Submitted by Cherfleur
YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW
In The Sunday Sun page 9A Stephen Lashley postulates that Ms Medford did not consult with ‘the patient’s’ attorney and could not act in this matter without adhering to the Mental Health Act and thus that after reading my ‘documents’ it was clear that I had not consulted the ‘patient’s’ Attorney and that my statement regarding Barbados’ laws are without foundation and further that the proceedings were bad in law. Which Law?
Relevant Links:
First of all I did not undertake to assist a ‘patient’ but a human; an older person. Thus I was instructed by the International Human Rights Act, since Barbados has none. I filed a Statement of case with two Claimants. The Attorney General of Barbados and Barbados’ Law does not speak anything to the International Human Rights Act as regards older persons that I know of. Therefore I was guided by precedents from afield. The Human Rights act regards persons over 65 as older persons, humans not patients. Bang!
Thus I did not have to adhere to the Mental Health Act which in itself, used as Mr Lashley and his clients are purporting to use it, is a violation of the older person’s civil liberties. Bang!
Secondly, I have known the ‘older person’s’ attorney, having accompanied him on occasions to conduct matters and I did consult that Attorney and alerted them that the older person was in distress. With the landline removed and the mobile under the control of the perpetrators the Attorneys could not make direct contact and he did advise me to try to get him into the office. I retained my Attorney to meet with the older person but when I went to the premises to get him I was told he cannot leave. From 2018 to 2019 when I decided to put the matter before the court he was denied as well as privacy to speak to me. Access to legal services is a civil right of older persons. Bang!
At the end of the hearing on 25 February 2020, which Mr Lashley attended for the first time and was the third of these proceedings, I asked if he had spoken to the older person and he said no but that he would be representing the entire family in the matter of the . He misled the Judge. He and his clients are circumventing the law. He is proposing to represent an older person without the older person’s knowledge (at the time of requesting the permission to act). In so doing he is denying that older person the right to his own representation.
Thus for all intent and purposes of my case 333 0f 2019, Mr Lashley could not have been the elder’s attorney nor the rules and procedure he refers to could not have or should not have been applied to my case. IT WAS NOT A CASE UNDER MENTAL HEALTH ACT. BARBADOS cannot dictate what act a claimant brings a claim under.
Based on that conversation with Mr Lashley I filed my Submissions quoting the Human Rights Convention on Older Persons and cited cases and academic materials on cases of elder abuse using this Act.
The decision to have the case dealt with under the Mental Health Act was already entertained on the second meeting , 13 February 2020 before Mr Lashley’s appearance and permission was given after he indicated that it was his client’s intention to file such Application. All before my submissions. My submissions were never reviewed. The documents Mr Lashley refered to could not have been my Submissions because they were not filed when the decision was made to go with the Mental Health Act. The court took the position that the matter was best dealt with under the Mental Health Act. This is a travesty and miscarriage of justice regarding older persons’ protection because the very perpetrators are the ones seeking to manage the older person’s assets and welfare.
In dismissing the case on 26 June 2020, I asked the Judge Why. In reply she stated that my case was not procedurally sound (etc). Procedure and Form are not by themselves grounds for dismissing a case that is a matter of Law and especially one founded on Human Rights or on older persons. This case is not a frivolous matter. In fact it is constitutional.
With regards to cost, Mr Lashley and his clients will be waiting a darn long time for that. First there were two Claimants; the older person being the 2nd Claimant. This does not obtain under the Mental Health Act. Secondly Mr Lashley before even meeting or speaking with the older person but following instructions and allegations from his clients is prematurely diagnosing the older person as ‘a patient’ (that suggestion that the person is incompetent to make decisions for himself merely because of his age).
There are pieces of legislation, the DPS in the Ministry of Elder Affairs said so. But none of the agencies I approached could use the legislation to move in and investigate and correct unless the older person themself made the complaint. That is what frustrated the case. Mr Lashley needs to familiarize himself with that technicality. The judge herself was wary of issuing a Protective Order to remove the offending party(ies) or the older person for fear of allegations of trespass (?) and opt instead for summoning all parties to appear before her. Mr Lashley’s clients did not pass on the summons or the statement of case delivered for the elder to him. Devious. Contempt of court. (mail tampering and a violation to the older person’s rights to privacy). Therefore he did not appear in court to say one way or another in the matter 333 of 2019 or was he asked whether he agrees to the defendants’ application to represent him as Receivers. So we head to Appeal.
The Law is an ass or the people that work it. STEPHEN LASHLEY TRYING TO SCARE PERSONS FROM REPRESENTING THEMSELVES IN COURT
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.