Click Here to read posts randomly
Additionally, please feel free to submit ideas, observations or any information of a random nature which maybe of interest to furthering the cause of humanity. Note that your submissions will be seen by the public and open to comments from visitors to BU. Confidential information should be submitted to barbadosunderground@gmail.com.
Whether he was involved or not in the attacks of 9/11, Osama is one individual who has drastically changed our world.
Whether or not we agree with with his vision, and those who share it, his effect has had greater influence on our lives than Senator Barack has up to this point.
I wish the candidate well, and hope that in time he can help fulfil some of your hopes and dreams, but let us not get carried away.
There is a lot of water to pass under the bridge between now and January.
Monday 9 June 2008
Thought for Today
“We women, in trying to make our case clear, always have to make as part of our argument, and urge upon men in our audience the fact – a simple fact – that women are human beings.”
Emmeline Pankhurst
November 13, 1913
During the preceding 18 months she had been imprisoned 12 times.
( A fighter for women’s right to vote)
Tuesday 10 June 2008
Thought for Today
Politics
“Practical politics must not be construed to mean dirty politics…. The most practical of all politicians is the politician who is clean and decent and upright.”
Theodore Roosevelt
My mother uses the name of BWWR, or Black Woman Who Reads to comment on various matters.
Most recently, because of her legal training, she has been commenting on the Kingsland Estates matter and the case before the Ontario Courts.
She has now been banned BFP because her comments are not consistent with the wishes of BFP and Keltruth and because they reveal a fraud that has been practiced on the people of Barbados by certain parties.
Today, I send you on behalf of lack Woman Who Reads the Reasons of the Ontario Superior Court is Justice that contain extracts and conclusions on alleged “threats” uttered by Mr. Peter Simmons to parties supporting the Plaintiff in the action. I have published this in Keltruth’s comments as well. An attempt to publish on BFP has been met with the ususal comment that the message is being “moderated”.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTIONS
[1] The Plaintiff issued a claim in the proceeding on February 9, 2007 (and subsequently amended). The Statement of Claim states that this proceeding relates to Kingsland Estates Limited, “a company pursuant to the Companies Act of Barbados having its head office at Bridgetown, Barbados and with property and business dealings in Barbados.
[2] There are numerous claims advanced in the Statement of Claim. In brief compass the allegations are that the defendants conspired with one another to benefit themselves and thereby caused past, present and future economic loss and damage to the Plaintiff.
[3] The Plaintiff pleads as against the “Country of Barbados” that it is involvement and that the Plaintiff is unable “to enforce or collect any judgment payable by Barbados in Barbados because of the facts stated herein [in the statement of claim] including that some of the co-conspirators are members of the judiciary and governing party.
[4] There are three contested motions which are argued before this Court:
(a) The plaintiff’s motion for directions respecting the location of the cross examinations of the defendant affiants who are resident in Barbados or alternatively an order that the defendants pay for personal security for the cross-examinations.
(b) The Plaintiff’s motion for an order to compel Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. to collect and produce information found on the internet.
(c) The defendant Price Waterhouse Coopers (Barbados) motion which is supported by most of the defendants for an order for directions relating to the conduct of the cross-examinations.
OVERVIEW
[5] The affidavit material field by the Plaintiff provides lengthy and detailed background information relating to the genesis of this lawsuit. In summary form I will outline briefly the relevant background information.
[6] John Knox is the principal affiant however he is not a party to the proceeding. Mr. Knox relates that his grandfather Estwick Ebeneezer Deane and his wife Ilma Kathleen Ashby made a series of land acquisitions in Barbados. The Deans had 7 children one of whom is the defendant Marjorie Ilma Knox, who is the mother of John Knox.
[7] In 1949 Estwick Ebeneezer Deane made all seven children and his wife tenants in common in all lands which he owned which was approximately 700 acres. Subsequently more land was acquired by the family as tenants in common including valuable beachfront property.
[8] In 1958 the family, as tenants in common, incorporated Kingsland Estates Limited and which purportedly had land holdings in excess of 1,100 acres at that time.
[9] The affiant John Knox states that the shares of Kingsland Estates Limited are physically located in Canada “as part of security arrangements”. I interpret this to mean that the shares of his mother Marjorie Knox are lodged in Canada. He further alleges in his affidavit that the conspiracy alleged in the amended statement of claim includes “the persons and companies that had the intention and plan to take control of the lands and develop them in such a way that the value would be stripped from the company and the shares would be rendered worthless while others benefited.”
[10] It is the contention of John Knox that, upon the death of his grandparents, three of their sons, the siblings of his mother Marjorie Knox sold off and disposed of lands in a manner that did not provide compensation to Kingsland Estates Limited. Further, the alleged conspiracy that is the subject matter of this action involves a number of transactions whereby the various defendants have transferred shares in Kingsland Estates Limited to themselves or others.
[11] A corporate search of the Plaintiff Corporation indicates that it was incorporated in Ontario on November 15, 2005. The director of the corporation is Donald Best and the head office is given as the same address as the Plaintiff counsel’s law firm in Orillia, Ontario.
History of the Litigation
[12] Following service of the Statement of Claim, various defense counsel forwarded correspondence to advise Plaintiff’s counsel that they would be bringing a preliminary motion pursuant to Rules 21.01(3) and 17.06
[13] On August 10, 2007, at the direction of the Regional Senior Judge, a number of counsel for the parties attended before me at which time orders respecting service were made and the date of the substantive motion concerning jurisdiction was set to be heard on January 14 & 15 2008.
[14] On August 14, 2007, Mr McKenzie, Counsel for the Plaintiff forwarded correspondence to all defense counsel advising that:
Vicious and specific threats have been communicated to me about my participation as counsel in this action. Of more concern is that similar threats have been made regarding the participation of the affiant John Knox.
[15] John Knox is not a party to these proceedings, but he is the principal affiant on behalf of the Plaintiff.
[16] Many of the counsel responded to Mr. McKenzie’s correspondence of August 14, 2007 requesting particulars of the allegation of threats. Mr. McKenzie did not respond to these requests at that time.
[17] On September 4, 2007 Jessica Duncan, a lawyer at Mr McKenzie’s law firm sent correspondence to all defense counsel that she had “taken charge of the threats directed to Mr. McKenzie. Ms. Duncan’s correspondence also stated that an expert had been retained to review “the specific communications in question and the ramifications of them in the overall circumstances of this file…” and that particulars would be provided once the expert completed his review. Several defense counsel responded to Ms. Duncan’s letter advising that without particulars of the alleged threats, they were unable to address the actual facts and concerns. These counsel also enquired whether the matter had been reported to the police. There was no further response to this correspondence. On the same day, September 4, 2007, Mr McKenzie forwarded a letter to defense counsel proposing a schedule for the cross-examinations of the various affiants in advance of January 14 & 15, 2008 return date for the jurisdiction motion. Mr. McKenzie’s correspondence was silent on the place of the cross-examinations. At least two defense counsel responded to Mr. McKenzie’s September 4, 2007 correspondence requesting confirmation that the examinations would be held in Barbados and noting that the time proposed for the cross-examinations of the of the various affiants (two days each) was excessive.
[18] On September 19, 2007 there was a conference call with all counsel and me primarily to address issues of substitutional service and which was dealt with by way of a Court Order. There was no mention of any security concerns or related concerns about having a number of the affiants examined in Barbados where they reside.
[19] On November 5, 2007, Mr. McKenzie forwarded correspondence to all defense counsel to advise that he would be delivering a motion for directions as to the timing for the delivery of further materials and the place and scheduling of cross-examinations. This would appear to be the first time that counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that there was an issue respecting the location of the cross-examinations despite the fact that several counsel had raised the issue two months earlier on September 5 and 6 2007. At the time that the November 5, 2007 letter was sent, counsel for the Plaintiff had in his possession the affidavit of Stuart Heaslet sworn September 12, 2007 as well as a 122 page security report prepared by Mr. Alan Bell dated November 2, 2007. The significance of the Stuart Heaslet affidavit and the Alan Bell report will be discussed in detail later in these Reasons. The November 5, 2007 correspondence from Mr. McKenzie did not mention threats or security issues . The last communication of any threat was Ms. Jessica Duncan’s letter of September 4, 2007.
[20] On November 7, 2007 Mr. McKenzie forwarded unsolicited correspondence to counsel for the defendants “to dispel the rumours and set the record straight.” Mr. McKenzie advised inter alia, that he had no direct or indirect interest in the plaintiff or in the outcome of the lawsuit. One of the defense counsel, Mr Ranking, responded to this correspondence by a latter dated November 9, 2007 as follows:
It concerns me that you felt compelled to write your letter. I don’t know if I speak for other counsel, but I have no idea who made allegations as to your having a personal interest in this action, the nature of the allegations, when they were made or why. What is going on? Please elucidate and provide particulars.
Also you continue to make claims as to alleged threats which, of course, are of the utmost concern. However, you still have not provided any details. That too is disquieting. If, as you say, threats have been made, it is only appropriate that you disclose the details of such threats to the extent they are within your knowledge or the knowledge of your client.
[21] On November 19, 2007 counsel for the plaintiff delivered a motion record which among other things included an affidavit by Stacey Ball attaching transcripts of telephone conversations between the defendant Peter Simmons and Stuart Heaslet which were surreptitiously recorded on August 10 and 13 2007. In the same motion record is a security report of Mr. Alan Bell delivered to Ms. Jessica Duncan on November 2, 2007. It is in this motion record that counsel for the defendants for the first time learned of the particulars of the alleged threats against Mr. William McKenzie and Mr. John Knox. The Plaintiff’s motion material also contained a lengthy affidavit of John Knox sworn November 12, 2007.
[22] There was a conference call with all counsel and I for the purpose of scheduling the motions as well as the logistical issues flowing from the motion record delivered. An Order was made directing a timetable for the delivery of materials responding to the threat allegations that had been particularized in the November 19, 2007 motion record. In the conference call Mr. McKenzie indicated that there were further security threats but he declined to give particulars. Following the conference call, counsel for various defendants confirmed that they had consulted with their respective clients and that none were aware of the threats beyond those that Mr. McKenzie had alleged.
[23] Subsequent to the conference call on December 3, 2007 Mr McKenzie forwarded several letters containing purported excerpts of “blog” entries posted in the months of November and December 2007. The blog is owned by “Keltruth Corp” and is administered by Kathleen Davis who is the sister of the plaintiff’s affiant John Knox and the daughter of the defendant Marjorie Knox. John Knox swore a further affidavit on January 11, 2008 wherein he indicates that his sister Kathy Davis resides in Miami, Florida and that she is “the administrator, contributor and constant reader of the Keltruth Blog. His affidavit goes on to state that this blog “entertains public opinion about general matters and including matters relating to her homeland, Barbados, and the interest our family has in Kingsland Estates Limited.” The affidavit details that on November 14, 2007 there was posted on Keltruth Blog a “vicious and unwarranted threat that came from Barbados that threatened bodily harm and death against our mother” (the defendant Marjorie Knox). The words of the blog message are found at page 7 of the affidavit of John Knox and they can be fairly characterized as vulgar, vicious and threatening to Marjorie Knox. John Knox relates that he brought the blog messages to the attention of Mr. McKenzie who “promptly wrote letters not only to counsel in this case but also to the Barbados Commissioner of Police, Mr. Dottin, as well as Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited”. Mr. McKenzie’s correspondence is dated December 10, 2007 and it is noteworthy that this correspondence was posted on the Keltruth Blog on January 4, 2008.
[24] On December 14, 2007 an unknown person or persons posted a poem on the Keltruth Blog which purportedly is a threat against a Barbados hotelier, Adrian Loveridge and his wife. The content of the message is a threat to burn down Mr. Loveridge’s hotel and thereby endangering his life. When asked by the Court to explain the relevance of this information Mr. McKenzie advised that Mr. Loveridge is a person that he had dealings with in Barbados.
[25] In correspondence dated December 21, 2007, Erskine J. Holmes, Legal Advisor to Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited acknowledges receipt of Mr. McKenzie’s letters. Mr. Holmes indicates that Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited has initiated an investigation of the messages on the Keltruth Blog and “is awaiting formal communication from the Royal Barbados Police Force.” It is the Plaintiff’s information that Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited owns the Internet Service Provider through which the postings on the Keltruth Blog originate.
[26] On December 20, 2007, Mr. McKenzie forwards a letter to defense counsel advising that he is going to examine a Mr. Nitin Amersey in Bay City, Michigan, U.S.A. on January 10, 2008. Counsel for most of the defendants objected on several grounds including the fact that there had been no prior consultation or arrangements. None of the defense counsel attended on the examination. I have reviewed the transcript of the examination of Nitin Amersey as conducted by Mr. McKenzie. I find that it is replete with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and corruption concerning various individuals, the police and the government of Barbados which are unreliable and not relevant to the issues on this motion or the jurisdictional motion. Mr. Nitin Amersey has no connection direct or indirect to the subject matter of this litigation.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN RELATION TO CABLE & WIRELESS (BARBADOS) LIMITED
[27] The Plaintiff seeks an Order directing Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited to preserve and produce to counsel for the plaintiff the data and information detailed in a lengthy letter dated January 2, 2008 from counsel for the plaintiff. Alternatively the plaintiff seeks an Order requiring that Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited and Cable & Wireless PLC attend an examination for use on a motion and to bring data and information as referred to in Mr. McKenzie’s letter of January 2, 2008 for every IP address identified in several affidavits. It is further advanced as alternative relief that if it is found that the examination is to be outside Ontario, the an Order is requested providing for a commission authorizing the taking of evidence before a named commissioner and “a letter or request directed to the judicial authorities of the jurisdiction in which the person is to be found, requesting the issue of such process as is necessary to compel the person to attend and be examined before the Commissioner”. There is also a request that the Commissioner “pose oral questions and receive answers in accordance with the Ontario Rules of Practice.
[28] The Plaintiff’s position is that the Order is required as “there are continuing issues in this case with respect to threats and their relevance to the place of examinations and ultimately the hearing of the jurisdiction motion”.
[29] The Defendants’ position is that correspondence received from Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited dictates the appropriate legal process to be followed. The Defendants also express a valid concern that the scope and nature of the proceedings (the jurisdictional motion) will be “high-jacked” by a multitude of applications which will significantly impede the hearing of the central issue, namely jurisdiction.
[30] Attached as an exhibited to the affidavit of Stacey Ball sworn January 11, 2008 is a copy of a fax communication dated January 8, 2008 from Rebecca Bell, legal counsel for International Business of Cable & Wireless U.K. Miss Bell indicates that the company is following up on Mr. McKenzie’s correspondence “internally and in conjunction with Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited.” This is followed by a letter to Mr. McKenzie which states:
“Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act , Cable & Wireless can only produce information upon the production of a Court Order from the High Court of Barbados.
Under Section 107(4) of the said Act, a licensee, like Cable & Wireless, is prohibited from using or disclosing any information or document that relates to the content of any message or the private affairs or personal particulars of any person, that comes into the licensee’s knowledge or possession in connection with its business of providing telecommunication services. Such a licensee is only permitted to disclose information to the High Court of Barbados in connection with a Court Order made in civil proceedings under Section 107(5) (f) of the Act.
[31] The argument advanced by Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Superior Court of Ontario ought to issue an Order directing Cable & Wireless to produce the information requested. Mt McKenzie states that the Plaintiff will probably get what it wants simply on the strength or an Order of this Court. He also asks that this Court make a determination that the Keltruth impugned blogs are relevant to an issue in this proceeding, namely threats and he suggests that this Court issue an Order for the production of data and information and “see what happens”. Mr. McKenzie also argues that this Court can assume jurisdiction for the purposes of this application and make an Order under Rule 34.07 , based on the reasoning of Justice Arbour in the case of United States v Cobb (2001) 152 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (SCC). Finally, Mr. McKenzie submits that there is comity between the Superior Court of Justice and the High Court of Barbados such that if this Court finds that the requested information is necessary and relevant then it is unlikely there will be resistance to an Ontario Superior Court Order.
[32] Mr. McKenzie in his argument attempts to connect the threats on the Keltruth Blog to the alleged threats in the Heaslet-Simmons taped conversations. I do not accept this suggestion. There is no evidence before this Court that would demonstrate any relevant of the Keltruth blogs to the Heaslet-Simmons telephone conversations. Further, I find that United States v Cobb has no relevance to the issue at hand. The Cobb case involved extradition proceedings and the interplay of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is a case where the facts were largely not in dispute. I reject the suggestion that in these circumstances this Court can simply assume what counsel refers to as a “micro jurisdiction” and make Orders referring to corporations in a foreign jurisdiction. Further, the defendants have not attorned to this jurisdiction and therefore it would be inappropriate at this stage with the jurisdictional issue squarely before this Court, to issue an Order under Rule 34.07 of the Ontario Rules of Practice.
[33] I reject completely the suggestion that this Court, without any juridicial basis, make an Order directing Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited or any of its affiliated companies to produce any information that is regulated by the Telecommunications Act of Barbados. This Court cannot and will not issue Orders as against foreign persons or corporations simply on the basis “to see what happens”. To do so would seriously undermine the respect, deference and comity that this Court enjoys internationally.
[34] I am also troubled by the lack of procedural fairness at play in the Plaintiff’s position in relation to Cable & Wireless Barbados Limited. This corporation seeks to act in a manner which is in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of Barbados. To accede to the Plaintiff’s position would be to leave the corporation in an untenable position under the laws of the country in which it is conducting business. Such a result is to be avoided. I would also note that there has been no attempt by the Plaintiff to seek the relief requested in the High Court of Barbados.
[35] There is no evidence that the Keltruth blogs are relevant to other alleged threats in this proceeding. The information presently before this Court is that anonymous and unknown threats have been posted on a blog that relate to the defendant Marjorie Knox and to an unrelated hotelier, Adrian Loveridge who apparently has some association with Mr. McKenzie. It does not escape the notice of this Court that Marjorie Knox is represented in these proceedings by Mr. Sheppard, a lawyer practicing in Barbados. It is confusing as to why Mr. Sheppard has taken no position on this motion and why Mr. McKenzie sends correspondence relating to the Keltruth blog to the Commissioner of Police in Barbados on behalf of Marjorie Knox.
[36] There is no evidence before this Court that any of the defendants in this proceeding are implicated in the Keltruth blog statements. It should also be noted that Defense counsel has advised Plaintiff’s counsel that they and their respective clients have no involvement or knowledge as to the sender of the blog messages.
[36] Therefore I dismiss the application to compel Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited to produce to Counsel for the Plaintiff the data and information described in the correspondence dated January 2, 2008 attached as Exhibit “A” to the Notice of Motion. I also dismiss the ancillary and alternative relief requested in the Notice of Motion. This application is dismissed on the basis that the appropriate forum for this application is the High Court of Barbados.
MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS BY THE PLAINTIFF
[37] The Plaintiff brings an application for an Order directing that cross-examinations of the defendants who reside in Barbados and who have filed affidavits challenging the jurisdiction of this Court, be held at the Courthouse in Barrie, Ontario.
[38] The argument of Mr. McKenzie on this applications is somewhat confusing and inconsistent. There is filed on this application voluminous material by the Plaintiff that details the alleged threats to the safety of Mr. McKenzie as well as the Plaintiff’s affiant John Knox. Also filed in this application are the materials relating to the Keltruth blog referred to above. This material would suggest that foundation for the Order requested is based on the alleged serious threats to the life of Mr. McKenzie and John Knox and to some extent on the anonymous threats on the Keltruth blog relating to Marjorie Knox. However in submissions Mr. McKenzie stated that this Court should “not make a decision on the risk issue” and that I should “finesse” around the issue of “threats”. Mr. McKenzie next suggested that the “threats” are an issue to be tried before this Court following the cross-examinations of the affiants. When asked if he wished to adjourn this motion Mr. McKenzie indicated that he wanted to proceed with this motion without delay. He then proceeded to argue the threat issue at some considerable length.
[39] The position of the Plaintiff is that directing the cross-examinations of the Barbadian take place in Ontario is based on “a balance of convenience” as well as concerns about “legal costs” and the “irreparable harm” that could come to Mr. McKenzie as well as his staff and a court reporter if they travelled to Barbados.
THE ALLEGED THREATS
[40] The Plaintiff delivered a motion record originally returnable on December 3, 2007 and including in the record the affidavit of Stuart Heaslet sworn September 12 2007 at the City of Hollywood in the State of Florida before Mr. McKenzie.
[41] Stuart Heaslet resides in the City of Summerland in the State of California. He states that he in an “environmentalist and construction project manager.” Mr Heaslet is employed by a “Canadian philanthropist Peter Allard to carry out the wish to endow the nation of Barbados with a world class nature sanctuary…..which is located in the Graeme Hall area on the south coast.” Peter Allard purchased the property at Graeme Hall in approximately 1993 and it encompasses 35 acres. The nature sanctuary opened in April 2004.
[42] Mr. Heaslet states in his affidavit that he is currently working on a National Park project involving land surrounding the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary. Once again Mr. Heaslet is working under the direction of Peter Allard. A citizens’ committee was formed to promote the interests of the National Park. The committee chose the defendant Peter Simmons as its spokesperson.
[43] Peter Simmons is a career diplomat and he was at one time the High Commissioner for Barbados in London, England. His brother, Sir David Simmons is also a defendant in this action. Sir David Simmons is a former Attorney General of Barbados and is now Chief Justice of the High Court of Barbados.
[44] The affidavit of Mr. Heaslet details that he and Peter Simmons had worked together to obtain support and funding to create and maintain the National Park project. He also states that there is a group of individuals who are opposed to the National Park and who wish to build a Theme Water Park called Caribbean Splash in the location that Mr. Heaslet states would present a “environmental hazard” to the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary and the proposed National Park. Mr. Heaslet relates that he became aware of this law suit some time in December 2006. He states that he was invited to the home of Peter Simmons on March 14, 2007 to meet his brother Sir David Simmons. At that meeting Peter Simmons had a copy of a document which Mr. Heaslet understood to be a “lawsuit” that named Sir David Simmons as a defendant. Mr Heaslet states that Sir David Simmons was upset at being named in the lawsuit and that he “let me know that the existence of the lawsuit could compromise…..the creation of a National Park.
[45] Mr. Heaslet’s affidavit discloses that he knows Mr. McKenzie and that they share a common interest in environmental matters.
[46] At paragraph 14 of his affidavit sworn on December 12, 2007, Mr. Heaslet states:
In early August 2007, Peter Simmons contacted me by telephone. We discussed matters related to the National Park project and then he advised me that John Knox was at risk because of his apparent cooperation with the Plaintiff in this action. He told me that some of the defendants in the lawsuit were going to see to it that their contact, the president of the University of the West Indies where Mr. Knox works, would terminate Mr. Knox’s employment as a result of his cooperation (with Counsel for the Plaintiff). I relayed these comments to Mr. McKenzie.
[47] Mr. Heaslet states that on August 10, 2007 he had a second telephone conversation with Peter Simmons. Mr Heaslet states that Peter Simmons repeated the comments concerning John Knox and he also added that certain defendants wished to make it known “that McKenzie was in danger and should “watch his back” because there were people in Barbados very angry with Mr. McKenzie. I asked him if it was his intention that these comments be conveyed to Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Allard and he said yes so I did so (sic).”
[48] Mr. Heaslet states that he spoke with Peter Simmons a third time on August 13, 2007 wherein he states that he reviewed with Peter Simmons what he (Simmons) said on the two prior occasions in August. Mr. Heaslet states that he related Mr. Simmons’ comments to Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Allard.
[49] There are then three telephone conversations between Heaslet and Simmons and the dates of those calls are not in dispute, August 8, 10 and 13, 2007. The latter two telephone conversations were initiated by Stewart Heaslet and the conversations were surreptitiously recorded at a residence of Mr. Peter Allard in Vancouver, B.C.
[50] The Plaintiff has filed as exhibits to the November 7, 2007 affidavit of Stacey Ball,(a law clerk in the office of Mr. McKenzie) the CD recordings of the August 10 and 13, 2007 conversations as well as a transcript of those recorded conversations.
August 10, 2007 Recorded Conversation between Stuart Heaslet and Peter Simmons
[51] In the telephone conversation of August 10, 2007 Stuart Heaslet after exchanging pleasantries states:
On the last conversation that we had, you told me there were some angry people in Barbados and perhaps McKenzie should be careful about walking the streets or something like that but that I shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
[52] Peter Simmons responds:
I haven’t heard anybody say anything derogatory or otherwise about you Stuart —-they simply haven’t – I think people recognize that you are doing a professional job at the Sanctuary and that is that I haven’t heard anything adverse about you but as I said and I repeat again there are some people around Barbados who are very, very angry with Bill McKenzie — I mean even some of the members of the Deane family — one of them told me this morning that he has come here (to) drag John Knox into this thing. He’s made John Knox swear affidavits which contain information which is totally false and John Knox is going to have to end up having to carry the can because in addition to putting his job in jeopardy there are people who are prepared to sue John Knox including the Chief Justice of Barbados, and they are blaming McKenzie for this. They are saying that McKenzie came here and took the innocent boy and dragged him into this nasty legal thing and that John Knox is going to be up the creek without a paddle and then Allard and McKenzie will have to be funding him like they are funding his mother and his aunt.
[53] Stuart Heaslet then asks, “what about the threats to McKenzie?” to which Peter Simmons responds:
Well all I would say to McKenzie is when he comes to Barbados HE MUST WALK GOOD AND HE MUST WATCH HIS BACK because there are a lot of people here that are extraordinarily angry with McKenzie and see him as a bit of a blood-sucker who is coming here, he is only interested in money, he has no morality and he has no character [emphasis added].
[54] In this telephone conversation Stuart Heaslet relates that he has been “charged” with the responsibility to coordinate any public goodwill on behalf of the National Park.” He states that when he and Peter Simmons first met they discussed how “there would be resources available from us to help make that (the National Park) happen…..it appears that’s out the window at least for the foreseeable future.” Peter Simmons responds that “all the goodwill has now evaporated……People feel that the National Park was an excellent idea and it was for the good of Barbados in the long term……But this recent development with this case, with McKenzie, and as I told you the last time we spoke people are not separating Peter Allard from Bill McKenzie — they see them as working hand in hand and the goodwill has evaporated in terms of the National Park. I myself am under tremendous pressure to make a public statement to say that I am no longer associated with the Friends of Graeme Hall — I am under tremendous pressure. People feel that I have been used and that now Bill McKenzie is trying to get money from all of us and that I have got suckered into this at the last minute……So I must tell you frankly that all the goodwill has gone.”
[55] Stuart Heaslet again proceeds to raise the issue of the effect of this lawsuit on the “National Park agenda.” Mr. Heaslet states that “at this point we have a lot invested” and that he has “to make some decisions about the role of my company in Barbados.” He states that he has a meeting arranged with Peter Allard and therefore he asks how Peter Simmons perceives “any personal threats to either McKenzie or myself or anyone else. Because I know you can’t be specific.” Peter Simmons responds: “I have heard nobody say anything adverse about you…..All the animosity is directed at Bill McKenzie and Peter Allard and John Knox…..” Peter Simmons then states that as a result of conversations he has had with people the National Park project is terminated. He states that it is “now very clear in my own mind that the government is not going to play ball with us on the National Park. I am very clear. There are some very, very angry people (and) I had no idea up to last week that people felt so strongly about the lawsuit and about Bill McKenzie and Peter Allard…..people are saying that you cannot separate them—they are two peas from the same pod and whatever McKenzie is doing Peter Allard is behind it…..we have come to a very sorry pass—the anger is not going to go away.”
[56] Mr. Heaslet then makes the inquiry: “Do I need to be clear in my message, clear in a message to Peter Allard that McKenzie should not go to Barbados….? Mr. Simmons responds:
No he can come to Barbados. Barbados is a Commonwealth country and no one can stop him from coming to Barbados but once he gets to Barbados he needs to be very careful and also he must be aware that there is a perception that he’s (sic) taken John Knox and lead him up the garden path and, you know, that John Knox is going to be left carrying the can and that there are people who are very angry about that and about you know, nothing is stopping him (McKenzie) from coming to Barbados, but what happens after he gets here is another matter.
[57] Later in the same conversation Stuart Heaslet comments on the relationship between Bill McKenzie and Peter Allard and states: “I asked Allard yesterday again about the relationship and he reiterated that he had sold his upside to McKenzie’s firm.” (see Footnote #1)
(Footnote #1.) Exhibit “E” to the affidavit of Stacey Ball sworn November 7, 2007 is an e-mail from Stuart Heaslet to Bill McKenzie dated September 13, 2007 which states: “Some time ago I mentioned to Peter Simmons and Harry Roberts that I had heard from Peter Allard that he had sold his “upside” benefit in the Kingsland affair. Not knowing any details of the case, I assumed the “upside” had been sold to your firm and passed my assumptions on to Simmons and Roberts. In any case I wanted to let you know this and I will be letting Simmons and Roberts know of this.”
Reference is made in these Reasons to the unsolicited correspondence sent to all counsel by Mr. McKenzie dated November 7, 2007 in which he states that “in order to dispel rumours and set the record straight” he advises that he has no direct or indirect interest in the Plaintiff or in the outcome of the lawsuit. As detailed in these reasons, defense counsel states that this correspondence came “out of the blue”. As of Nov. 7/07 defense counsel had only received the August 14/07 correspondence from Mr. McKenzie about “serious and specific threats” made towards him by John Knox. Despite repeated requests Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide particulars. Ms. Jessica Duncan on behalf of the Plaintiff advised on September 4, 2007 that an expert had been retained and that particulars would be provided once the expert had completed his review. Not surprisingly, several defense counsel responded that without particulars of the alleged threats they were unable to address the actual facts and concerns. They also inquired as to whether the matter had been reported to the police.)
THE AUGUST 13 2007 RECORDED TELEPHONE CONVESRATION BETWEEN STUART HEASLET AND PETER SIMMONS
[58] Stuart Heaslet makes yet another recorded telephone call to Peter Simmons on August 13, 2007. This conversation was recorded at a premise owned by Peter Allard in Vancouver B.C. Peter Simmons again is unaware that the conversation is being recorded.
[59] In this August 13, 2007 telephone conversation Stuart Heaslet advises that over the weekend he had an opportunity to meet with Peter Allard and that he had “delivered the message to him. I also delivered the message to Bill McKenzie.” Me. Heaslet goes on to state:
I wish you would all get into a room and just solve this thing because it has put a tremendous agenda at risk meaning the National Park agenda and I’m just sorry to see it happen. It’s also affecting my involvement in Barbados.”
[60] Stuart Heaslet comments that the National Park appears to be a casualty of the lawsuit. Peter Simmons states that it is “very difficult for anybody to separate out the National Park from what is going on with Bill McKenzie.” When Stuart Heaslet states that the National Park has nothing to do with the lawsuit, Peter Simmons responds:
…..the people are saying that they don’t want to see in the short term Peter Allard and Bill McKenzie being beneficiaries of anything which is in Barbados. McKenzie’s agenda is so much based on things like greed and avarice, which are obnoxious to the average Barbadian. If he says he is going to pursue his agenda to get money out of Barbadians by going to the law courts in Canada then let him do that. Let him see what he gets legally and everything else takes a back seat until that matter is resolved.
[61] In the course of this August 13, 2007 conversation Stuart Heaslet makes an unsolicited offer 4 times to Peter Simmons “to continue to facilitate any communication that you feel necessary should be done.”
E-MAIL FROM STUART HEASLET TO BILL MCKENZIE DATED AUGUST 10, 2007
[62] Filed as Exhibit “D” to the affidavit of Stacey Ball sworn November 7, 2007 is an edited copy of an e-mail from Stuart Heaslet to Bill McKenzie titled “Comments on Heaslet – Simmons conversation 08 1007 (sic) . The e-mail states:
1. I was in Peter Allard’s condominium at One Wall Centre in Vancouver when I made the call to Peter Simmons.
2. The conversation was made on a microcassette tape. Side A contains one missed call to Peter Simmons and a conversation between Heaslet and Harry Roberts, Manager of Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary. Side B contains the conversation between Heaslet and Peter Simmons. Only Side B has been transcribed to date.
3. In regard Simmons’ view (sic) that there should be a personal safety threat against Bill McKenzie, Simmons acted more vehement on August 8, 2007 compared to the follow-up conversations on Wednesday August 8, 2007 (sic—August 10, 2007).
4. Simmons acted more vehement on August 8, 2007 when he described potential consequences to the livelihood and career of John Knox. During the August 10, 2007 conversation, Simmons softened his tone, suggesting that John Knox was being victimized by McKenzie and Allard.
[63] It is significant to note that the August 8, 2007 Heaslet – Simmons telephone conversation was not recorded. Further it is apparent from Stuart Heaslet’s affidavit of September 12, 2007 (paragraph 14 and see para. [46] above) that there is no reference to any threats to Mr. McKenzie in relation to the August 8/07 conversation rather the alleged threat appears to relate to the livelihood and career of John Knox. Yet this would appear to be contradicted by the Heaslet e-mail of August 10/07 (paragraph 3) where he states that in Simmons’ view “there should be a safety threat against Bill McKenzie.” Perhaps equally significant is Stuart Heaslet’s comment in the e-mail that Simmons softened his tone.” In assessing the significance of this statement I note that Stuart Heaslet and Peter Simmons have more than a passing acquaintance. They have worked together on projects in Barbados. I find that Mr. Heaslet’s recollection of this August 8/07 unrecorded conversation is contradictory and unreliable and accordingly I afford it little weight.
JOHN KNOX AFFIDAVIT SWORN NOVEMBER 12, 2007
[64] The Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of John Knox sworn November 12, 2007 in support of the application for directions and the jurisdictional issue. In this affidavit Mr. Knox states that he has travelled to the United States to create, review and swear this affidavit because Mr. McKenzie “advised me of the threats made against him that prevent him from traveling to Barbados and also that there have been threats against me to deprive me of my employment at the University of the West Indies this year because of my willingness to give evidence in this action.” Mr Knox states that his employment at his former job as lecturer was not renewed for the 2007-2008 academic year. Apart from a vague reference to a Mr. Leonard Nurse no further particulars relating to the termination of his employment are provided. This affidavit provides considerable detail concerning his family’s involvement in Kingsland Estates Limited much of which has already been referenced and does not bear repeating. Hi affidavit outlines the alleged conspiracy which is the subject matter of this proceeding.
JOHN KNOX AFFIDAVIT SWORN JANUARY 11, 2008
[65] The affidavit relates the detail pertaining to the Keltruth Blog and for reasons that are not clear it deals with numerous irrelevant matters. An example is paragraph 12 which is directed at the age of the Chief Justice of Barbados and the suggestion that he has stayed in Office beyond the mandated age to retire ( a fact which is disputed in a responding affidavit). In this affidavit Mr. Knox purports to argue the meaning and significance of the words used in the alleged threats as disclosed in the Heaslet – Simmons telephone conversation of August 10, 2007. Many of the paragraphs in this affidavit are irrelevant to the issue that this Court must decide namely: a) where the cross-examinations are to take place and b) the jurisdictional motion. Further this affidavit does NOT provide any details relating to the termination of his employment.
AFFIDAVIT OF PETER SIMMONS SWORN DECEMBER 12, 2007
[66] The affidavit of the defendant Peter Simmons is in response to the various affidavits filed by the Plaintiff.
[67] Peter Simmons states that in August 2007 he was shown a letter sent by Mr. McKenzie dated August 14 2007 that made reference to threats having been made against Bill McKenzie and John Knox. He states that he “never imagined that the alleged threats referred to were based on any statement that I had made to Heaslet in the course of our telephone conversation on August 10, 2007 and [I] was very surprised to learn this from Heaslet’s affidavit.”
[68] Peter Simmons acknowledges that he did state to Stuart Heaslet that there was animosity towards Bill McKenzie and that people were very angry for being dragged into a lawsuit. However he states that it was Stuart Heaslet who used the word “threat” and he (Simmons) did not mean to imply a threat. He further makes the statement that Stuart Heaslet’s conduct was “deliberately contrived to entrap [him] into saying anything that would work against having the case being heard in Barbados.” Peter Simmons also makes the unchallenged statement that Peter Allard “has long had an interest in the Kingsland litigation.”
[69] Mr. Simmons in his affidavit states to this Court “unhesitatingly that I made no threat to Mr. McKenzie nor would I threaten anyone.” He further states that he did not suggest nor even mean to suggest that Mr. McKenzie would be in personal danger in Barbados. “I have no reason to believe that any harm would Mr. McKenzie, his family or staff should they come to Barbados.”
[70] In his affidavit Peter Simmons comments on the words he used in the telephone conversation of August 10, 2007. He states that “walk good” is “a common colloquial Caribbean phrase of good wishes usually expressed at the end of a meeting between people.” He cites Peter Allsop in his work “Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage” which states that “walk good” is a “sending off phrase.” Peter Simmons also says that the words “watch your back” is innocuous and “means to be careful.” This court does not accept these self-serving explanations. In the Heaslet-Simmons August 10, 2007 “walk good” was certainly not used in the context of a “sending off phrase.” Likewise the words “watch your back” in the context of the conversation is not innocuous. However, these words, even in the context that they were used, do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mr. McKenzie, his family and his staff or John Knox are endangered if they attend or remain in Barbados. Peter Simmons references the various positions he has held including that of High Commissioner for Barbados to the United Kingdom and states that “violence and/or threat of violence are anathema to everything I believe in.”
AFFIDAVIT OF STACEY BALL SWORN NOVEMBER 15, 2007: THE HENDERSON AND O.B.N. SECURITY REPORT AND THE ALAN BELL REPORT
[71] Following the August 14, 2007 correspondence, Mr. McKenzie does not provide details of the threats but he does state that his preliminary impression is that “the threats will mean that cross-examinations will have to take place in Toronto.” Apart from a letter sent by Jessica Duncan on September 4, 2007 (previously referred to) the next communication from the Plaintiff concerning the alleged threats is the motion record returnable December 3, 2007 and the Heaslet-Simmons CDs and transcript.
[72] Stacey Ball then swears another affidavit on November 15, 2007which attaches as an exhibit a letter dated August 24, 2007 from Mr. William Henderson of O.B.N. Security and Investigative Consultants Inc. His correspondence addressed to Jessica Duncan states:
Upon review of the documents presented to O.B.N. Security and Investigative Consultants Inc. and research conducted we believe there is a real threat poised (sic) to the safety of your client William (Bill) McKenzie.
This threat is apparent in a conversation dated August 10th, 2007 between Mr. Stuart Heaslet and Mr. Peter Simmons (sic), although it isn’t coming directly from Mr. Simmons (sic) it is apparent that he Simmons has knowledge of this issue and has participated in discussions which discuss the matter.
Furthermore, other persons are described as being very angry with Mr. McKenzie, the Deane family and the population of Barbados in general.
It is our advice presently that your client William McKenzie not travel to Barbados W.I. to conduct business of any nature until a complete risk assessment is completed.
[73] This is the entire report of Mr. Henderson on August 24, 2007.
[74] Also attached to Stacey Ball’s affidavit of November 15, 2007 is the O.B.N. Security and Investigative Consultants Inc. report prepared by Ken Soederhuysen. The objective of the report is to assess the risk “posed to William McKenzie and members of his legal team.” This report relates that Mr. McKenzie before filing this lawsuit “personally researched the above matter for 20 months which included 40 trips to Barbados.”
[75] The O.B.N. Risk Assessment Report prepared in November 2007 under the heading of “Intelligence” states that “it is generally accepted in the print media, on-line media and anonymous on-line blogs that there is an element that there is an element of corruption between the Barbados government officials and various development enterprises.” This report then proceeds to cite an exchange with an anonymous user of the blog as supportive of the underlying proposition that the government and officials of Barbados are corrupt. This same report applies a risk assessment tool by employing what is described as a 3X3 matrix to demonstrate the probability of the risk and its priority. The report states that the “matrix format is considered to be an industry standard for risk presentation and organizations.” This later statement is challenged by Dr. Sharon S. Smith whose report will be reviewed later in these Reasons.
[76] I find that the underlying assumptions of this O.B.N. report are based on very unreliable and unverifiable information and to premise a risk assessment on blogs and anonymous sources leaves much to be desired. The report states as a premise that the “Barbadian police” will not be cooperative in investigating the threats and that the possibility exists that “McKenzie may be arrested, jailed or held without bail while in Barbados cannot be eliminated.” The report goes on to state that “the lawsuit may require that McKenzie travel with a Court clerk, Court Reporter and a personal assistant. The probability that these individuals are exposed to multiple risk items listed above is high.” There is no reliable or verifiable evidence to support these statements. Indeed, there appears to be little or no restraint in terms of the length this report will go to support its very subjective and unsubstantiated conclusions. An example of this is found under the heading Economic Risk where is states:
Close Protection (sic) for McKenzie and his family will reduce the risk of attempted kidnapping and threats which do not only represent a physical threat but also an economic threat. It should be noted that David Simmons is the Chief Justice of the Barbadian Court and head of the Caribbean Court of Appeal. David Simmons is also the brother of Peter Simmons who made the telephone call quoted in sections 1 and 3 of this risk assessment.
[77] Ignoring for the moment that it was Stuart Heaslet who initiated the August 10/07 telephone conversation, there is no credible or reliable evidence that the Chief Justice of the Barbados poses either a physical or economic threat to Mr. McKenzie or anyone else for that matter.
[78] I find this O.B.N. Risk Assessment report is neither objective nor fair and its analysis is flawed by the assumptions it makes without reservation. Accordingly I give it little or no weight.
[79] The Plaintiff also relies on a Location Risk and Cost Assessment report prepared by Edward Frivalt of O.B.N. Security and Investigative Consultants Inc. dated November 2007. The report details the “risk scoring” for various locales in Markham, Barrie, Orillia and Toronto. The report states that the Holiday Inn Barrie Hotel and Conference Centre is the most appropriate secure location in the survey. There is a cost analysis for security in Ontario contained in this report.
AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN BELL
[80] Alan Bell is the President of Globe Risk International Inc. which provides security consulting and training to companies and individuals. Mr. Bell indicates in an affidavit sworn November 8, 2007 that he has more than 22 years of Special Forces experience, including twelve years with Britain’s elite Special Air Services (SAS) which he states is “recognized as the world’s foremost Special Forces unit.” Attached to Mr. Bell’s affidavit is his report dated November 2, 2007.
[81] Mr. Bell’s report states that a “threat risk, vulnerability assessment” was carried out in Barbados from October 10 to October 14, 2007. His report states that the assessment was performed to determine the Plaintiff’s legal team risk profile and to assess potential or anticipated threats that could be directed against Mr. McKenzie and his legal team while in Barbados or to their families residing in Canada. Mr. Bell’s report states:
extensive research was necessary, as this assessment review had to be completed without the direct knowledge of the government or any of its agencies. The high profile of several of the defendants precluded a traditional approach to this engagement, which would normally have involved interviews with government, police or other pertinent agencies in the consulting process. As such, the consultant worked independently to identify vulnerabilities that could effect the safety of the legal team.
[82] The key conclusions in Alan Bell’s report are:
(a) the vulnerability of the legal team from external hostile agents is assessed as high,
(b) the legal action is high profile and the legal team should consider themselves to be potentially at risk both within Canada and particularly while deployed in Barbados,
(c) in the absence of a well-trained professional security team, it would be difficult to provide the necessary level of protection and effective response to any event or crisis incurred by the legal team,
(d) it is anticipated that the threat level will increase significantly as the legal action proceeds,
(e) the interest of domestic and international media will heighten the public profile of the team and may expose them to an increased threat from criminal and/or hostile agents,
(f) DIRECT AND INDIRECT THREATS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DELIVERED TO ONE MEMBER OF THE TEAM RAISING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT PERSONAL SECURITY AND THAT OF THE EXTENDED FAMILY, (emphasis added),
(g) current crime trends within Barbados indicate that the vulnerability of the legal team operating in an insecure security environment (sic) could become a major concern, particularly with the number of criminal assaults and drug dealing activities.
[83] The Bell Report concludes that at this time “the safety and security of the legal team while conducting examinations in Barbados has been rated as “unsatisfactory” GIVEN THE PROFILE OF THE DEFENDANTS BEING EXAMINED “ (emphasis added). Attached to this report as appendices are copies of blog commentary accusing the police and judiciary of being corrupt. Mr. Bell states in his affidavit that he did not base his opinion on press or blog reports listed in his report however he states “that their content does cause some concern.” I note however in Mr Bell’s report that on July 19, 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper visited Barbados. “Prior to the Prime Minister’s arrival, his RCMP protection team completed a comprehensive risk assessment and determined that there were no direct threats and elected not to carry firearms.”
[84] The Alan Bell report relies on comments of various individuals employed at the Canadian High Commission in Barbados. The difficulty for the Court in assessing this information is that there is no affidavit by the person alleged to have made the comment. The Court is then left with hearsay statements when asked to judge alleged threats and security risks. This is most unsatisfactory when the purported comments go to the heart of the issue.
[85] Mr. Bell’s affidavit and report is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:
(a) Mr. Bell’s affidavit states that he has reviewed the tape recordings and transcripts of the Heaslett-Simmons telephone conversations and that in his opinion there are “threats that have been made against Mr. McKenzie and, by extension, members of his team who would travel with him to Barbados.” However, neither the affidavit nor his report provides any analysis of how he arrives at this conclusion. There is simply the bald statement that there have been threats. His report at 2.11.3 states:
The Chief Justice of Barbados is a defendant in the legal action. His brother, Peter Simmons, has uttered threats to Mr. Stuart Heaslett, a witness in the proceedings, during a telephone conversation. It is expected that these threats would be carried out, particularly if the legal team deploy to Barbados.
(b) It is not a given fact that threats have been made let alone that they would be acted upon. There is no rational basis or analysis provided in this report by which this Court can understand or accept Mr. Bell’s conclusions.
(c) While the tenor of Mr. Bell’s report suggests that he has relied only on objective criteria in his analysis nevertheless close scrutiny of his comments suggests otherwise. Under the topic of “Key Observations and Findings” his report states that “RUMOURS of corruption at the highest level in Barbados within government are rife.” It is obvious that Mr. Bell has not provided an objective report that is grounded on fact but rather has underlying assumptions based on rumour, speculation and innuendo.
FORENSIC PSYCHOLINGUISTICS REPORT OF SHARON S. STONE PHD. DATED JANUARY 14, 2008
[86] Mr. G. Ranking, who is counsel for the defendant Price Waterhouse Coopers (Barbados), on November 29, 2007 consulted and engaged Dr. Smith to evaluate the allegation that threats were made, represented or discussed by Peter Simmons in the two telephone conversations of August 10 and 13, 2007.
[87] Dr. Smith was asked to review the transcripts of the Heaslet-Simmons conversations, the CDs and other exhibits and documents in Volume 1 & 2 of the Plaintiff’s motion record as well as a separate supplementary record containing the affidavit of William Henderson sworn November 20, 2007. Dr. Smith was subsequently provided with the affidavit of Peter Simmons sworn December 12, 2007. Dr. Smith states that she relied only on the material detailed. In particular, she did not speak with Peter Simmons or his legal counsel, Mr. Schabas.
[88] Dr. Smith’s curriculum vitae indicates that she has a Ph.D. from Georgetown University, Washington D.C. with specialized training in psycholinguistics. From 1978 to 2003 Dr. Smith was a member of the F.B.I. She was also an instructor in the Behavioural Unit of the FBI Academy from 1995 to 2003 wherein her duties included analyzing cases involving threats, detection of deception, authorship identification, rapes, child molestation and homicides. For four months in 1995, she was assigned to the FBI Head Quarters Congressional Affairs Office where she worked with the Intelligence Division on briefing U.S. Congressional Representatives, Senators and their staffs on intelligence and counterterrorism matters. She also received training with the FBI in Linguistic Analysis, Risk Assessment for Violence as well as many other programs. Dr. Smith has had many of her works published including, “From Violent Words to Violent Deeds” and “Risk Assessment of Threatening Communications from FBI files…..” At the present time Dr. Smith is employed as a consultant in intelligence and security related matters. Her work also involves criminal behaviour analysis including the language used in conducting threat assessment and analysis of risk as to potential for harm.
[89] The conclusion in Dr. Smith’s report is that the Heaslet-Simmons conversations show that Mr. Simmons did not communicate threats from himself or others toward Mr. McKenzie or about Mr. McKenzie’s participation as counsel in this action. Further her report concludes that Mr. Simmons did not communicate threats about or toward John Knox, Peter Allard or any legal staff.
[90] The Smith report states that the focus of the assessment is “the risk of Peter Simmons and other unknown individuals acting out inappropriately, recklessly, even violently towards William McKenzie and John Knox.” The report notes that “sometimes threats are inferred by the hearer when the actual language used by the speaker does not imply such.”
[91] Dr. Smith provides a very thorough and detailed analysis of the Heaslet-Simmons conversations. A summary of Dr. Smith’s key findings are as follows:
(a) SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED THREATS RELATING TO JOHN KNOX
The report concludes that Peter Simmons statements in the August 10, 2007 conversation contain not threats of physical harm against John Knox. According to Peter Simmons, John Knox has sworn affidavits which are false. Dr. Smith notes that Mr. Knox’s actions have already occurred and cannot be reversed. “At worst Mr. Knox’s actions may provide the impetus for his being blamed for something he may or may not have done, and for losing his job and for possibly being sued.
(b) SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST WILLIAM MCKENZIE
Dr. Smith’s analysis is that in the August taped telephone conversations Mr. Heaslett asks Mr. Simmons about personal threats and bona fide threats during the conversation. Dr. Smith states that Mr. Simmons not only never details any threat of physical harm he also denies hearing “anybody say anything.”
Far more significantly, Dr. Smith makes the point that “calling something a threat and repeating this over and over again does not make it a threat.” Dr. Smith illustrates this point by making reference to the report of William Henderson of O.B.N. Security and Investigative Consultants and his belief that there “is a real threat” posed to the safety of William McKenzie and that it is apparent that Peter Simmons “has knowledge of this issue and has participated in conversations which discuss this matter.” Yet an analysis of Peter Simmons’ conversation indicates that he denies the proposition being advanced.
Dr. Smith’s analysis is that the phrases of Peter Simmons that William McKenzie “must walk good” and “watch his back” are not threats. She states that from the language found in the two recorded conversations we learn that Mr. McKenzie is held with animosity and anger by unspecified “people”. As noted by Dr. Smith these “people” are never specifically identified and they are never associated with any future action that threatens anyone’s physical welfare.
[92] Dr. Smith’s report also analyses the Heaslet-Simmons conversations by what she describes as “the entire discourse structure of the conversations.” She states that under this analysis “those who surreptitiously tape record their conversations with targets have one goal in mind – to capture on tape something the target says that will be of advantage to the person tape-recording the conversation (the “taper”) or someone associated with or known to the taper and to the disadvantage of the target or someone associated with or known to the target.” In the course of a very detailed analysis Dr. Smith relates what she characterizes a 8 Heaslet fishing efforts which fail to solicit information from Peter Simmons about threats, employing conversational strategies that “when identified illuminate the direction of the conversation.” Dr. Smith notes and Mr. Heaslet “recycles requests for information on personal, specific and bona fide threats, even asking about “the” threats as though it had already been established that such threats actually exist.”
[93] There are several other conclusions based on analysis in Dr. Smith’s report that are newsworthy:
(a) there are no threatening statements in the August 13, 2007 conversation whatsoever,
(b) the contention in Mr. Henderson’s letter of August 14, 2007 that the conversation between Mr. Heaslet and Mr. Simmons contains a real threat apparent in the conversation is predicated for the O.B.N. threat risk assessment,
(c) the O.B.N. report “Comprehensive Risk Assessment for K. William McKenzie” uses a 3X3 matrix. Dr. Smith states that decision matrixes are a “decision and support tool allowing decisions makers to solve problems by evaluating, rating and comparing different alternatives based on multiple criteria.” Dr. Smith notes that “risk assessment matrixes are limited in that they don’t facilitate an in-depth analysis. They are intended as a guide and quick reference……I have not encountered the use of 3X3 matrix in my years of experience with assessing threatening communications. Additionally my literature review of assessing risk of violence for my doctoral dissertation did not reveal such use as an accepted standard in the analysis of language.”
(d) the stated objective of the O.B.N. report “is to assess the risk posed to K. William McKenzie and members of his legal team arising from the threat made against him.” Dr. Smith notes that this report “does not begin with an unbiased objective of determining whether or not threats actually exist. It assumes from the beginning and specifically states that threats have been made against Mr. McKenzie.”
(e) Dr. Smith notes that in the 3X3 matrix applied in the O.B.N. report that:
“any of the possibilities, should they occur, might range in impact and in probability. These scores appear to be assigned arbitrarily without adequate or convincing support for the choice of scores.
[94] Dr. Smith in her report indicates that she reviewed the exhibits of Peter Simmons affidavit of December 12, 2007 wherein Mr. McKenzie in two letters made reference to a mes
Since BU has provided an unbiased forum for this discussion, my mother has asked that I point out that for any action to be brought, the plaintiff must have standing.
The standing that Nelson Barbados claims in the Canadian action is extremely questionable and likely to disappear.
It also says little for the veracity and believability of Madge Knox and Keltruth and “Professor” John Knox. Not to mention Peter Allard et al.
Here is the Judgment of Greenidge J. in Barbados in relation to the “upside” in Kingsland allegedly acquired by Peter Allard and allegedly passed on to Nelson Barbados.
My mother is currently transcribing the affidavits of John Knox into a document format for posting.
BARBADOS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BARBADOS
HIGH COURT
Civil Division
No. 2240 of 2002
BETWEEN:
ERIC STEWART DEANE Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
AND
MARJORIE KNOX Defendant/Judgment Debtor
AND CONTINUED BETWEEN:
ERIC STEWART DEANE Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
(in his individual capacity and as
the qualified executor of the Estate
of Colin Ian Estwick Deane dec’d)
AND
MARJORIE KNOX Defendant/Judgment Debtor (by order of Court made on the 19th February 2004)
Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Lionel Greenidge, High Court Judge in chambers on the 30th September 2002; 16th February 2004; 19th February 2004; 27th February 2004; and 5th May 2004; and
Mr. Vernon O. Smith for the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
Mr. Alair P. Shepherd Q.C. for the Defendant/Judgment Debtor
DECISION
Background
I. This is an application by Originating Summons for a charging order against 28570 shares held by the defendant/Judgment Debtor in Kingsland Estates Limited a family owned company formed by the late Ebeneezer Estwick Deane for the benefit of the Deane family. The Originating Summons was filed on 8th October 2002 and was acknowledged on behalf of the defendant on the 23rd of October 2002. Nothing appeared to have been done by the parties until the 30th September 2003 when it was heard ex parte at the request of the plaintiff/judgment creditor. I then made an order in terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the summons, namely
(1) an Order charging the 28570 shares in the private company Kingsland Estates Limited owned by the defendant/judgment debtor Marjorie Ilma Knox to satisfy the sum of $378,102.00 being the taxed costs awarded to the applicant/judgment creditor Eric Ian Stewart Deane under the judgment of the High Court made on the 7th December 2001 in the Supreme Court action No. 1805 of 1998 (Civil).
(2) an injunction restraining the defendant/judgment debtor Marjorie Ilma Knox by herself, her servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from selling charging or otherwise disposing of the said 28570 shares.
(3) Costs
II. The matter next came before me on the 16th February 2004 as an urgent application by summons by the defendant/judgment debtor seeking the following orders:
1. That all further orders be stayed and/or struck out and/or dismissed until:
This Honourable Court has concluded the hearing of High Court Action No. 2279 of 2003 and entitled Eric Ian Stewart Deane Plaintiff and Marjorie Ilma Knox Defendant; and/or
The review by this Honourable Court of the taxation of costs in High Court numbered 1805 of 1998 and entitled Marjorie Ilma Knox and John Vere Deane and others respondents had concluded.
The Plaintiff takes the appropriate steps to clarify his status as to whether he sues herein in his own behalf and/or on behalf of the estate of Colin Ian Estwick Deane Deceased.
2. That such order be made as to the costs of this application as shall be just and convenient in the circumstances.
III. In the meantime an order has been made by another Judge in chambers on the 21st October 2003 for the discharge of the order of the 30th September 2003.
IV. At the hearing of the 16th February 2004 the plaintiff/judgment creditor applied for leave to amend to reflect that the proceedings were being brought in both his personal capacity and as the personal representative of the estate of Colin Ian Estwick Deane Deceased. There was no objection by the defendant/Judgment debtor and I granted leave to amend at the adjourned hearing on the 19th February 2004. The matters raised substantively in the plaintiff/judgment creditor’s amended Originating summons were identical to those mentioned in the first originating summons.
The Transfer of Shares
V. Mr. V. Smith for the applicant grounded his application on Order 50 rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and his supporting affidavit deposing to a sum of $378,102 being the taxed costs awarded to the applicant plaintiff/Judgment creditor and in respect of which he is seeking a charging order against the defendant/Judgment debtor’s shares in Kingsland Estates Limited. He refers to the purported deposition by the defendant/judgment debtor of her shares in a declaration of Trust allegedly made on the 28th November 2002 and referred to in her affidavit (Exhibit MK8) filed on the 8th October 2003. He contents that this was a voluntary disposition of property contrary to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act CAP 236 and is therefore voidable at the instance of the plaintiff/judgment creditor who is prejudiced by the defendant/judgment creditor’s action. He contends that the purported Declaration of Trust was done with intent to defraud the plaintiff/judgment creditor.
VI. Mr Shepherd objects to the allegation that the defendant/judgment debtor entered into a Declaration of Trust with the intent to defraud and alludes to a mortgage exhibited to the affidavit of Jane Goddard the daughter of the defendant/Judgment debtor in which it is mentioned that the said shares were charged to the same mortgagee who also had a charge on a property at Hanson entered into by her and her husband Larry Goddard, the charge on the shares being supplemental to her own charge.
VII. It is noted that apart from mention of the said shares being charged as noted above no document evidencing such charge of the shares entered into by the defendant/judgment debtor was produced to the Court. What is of more concern is that if the shares were in fact charged as alleged, why then did the defendant/judgment debtor proceed to try to dispose of her beneficial interest in the shares and thus claim to be a bare trustee of the shares of which she had notice that a charging order was being sought. Section 193 of the Law of Property Act CAP 236 says:
(1) Save as provided in this section, every conveyance of property made before or after 1st January 1980 with intent to defraud creditors is voidable at the instance of any person prejudiced by it.
(2) This section does not affect the law of bankruptcy.
(3) This section does not extend to any estate or interest in any property conveyed for valuable consideration or upon good consideration to any person in good faith not having, at the time of the conveyance notice of the intent to defraud creditors.
VIII. “Property” includes anything in action and any interest in lands chattels or rights which are treated commercially as property.
IX. I am satisfied that at the 28th November 2008 when the defendant/judgment debtor purported to transfer her beneficial interest in those shares to her children she did so upon notice that the plaintiff/judgment creditor was seeking a charging order on those said shares and that her allegation that she is now a bare trustee is not proven. In my view her conduct “delayed, hindered or defrauded” the plaintiff/judgment creditor: Ideal Bedding Co. Ltd. v Holland 1907 2 ch p157.
Shares in Private Company
X. Order 50 rule 2 of the Supreme Court says:
“The Court or Judge may on application of a judgment creditor make a charging order charging stock. An application under this paragraph must be made by summons in Form 3 in appendix “A.”
XI. Order 50 (1) also provides as follows:
“company means any public company whether incorporated or not. “Stock includes government stock shares debentures and debenture stock funds annuities and dividends and interest and monies standing in the name of the judgment debtor or any other person in his behalf”
XII. It has been settled in Harrison v Trade Confirmers 1988 Barbados Law Reports 123 at page 127 by Williams CJ as follows: Counsel’s point is that the shares on which a charging order was imposed are shares in a private not a public company and the charging order was not validly made.
XIII. The relevant provisions are taken from the old English Rules, see for instance the Annual Practice 1962 Vol 1 order 46 rules 3 and 5 and the note to rule 3:
“As to what is a public company within the meaning of the Judgments Act 1838, see MacIntyre v Connell 1851 1 Sim NS 225 Lindley on companies (6 ed) p 643. In practice private companies being incorporated under a general statute are treated as included in the description for the purposes of these Rules (cf Re White [1913] 1ch.231.”
XIV. The learned Chief Justice accepted the authority of Hawks v McArthur and others 1951 1 All ER 22 where a charging order had been made under s. 14 of the Judgments Act 1831 in England.
JURISDICTION
XV. Mr. Shepherd’s final objection to the orders sought is that the Court has no jurisdiction: that if Barbados ever had any jurisdiction in the matter it would have had to be exercised under the Common Law before Barbados acquired its own legislation; that there was no longer a Court of Common Pleas which allowed only a charging order on lands. The Court of Common Pleas was abolished by the Supreme Court Act 1956 and that act did not give jurisdiction to charge shares. Neither did the Supreme Court Act CAP 117 now replaced by CAP 117A. Mr Smith counters by referring to the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 section 5 of which is instructive:
“Every Colonial Legislature shall have and be deemed at all times to have had full power within its jurisdiction to establish Courts of Judicature and to abolish and reconstitute the same and so alter the Constitution thereof and to make provisions for the Administration of Justice therein and every Representative Legislature shall, in respect to the Colony under its jurisdiction, have, and be deemed at all times to have had, full power to make laws respecting the Constitution, Powers and Procedure of such Legislature; provided that such Laws shall have been passed in such Manner and Form as may from time to time be required by any Act of Parliament Letters Patent, Order in Council, or Colonial Law for the time being in force in the said Colony.”
XVI. Notwithstanding that the Judgments Act 1838 of England was not extended to Barbados and Barbados never had a Charging Order Act like the 1979 Act of the United Kingdom as stated by Mr Shepherd in his written submissions, the High Court of Barbados by virtue of the Supreme Court Act section 12 CAP 117A and CAP 117 before exercised
(a) all such jurisdiction as was heretofore capable of being exercised by the High Court; and
(b) such other jurisdiction as is conferred by this Act or any other Act.
XVII. This was, in my view, consistent with the enabling power recognized by the Colonial Law Validity Act.
XVIII. Further I am of the view that the Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction somewhat like that given by Rule 50 of the Supreme Court Rules. Section 235 of the Common Pleas Act 1911 (now repealed) empowered the Court to issue execution on a number of assets which included “money, cheques, bank notes bills of exchange promissory notes bonds specialities or other securities….” In my view this power was wide enough to include shares in a company. Even if I am wrong in this view I would hold and do hold that the court in this case has the necessary jurisdiction to make a charging order on the defendant/judgment debtor’s shares not only by virtue of Rule 50, but also by virtue of the jurisdiction it had previously exercised and which was recognized and saved by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Further there is a decision of the Court of Appeal by which I am bound – the decision of Williams CJ in Harrison v Trade Confirmers 1988 above mentioned.
XIX. Additionally CAP 117 section 81 of the Supreme Court Act also empowers the Rules Committee to make rules of court which pursuant to section 2 includes rules in force by virtue of the Act as well as any rules to be made under the authority of the Act….I am satisfied therefore that order 50 of the Rules of the Supreme Court was made pursuant to this enabling power and that the Court has jurisdiction to make the charging order sought. To not make the order would leave the applicant/plaintiff judgment creditor without the opportunity to secure costs awarded against the defendant/judgment debtor while allowing her to attempt to hide those assets. That would be wrong. This is a court of law and equity and is bound by the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. I am also bound to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal in Harrison v Trade Confirmers mentioned above.
XX. I am also satisfied that there are no special circumstances in the instant matter to grant a stay. If ever there had been merit in the application for a stay of execution it should have been applied for as soon as the decision in the principal action #1805 was given. See Burnett v Francis Industries CA 1987 2AER p328.
XXI. It is my order that:
The defendant/judgment debtor’s application therefore fails
The plaintiff/judgment creditor to have the charging order sought and his costs of the application to be taxed or agreed.
Prepared by Mr. Justice Lionel Greenidge, Judge of the High Court retired.
For ordinary Barbadians who are as confused as I was by conflicting explanations of energy price rises, this excellent primer sets out a logical, factual and researched history in layman’s language.
From todays’ Oil Drum.
This is a guest post from anawhata.
For the tables and graphs which underpin this article go to http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4260#more
“Oil is an incredible, irreplaceable gift of nature which packs energy in a dense, easily transportable form.” – Jérôme Guillet – Energy Industry Investment Banker
The hard facts
* The world price of oil in US dollars has doubled in the last year (June 2007 to June 2008) from US$67/barrel to over US$135/barrel
* The world price has gone up by 6 times in 6 years, from US$20/barrel in 2002 to over US$135/barrel by mid 2008
* With hindsight we can see that the great cheap oil era lasted 16 years from 1986 to 2002 when the price was mostly in the range $15 – 25/barrel, coming off a $39 peak during the “oil shock” of 1980 (equivalent to about US$95/barrel in 2008 money). The short sharp spike seen at the end of 1990 was due to the first Gulf War.
Within Australia we have been somewhat insulated from the latest sequence of price rises by the falling value of the US$, so our petrol and diesel prices have risen by comparatively less as the A$ has climbed to around US95 cents, as shown in the chart below.
In Australian dollar terms we have seen the price of oil rise by “only” 3½ times in 6 years.
Obvious questions raised by the price rises are:
1. What has caused the startling rise over the last 12 months?
2. Why has the price risen steadily for the past 6 years?
3. Why shouldn’t we get back to the $20/barrel we enjoyed in the 1990’s?
4. What caused the noticeable dip in price from mid 2006 to early 2007?
5. Why does the oil price seem to be going up at an accelerating rate since the dip in 2007?
6. Has the price stopped going up yet?
7. What prices might we expect over the next 1, 3 or even 5 years to come?
Source: 1986 onwards – EIA monthly WTI spot price in money-of-the-day
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_m.htm
Pre 1986 EIA Refiner Acquisition Cost of Imported Crude Oil in money-of-the-day
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html
Starting with Questions 1 and 2, the accelerating curve of recent price rises is due to the growth in oil supply not keeping up with steadily growing demand around the world.
Oil is getting more expensive because surplus production capacity has diminished and continues to diminish, as shown in the chart on the next page. Oil industry volumes are of enormous scale (86 million barrels per day – a barrel is 159 litres), and the costs of supply infrastructure are in the billions and trillions of dollars.
Lead times for new industry infrastructure are typically 3 to 10 years. All new mega-projects on the production side are well known out as far as 2012, and few seem likely to boost global supply by enough to overcome declines in old oil fields. See the comprehensive listing of oil megaprojects at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects/2008. Note that major oil projects are developing a history of running late, often years late, as they encounter challenging technical difficulties operating in extreme environments like deep ocean or freezing Arctic conditions.
Rapid demand growth is often blamed for rising prices – demand growth in developing countries, particularly China and India, and in key oil supplying nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. But the decline of mature oil fields throughout the world is an even greater source of demand for new oil supplies than the growth of end user demand. Declining fields are losing 5.2% of total oil production per year thus requiring about 3.5 million barrels/day of new oil each year for the global oil supply to stay the same. (Nobuo Tanaka, International Energy Agency) http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=267. Recent annual growth in end user demand, on the other hand has not exceeded 1.5 million barrels/day.
The balance between growing capacity from new infrastructure investments and declining output from old infrastructure has seen global production capacity climb at a slower rate than consumption for the past 25 years, as shown in the following chart.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Source: Goldman Sachs based on EIA data
Convergence of the two curves shown above indicates serious supply tightness over the last 2 years which explains much of the recent price surge, with perhaps $5 – 10 per barrel in volatility added by an influx of investment funds seeking a safe haven from the falling US$.
The analysis by Goldman Sachs in the next chart below suggests that price rises to date have already destroyed demand amounting to about 5 million barrels/day or 6% of current world consumption. Any further price rises may be expected to cause further demand destruction and consequent hardship for those being priced out of the fuel market.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
This brings us to Question 3 – Why shouldn’t we get back to the $20/barrel we enjoyed in the 1990’s?
It’s simple – the world has used up practically all the easy “light sweet” crude oil that used to pour out of desert sands for $3 – 4/barrel and be easily refined into saleable products. Discovery of oil peaked more than 40 years ago – see the chart below.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Not only is it costing much, much more to find and extract each new barrel of oil (typically $60/barrel for new deep offshore wells) but most of the oil we can now get is shifting towards “heavy” and/or “sour” grades that require billions of dollars of new investment in refineries to process them.
“The oil is getting harder to extract. Most oil comes from ageing, waning giant fields discovered long ago. There are no more giant fields to find, only lots of small ones, difficult ones or fields deep under the ocean. The remaining crude oil is heavier, thicker, dirtier, quite simply cruder! It’s difficult to get out, expensive to get out, slower to get out. So, the rate of oil extraction will decrease.” Michael Lardelli on Perspective, ABC Radio National, 26 June 2008
There is no going back to $20/barrel short of a world recession that shuts down demand for oil, and for everything else.
Now let’s look at recent price volatility. Question 4 – What caused the noticeable dip in price from mid 2006 to early 2007?
Prices climbed during 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina and fears of war with Iran, then kept on climbing until August 2006.
“Oil was in a bit of a bubble in July 2006. The way you could tell it was in a bit of a bubble was that speculators were net long by a large number of contracts (115,000) and inventories were high. . . . The oil situation now is very different. Speculators are now net short. Inventories are very low of the products and types of oil in demand.” http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4227#comment-370311 – 26th June 2008
When the 2006 hurricane season passed without incident and oil supplies remained marginally ahead of demand the market appeared to decide that risks had been over-priced, and prices fell by $10 – $15/barrel for the start of 2007. Then they began rising again.
Is our situation getting worse? Question 5 – Why does the oil price seem to be going up at an accelerating rate since mid 2007?
Actual oil prices are set by refiners bidding to buy tanker-loads. Recent media fuss about speculators refers largely to oil futures prices rather than actual spot prices for which a buyer and a seller have to actually exchange funds for a tanker-load of crude oil costing between US$100 and US$400 million. Not many speculators have this sort of cash or know what to do with a 250,000 tonne tanker.
This year many refineries have been finding it harder to buy oil of a grade they can economically refine, especially the 50% of US refineries located in the Gulf of Mexico who are suffering steep declines in overseas supply from their nearby sources in Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
Mexico is in oil-induced political and financial turmoil because its one massive oilfield Cantarell has gone into rapid decline for geological reasons while Mexico’s (subsidised) domestic oil consumption is growing. Mexico is seeing its largest single source of foreign income decline every month, while domestic demand for oil is growing at a pace that will see Mexico become an oil importer by 2014 according to some estimates. (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4092)
Mexico’s Oil Production is Collapsing
Your browser may not support display of this image.
At the same time
* Venezuela’s output is declining, partly due to Hugo Chavez’s ejection of foreign oil companies.
* Nigeria’s output has been reduced to its lowest level in 25 years by terrorist attacks from local guerrillas
* Russia’s output (which is only exceeded by Saudi Arabia’s) has unexpectedly declined by 0.9% this year
* Britain’s North Sea oil peaked in 1999 and is declining at 5% – 8% per year.
The table on the following page shows, for oil exporting nations, net export declines accelerating from 2006 to 2007. Monthly data for 2008 shows that the overall downward trend is continuing. It is the declining volume of tradeable oil on global markets that is causing steep price rises this year when we are seeing only moderate abatement of growth in global demand.
More buyers are pursuing a tightening supply of exported oil, so small variations in availability are all that is needed to push deal prices upward. For example, on 28th June Bangladesh, hard-hit by energy shortages, was reported to have struck a deal with Kuwait for supply “at a premium price”.
If declines in the supply of tradeable oil were not enough to create a tight market, buyers are reacting nervously to talk of attacks on Iran by Israel or the USA, and it only takes a rumour to send oil prices on another upward jump.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Source: datamunger at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4082/353705 using EIA data
Units – thousands of barrels per day
Critically, Saudi Arabia appears now unable to perform the role of market stabiliser that it played from the 1980’s until the 2000’s on the basis of its known ability to pump up to 20% extra volume at short notice. Depletion of Saudi Arabia’s giant oil fields appears to have taken away its ability to help the world in this way, though the Saudis will not directly admit they no longer have this power.
It seems likely that since 2007 OPEC has lost effective cartel power because few of its members have the ability to pump more oil. This means the cartel as a whole can do practically nothing to bring down prices even though key members like Saudi Arabia have much of their wealth tied up in Western economies and are clearly concerned about damage to their own interests if oil prices go any higher – thus the Saudi conference held on the 22nd of June 2008.
So what happens next? Questions 6 and 7 – Has the price stopped rising and what prices might we expect over short-term and medium-term planning horizons?
Price rises did indeed pause in mid-June after an astonishing $11 run-up on Friday 6th June. Traders may have been waiting for an outcome from the Saudi conference on 22nd June, which was soon seen to have provided little new knowledge or cause for optimism.
Game on. Futures topped $140 for the first time on 26th June.
So what will next week, next month and next year bring?
“Predictions are always difficult, especially about the future.” Niels Bohr
There are essentially two patterns of oil price prediction being made by informed pundits:
1. Ongoing steady price rises driven by the continuing supply-demand squeeze
2. A big discontinuity caused by demand destruction of a major sort, followed by a short period of lower prices then a resumption of ongoing steady price rises driven by the continuing supply-demand squeeze.
Pattern A – Ongoing steady price rises
Proponents of ongoing price rises are betting on geopolitical and economic stability and the ability of a resilient world to keep steadily adjusting to rising oil prices, as we have done for the past six years.
Typical projections of this type are from Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist at Canada’s CIBC World Markets. The following table is from Jeff Rubin’s April 2008 report http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/sapr08.pdf
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Two months later Rubin has revised his April price projections drastically upwards in CIBC WM’s June 2008 report http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/sjun08.pdf .
He explains “We are compelled to once again raise our target prices for oil. We are lifting our target for West Texas Intermediate by $20 per barrel to an average price of $150 next year and by $50 per barrel to an average price of $200 per barrel by 2010.”
Pattern B – Price moves down then up on a rising trend
The other school of oil price projections makes the common-sense point that serious demand reduction and perhaps economic recession in some countries will be triggered when oil prices reach a critical level – when “demand destruction” becomes really destructive. Proponents suggest that such a free-fall in demand from one or more larger consuming countries such as the USA will be dramatic enough to drop price back to, say, US$100/barrel for a period of time.
Some writers guess that the critical price point to cause such sudden and significant demand destruction may be US$200 – 300/barrel, based on percentages of world GDP, but the accompanying analysis is weak and the arguments published to date do not convincingly pinpoint a critical price for oil above which it cannot go.
A graphic example of the “dramatic recession” school of price projections is shown below. Given the great variety of geopolitical events and economic factors that could influence actual supply, demand and price there is little hope for more precise forecasting of price and timing than the indicative story set out below.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Conclusion:
Stay awake, expect oil prices to be in dynamic movement.
Conservatively, plan for US$200/barrel by 2010, but don’t be surprised if a recession somewhere drops price back to US$100, for a short while, or sudden war in the Middle East sends prices skyrocketing.
Expect the fundamentals of fading supply growth and growing demand to push prices ever higher in the 5 year horizon, perhaps well beyond US$300/barrel.
The implications in terms of Australian pump prices in A$/litre are shown in the table below. These pump price estimates are made on the basis of some reasonable assumptions:
* Current excise and GST rules stay the same, keeping Australia’s fuel taxes significantly lower than any other OECD country except the USA, Canada and Mexico
* Australia’s prices continue to be driven by average Singapore refined product prices. Singapore product prices are most influenced by the price of Malaysian Tapis crude which normally sells for a few dollars more than US West Texas Intermediate
* Freight, insurance, wharfage and wholesale and retail margins rise only moderately with world oil price
* A$/US$ exchange rate moves up from the current 95 cents to parity due to continued weakness in the US$ compared with commodity-driven support for the A$
* No net impacts from the Emissions Trading Scheme which starts in 2010 and might add another 10 cents/litre.
Indicative Estimates of Pump Price
Tapis price
US$/barrel
Australian capital city pump price A$/litre
$140 (today) $1.68
$200 $2.07
$250 $2.45
$300 $2.80
$500 $4.30
“When you think a litre of petrol costs too much, ask yourself how much you would have to pay someone to push your car 10 kilometres.”
Finally, let’s look on the bright side. There is plenty to like about moderately higher oil prices, if communities, businesses and economies take heed and get time and help to adjust.
Less traffic, less congestion and less pollution would be a big plus for most of us.
New business opportunities should spring up in areas such as energy conservation, Natural Gas conversions, cleantech industries, electric vehicles and freight optimisation.
Having the world place a higher value on energy from oil will change a lot of business decisions, improving our resource efficiency and enhancing sustainability.
Anawhata comments: The above is my effort to explain the recent history and possible outlook for oil prices to non-TOD audiences who lack awareness or understanding of peak oil. I think all of us know how tricky it is to explain these big issues to intelligent people who simply lack the basic knowledge we take for granted about peak oil. I have chosen to focus this piece specifically on prices, with the minimum possible mention of related causes like oil field reserves, depletion rates, the export land model and so on. Most of these topics underlie my argument, but are not highlighted because I will lose the audience if I stray too far away from the central topic of prices. I have anchored the whole argument around the undeniable facts of recent oil price history.
You will see TOD contributors’ fingerprints and exact words throughout, and I hope I have credited key people correctly and sufficiently. In any case, TOD thought leaders, you know who you are. Thank you for educating and informing me and so many others. I welcome suggestions to clarify and improve the story, remembering that I have to keep it as simple as possible for a lay audience. In particular please help me correct any errors of fact or understanding on my part.
ST thanks for the lecture so early in de morning!
Quick clarification: What if Barbados is able to reach production from its new found oil wealth in say 3-5 years. How would this wrinkle impact the dynamic outlined above i.e. for Barbados.
wow ST… if you can’t beat em, out-write em huh?
… what a projection… it could be $100/bbl or it could be $200/bbl… LOL hard to argue with that.
…”I have anchored the whole argument around the undeniable facts of recent oil price history”… no, he has REALLY anchored his whole argument on this earlier statement –
“Oil is an incredible, irreplaceable gift of nature which packs energy in a dense, easily transportable form.” – Jérôme Guillet – Energy Industry Investment Banker”
… here’s another interesting fact… 1 pound of “incredibly transportable” Uranium contains the same amount of energy as 1.8 million pounds of oil.
… I wish I had the time and intestinal fortitude to respond to this entire article. But you have worn me out… before I leave just couldn’t resist this beauty –
“Actual oil prices are set by refiners bidding to buy tanker-loads. Recent media fuss about speculators refers largely to oil futures prices rather than actual spot prices for which a buyer and a seller have to actually exchange funds for a tanker-load of crude oil costing between US$100 and US$400 million.”
LOL… and now for the TRUTH… the oil price paid by refiners IS the futures price plus the differential… its called Formula Pricing… you can find more on this here: http://books.google.com/books?id=FG5kR26zeDEC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=crude+%22formula+pricing%22&source=web&ots=XM_w5FN7Ej&sig=T8nzcq_riskHRugF6pCqDc9icj4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA95,M1
@MME
While your content in response to ST maybe over-powering – in your eyes, you lose marks in presentation. ST was able to present his argument in simple terms using a surrogate, instead you drop a link on a complicated subject on the BU family.
Man we hey drinkin some green tea laughing we heads off!
MME:
You driving a nuclear Prius now?
I cannot see the point of your argument, MME.
Of course the Futures Market sets the price, that is what it is….. amarket place.
Each day around 650,000 bets are placed on where the price should be, given the available data and analysis on that date.
And exactly in the same way as Chicago Pork bellies or Cheapside yams the day’s market price is “discovered”.
When you have recovered some intestinal fortitude, please explain your problem with this arrangement or propose a superior model.
LOL David… cuddear… yuh hear me say I was short on time this morning. But yuh right, my presentation was very poor.
So let me try again…
In ST’s lengthy cut-and-paste rebuttal, he quotes the following:
“Oil is an incredible, irreplaceable gift of nature which packs energy in a dense, easily transportable form. – Jérôme Guillet – Energy Industry Investment Banker”
I agreed that oil is truly incredible, but sought to bring balance to the discussion by pointing out that in terms of energy density, Uranium is far more incredible… actually, it is 1.8 million times more incredible! We do our planet a great injustice, by burning obscene volumes of gasoline and diesel in vehicles which should be powered by electricity produced from nuclear power (and other viable alternatives like coal, hydro, geothermal, wind etc. where appropriate).
The second statement reproduced by ST which I sought to address was this one:
“Actual oil prices are set by refiners bidding to buy tanker-loads. Recent media fuss about speculators refers largely to oil futures prices rather than actual spot prices for which a buyer and a seller have to actually exchange funds for a tanker-load of crude oil costing between US$100 and US$400 million.”
This statement is FALSE. For the vast majority of oil traded in the world today, oil prices are NOT set by by refiners bidding to buy tanker-loads… they are set by the following formula which appears on page 58 of my earlier link.
[Update: I realize after looking back at the link, that several pages of importance (58-61) are ‘blocked’ and no longer accessible in Google Book Search, so you will have to trust me as I reproduce the formula, and provide an explanation.]
Px = Pr +/- D
where Px is the price of crude x, Pr is the reference or marker price and D is the value of the price differential.
The differential (D) is sometimes referred to as the coefficient of adjustment, and is determined independently by each oil producing country. It is supposed to reflect differences in the quality of crude… in other words it represents the difference in the total value of refined products from crude x relative to what could be obtained from an equivalent volume of the reference crude. It may seem complicated, but the important thing to note is that D is set by independent oil producers and is entirely their call. They however have to be careful how they time their differential announcements as competitors can use this information to undercut them.
Pr (the price of the reference or benchmark crude) is the main variable of relevance to this discussion. The referenced benchmark crude depends on the market in question, but is typically ‘Brent’ for North Sea crudes, ‘WTI’ for US imports, and ‘Dubai/Oman’ for Gulf crudes sold in the Asia/Pacific market. Now… in the ‘good old days’, Pr was the spot price for the benchmark crude. However, this was abandoned in the late 80’s due to manipulation by some market players who took advantage of the relatively small volumes of crude traded on the spot market. Therefore, beginning in 1987 oil exporters stopped using the spot price for Pr and instead replaced it with average futures prices for the respective reference crude. Today… most crude oil is traded on this basis.
In conclusion, the price which refiners pay for crude is equal to the FUTURES price set by SPECULATORS plus or minus the DIFFERENTIAL set by SUPPLIERS… and has absolutely nothing to do with ‘refiners bidding to buy tanker-loads’.
@MME thats what we are talking about:-)
You have caused the BU family to run to the bookshelves to get some help with your formula. We are confident we should be able to digest what you wrote by end of the week!
… and ST, I hope you really don’t believe that oil prices are determined on the same basis as ground provision in Cheapside… but just in case you do… I got some January 2009 futures options on Cheapside yams to sell to you 🙂
Geez….I have learnt more in 3 days from BT, MME, ST and David(BU) than I have tried in to in 5 years……..long live the blogs…free education continues!!
If I thought yams, as I do oil, would be 40% dearer by next January, you’d have a deal.
I don’t think that’ll happen, so that yam future contract in your hand will have to be exchanged at a price that someone else thinks is worth it.
Probably lower, but come January the price your yam contract is finally exchanged at will be the current market price.
Thanks for the illustration.
Reality does not cease to exist just because you stop believing it.
Are my posts being rejected?
Ok does not seem so!
As a youngster, there were many night spots with good clean entertainment that I could have frequented, e.g Caribbean Pepperpot,Alexandras, Cat Whiskers, Marine, Drill Hall, just to name a few. Now as a 50 yrs plus person, there isn’t many, if any places where people my age group can attend. Maybe it’s time for a 50’s Plus membership club in Barbados, where people of that age group and meet not only for entertainment but to socialise, play scrabble, dominoes, card games, darts etc in a setting where we feel at ease. Let’s think about it and let’s get to meet each other in good conversation and sport
When in opposition, the DLP was pushing the then government to produce the report oon the St.Joseph Hospital inquiry. This investigation lasted for almost the entire regime of the then BLP administration and cost the people of Barbados thousands of dollars. I think it is the reponsibily of this new administration to make the findins of this report public. Since then I’m hearing that the Glendairy report and the african migation report are ready but to me the St. Joseph’s report is just as or more important than either. We the public is demanding a response from the government on the report and also how much the investigation cost.
@The Scout
It has been reported to the chagrin of the BU household by the Attorney General that the St. Joseph Hospital Report has gone MIA. We find it a ridiculous state of affairs that the taxpayers of Barbados continue to be taken on a ride on this matter. If the physical report is missing are they also saying that all electronic copies have disappeared as well? If this is the case does it raise the issue of accountability and incompetence by civil servants?
David
This is totally unacceptible. For almost 14yrs this enquiry was going on almost on a daily basis. At least 8 people were paid a tidy sum and at the end of this, am I to believe that the report is MIA? Somebody has to be held accountable. This MUST not be allowed to drop like this. Plus the whole thing seems to be hushed up. The has to be brought to the public attention ASAP
With the other administration, gas prices when up when the global crude oil prices increased. there has been a fairly decent deduction in crude oil global prices; why am I now hearing of a possible increase in gas prices again so soon after the large increase a few months ago?
Scout:
World Natural Gas Prices have risen 83% since January, this may explain the increase.
It is a seperate and distinct market from crude oil.
DRAMA QUEEN POLITICS
The recent display by Mia Mottley on public television was testimony to the emerging leadership problem deep in the armour of the Barbados Labour Party. The jury has returned its’ verdict and it is clear that the bungling of the Budget reply has now cast a shadow over the capacity of the once power house Mia to deliver. Her constant need to score points strategy has backfired and has ended up placing her on trial among her peers.
The attempt to smear the name of Rural Development Commission and its chairman by quoting from a partial piece of correspondence slipped to her in the dark of the night by one of her cohorts has opened wide, her political armour . She fell on the sword of poor political judgment. In this instance her exuberance to expose Barbados to a fable of a $2500 lock was indeed seen as very distasteful.
The staged drama of declaring her 3.5million dollars assets repeatedly will go down in history as the worst dramatic screen play ever seen by a local audience. The reviews of this Declaration of Assets episode were even more pathetic as she boastfully sought to justify her vast accumulation of assets in such a SHORT period. The concerns raised in last week’s column regarding her political strategist judgment are even more relevant as her support base within the parliamentary group and the Party continues on a downward spiral.
The Opposition leader must understand that her elevation has nothing to do with any genuine belief in her ability; but rather she has been conveniently placed at the helm as ‘a political stepney’ to satisfy the former leader’s quest to complete the mission – Operation Destroy MIA [ODM]. The quest to destroy the new leader was hatched on the corridors of the Barbados Labour Party’s Roebuck Street headquarters. It was then given further impetus on many occasions when the former Prime Minister sought to let her stew on a number of ‘very … politically sensitive’ issues.
Her response, the Vidal Sassoon transformation has taken full flight. Her stylist must be very pleased as the look is now being publicly acknowledged. The recent comments by Mac Fingall at Soca on the Hill regarding Mia’s new found pearl and hand bag image illustrates the dawning of a new drama queen of politics.
The drama queen of politics has now fully immersed herself into trying to fill the shoes of her predecessor. Her poor leadership attempts in the last six months have escalated into calls for her removal. The ODM is now in full gear as she seeks to respond by planning her recovery. The 3L combination of LASHLEYS – Stephen, Michael and ‘Hammie’ has further thrown her off base as they move in tandem on behalf of the poor and powerless of our land.
The photo in the dailies showing ‘Hammie,’ the grass roots champion of the Barbados Labour Party embracing his namesakes was not very pleasing to the new drama queen of politics.
Perhaps a political lesson from the newly crowned naked emperor at this time would be most appropriate as she struggles to MARSHALL her troops …OOPS what troops?
WIV we find that you guys have started to attack Mia real early!
After all she is what she is,is she not???
Her vaccant mouthings of recent has lended itself well to exposing her for what she is an empty vessel with little or no support from those that she is attempting to lead.
Not a single word about the removal of the burden of Bus fares maybe she fails to understand the impact that these have on the poorer ones in society as she would never have suffered that fate.
She is a political so called animal therefore she should expect her share of lashes always remember the taunts they threw out at our PRIME MINISTER MR DAVID THOMPSON it is not a one way street my friend.
It will take much more than her empty verbose mouthings and wayward moraless ways to rally support around her, it takes substance something that she lacks so badly.
Straight Talk
I”m talking about present crude oil prices that are falling. The rise of this crude oil prices warranted the rise of petrol at the pump. Therefore how can a future rise in petrol be justified if there is a fall in crude oil prices.
@Scout
You may need to do a Google for ‘future purchase’ i.e. gas Barbados is consuming is based on contracts made months ago. There is always a lag affect regarding process on the world market and domestic prices. What you will find now is the government has decided to implement a mechanism which passes on the price of gas with immediate effect but it does not remove the lag which is caused by future purchase.
Wishing in Vain
Whether Mia was the prime actor/ess in this political drama, she has set the cat among the pigeons by jumping the gun on David. Remember David pledged in his election promises to enact a integrity legislation within one hundred days of his administration. When Mia declared hers, that period had passed and no word from David. All of Barbados is waiting with baited breath for a decent reply from David
Do you really take her PR stunt seriously?
When one seriously goes about making a serious document such as this is meant to be such a trivial matter it begs the question are we meant to take her or them serious in anything that they say or do???
Whether it should be taken seriously or not, the point is she has presented one and those who were shouting about it’s enacting within 100 days are now into over 180 days and still no legisnation from the Dems. Say what you like, she called their bluff and she got them on the backfoot. Don’t criticise hers without showing me theirs.
When one seriously goes about making a serious document such as this is meant to be such a trivial matter it begs the question are we meant to take her or them serious in anything that they say or do???
…………………………………………………………………….
Why are you constantly attacking Mia. Have you realised that David did not criticize her speech which meant that her speech was professional. So I have to ask, who is WIV in this scenario. I will say that you are simply a professional propaganda machine who’s main aim is to self destruct the present administration. The more you are critical of the opposition, the more eyes will be focused on the new administration. Do think about it my friend.
I have thought about it and at the end of my thinking as opposed to your wishes I cannot think of a more suitable candidate for my attention than the fraud and hot air bellows in mottley.
I think we will all remember her for her shallow attempt to shed the reputation of being a dishonest party as the past BLP so obviously were, by waving a partial document proclaiming it to be an invoice for for replacing a lock for $2,500.00 when in actual fact the volume of the work would have normally been a $ 100,000.00 job based on the scale of fees used by the 1, 2, 3 men from URBAN.
mottley has neither the moral fabric nor the ability to lead this country, maybe this is why the vultures are sitting and waiting their dinner, talking threw her hat with much emptyness and sounding good and a party mentality will not get the job done, it requires sound intellect and sense and more importantly to be able to deliver on those things that have been offered.
Least we forget her emptyness in each and every Ministry she molested?
Should we recall the VISA FIASCO for CWC that she was the driving force of as the AG of this island, why would anyone with an ounce of brain want to suggest to Pakastanis should send their passports to India for Visas when the two countries were at war, or how about the people of Dubai who were told to courier to london or India for Visas when the same country does not allow pasports to be sent by courier anywhere, these are but a few expressions of her lack of comprehension or understanding of what she was overseeing, do we start on her complete screw up at the Ministry of Culture or worst yet her stewardship at Education where she was the one who oversaw in excess of $ 750 million in wasteage and payments to party loyals and to this day we are no closer to a meaningful EDUTECH PROGRAM.
Why then are we to worship her and for what purpose ???
However I will leave her in the hands of her peers as I am sure they have a program to address her, who knows Mascot may challenge her??????
Isn’t Edutech being continued to the present Educational Minister? I am using the word “probably” in this context. Could the piece of paper with the costing within Urban ‘probably’ was an authentic payment but other information could have been included as an after-thought to cover the mistake? To ascertain the real truth, the invoice in the opposition domain and David’s rebuttal invoice should be made public. Remember documentation can be doctored after the fact. Something is direly wrong in this episode.
it requires sound intellect and sense and more importantly to be able to deliver on those things that have been offered.
……………………………………………………………………..
If a normal John Public can realise certain aspect of the budget and how it will
affect them, don’t you feel that Mia would be far more knowledgeable in disseminate information from the budget. Additional cost in gas, electricity, road tax, food items, cell phone taxes and anything that would allow homes to enjoy a comfortable standard of living and you talking about ‘intellect and sense’.
Maybe because it did not provide comfort for ones of her ilk and financial standing she could see nothing good about it but ask the families that have 3 or 4 children to send to school if they are not thankful for the ease in not having to pay bus fares or those wanting to attend University and can now do so knowing they have the time to qualify and start working and they have no rope around their necks to repay their loans in short order ???
I would not expect you or her to see these as some of the really positives coming out of the budget let us not even mention the upgrading of the grants to the less fortunate among us.
…..families that have 3 or 4 children to send to school if they are not thankful for the ease in not having to pay bus fares……
……………………………………………………………………..
And i bet you that these same families who you say will benefit from the free bus fares will still be giving the children expensive cell phones and the latest designer wear clothes. So who foolin’ who.
No actually my children are hoping to benefit from the grant to UWI.
They are of University age and I am sooooooo happy that the grants will be increased and extended.
Thanks to the PRIME MINISTER THE HON MR DAVID THOMPSON for his progressive thinking.
You really are a sad person, you put everyone in your program and your manner but many of us live very humble honest lives.
They are of University age and I am sooooooo happy that the grants will be increased and extended.
……………………………………………………………………..
You are getting on as though that these grants will be free. You borrow, you must pay back. My kids did attend UWI and we scrunt and ensure that they made it. By the way, don’t count the apples too early.
I know what you mean by, don’t count the apples too early.
You are so shell shocked by owing and his lack of delivery on numerous promises that you would be weary but no so with our leader. ( and we know who our leader really is the one wearing the pants and in charge not the hold over leader)
If David Thompson said with all sincerity that in 100 days he would do something that important and did not deliver, whatever the other side , be it mia , owen or anybody else bring would have and is a slap in the dems face. Only party bias persons would see it differently. My mind is open, I don’t think B or D. Thank God.
The Prime Minister has been reported in the press today that his government will be expanding the QEH to the tune of 400 million dollars. All that is left is for Minister Estwick to clarify his statement. The BLP seems to be making hay of this cross communication by the DLP.
It is interesting to note that the BLP have a paid announcement on VOB!
David
Yes David Estwick do have to clarify what he said because the same area where the P.M said the expansion will take place is where David said is unstable. Please explain David.
IS THE BELOW OCCURING IN BARBADOS TOO?
American Suicide
FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE
“CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND LEARN TO
UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER. FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE “CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, PLEASE READ AND LEARN A
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.
Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare the pants off you!
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of
America’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American
Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor
Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that
America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived
the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”
“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: “First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History
shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be
bilingual.
The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”.
Lamm went on: Second, to destroy erica, “Invent
‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are
no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by
the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, “We could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us
together.” Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”
“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass
have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”
“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of
‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”
“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than
similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse,
peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy,
Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical
conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.
“E. Pluribus Unum” –From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will
balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”
“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a
word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt
discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.
Finally he said,. “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book “Mexifornia.” His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm
enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and
national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in
America – take note of California and other states – to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is
slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is
deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California
wildfire and destroy everything in its path especially The American Dream.
IS ANY OF THE ABOVE THINGS HAPPENING IN OUR COUNTRY BARBADOS
If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don’t.
Hey ganong. is one of those sub-cultures, tearing at the white heart of America, Bajan?
Shame on us destroying that paragon of freedom.
I think ganong is probably referring to the similarity of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the USA to the situation with the Guyanese Indian invasion of Barbados and probable ethnic problems inter alia
GP,
Ganong is talking about a “way that seems right to mankind, but the end thereof is the way of death and destruction…”
It seems obvious to Bush tea that a city divided against itself CANNOT STAND.
When therefore I walk aroung Bridgetown and see women dressed in hoods, or droves of Guyanese or chinese, or pass by gated communities of white expats, I marvel that our leaders do not see the dangers….. all that it takes is a small spark… like the one in Montreal on Saturday.
All these people are welcome to Barbados – PROVIDED THAT THEY WANT TO BECOME BAJANS AND BE LIKE BAJANS….
It is unclear to Bush tea why strangers would want to come here to establish enclaves of their foreign ways in our midst.
Bush tea has been in many foreign countries from Australasia to Europe to the Mid East etc, and have admired the various cultures there, but would no more expect to take my Bajan ways to any of these places than I welcome these strange ways in Bim….
..one day it will all blow up.
EXACTLY BT!
Has there ever been a time or a place where “foreigners” did not move into some place taking their strange ways? The Bible (which we like to quote) if nothing else is the story of migration, conquest, grouping, defeat and dispersal.
Bush tea, unless we build a “wall” (and the Chinese tried that one) and isolate ourselves, it is inevitable that “others” will come here, particularly if we are perceived as a successful society. The speech by Lamm is so conveniently hypocritical that it boggles the mind. America for most of its history was anything but a melting pot. Its success was built on geographic expansion and exploitation. The two groups who were most exploited were certainly not invited to sit at the national table and share in the bounty and ‘become Americans’. I write of course about the Native Americans and African Americans. The former still living on reservations in a benign apartheid like condition and I need not detail the long struggle of Blacks for equality. Lamm does not want to acknowledge that for so long, the white majority did not want the “others” to join with them. They encouraged (enforced -remember Jim Crow laws) the separation but encouraged the same “others” into the country to provide the cheap labour which fueled US economic expansion. They did not learn the lesson of history. Now that the numbers of the Hispanics in particular are reaching critical proportions, up goes the cry “learn english…become American etc”! But it may be too late.
The real issue and lesson for us is to look at what values and mores will define “Bajaness”. Change must be accepted but every attempt has to be made to manage that change. Tension and conflict may be inevitable but there can be no looking back.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.