Submitted by Crusoe
Yesterday we heard the Minister of Health, Donville Inniss, indicate that the site chosen for the new $800MM hospital is in Kingsland. Firstly, I state that I am pleased that Donville Inniss has taken an open approach to the blogs, by choosing to comment. I also think that Donville has a good political future. However, there are issues related to the new hospital and its location, that I wish to highlight, as relevant to all projects.
Firstly, on the point of location, we are told that relevant stakeholders have discussed this, or at least the news report refers to the Town Planning etc. My question is, how can relevant stakeholders be seen to be consulted, when the citizens of the country have not had an input? This is not a canteen at a school, where the head and Board or Ministry can decide. This is an $800 million facility, the only major one, for the country. I am not saying that a referendum is necessary, but certainly town hall meetings and a public panel (we so love commissions and panels) is actually relevant here. Can we see a preliminary report, that demonstrates why the site is suitable as agreed by Government, Town Planning, doctors, the QEH administration?
BU recently updated on the Nelson Barbados Group matter which was recently concluded in the Canadian Court. The Honourable Justice B. Shaughnessy who presided was very scathing in his closing comments directed at the Plaintiff. The transcript of the windup makes for interesting reading. Of note to the BU family is the likelihood this matter will continue in the Florida Courts and possibly Cyprus!
Here is the transcript – 36 pages of the closing (BU Library) which is recorded in easy to understand prose.
It is over; in Canada, at least. (Those who are not interested in this matter please use the page down key)
BU has learned that the case of Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. v the Country of Barbados and others has ended with the Plaintiff, Nelson, and its officers, backers and insurers paying out undisclosed millions of dollars in legal costs to Barbados and its fellow-defendants. We now wait to see if another related action, this time directed at the blogs and bloggers, filed in Florida (see the Florida Action) will be pursued.
There is no doubt that Nelson and its officers and supporters settled the matter of costs because of the massive amount of evidence against them and in the hopes that this evidence would never become generally known. But Bajans have the right to know. We were sued.
Readers of Barbados blogs will recall that this was a case that started with much public fanfare and condemnatory finger-pointing in the direction of Barbados by certain other blogs (namely Keltruth and Barbados Free Press) giving the impression that Barbados was to be called to account for conspiring with prominent Bajans to defraud Marjorie Knox and her foreign backers. And for Barbados’ temerity in challenging the dictates of those foreigners. It ended with a strangled whimper from those same plaintiffs and with silence from Barbados’ blog detractors.
Readers of BU will recall that Nelson lost the right to have the case heard in Ontario and the judge ruled that Barbados was the only country with jurisdiction and competence to try it – and it has already been tried in Barbados. And lost.
Subsequently, Barbados and its co-defendants filed a claim for their legal costs on a (unusual in Canada and usual everywhere else) “full indemnity” basis, meaning that Barbados and others wanted all their costs back. These costs were estimated at in excess of 3 MILLION Canadian Dollars. Nelson, meanwhile, was revealed to be a shell company, set up solely for the purposes of the (as admitted by Nelson’s lawyer) meritless litigation.
Submitted by Looking Glass
One admires the peacock for the grandeur of his plumes only to be driven away by the discordant tones of his voice. Bajan Truth deemed Dr. Worrell’s first quarter presentation to be unprofessional; his sin not “sharing objectively on the economy.” According to him Dr. Worrell, having noted that “there was a 2% drop in the economy in the economy for this quarter,” concluded the economy was steady. The conclusion is said to be untruthful because “a recession according to economic textbooks is if growth is less than 2% over a year,” and because “we experienced further 2% negative growth after losing 10% last year.”
There is no need to defend the Governor. An economic textbook defining recession as less than 2% growth over a year is yet to be written. Can the businessman who “relies on these reports to guide decisions or anticipate outcomes” be objective and truthful? One wonders if he ever looked into a textbook. Dr. Worrell might have been untruthful but the food retailer is an embarrassment to Bajan businessmen
Yes, our reserves like the economy are in deep trouble and have been so for a long time. For years we hid the truth. We have a history of borrowing to shore up reserves to meet requirements, then spend the money and borrow again to prop up the economy. The practice, a band aid solution, has had significant implications for our indebtedness and the GDP (Economists and the Bank Report). Thirty million could be indeed a strain on the foreign reserves if the government decided against going that route. Right now our foreign reserves are probably less than $1bn.
BU has dubbed this story; the one the Barbados media is scared to touch and that includes Patrick Hoyos’ Broad Street Journal who reported on this story in the early day. Even if we agree with some BU family members that this is a family squabble, the indignity which Barbados and many of its citizens have had to respond to should cause our local media to report on what has mushroomed to an international event. The fact that Peter Allard, the chairman and owner of Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary is involved is another reason for Barbadians to ask some questions. Allard we have learned has filed a case to a Canadian Body responsible for environmental matters citing that Barbados has reneged on certain environmental responsibilities
BU recognizes that the complexities of this case may not be palatable to some and we have tried on this particular blog to list what we hope are more reasonably sized nuggets of information to more easily process. BU has advocated ADR in the past but resignedly have accepted the time has now passed for what would have been a more sensible and less costly solution.
BU is aware the ongoing legal battle in the case we have dubbed The Other Side of The Kingsland Matter series continues to be of interest to some. The fact that this matter has tentacled to smear the government of Barbados and many entities which underpin the governance system of Barbados, although not covered in the traditional media, continues to concern BU as patriotic Barbadians. We have therefore taken the time to blog an update on the matter for those who are interested.
On May 4 this year, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Ontario did not have the authority to try the case of Nelson Barbados Group Limited Vs. Barbados and others. He ruled that Barbados alone had such jurisdiction and he took the opportunity make some disparaging comments about the conduct of , Mr K. William McKenzie of the firm of Crawford McKenzie McLean Duncan and Anderson.
Submitted by BU family member
Over the last year or so, I have read with considerable interest your “Other Side of Kingsland” series. It makes a change from the hearsay and unsupported allegations of Keltruth and Barbados Free Press.
Recently, I was shown certain documents that I think you and your readers may find of interest and I attach them, since it is upon one of them that Nelson Barbados Group Limited relies for its standing to sue Barbados and certain of its officials, including its present and former prime ministers and its chief justice.
First is the Deed of Mortgage made between the Goddards (Larry Kent and Maria Jane – Maria Jane is the daughter of Marjorie Knox) and Peter Andrew Allard. I will refer to this as the GODDARD MORTGAGE. It will be noted that in the third paragraph it is recited:
AND WHEREAS this deed is supplemental to a mortgage therein [should read ‘bearing’] even date herewith and made between MARJORIE ILMA KNOX of the ONE PART and the Mortgagee [Peter Allard] of the OTHER PART whereby certain shares were charged by the said MARJORIE ILMA KNOX to the mortgagee by way of deed of charge for securing the payment of the sum of $1,150,000.00 with interest thereon and therein contained.
Next, let us take a look at the Deed of Charge referred to between Marjorie Knox and Peter Allard. I will call this the KNOX CHARGE. Have a look at paragraph three and you will see recited:
AND WHEREAS this deed is supplemental to a mortgage therein even date herewith and made between LARRY KENT GODDARD and MARIA JANE GODDARD of the ONE PART and the Mortgagee of the OTHER PART……
So I would like the legal expert(s) responsible for these documents to explain to me just how two documents can be supplemental one upon the other. The answer, of course, is that they cannot be one supplemental upon the other supplemental. It just cannot be done. There has to be a ‘stand-alone’ document.
Another little point that is of concern is that the amount referred to in the body of the Knox Charge and the Goddard Mortgage is $1,150,000.00 and these documents purport that the Knox Charge is executed to further secure the Goddard Mortgage. Interesting. Let us take a closer look: Continue reading
Submitted by BWWR
On Monday 8th, the hearing of the jurisdictional motion before the Honourable Justice Bryan Shaughnessy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Nelson Barbados Group Limited v The Country of Barbados and others had to be adjourned because of a convenient last-minute motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Court (that BU posted) whereby the videotapes of the cross-examinations in Barbados and Toronto of the defendants, including our Chief Justice, would NOT be released to counsel, but sealed by the Court. Little Willy was up to his tricks manipulating the system for all he was worth as usual (he stands not the slightest hope in hell on an even playing field) and desperately trying to get his hands on the videos so they can (suitably edited and added to) be posted on Keltruth and BFP with links to YouTube, of course.
The matter of leave was heard and decided by Shaughnessy J. and today Fergusson J. will sit to decide if leave to appeal ought to be granted. Continue reading
Submitted by BWWR
The latest development in the case that is truly entitled Mental Madge Knox and Almighty Peter Allard and others v the Country and People of Barbados and others is the cross-examinations that are scheduled to take place in Barbados within the next few weeks. Some of the defendants, including the Country of Barbados have filed a motion objecting to the Ontario courts having jurisdiction in this matter. In support of this motion, certain defendants have filed affidavits and the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provide that opposing counsel can cross-examine the affiants on their affidavits.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Nelson, tried (and failed) to show that all cross-examinations ought to be carried out in Ontario, on the insulting basis that Barbados (and even Toronto) were not safe for him, his staff, his family and Barbados resident and terminated-for-cause low-level lecturer at Cave Hill, John Knox. In support of the failed application, the plaintiff placed before the Ontario court (and I attach) subsequently discredited security reports by OBN Securities (attached as OBN1 and OBN2) and Global Risk International Inc. (attached as GRI Inc 1, GRI Inc 2 and GRI Inc 3). I post them, not because there is any merit in them, because there isn’t – but so that the BU family can refer to them if needed. How many of you and how many of our many repeat visitors recognize Barbados from these so-called security reports?
In denying the plaintiff’s application for, among other things, an order that cross-examinations should take place in Canada Justice Bryan Shaughnessy addressed the matter of the scope of the cross-examinations and made certain Orders. I repeat them here as follows: Continue reading
Submitted by BWWR
I have just received the exhibits from the affidavit of Mr. John Knox of the 12th November 2007. The affidavit itself is already posted by BU. Certain members of the BU family had asked for sight of certain of these exhibits. I had omitted to post them with the affidavit because it is nuff paper. 177 pages and I have had to post them to BU in three separate e-mails, otherwise it will not go through. These are Exhibits A – H, Exhibits I – P and Exhibits Q – U.
Featured in the exhibits are comments from certain bloggers, some of them members of the BU family. We have Pat and Reality Check and Hants and Now I Am Vex and Wishing in Vain and Sapadillo and Yardbroom – everybody – even you, Bimbro are there big and bold as brass. Most prolific of all is none other than our own Anonymous. And all your comments are now enshrined in the Canadian action brought by Madge Knox and Peter Allard with the assistance of one Goat and one Fish under the alias of Nelson Barbados Group Limited in the Ontario Superior Court of Appeal.
However, I would like to direct attention to Exhibit “C” and I ask that you tear yourselves away from the contemplation of your own aliases and comments and have a look at Exhibit “C”. Exhibit “C” is a letter written to Kathleen Davis (allegedly and certainly better known as Keltruth) by US Consul General Robert Fretz on April 19 2005 in response to Kathleen’s letter of February 9 (year omitted) to the US Ambassador, which letter is NOT exhibited. There are several items to note in this letter of Mr. Fretz, but before I get there, I would like to ask a favour of Keltruth – we have Mr. Fretz’s letter. Please post the letter of Kathleen Davis to which it responds. You managed to post Exhibit P on its own. Indulge we poor Bajans with Kathleen’s letter. I certainly am all agog to see its contents.
So back to Mr. Fretz’s letter from which we learn: Continue reading
Submitted by BWWR
In its latest, Keltruth starts: “I was ribbed for omitting to mention two scandals in a recent post, PwC has other problems besides Nelson’s Canadian $500 million law suit!” The thrust of Keltruth’s article is to complain about shell companies in Barbados. So, let us examine this carefully.
Our example will be an Ontario corporation called – guess what – Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. The self-same Nelson that is the plaintiff in the $500 million law suit that exercises the mind of Keltruth almost exclusively. If you go online and use http://www.canada411.ca/ you can look up Nelson for yourselves. And guess what you will get……a notice that says: “No Listing for “Nelson Barbados Group Ltd.” were found in “Orillia”. Try expanding your search location”. Now, we know that Nelson’s address is the same as that of the law firm of the Goat (K. William McKenzie) Nelson’s counsel, so the address entered is correct, according to the Ontario corporate records. Yet it is not listed for a telephone. Yet, Keltruth complains of this same thing in relation to Barbados companies.
Next up, let us do a white pages search – same site – for Donald Best (or D. Best) in Orillia. Mr. Best is registered as Nelson’s sole director. Predictably, there are no listings for any D. Best in Orillia and some 120 listings for D. Best/Donald Best in Ontario.
Please see link detailing cost paid by Nelson Barbados Group Limited
Submitted by BWWR
As promised, I now am able to advise the BU family that yesterday in the costs motion brought against Nelson Barbados Group Limited in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it was ordered that Nelson pay its costs by 27 August 2008, failing which the action against the defendants bringing the motion (over 50 of them) will stand discharged.
Those defendants bringing the motion include: The Country of Barbados, Prime Minister Thompson, former Prime Minister Arthur, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice, Peter Simmons, Kingsland Estates, Classic, Richard Cox – 58 of the 67 defendants.
I have certain sincere hopes here:
1. That if Nelson Barbados Group Limited does not pay the cost by 27 August, that in discharging the action against the 59 Barbados resident and other affiants who chose to be cross-examined in Barbados, the judge will order that the costs be paid by Mr. K. William “Goat” McKenzie PERSONALLY.
2. That the Law Society of Upper Canada will launch an investigation into the conduct of this case by the Goat and disbar him from the practice of law.
3. That the the Law Society of Upper Canada will, once its investigation is complete, file a complaint with the Barbados Bar Association against Alair Shepherd Q.C. and that this will lead to Her Majesty being advised to cancel his commission as Queens Council and the Barbados Bar to disbar or at least suspend him from the practice of law. This, for not having advised the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that Nelson Barbados Group Limited did not have the standing to bring its action, particularly as he was one of the counsel of record in the matter.
That conduct is simply INEXCUSABLE. Continue reading
Submitted by BWWR
I see that Kingsland Estates Limited is much in the news again with our friends at Barbados Free Press and Quel Truth. Important and more relevant news like that you have been publishing appears to be in short supply for them, so they harp back to ancient history. A lot of unsupported, tired, old accusations and an action in Canada of no merit and which seeks to undermine Barbados and its people and bring them into international disrepute.
However, neither QT not BFP offers any update on what is going on RIGHT NOW with the Canadian action. Let me assist. The headline is:
CANADIAN ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED
When last we heard, 58 of the 67 defendants in the Canadian action had filed a motion objecting to Canada as venue and the Ontario courts as having the competence and jurisdiction to try the Canadian action. I will call this the “Jurisdictional Motion”. Several affidavits had been filed by certain of the defendants. This, therefore, meant that the Plaintiff, Nelson Barbados Group Limited (“Nelson”) had the right to cross-examine the defendants who swore affidavits (called “affiants”) on those affidavits. The Ontario Civil Procedure Rules dictate that if any of the affiants lives outside Ontario, they are to be cross-examined at their home base (in this case, Barbados) unless there are special reasons (like threats to anyone safety) why these cross-examinations should be ordered in Ontario. As there were no such threats, these had to be manufactured and fished for. So Nelson secured the services of Stuart “Fishy” Heaslet, to try to entrap Peter Simmons into making threats during surreptitiously recorded telephone conversations originated by the Fish from Peter Allard’s Vancouver apartment to Peter Simmons. Transcripts of these Fish/Simmons recordings have been published by BU. Continue reading