Who Johnny Cheltenham think he is?

Sir Richard Cheltenham (l) Leroy Parris (c) Larry Tatem (r)

Last week the government promised to make another attempt to enact The Integrity in Public Life Bill. Our honorable members of parliament from the two main political parties have been promising Barbadians integrity legislation since the mid 70s. And they say a promise is comfort for fools.

On a blog posted 24 January 2023 with the title Doyen of the Political Class Attorney at Law Sir Richard Cheltenham Ignores the Court, we were reminded the prominent among us can ignore the laws of the land. If they are members of the political directorate all the more influential in flouting the law.

How can a former minister of government and former Queens Counsel now Kings Counsel (Senior Counsel) ignore a summons from the entity responsible under the law for hearing disciplinary complaints? Who Johnny Cheltenham think he is? For the record, Richard ‘Johnny’ Cheltenham is the brother of Patterson Cheltenham, CHIEF JUSTICE OF BARBADOS.

SIR Richard Cheltenham would have received a summons mirroring the document below.

Continue reading

Doyen of the Political Class Attorney at Law Sir Richard Cheltenham Ignores the Court

Submitted by 4Justice
SIR Richard Cheltenham, senior legal officer of the Barbados Court and Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Elder

Has Sir Richard Lionel Cheltenham KA., KC, Ph.D been called by the Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association for grave professional misconduct and is in breach of 22 of the clauses of the Legal Profession Act?

The Barbados legal eagle was ordered by the disciplinary Committee to submit a sworn affidavit to the complaint #31 0f 2020 and appear for the hearing of the complaint. How could such a case escape the media when other attorneys in breach with the same professional misconduct are being prosecuted and imprisoned?

Scott informed the committee that the Sir Richard, summoned called by this court, with status and authority of the High Court, will not be attending the second hearing in March.

Continue reading

Problem: Landlord vs Tenant

A story carried in the Nation newspaper with the headline NHC Evicts Tenant on the 29 September 2022 caught the eye. The tenant was evicted after falling $100,000 in arrears. It became a court matter in 2014 and a court order was issued by the Barbados Court of Appeal to evict handed down in April 2022 according to the report. The report suggested the tenant felt comfortable racking up the rent because she was a close friend of a politician affiliated with the government of the day. for sure other reasons are at play.

There are several issues inquiring minds should want to unpack arising from the report.

We understand a culture of nepotism operating in Barbados is entrenched to the point it is defended as a right of practice. That a tenant would feel emboldened to occupy a taxpayer subsidised housing unit since 2011 and refuse to pay a single cent in rent is probably the tip of the iceberg. Let us not forget the decision government took regarding squatters at Rock Hall in order to be politically expedient. 

  1. Why did the case take 12 years to reach a point an eviction order was finally issued by the Court of Appeal in April?
  2. What does it say about inefficient processes required to seek justice?
  3. What does it say about how the NHC as agent for government prosecuted the matter?
  4. Who dropped the ball in this matter to the point taxpayers are left holding the bag to the tune of $100,000 plus legal and other cost incurred with the case?
  5. Stories are heard daily about the grief landlords have to endure with uncooperative tenants. If the government had to initiate a 12 year process and tens of thousands dollars to evict a single tenant, what hope is there the process will be less accommodating for John Citizen? 
  6. One suspects there is more to the matter detailed in the Nation newspaper – isn’t there enough historical information to support we have a problem?

A problem that can be defined by the sloth of government bureaucracy, a moribund justice system AND a citizenry unwilling to actively exercise its civic duty.

See Nation article.

NHC evicts tenant 

Almost $100 000 in arrears, says state-owned entity



A WOMAN WHO OWES the National Housing Corporation (NHC) close to $100 000 in rental arrears accumulated over a 12-year period, was finally evicted yesterday from the unit she was occupying at Country Park Towers, Country Road, St Michael.

Court marshals swooped down on the third storey unit early yesterday morning and began moving out furniture and other household effects in the presence of the woman and her daughter.

The rental arrears is said to be the most owed by a tenant in recent times.

Last April this newspaper reported that the NHC had won a judgement in the Court of Appeal for $86 000 against the delinquent tenant for the outstanding arrears while the court had also granted the state owned entity permission to take possession of the unit. Since then the arrears had continued to increase and was said to now be at $94 000.

When contacted about this matter, the NHC issued a statement through its public relations department indicating that the action, though unfortunate, was unavoidable.

Court order

“The eviction process this morning was carried out by court marshals in accordance with a court order issued. This has been an ongoing legal matter dating as far back as 2014, when the court originally granted an order for eviction as a result of outstanding arrears. At that time, the tenant was granted leave to appeal the order. However, she took no further action and the court reinstated the order last year. This process was completed today,” the statement read.

It added: “This is an unfortunate situation, one which we at the NHC worked hard to avoid, as we normally do in these circumstances. Long before this became a court matter in 2014 our finance department sent numerous statements advising of the outstanding arrears. Several letters were also sent and many calls were made to the tenant in an attempt to come to a suitable arrangement to settle. These are steps the NHC ordinarily take when clients are in arrears. However, during this time the tenant made no attempt to cooperate with us either by making payments towards the arrears or rent. Evictions are not taken lightly by the NHC, especially in these times. This is definitely not the route we wish to take. We tried everything in our power to come to a mutual agreement to avoid what eventually unfolded today.”

Reports indicate that the woman moved into the high rise unit in 2011 shortly after it was built but never paid a cent of the $207 weekly in rent even though she was gainfully employed.

Sources revealed that when summoned to a meeting at the NHC, the woman had indicated that she was “a very close friend” of a politician from a previous administration and was recommended by that person to occupy the unit.

A source said following last year’s court order the NHC served notice on the woman to vacate the premises but she did not move out, which forced them to go to the chief marshal for possession.

The source further revealed that the woman’s possessions which were taken away by two trucks yesterday, would be marked and placed in storage and she would be given an opportunity to collect them.

Speaking on this matter back in 2020, George Edghill, deputy chairman of the NHC board, had pointed out that when the new board was appointed in June 2018, the tenant was already in arrears of over $55 000. He said the board had at that time instructed the legal department to

take all appropriate legal action to repossess the unit.

Yesterday an NHC official reiterated that while the NHC always worked with tenants who were going through financial hardship, it would not tolerate tenants who were employed but refused to pay rent.

During the court proceedings the NHC was represented by attorneys Roy Alleyne and Nicole Gibson while Kings Counsel Michael Lashley appeared amicus curiae for the tenant after her attorney Denis Headley asked the court for leave to withdraw.

Court Kicks Rap Brown’s Case Down the Road

Ashford ‘Rap Brown’ Jones

In a blog dated 19 October 2019 Barbados Underground highlighted that legendary local sleuth Ashford ‘Rap Brown’ Jones was snared on an ammunition charge.

Approaching 3 years later the 75 year old Rap Brown Jones has been successful having his case postponed again until 31 January 2023. The blogmaster will reserve the obvious comment.

Electric Light and Power (Amendment) Bill 2022 – Citizens Fighting for an Equitable Stake in Ownership of New Sector

Tricia Watson – Attorney at law

There is a strident debate being waged by a group of citizens led by Tricia Watson to have the Electric Light and Power (Amendment) Bill 2022 withdrawn by the government of Barbados. At the root of the challenge is the surreptitious approach government through uncouth Minister Kerri Symmonds to introduce a Bill to evade early public scrutiny AND the lack of a robust documented procedure for making the application process to generate electricity transparent.

We have finally reached a point in Barbados where the liberalisation of the electricity supply affords the opportunity for government to ensure ordinary Barbadians are well positioned to be enfranchised by the limitless financial potential of an emerging sector. The eminently qualified Tricia Watson (and company) has been dogged in critiquing the Bill which to their credit forced the original draft to be amended to current text.

The blogmaster is not qualified to enter the weeds of the debate BUT knows a thing or two about the urgent need for improved governance and the need to create opportunities to distribute wealth on an island where a few control a disproportionate amount of the economic pie. As long as humankind exist there will be demand for electricity. It is important non traditional players are given a fair chance to secure an equitable stake in a sector about to boom

In 2022 we should not be having this type of conversation as it relates to empowering non traditional owners of capital. Here is another one of those opportunities where a majority passive citizenry can constructively engage by entering the debate posting to Barbados Parliament website, calling the talk shows, sending articles to traditional and social media, bombarding everywhere Kerri Symmonds has a social media presence to name a few.

You are encouraged to follow Tricia Watson’s Facebook account for informed updates.


Death of Lawyer Sparks Wrath!

The death of the Lovell family formerly of Breezy Hill, St. Philip continues to be a talking point. The event as reported is unusual for Barbados not accustomed to a family that included young children perishing in questionable circumstances. The blogmaster will resist speculating about how the event occurred.

However, it is interesting to note one of the deceased persons was lawyer Allison Alexander-Lovell who was sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee for withholding $160,000 of client’s monies in 2016. It is reported she was due to reappear in Court this week on the matter.

The blogmaster as a human being joins the majority of Barbadians who are sorry the Lovell family met untimely deaths. However, it has not gone unnoticed the ire many Barbadians have taken the opportunity to direct at lawyers. For many years lawyers have been known to sit on clients funds and important legal documents for unreasonably lengthy periods; sometimes for always without fear of being sanctioned by the Barbados Bar Association and Disciplinary Committee. 

The fact that successive governments have been composed of members of the legal profession has stoked public cynicism that this is a profession that is about preserving the establishment and the way it does business at any cost. The blogmaster has cited too many examples since its inception in 2006. One of the more blatant examples is a sitting Speaker of the House Michael Carrington who had to be ordered by the high court to surrender monies to a septuagenarian former client without having to step down from serving as Speaker of the House of Assembly AND with the blessing of then prime minister Freundel Stuart. You cannot make this stuff up.

Members of the legal profession in Barbados should be aware of what is referred to as the ‘tipping point’ – ‘defined as the point at which a series of small changes or incidents become significant enough to cause a larger, more important change’. Let it not be stated this blogmaster is stoking ‘insurrection’ against the legal fraternity, the blogmaster has friends and family who are members. Notwithstanding the affinity, rising anti-lawyer sentiment in the country is real and will not take many more changes to set the cat amongst the pigeons. 

We are living in harsh economic times, citizens will not continue to be docile while access to money and property are withheld from them by greedy, corrupt lawyers. The time has long past for the Barbados Bar Association and Disciplinary Committee to switch from PR mode to one of policing its members in the interest of the public it serves. There is also a role for government as policy maker to protect the public it swore to serve.

Court Rejects US Request to Extradite

Andrew Fahie

The arrest of former premier of BVI Andrew Fahie in the USA last week on a narcotics charge has caused regional tongues to wag for several reasons. It is disappointing to have to witness an elected officials betray the public trust expected of them. It is more disturbing when the arrested person is Black (note Fahie is currently on bail in the USA awaiting his day in court. A reminder a man is innocent until declared guilty). 

It boggles the mind tinpot politicians to satisfy one of the seven deadly sins never learn, in this case still having the courage to cross US borders. In the famous words of Carlos Suarez – you do the crime you do the time.

Fahie’s arrest and possible incarceration serves as a reminder to Barbadians what happened to former minister Donville Inniss currently serving a 24 month sentence in the USA for money laundering. Another public servant based on the court hearing who betrayed a public he swore to serve. Some will debate this matter within the boundary of the law to suggest Inniss was ‘unfaired’ by the ‘system’, however, there is a strong ethical case still for him to answer to answer.

Alex Tasker

The most intriguing observation about regional politicians landing in hot soup is the patience of USA authorities to wait for the ‘fly’ to fly into the spider’s web. Is this a case of USA authorities lacking confidence in extradition treaties with regional countries? The case of former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner comes to mind, he has been fighting an extradition request from the USA since 2015. Alex Tasker has been fighting an extradition request from the US also since 2021 in connection with the ICBL/Donville Inniss matter.

The recent case of a St. Vincent court rejecting a request from the US government to extradite Kern Z Mayers to answer charges dating to 2006 makes for interesting reading. Has the time come for CARICOM to take a regional approach to extradition requests? Our friend Caleb Pilgrim is asking.

See press report of the St. Vincent matter.

Vincentian court refuses US application to extradite national

Published:Saturday | May 7, 2022 | 5:12 PM CMC

File photo.

A court in St Vincent and the Grenadines has refused an application by the United States to extradite a Vincentian man, who is said to be among the most wanted in Pennsylvania.

“The court has considered carefully the arguments and submissions, examined all affidavits and other evidence, case law, statutory guidelines, and the court finds that given all the circumstances it would be unjust to return him,” said Chief Magistrate Rechanne Browne in a recent ruling.

The authorities in the United States wanted Kingstown to send Kern Z Mayers back to Pennsylvania to answer charges in relation to a January 4, 2006 incident in that state.

“Law enforcement attempted to initiate a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Kern Mayers. In an attempt to flee from the police, Kern Mayers struck several vehicles and injured police officers. After a vehicle and foot pursuit, Kern Mayers was captured. Mayers was released from the Luzerne County Correctional Facility and then failed to attend his scheduled court hearing on January 25, 2006,” the website Pennsylvania Crime Stoppers said of the allegation against Mayers.

While in St Vincent, the police in Kingstown arrested Mayers at a business place in the city on December 10, 2020,  a few years after he returned to St. Vincent and the Grenadines..

Lawyers Joseph Delves and Grant Connell represented him in the extradition hearing.

Connell also testified on Mayers’ behalf during the proceedings in which Rose-Ann Richardson appeared for the Crown.

In her ruling, the chief magistrate noted that the Crown had submitted that Mayers is a fugitive and should be returned to the United States to answer to the charges.

However, Delves submitted that not all the offences are relevant and that the Crown had not shown that the extradition is permitted under the Fugitive Offenders Act.

The chief magistrate pointed out that Mayers was arrested on the basis of being wanted in Pennsylvania, as he had not appeared at court on January 25, 2006 for the preliminary enquiry.

She noted that evidence was presented viva voce or orally, by affidavit and documentary evidence.

Browne further pointed out that the Fugitive Offenders Act and the extradition treaty between St Vincent and the Grenadines and the United States govern extradition between both countries.

The United States charged Mayers with two counts with each charge comprising several charges, including alleged possession of two grams of cocaine and injuries to a police officer.

Only some offences extraditable

The court held that some of the counts were extraditable while others were not.

The chief magistrate noted that the law says a person shall not be returned if: the court of committal is satisfied by reason of the trivial nature of the case; the accusation against the fugitive, having not been made in good faith; the passage of time since the committal of the offence; any sufficient cause as it would, having regard to all circumstances be unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to return the fugitive.

The Crown argued that the issue of statute of limitation did not apply as Mayers absconded and had no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the Commonwealth.

It was further contended that the offences were committed on January  4, 2006, and he was immediately arrested and charged and soon thereafter failed to show up on January 25, 2006, for the hearing.

Despite the fact that five-year and two-year statutes of limitation exist, the limit is not applicable as the respondent absconded, the Crown further argued.

However, Mayers’ lawyers contended that the passage of time was critical and having regard to all circumstances, it would be unjust, oppressive and too severe a punishment to send him back to face trial in the United States.

They argued that the offences were allegedly committed in January 2006 and the extradition proceedings commenced in 2021.

The lawyers told the court that 15 years is an inordinately long period and the prosecution of the offences should have commenced in 2011 and not in 2017.

They said there was no evidence that Mayers was not continuously in the Commonwealth between 2006 and 2011.

They also contended that an address of New York was given in 2017.

The court also noted that all charges were dated 2017, adding that even though the affidavit by James McMonagle Jr, the assistant district attorney for Pennsylvania, said that the complaints were destroyed in 2015, “What is the nexus between these matters before the court?”

US authorities said that the indictments were accidentally destroyed while documents were being purged.

And while they said that the court keeps copies of the original documents those exhibited in the extradition proceeding were documents filed in 2017, even as Mayers was indicted in 2006.

Mayers’ lawyers argued that the document that should be exhibited are those from 2006 and, therefore, the matter was really brought against Mayers in 2017 — way past the statute of limitation.

They pointed out that the US government did not explain why it took so long and raised issues.

The lawyers also argued that Mayers would not receive a fair trial in the United States.

SCOTUS Exposed: Roe vs Wade

SCOTUS has the votes to overturn Roe vs Wade. Former President Donald Trump appointed 3 conservative justices to the Supreme Court of the United States which has given the SCOTUS a conservative leaning for the many years to come. Another example how political maneuverings affect the delivery of justice by the highest court in the USA (not uncommon to the USA). A leak of a draft opinion suggests SCOTUS will reverse Roe vs Wade, one of the biggest wedge issues ‘bubbling’ in the US public space; the right of a woman to have an abortion which the Roe vs Wade decision has protected for 50 years after SCOTUS issued a 7 to 2 decision in favour of Norma McCorvey 1973.

Length of video: 3 minutes 4 seconds

To the Courts!

It started in 2018 after the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) handed the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and the third parties an unprecedented 30 to zero drubbing in the general election. Many still believe a constitutional crisis was averted when Bishop Joe Atherley crossed the floor and a Leader of the Opposition (LoO) was recognized to ensure the business of parliament as outlined in the Constitution was carried out.

Who would have thunk it?

Prime Minister Mottley called a snap general election 18 months early and repeated a 30 to love win on 19 January 2022. On this occasion, no sitting MP seems willing to follow in the Bishop’s footsteps. The President of the Republic is unwilling to exercise discretion to appoint 2 Opposition Senators. Prime Minister Mottley in her infinite wisdom magnanimously has started the process to amend the Barbados Constitution to allow for the appointment of the 2 Opposition Senators from the losing political party that garnered the most votes. If that party refuses the opportunity to appoint slides to the next losing party. 

Here we are!

The news former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite filed a motion with the Court to rule on the legitimacy of the Senate should not surprise political pundits if one listened to the position of interim President of the DLP Steve Blackett. With the amendment to the Constitution proceeding in the parliament the DLP would eventually be forced into position of accepting the offer to appoint 2 Opposition Senators which would contradict the publicly stated position of the DLP represented by interim President Steve Blackett. 

A couple interesting sidebar observations. The former AG Brathwaite is being represented by attorneys-at-law Garth Patterson and Michelle Russell. Last week Brasstacks talk show host Glyne Murray observed the lawyers keeping the most ‘noise’ in the Barbados space on the the constitutionality of parliament are of Jamaican lineage. In fairness to Russell and Patterson they have been residing in Barbados for a long time, however, the blogmaster understands Murray’s point given the large cohort of Barbadians lawyers educated with our tax dollars.

One of the reasons forwarded why Mottley called an early general election was to quell an uprising by a faction in the BLP. Is it reasonable to opine if a few BLP MPs are dissatisfied with Mottley’s leadership a golden opportunity now presents itself for the malcontents to express themselves by crossing the floor or sounding their voices?

Political Games

The matter has gone the route of the Court and whatever the decision at first instance is will likely progress to the CCJ. What we have is a people suffering from economic fatigue, COVID-19 fatigue and you may add to the maladies, post election fatigue. Is this another opportunities to blame lawyers? 

Former Brathwaite in his released stated in part that he felt “compelled to seek the intervention of the Courts to resolve this controversy, one that centres around issues of vital national importance, and goes to the root of our democracy.” The blogmaster notes the former AG has advised that the matter is being brought in his capacity as a private citizen. How convenient!

Why did this extract from Brathwaite’s statement pique the interest of the blogmaster? Under Brathwaite’s tenure as AG with responsibility for the judiciary, he left it in a worse condition than he found it. The political games that lawyer politicians play mean an already congested court system has to adjudicate a matter created by lawyers. 

Guilty of the Offence of Writing

On 18 January 2022, I attended the Supreme Court to support those in COVID-19 isolation having the right to vote. I was directed to sit in the Gallery – which I did.

This was evidently an important case. There were ten senior lawyers, including the Attorney General himself, representing the Government and the President, against our lone lawyer.


I sat down in the Gallery and began to write – every word, every argument, every objection, and the judge’s ruling on each objection. Soon, my writing became automatic as I began to analyse the arguments in real time. I smiled as the familiar Dopamine hormone flowed – I was in the zone.

After writing eight pages, I was interrupted by a Court Marshall. I tried to remain in the zone while giving him some attention. “You can’t write”, he said, as I started the ninth page. The judge was ruling on an objection raised by the other side, and I did not want to miss it. I assumed he was commenting on my handwriting, so I simply shook my head in disagreement and continued.


“You can’t write in here.” He insisted. The judge had sustained the objection, and our lawyer commenced speaking. I quickly held up the page to show him that I could, in fact, write “in here”. I was still in the zone, and hoped that my evidence of writing would cause him to leave me alone. Any hope of that ended when he finally gave a clear instruction. “You are not allowed to write in here.”

Life a speeding train hitting an unmoveable object, I tumbled out of the zone. I was upset. I was learning so much from these legal practitioners. He was insisting that I stop writing immediately. I complied. I also asked him to accompany me outside of the room to where we could discuss this matter.


“Why am I not allowed to take notes?” I asked. “Are you a lawyer?” He countered. I explained that I was not, but that I had represented myself in two cases in the High Court, and was representing myself in two cases before the Court of Appeal. “Are you a lawyer?” He asked again. “No, I am not a lawyer, but I am here to learn from lawyers” I explained as I showed him my notes,

“If you are not a lawyer, then you are not allowed to write in here.” He stated. “Why not?” I asked. “Because that is the rule, and if the judge looked up here and saw you writing, you would get in trouble.” He said. What could judges find so objectionable about someone taking notes, I thought. However, I had no intention of offending the judge, so, I agreed to return to my seat and write no more.


Upon re-entering, I noticed that there were three people seated. The person nearest to the door where the Court Marshall was stationed, was a lady – and she was writing. I asked the Court Marshall if there were exceptions to this rule. “She is a reporter”, he said. “And I am an Engineer”, I responded. “Only reporters and lawyers are allowed to write notes in here.” He declared.

“I would like to appeal this rule.” I said. “You can’t.” He responded. “Why not?” I asked. “Because I checked with my superiors before telling you to stop writing.” He answered. “Who are these superiors.” I asked. He gave me the name of his superior.


I decided to return to my seat and try to get back in the zone. It was useless. I am a read and write type of learner – I need to write, and then read what I have written, to facilitate my learning. When I am in the zone, I just have to write. I now had to try to remember what I was hearing, while trying to analyse that information. That is easier for auditory-dominant learners – but I am not an auditory-dominant learner.

Sitting there, I soon realised that I was wasting my time – and it was frustrating, because I wanted to stay, but I was not learning anything. So I left the room in search of this fellow to whom I could appeal this rule. I was told that he was in the basement of another building, and there was no contact number for this mysterious basement-dweller. So, I left the Supreme Court and returned to my office.


Why is writing notes in court such a major offence, that it must be actively stamped out by our Court Marshalls? What is the harm or inefficiency that this rule is intended to limit? I thought of O’Brien’s advice to Winston, in George Orwell’s book, 1984. “You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

It seems that our judges have only given permission for lawyers and reporters to take notes in Court. If others want to take notes, they must request the Court Marshall, to request the Judge’s legal assistant, to request permission from the judge to be heard. If permission to be heard is granted, then they may then ask the judge for permission to take notes, and why they want to take notes. If the reason is not sufficiently persuasive, permission may be denied.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

Pressure Does Burst Pipes

Submitted by Cherfleur to follow a submission posted on 9 January 2022 in the case matter CV 871 of 2019
A Win for David vs Goliath

Since 2009 I was on this matter. Landlord’s Agent acting on instructions from Attorney [through Mr Gill] entered my dwelling while I was out of the country and stole my personal items. Paintings, collectibles and our 6-month-old photos [60 yrs n 27 yrs].

Tried to get the police to deal with it to no avail. Had however gotten them to elicit a verbal agreement from the presumptuous crooks [who in fact had gone to the station to report me] to compensate me for my property. Then in 2019 [ten years later] I filed. Mr Omari Drakes’s defense was “Statute Barred”. I proved him wrong. The Judge refused to give me justice, still. But I waited for the order so as to appeal this tomfoolery, to no avail.

However, I applied pressure consistently throughout all that time and finally Clarke Gittens and Farmer is ready to issue the Final Order. One year and six months. Because of the exposé.


My advice to people is first:

  1. Handle your own case. You have the details and a better understanding of the events.
  2. Secondly do not be cowed by the woofy talking of stuffy, soothy attorneys, like those I was up against.

This is a new dispensation.

My ships are coming in to port.

The Appeal Court Registry too, emailed me advising of the date for the appeals against BCC and another both of which decisions were given in August 2019 and appeals filed the very next week.

When you step into a RING, be prepared to box to your death.

The following is an email thread between Cherfleur and Evelyn Gittens & Farmer (Read from bottom to top to follow the chronology of the communication, some header info redacted) – Blogmaster

—–Original Message—–
From: Gabrielle Francis
To: Cherfleur; Omari Drakes
Sent: Wed, Jan 26, 2022 10:35 am
Subject: RE: CV 871 of 2019 – WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Good morning Ms. Cherfleur,
We are in possession of the Order dated August 21, 2020. Kindly advise whether you can visit our office on Friday January 28, 2022 to collect the Order.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Gabrielle Francis BSc.
Legal Secretary
From: Cherfleur
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:18 PM
To: Omari Drakes
Cc: Gabrielle Francis
Subject: Re: CV 871 of 2019 – WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Drakes
On August 21st you stated that you were charging for one hour only, that being $375, before being prompted by the judge that i should not be objecting to that because the assessed cost would be much higher based on my claim for what she identified as $46,000 (give or take).
While I appreciate more hours may have been empoyed I do not appreciate the jump from $375 and a gentleman’s agreement to assessed cast and $5,945.
Another matter with a defense submitted and thus more research n analysis was far less.
Your clients were given numerous opportunities since 200o to compensate and settle this matter but reneged.
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 08:06:41 AM AST, Omari Drakes <omari.drakes@clarkes.com.bb> wrote:
Dear Cherfleur,
You changed the context of costs claims with your stated intention to appeal. This was communicated to the Court in your presence. The sum I presented to you is what we believe our clients are entitled to receive. It is a claim supported by law. If you wish to offer a different sum you are free to do so but will have to justify the legal basis on which you believe a lower sum is justified. If we are unable to agree we will go back to Court and the Court will make a separate order in relation to costs.
As you would have heard in the hearing the Court arrived at a similar figure to the one that we have claimed so your chances of obtaining a lower figure by way of a Court assessment is low. Please bear this in mind when you make any counter offer.
Omari Drakes
Associate (Litigation)
From: Cherfleur
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:28 AM
To: Omari Drakes
Cc: Gabrielle Francis
Subject: Re: CV 871 of 2019
Dear Mr Drakes:
1. I was under the impression that ‘agreed cost’ meant we discuss a mutual fee, failing which it would be assessed (by the judge).
2. Since I am only now presented with this cost and it is neither agreed or assessed how do you propose receiving a Final Order without the cost included? Does this mean a two part order or an Order with an arbitrary cost?
Please explain.
Is the below your official submission of Cost Application?
On Monday, September 21, 2020, 09:18:55 AM AST, Omari Drakes <omari.drakes@clarkes.com.bb> wrote:
Good morning Ms. Cherfleur,
The decision was made based on your stated intention to appeal; thereby continuing litigation.
You have previously asked for our claim for costs in the matter. Based on the nature of the matter brought by you, costs must be determined pursuant to Part 65.5 of the Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2008. This rule deals with prescribed costs which are determined based on the value of the claim. You quantified your claim as being the sum of $46,845.00. Based on the prescribed costs table set out at Appendix B of Part 65, the costs on a claim of $46,845.00 are $13,211.25. The sum of $13,211.25 must then be considered in the context of Appendix C of Part 65. To the extent that the matter was adjudicated upon prior to a defence being filed, we are only entitled to claim 45% of the prescribed costs. This being the sum of $5,945.00. In the circumstances, we claim costs in the sum of $5,945.00 on behalf of our clients.
It is our understanding that the we shall shortly receive the final order from the Court. In the circumstances, please let us know where and when would be a convenient time to serve the Order.
Finally, given the current status of the matter, we do not consider it appropriate to include the Judge’s secretary on the email chain. Therefore I have removed her from the chain.
Omari Drakes
Associate (Litigation)
From: Cherfleur
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 6:34 PM
To: Omari Drakes
Subject: CV 871 of 2019
Dear Mr Drakes
I believe the decision on this matter on august 21, was Dismissed, when I responded saying that I would appeal the decision being the only recourse for dismissal.
I have noted that the Draft Order states Struct Out. This makes a difference to the options at my disposal.
Was your decision to reconsider the cost originally stated ($375) because my response was to appeal verses refile or is your decision to reconsider the cost influenced by any course of action I might take to continue litigation?
Having examined the Draft Order I have another option to exercise.
I, therefore, need to know whether your decision to change the cost was determined solely by my initial position to appeal or any other option I may exercise.
Further, if this aspect remains unsettled how can there be a final order or what will the Final Order reflect?
I eagerly await your response and the Final Order.

A Win for David vs Goliath

Submitted by Chefleur

In the High Court of Judicature, little only me, with no formal training in law, but armed with just intelligence and perseverance was able to show that Attorneys ‘don’t know it all’.  In fact they don’t know a damn great deal.

Ironically, Omari Drakes of Clarke Gittens and Farmer, a prominent Law firm, was trashed, after he arrogantly stated that my matter was ‘statute bared’ and even blocked me from being able to serve on the absentee owner and 3rd Defendant.  Mr Smith of Smith & Smith Law firm [4th Respondents] also tried to dissuade me with the very rhetoric.  Yet, the Judge struck out the case after asking Mr Drakes what was his response to my showing proof and instances [from the Limitation Act, Part III] that it was not.  Mr Drakes said that I did not plead my case – his lamb in the bush. This is hilarious.  BCC in their defense to my claim said my case was prolix.  “What a mighty web we weave as we try to deceive”.  

Yet, Mr Drakes has refused to prepare the order [issued since August 2020] so that I can proceed to have the decision appealed or pay him the ‘blood money’/cost and move with a new Claim and Statement of Claim. What are they afraid of; the doer and enabler?

Fabian Walthrus, too, bragged that he was an Insurance Agent for 15 years and was adamant that the matter at hand was governed by the Insurance Act which as of 1997, prevents litigation against a ‘named beneficiary’.  This was the position of dozens of Attorneys from 2005 to 2015 when I got ‘mad’ and decided to handle my matters myself; inflaming the nobility.

Fabian Walthrus, like many others, could not read and understand that the substantive entity was a Group Pension Plan [from CBC] – tricked into paying out  the benefits to someone the Plan does not cater for.  Further, even if it were an Insurance Plan, Fabian Walters, Dawn Grant and dozens more could not decipher that the substantive entity was executed before 1997 and therefore that law doesn’t affect this Policy.  What do we have going for us (representation), Mr Blogmaster?

Here again, the matter was struck out on the ground that ‘Letters of Administration had expired’. Fabian Walthrus too is still to prepare the order so that I can file to appeal or pay the ‘vex money’ in cost and proceed with filing a new, robust claim.

Mr Blogmaster,  Justice must not only be served but must appear to have been served.  You tell me. What is happening here in these instances? This once noble profession now seems to be in the throes of prostitution.  Far too many attorneys are taking money and defending indefensible cases or bending the law and in so doing breaching the law.  Far too many Attorneys are being fingered for other illegal activities [land theft, misappropriating client’s money, etc].  We seriously have a crisis with a lot of these attorneys.

Little humble me – with NO Degree!

Wren Herbert – Lawyers Continue to Abuse the Public with Abandon

Concern has been perennially expressed about the distress members of the legal fraternity visit on the lives of citizens of Barbados. Although the Barbados Bar Association (BBA) and the Disciplinary Committee have grounding in law to discipline the profession, there is little evidence lawyers who run afoul of the laws are satisfactorily sanctioned.

We are a nation of laws enacted to protect the rights of citizens from those willing to abuse said laws. It therefore goes without saying we need lawyers to represent us to ensure equity based system design. What we need to get right is to implement a framework where actors in the legal system can be held accountable.

The following paints another sad tale of a man, WREN HERBERT, from West Terrace who took advantage of a situation and to date despite the best effort of the person abused (AV), WREN HERBERT has gone unpunished. This is despite communications to the BBA. From the blogmaster’s research Wren Herbert appears not to be a practicing attorney at this time, he was. He is the brother of the infamous Caroline Herbert.

See report received via COMPLAINTS ——> LAWYERS.

Submitted by AV

Unethical and Dishonest Conduct-Wren Herbert Attorney-at-Law

I am aware that nothing will result from the following which I am outlining, concerning Wren Herbert. However, for the record, I still wish to detail an issue of integrity which should remain extremely concerning for any country when significant numbers of its lawyers fail to act with integrity and trustworthiness. These lawyers elude accountability because of the structures which fail to recognize that it is essential and important for lawyers to be honest and behave lawfully.

It is possible that Wren Herbert may already have been removed from the Bar Association. I was unable to gain information on this because it is extremely painful on soliciting information from any governmental or official body in Barbados when overseas, even emails go unanswered; one encounters a ‘brick wall experience.’

This ‘brick wall’ is all constructed on the basis of, the ‘judging’ of the individual who is seeking the information; drawing conclusions about the individual’s perceived circumstances and actions, a very ‘subjective’ stance is adopted. This ‘judging’ is then evident in non-responses or lack of desired actions from the governmental body the information is being solicited from. Rather than acting as a professional public body should, the actions of governmental and public bodies’ non-responding and non-action, are personally rooted and can inadvertently support the unlawful conduct of lawyers, totally concealing their actions or lack thereof.

Concomitant to this, the country’s development in terms of justice, is hindered and in the eyes of the world, it comes to be seen as corrupt; all engineered by systems that are links in the chain which strengthen unfair and underhanded practices by lawyers.

Outline of Issue

  1. On emigrating from Barbados, I left as a vulnerable, broken divorcee in search of a new life. I had a NEW Green Toyota Tercel, acquired through a vehicle loan from a Government Ministry. The vehicle was just under one year old.
  2. As a lawyer, and a named friend, I asked Wren Herbert to act on my behalf, to return the vehicle to the Ministry as when I left, I was unsure as to whether I would indeed stay in the new position which I was offered; hence not returning it immediately upon my departure, in the event, that I returned.
  3. When I was confident that I was not returning, less than a month later, Wren Herbert stated that rather than return the vehicle, that he wanted to acquire it and he would therefore take possession of the vehicle and repay the outstanding loan amount to the Ministry.
  4. Wren Herbert, did indeed collect the car from my then home.
  5. A friend, who was staying there at the time, handed Wren Herbert the keys and all the particulars of the vehicle and its loan documentation; undoubtedly, Wren Herbert took the car and rang me to confirm that he did have the vehicle.
  6. The witness is willing to provide a statement to verify that Wren Herbert did indeed take the vehicle from my home and many people, I am sure would have seen him with the green Toyota Tercel, car.
  7. Subsequently, I made several attempts to ascertain the status of Wren Herbert’s undertaking i.e., payments to the Ministry; no response ever came back to me from the Ministry, I was being ignored. Overseas telephone calls were a waste of time and money as I was put on hold, disconnected, passed to unhelpful individuals and overall I was placed on a GNVQ course of, ‘going nowhere very quickly.’
  8. I sought confirmation from Wren Herbert and indeed several more times from the Ministry of Education but got no response from either party. This went on for some time, until I finally gave up since although I felt uneasy about the situation, I still did not believe that as a lawyer who was then working for the Hewitt Law firm, that he would be that dishonest.
  9. During 2021, and as it is the entitlement of the governmental bodies in Barbados to disregard enquiries, after an entire year of battling to receive my Barbados work pension, I was forced to enlist the services of a solicitor to secure responses to my requests for information on my pension application from the Ministry concerned. I was told that some people have to wait years not just one year; is this what is to be expected and accepted?
  10. However, after this year long battle and scars of paying a solicitor to indeed receive my pension from the Barbados Ministry, I was startled to learn that on receipt of my pension award from the Barbados government, that Wren Herbert had kept the vehicle or sold it and had NOT repaid the vehicle loan; therefore, the outstanding amount had been taken from my retirement pension.
  11. That outstanding amount which has been taken is $29,166.62, which Wren Herbert owes to me; this clearly is not the way a lawyer should act.
  12. I engaged a Barbados Law firm which has written to Wren Herbert in respect to this and Wren Herbert has ignored the correspondence but I shall not give in.

• Finally, as stated in the above description of this issue, public office holders and other official bodies in Barbados, more often than not, fail to respond to any issues or complaints; this supports the unscrupulous lawyers.

• Throughout this scenario, judging people and situations, cause public office holders to renege on carrying out their duties effectively i.e., never responding to letters or calls concerning providing information which you are entitled to.

• Consequently, situations escalate unnecessarily, victims are further damaged and lawyer misconduct grows, casting a dark shadow on the overall ethical position of the country.

• I should like to mention that Dale Marshall did respond to my letter, stating that this was more a ‘personal matter;’ I however beg to differ.

• As a lawyer, Wren Herbert cannot separate his personal ethics or lack thereof, from his professional ethics and conduct.

• Wren Herbert was acting professionally when he undertook the agreement to either return the vehicle or repay the loan.

• Who else has been damaged by Wren Herbert as lawyer?

Difficult Conversations – Credit to my Nation

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II

I pledged allegiance to Barbados since the pledge was established in the 1970s. As a child, the pledge was simply words to be recited on command. As an adult, I accepted the responsibilities associated with that solemn pledge.

To uphold Barbados’ honour, I tried to: do what was right, bring light where there was darkness, and provide evidence-based correction where there appeared to be error. To do otherwise would bring Barbados dishonour. To defend Barbados’ honour, I challenged the practise of achieving lucrative ends through dishonest means.


I have also tried to be a credit to Barbados, rather than a dependent burden, by excelling at something. I pursued Structural Engineering. Then I kept adding to my pursuits. One of my engineering roles is to design structures, and then inspect their construction to certify that they are being built as they were designed.

When a building is not being built as it was designed, I would inform the builder and be met with one of two responses. One would be the builder correcting the deficiency. The other would be the builder ignoring me.


I have found that builders tend to ignore an Engineer’s instructions, because they think that they have a special relationship with the Engineer’s clients. A builder may have been selected as a reward for political support, and then had the misfortune of having me approve his work. How the builder got the job was not my concern. How he did the job was.

A builder may construct a substandard foundation, and ignore my instruction that it is defective and needs to be corrected. The contractor may proceed to build on the bad foundation, and ignore my notice that I will neither certify for payment the foundation, nor anything built on that foundation.


A builder may convince my Client to pay him, and he may finish the project on time. The Minister may have an entertaining opening ceremony, and unveil an attractive plaque. I would always attend if invited, and would normally enjoy the ceremony.

There is always a reckoning. Defective foundations normally lead to the building settling, resulting in cracks in the walls. An audit may be done to apportion blame. I have never attracted any blame in my 30-year career – because I do not approve defective work.


I believe that Parliament has built a fantasy republic on a defective and unlawful foundation. I wrote an open letter to all members of Parliament to discuss the glaring deficiencies, but the Prime Minister advised those with such concerns to have them addressed in Barbados’ Courts. So I did.

The question of whether Parliament’s republic is lawful or not is now before the Barbados Court of Appeal. I have been strongly advised, and even threatened, to drop it by those who have pledged allegiance, not to Barbados, but to their political parties. It is too late. I cannot drop it. I have already pledged allegiance to Barbados, and I do not pledge carelessly.

Regardless of how the Appeal Court judges rule, it can only benefit Barbados. We will either move forward with the confidence of knowing that Parliament’s new constitution is lawful, or we will have the opportunity to correct any deficiencies that the Court finds. Either way, Barbados wins.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com