Smith and his associates abused the process of the court.
The case went on for 16 years.
The judiciary is being upbraided for delay.
Why on earth should the taxpayers fund one or four judges to listen to Mr. Smith’s representatives argue as to why he should not pay $232.75 per year in VAT so he can get reinstated to defend Leroy Parris et al, the CLICO boys?
Tens of thousands of the same taxpayers have lost their money already in the CLICO debacle!!!
Spend whatever resources are available on solving the CLICO mess.
Mr. Smith can wait.
He has already eaten up his court time in that 16 year case.
It’s the taxpayer’s turn to get some court time.
The CJ and Bar Association should bring a counter suit for another finding of abuse of process before once again, the CCJ has to further embarrasses the judicial system!!!!
LikeLike
Tell Messrs. Parris et al the Court is not waiting on Mr. Smith, find another attorney at law.
Let’s say Mr. Smith gets his way and ties up the court waiting for this action to complete so Mr. Smith can continue as the lawyer for Messrs. Parris et al.
Let’s say it takes, optimistically, 5 years.
Mr. Smith will be 90 years old, or God forbid, departed this life.
So David, should the Court wait on Mr. Smith?
I say are you mad?
The show must go on.
…. but …..your call ….. your blog ….
I suggest you rethink the theme of this blog!!
LikeLike
@ David
John gotta point…..but,
It does NOT explain why a simple shiite issue like ‘VAT on Bar fees’ should take more than 45 minutes for a judge to decide …(optimistically 5 years…?)
Nor does it explain why a Lawyer is able to continue fo%^&ng up the legal system well into their senility (no wonder it takes so many YEARS …. changing pampers, …falling asleep, sorting out medication….
How the hell does Froon condone forcibly retiring 60-year-olds at Statutory Boards while these ancient lawyers can rob people until they finally die…?
Lotta shiite!!
Anyway, hopefully Smith will continue to sue their legal asses …and to bring out all their dirty linen for public washing…. or burning – as seems to be more the case…
BTW
%^& = owli 🙂
LikeLike
JUSTICE JACQUELINE CORNELIUS has issued the first in a long list of names for accused persons as the No.5 Supreme Court sets about unclogging the judicial system of hundreds of cases
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/74356/supreme-court-looking-accused-people#sthash.W5zbpX0B.dpuf
LikeLike
The Bushman….although a genuine effort is currently being made to unclog the system, there are lawyers STILL, deliberately trying to find ways to KEEP it clogged up, particularly for the insurance companies, not only for nuisance cases that should not even be in the supreme court and remand cases. For some reason, in their twisted minds, that is how they want it. The onus is now on the Chief Justce to rigorously disavow them of that notion that the supreme court should remain, tied up in knots, non-functional and unmoving.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lawyer-feigned-assault-courtroom-judge-article-1.2430558&ved=0CEoQqUMwEWoVChMI4d79u8mHyQIVgXUmCh0Xvw1J&usg=AFQjCNGsxFoPl37_TAKPWfKZUqtdDznCvQ&sig2=2MwyuYCpOXtT3tQcXspF4Q
Other jurisdictions, do not tolerate crap from lawyers Justce Gibson knows this quite well.
LikeLike
@ Well Well
…a boy CANNOT do a man’s job
LikeLike
@Bush Tea
A big part of the problem is that we focus too much on individuals. It is like the USA focusing on Bin Laden and voila ISIL emerges. It is the root of the issue where the focus must be, governance and leadership.
LikeLike
The Bushman……if they can get past the old boys club and instead think as a collective, for good of country, taxpayers, the court system, they would not be seen as misusing or abusing the very system that feeds them and their families.
I see the BA president as needing more teeth, more serious vetting of Disciplinary Committee heads, but, in saying that someone I know had a land issue years ago, found out by accident that his attorney also worked for the other side, went to BA to lodge a complaint, was shocked to see the same attorney as BA president, that was when the president was kept longer than two years.
There is a lot of work to do in Barbados, over the years they have stubbornly managed to bring the court system to it’s knees, at taxpayers expense.
LikeLike
David….in certain matters I believe the Chief Justice has absolute powers, Amused can confirm this as he believes the current CJ can do much better, so clearly, in Barbados’ case, the buck stops with Justice Gibson, so much is expected.
I believe that is why the CJ asked for outside help, it’s gotten too bad for him to do it alone. I may be wrong, but it could be that he is not getting enough local help. It is a big battle to fight.
LikeLike
The Chief Justice is as effective as the resources made available to him, the cooperation of the BA and Registry etc. Yes he has the opportunity to pick some low hanging fruit but the problems of the Judiciary cannot be solved by one man although the position has an important role.
LikeLike
“The United States has slapped a travel advisory on Barbados, warning Americans to be on the alert because of a recent upsurge in robberies involving firearms and a high level of violence.”
LikeLike
AT least one Judge appears to be motivated to try and sole a problem.
“Justice Jacqueline Cornelius said that while the court was prepared to deal with the matters, there were no depositions from the rural court, even though from very early the accused had indicated they intended to plead guilty once the matter went to the High Court”
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/74361/depositions-causing-court-backlog#sthash.K4DCXA8h.dpuf
LikeLike
solve a problem
LikeLike
ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER of police Mark Thompson is dead.
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/74366/senior-cop-mark-thompson-passes#sthash.v6sonswx.dpuf
R.I.P
LikeLike
Hants….this advisory from the US Embassy is particularly bad, crimes have become disturbing. I have never seen them usethat tone re Barbados before.
As long as all the players, in the judiciary, understand they have a part to play in turning things around for the benefit of themselves and future generations, who are and will also be the taxpayers who are and will be affected by the misuse of the judiciary, half the battle would have been won, it’s a collective effort.
Destroying your own court system for temporary financial gain, will return to bite you, even if it took decades.
LikeLike
@ Well Well & Consequences,
Clearly Barbados needs to deal with this crime problem.
Time to use the BPF and BDF to put a stop the nonsense.
LikeLike
@ Hants
Clearly Barbados needs to deal with this crime problem.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yuh think?!
You would have thought that the AG, PM, MoT and whole Cabinet would have come to that realisation LONG ago…. but they are probably too busy looking for excuses for CLICO and CAHILL to get around to CRIME….
Rest assured that the Americans are sending them a signal about MUCH more than petty crime with their advisory….. whether those JA’s can read that signal is another matter….
LOL
…they are probably awaiting guidance from AC….
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what one of my daughters have been saying….Hants, the BDF needs to be incorporated into the police force with the same powers to help fight crime, expand their powers beyond chasing down every marijuana seed and leaf…there are real crimes out their to fight that are more detrimental to the island, but the powers that be have to want to make it happen.. this advisory should be an eye opener, let’s see.
LikeLike
@ Bushie,
They will do something when Tourists stop booking Sandals Barbados.
LikeLike
Well Well,
I know of a patient who received a wishy washy medical report from her doctor and later found out that the doctor was also one of the doctors for the insurance company. The insurance companies have the system sewn up.
LikeLike
It gets even worse Donna, you have to investigate the doctors thoroughly, the insurance companies bring them into the island specifically for that purpose, to deceive the court.
One claimant just had to file the medical report herself, when after a year she found out her attorney withheld the document from the judge, so of course he is now angry at her because it messes with the arrangement he has with the insurance company to sell her out.
What’s particularly horrible is that the only recourse is to bring it to the attention of the chief justice because the bar association president has no teeth and the head of the disciplinary committee, does the same thing, withholds evidence from the court. It’s vicious and none of them care or are afraid of being disbarred or disciplined. They disgust me with their small time, unethical pettiness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Well Well /Donna
…so these Doctors don’t have names?
Do them a favour and post the names yuh…
…so the bushman can avoid them…
Wunna going let Bushie have to deal with them ‘vi et armis’?
LikeLike
The Bushman…..you will not only get the name of the doctor but also the lawyer as soon as a matter in process concludes. I don’t believe the Bajan public deserves to have to deal with these people knowing what they are quite capable of…………just a little longer.
LikeLike
Why would BU promote Mr. Smith’s return as Messr’s Parris et al’s lawyer under the guise of supporting someone who is taking the judiciary to task when all the time Mr. Smith has done his fair share to create the problems in the judicial system?
Hasn’t he been caught red handed by the CCJ abusing the process?
Is this all about CLICO?
Is BU an organ of CLICO?
LikeLike
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/canadian-judge-review-berating-teen-rape-victim-article-1.2431358
Hants….just came across this story about this federal judge in Canada under review for his maliciousness and disrespect toward a rape victim, it brings a balance to the court ststem when officers of the court are shown they are not above it all. All this dudes cases will have to be reviewed.
LikeLike
@ Well Well & Consequences,
That Judge was promoted after he made those comments and is now making over $300,000 per year as a Federal court Judge.
He must have been on drugs the day he made those comments.
LikeLike
Trinidad Police have carried out random vehicle checks since the 50’s and they just upped the ante in response to the increase in murders and other violent crime with positive results.Two things Barbados need to do immediately:-
1…..Re introduce random vehicle checks.If the law need updating(as is the usal delay tactic from the AG office)update the law and get cracking.
2….Re introduce hard labour(its is still done in Trinidad).
3….Establish a company at Dodds so that the Superintendent can use the nearly one thousand men up there to do work assignments including maintaining government properties,cemetries,church yards,agriculture,etc.Pay them an agreed wage, net of their living expenses at Dodds which they will get on their release.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Hants, it is all part of the Reform Party ethics or lack thereof. He would have been promoted by Harper. Only he appoints to the Federal Court, if my knowledge is correct.
LikeLike
Hants….they did remove him to an area where there are no rape victims, guess the salary was bigger. Harper…eeewww!!!
Gabriel does have a point, high time that these prisoners practice eating by the sweat of their brow to ease up the taxpayers, you get work release programs in some countries, utilize the BDF to control and watch over them during the 4 or so hours per day or as needed. Some type of structure is needed.
LikeLike
None of the BA lawyers will want to touch this.
LikeLike
@ Really
And that would be logical would it not for to do so intrinsically speaks to a tacit perception of protecting oneself, not the BA, from unforeseen, unanticipated yet possibly inherent, inherited traits of latent infelicity
Here is the conundrum
Suppose at Black Friday November 2015 I rise to defend the BA, and win, it means that in a single swoop I have offended the community of lawyers that are the greatest density IN THE WORLD!!! By enforcing a pernicious VAT for a Vat Free entity
If I loose, not only does does it speak to my seeming incompetence as a lawyer, but it also assign my BA to a lifelong doom and no one wants to be the person with that indubitable dishonour
Then there are the overarching implications regarding accelerating a decision in court that was botched and sealed by Abrahams and a Former Chief Justice under less than reputable circumstances
So we will resort to the normal stance, do nothing, let the inept registry do even less than nothing, and with the effluxion of time, Vernon Sith shall be at one with the aether and this too shall pass…
LikeLike