Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur, Opposition Leader David Thompson, High Court Judge – All Represented By Same Lawyer In Land Fraud And Corruption Trial!

owen-arthur-barbados-blp.jpgdavid-thompson-dlp-barbados.jpg

Would George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton Share The Same Lawyer… With A Judge Of The US Supreme Court?

They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but nowhere in history can we think of an example of a Prime Minister and Opposition Leader being sued for fraud and corruption: and then deciding to have the same lawyer represent them!

Folks, it would be like, I dunno (Americans please forgive me) George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton being sued and choosing the same lawyer. It just wouldn’t happen.

But it has happened in Barbados and some of us can’t figure it out. Or worse: we CAN figure it out…

Disturbing Backroom Alliances All About Valuable Barbados Land

We’ve always said that Thompson and Arthur were very much alike in their choice to avoid imposing conflict of interest, transparency and integrity standards upon their respective MPs and candidates, but this is ridiculous! It does prove that there is an “old boys’ club” operating behind the political and business scenes in Barbados that often supersedes democracy and elected government.

Owen Arthur, David Thompson, David Simmons, David Shorey (lotta Davids in there!) and all kinds of other Barbados business and political leaders are being sued in a Canadian court by a company called Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. over something called the Kingsland case. The Barbados media have been hiding the story (more on that later) but it is a major international lawsuit because at stake is about 1% of the land area of Barbados – valued at way over ONE BILLION US DOLLARS!!!!!!

Independence of Barbados Judiciary Again Shown To Be A Lie

And to make this even stranger – Elneth Kentish, a Barbados High Court Judge who is also being sued in the same fraud and corruption case, shares the same lawyer as the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and many others.

This is disgusting. Any damn fool judge should know that the appearance of independence is as important as the independence itself, but Judge Elneth Kentish has decided for whatever personal expediency, to cast aside the appearance of judicial independence. She should resign or be fired right away because like so many others in our corrupt judicial system she has now shown that she cares more about herself than the appearance of justice. Another Barbados judge who just doesn’t get it!

Who Is Paying The Legal Bill For This Bunch Of Scoundrels?

Somebody is paying for legal counsel for this gang of Barbados business and political big-ups and now that they have all thrown their lots in together, the public has a right to know who is the money behind this gang. Are tax dollars being used to defend against crimes that people committed before they were public officials or judges?

Some folks and companies being sued in the same case retained their own lawyers, but the bulk of the defendants are represented by the same counsel. This is astounding! A friend of ours in the legal profession says that ordinary folks might not realize how big a deal this is. The plaintiffs are accusing the defendants of being involved in a large corrupt conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to some land in Barbados. Our friend says that by choosing the same lawyer to defend them, the majority of the accused are practically ADMITTING that they are all in the same basket together!

Our lawyer friend says that somebody on the legal team didn’t have on their thinking cap when they let this happen.

What effective Leader of the Opposition would have the Prime Minister’s lawyer represent him in a lawsuit?

The question can now be reasonably asked: “Is David Thompson Stupid?”

What a victory for the Prime Minister of Barbados. The leader of the so-called Opposition doesn’t even have his own lawyer to represent him in a fraud and corruption case! He’s leaving it to the Prime Minister to choose and maybe pay for his lawyer!

What kind of stupidity is this?

Canadian Legal Case Starting To Reveal The Secrets Of Barbados Backroom Structures

Folks, I hope that by now you are starting to get what Barbados is all about. As this Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. Canadian legal case slowly winds it’s way through whatever long process will happen, Bajans should pay attention.

The evidence and turnings that come out of this case – now weekly it seems – are telling us more than we ever knew about the power structures, corruption and backroom dealings that happen every day in Barbados. Our legal friend calls the case a microcosm of Barbados society, politics and business. The list of accused certainly reads like a Who’s Who of Barbados.

Keltruth Blog Making Big Waves

We’ve done a few articles on the Kingsland case in the past, but thanks to a new and apparently well-connected blog that is now posting the legal documents of the case on the internet, we’re seeing things that we’ve never seen before. Although the BLP supporters continually claim that every new posted legal document is a fake etc etc etc, it is becoming obvious that something big is happening in public view for the first time.

The Barbados media remain silent about all this. Politicians in both the BLP and DLP remain silent about all this.

As an election draws near, you owe it to yourself, your children and Barbados to become interested in what is going to happen to 1% of the land mass of this tiny island we call home, and how the corrupt business and political power brokers of Barbados operate. This Canadian case is exposing many of the hidden alliances and their corrupt methods to the light of public scrutiny.

Head on over to Keltruth Blog (link here) to see written proof, court documents and many other facts behind a legal case that will soon explode onto the international news media.

Background Reading

83 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Business, Crime & Law, Offshore Investments, Political Corruption, Politics, Politics & Corruption

83 responses to “Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur, Opposition Leader David Thompson, High Court Judge – All Represented By Same Lawyer In Land Fraud And Corruption Trial!

  1. light hearted

    Since I believe the people at BFP are bright people i would assume that they know that continually harping on the fact that the PM and Thompson and the Judge have the same lawyer is really not the point. We have to look at if really any of the alleged breaches of equity are true and can be up-held in the courts. Whom they have representing them is really not that important.

    The fact that they have the same lawyer should indicate to even the least initiated at BFP that all these persons are being sued in their official capacities – that is that it is their offices that are being sued not them personally. In other words the plaintiffs are claiming an abridgement of their rights by these persons acting in their official capacities. Now sure it is not a secret that the offices of Judge, Prime Minister and Minister of the Crown (under which i assume David Thompson is being named – when he was Minister of Finance) are all constitutionally provided for and so any representation of those offices would have to be by the same lawyer(s) since they will represent the government of Barbados and its constitutional creatures as listed above. So who then does BFP expect to pay the bill for these fees accept the tax payers of Barbados. After all its their officers that are being sued not David Thompson or Owen Arthur the private citizens. Tell me what is so hard to understand about that. The people at BFP need to think befor they write.

    NOW HARDWOOD.

    Surely BFP cannot be serious listing those wishy washy stories as any real investigation into the Hardwood story.

    Imagine that here it is that a company headed by a man who claims he built 500 houses in 6 months in Grenada gets 2 million dollars of the taxpayers money and completely licks it out and BFP has little to say. The company with the backing of Clyde Mascoll says it will build 30 houses in a month and gets a gloden handshake from government but almost a year later has only build 7 for UDC which it overcharged by $238,000 for and BFP has nothing to say.

    The company get more that 50,000 to buy equipment which the owner Mr. Murrel takes and then goes to Simpson Motors and Consolidated Finance and leases (not buys) and rents back the equipment to Hardwood who already gave him money to Buy (not lease) the same equipment. Yet BFP is worrying about which lawyer is representing Thompson and Arthur.

    More still. The Man Murrel even though he is rent the equipment back to Hardwood is not paying the lease payments and mounting up arrears which Hardwood who gave him the money to buy (not lease) is having to pay on his behalf to stop the finance companies from taking up the equipment. And Mascoll in his response to Thompson’s letter to the PM says that it was his idea for Murrel to get the equipment and that it was saving Hardwood 44,000 a month. WOW. Oh did i mention that Hardwood was also maintaining and paying for fuel Murrel’s equipment which they gave him money to buy (not lease) and which they pay to rent? What says BFP Oh! sorry they are worried about a law suit in Cananda.

    So nothing on BFP about the sexual assault on female employees of Hardwood by Mr. Murrel for which (at least in one case) he has beed charged. Nothing from BFP about the fact that Hardwood and Murrel fired the operations manager because she wrote the Board about these practices and serveral breaches of the domestic and international labour codes which Sir Roy Trotman wrote the Hardwood Chairman to confirm is true. And nothing at all from BFP about the inappropriateness of the minister’s wife have employees of Hardwood including Mr. Murrel himself working on her office complex and using equipment that hardwood was paying for twice and servicing too.

    Nothing from BFP about the fact that Mrs. Mascoll said at her press conference that she paid Mr. Murrel out of her own money and he intervened and said that he endorsed the cheque to Hardwood who in turn paid the employees of Hardwood that were working on her building.

    NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING AT ALL FROM BFP on these points. Which makes one wonder why would the people at BFP hunt about looking for corruption all over the place and when it presents itsself right in front their face they fail to deal with it.

    Perhaps again as is their wont they will blame it on the mainstream media for not reporting it. But then again is BFP now acting like the same mainstream media. AMAZING.

    *******************************

    BFP Replies

    Hi Light Hearted

    Easy there, friend. We can’t cover every story as every reader wants us to… BUT, you seem to have a good mind and you are obviously knowledgeable about the situation and maybe even have some insight that hasn’t yet been placed before the public. If you would take the time to work up a story for publication we will print it.

    How about it?

    email it to us at barbadosfreepress@yahoo.com

  2. Wishing in Vain

    Hi BFP for those of us out of the loop please advise the name Canadian Law firm representing this group?

  3. Hants

    “but it is a major international lawsuit”.

    BFP…….. This will be a first. An International???lawsuit filed in a SMALL city, in a PROVINCIAL court, by a SMALL town (population 30,000 and 130km from Toronto) law firm,..allegding corruption and fraud by SMALL Island politicians and others.

    The $Billion US figure is interesting. It is based on the potential value of Agricultural land after a CHANGE OF USE.

    Those lawyers in Orillia better get paid before this thing falls apart.

    Question? What will the Government of Canada do about this lawsuit ? A case against a leader of a foreign country should attract the attention of the feds in Ottawa.

  4. Sargeant

    I don’t know the legal ramifications but perhaps the B’dos gov’t is picking up the tab for the PM and other defendants. If Thompson ops out of this joint defence he will likely have to pay his own tab and lawyers in Canada for any type of case don’t come cheap.

  5. Wishing in Vain

    Pity that they do not delve a little deeper and look into Arthur’s relationship to the following deals the VECO Prison contract, the Multi million dollar scam dealing with 3 S DANOS AND THE ROAD WORKS PROJECT, Hardwood Holdings and his involvement in the Slot Machine deal with Nicholls and Johnson and Washington from the USA.

  6. Hants

    This case will be settled out of court when a change of use is granted for enough of the Estates’s Agricultural lands to make everybody involved cash rich.

    If Barbados farms 4000 acres is worth bds $40 million how much is the Agricultural portion of Kingsland lands worth?

    I am trying to understand the BDS $2 Billion value shown above. BFP where did you get this figure from?

  7. WTF?

    The PM and the Leader of the Opposition have the same lawyer? That is absurd! When did the alleged “fraud” or “corruption” happen? Was this while these people were lawyers in private practice or when they were elected?

    Justice Kentish was a lawyer who served on the board of one of the companies in the lawsuit. Why should the people of Barbados be paying for her lawyer with tax dollars for something that happened while she was on the board of a company as a private citizen?

    WTF?

  8. Sargeant

    BFP Is Thompson a rich man? The defendants will probably be defended by a lawyer most likely a partner from a “white glove” law firm on Bay Street in Toronto, not a storefront lawyer in Orilla. The rates for those corporate types are calculated hourly and they charge for everything i.e every fax, phone call, travel expenses etc., it can get expensive fairly quickly. High annual billings are a sure way to maintain your partner status. Whatever the merits of this case you want to ensure that you have the best defence that money can buy.

  9. Wishing in Vain

    I personally believe this to be a silly case, as you may have noticed they even mention the island of Barbados as one of the defendants in this case so am I to assume that each one of us as Barbadians are subject to this case?
    I have no axe to grind on this matter but my recall is that this case has already been to appeal in the UK courts so how now why is the Canadian Court our Highest court of appeal?

  10. iisnoone

    Hants,

    Who said permissions have not been granted?

    What do you think the two acres of beachfront land at Spion Kop sold for? I was told that it was sold or resold for several times the valuation of the entire company! And this is 2 acres out of 1,000 acres. That is 0.2% or one fifth of one percent of the land! Hants, you tell me, what does 2 acres of prime beach front land go for?

    The land is also located on a major highway and close to the airport. Hants, you tell me, what does one acre of prime commercial land on a major highway go for?

    Lastly, the big men in Barbados are intelligent. They would not spend millions fighting in court for something that is not worthwhile.

  11. passin thru

    Wishing in Vain, the case may be seen as “silly” but the Canadian courts are taking it seriously. Shouldn’t we be wanting more details about why the Canadian court is taking it seriously? I’m curious about what evidence has come up so far.

    Why have the blp people said more than once that the lawsuit was rejected by the Canadian court when that is not true?

    The case involves VECO. That says enough for me to start smelling smoke. VECO bribes politicians and makes payoffs all the time. They built our jail and nobody but nobody can say how much it cost or show any contracts. Say no more!

    There may be more here that we haven’t been shown by the newspapers yet.

    If I was the leader of the opposition there is no way I would not have my own lawyer. This lawsuit smells. I don’t know what it smells like yet, but it smells.

  12. passin thru

    Good point by WTF? Why should taxpayers pay the lawyer for a judge when the case has nothing to do with Kentish being a judge. Go to the Keltruth Blog and you will see that the lawsuit against Justice Kentish is for what she did as a lawyer.

    Why should I pay for her lawyer?

  13. Anonymous

    Thompson’s supporters here argue that 1. the land isn’t that valuable and 2. the case is silly.

    Nobody wants to touch the main point of the story that it is improper for a Judge and Leader of Opposition to have the same lawyer as the Prime Minister. Too cosy by far. What about the perceived independence of the judge?

    I agree with Passin and wtf? that Elneth Kentish should have her own lawyer and that she should personally pay for her lawyer.

  14. Anonymous

    Since the defendants in this matter are all persons and coorporations resident in Barbados, why is this case being heard in Canada? Sorry, seems like a silly question but just want some clarification. Thanks!

  15. Hants

    Anonymous this case is not silly and the value of the land could be $2 billion if some of it is already rezoned,
    but the point is that it is difficult to see a conclusion to this case that does not involve the Federal Government of Canada and or the Supreme court of Canada.

    I am expecting that the case will not be tried on Canadian soil.

    The Canadian Government will not take part in “destabilizing” a sovereign friendly tax haven dominated for the last 50 years by Canadian Banks and Investors.

  16. Pogo

    Why with OE and DT fraternizing when we can’t see seems like they got caught in the headlights showing they is joined as one. Around the island they deny it but in the world out there including Canada there are places where you can’t control truth. Six month’s ago we heard the case would soon be dismissed now Thompson and Veco got included instead.

    Not appearing to go away any time soon.

  17. cabinet order-in-council

    the land use was changed in 1993 by cabinet order—golf courses and residential

    the zoning runs with the land and the value exists today

    ask Leonard St Hill who knows the rules backwards and forward, not some people who would like to argue to the contrary for personal gain

    this doesn’t mean that the PM and Town and Country could frustrate the h–l out of anyone that didn’t have their blessing, all it means is that the billion dollar valuation has existed since 1993 and the vultures know this fact all to well.

    Thompson and Simmons were right in the middle of this rezoning process. Why do you think the government is paying for their legal bill?

  18. YUM YUM I like it!

    Wishing in Vain

    “I personally believe this to be a silly case”

    Did you actually take the time to read about the background on this case before you made this STUPID comment?

    The case itself is actually VERY interesting. It hinges around a conspiracy to undervalue the worth of the company KEL after the death of its major shareholder. An elderley lady shareholder (whose relatives founded KEL) was allegedly screwed out of a lot of money. Peter Allard (hence the small Canadian town) is involved in helping her fight for justice.

    This COULD be a big one.

    Do some reading and stop repeating “parrot fashion” the same 3s, VECO, Gems….. garbage, like a schoolboy politician.

  19. Jerome Hinds

    Owen Arthur looks PENSIVE & NERVOUS !

    David Thompson is all SMILES !

    We await the jury’s VERDICT !

    Before that all we have is CONJECTURE & SPECULATION !

  20. Wishing in Vain

    To those that are rambling on here has anyone had the forward thinking to ask a Canadian Lawyer what the story is on this case?
    It is stupid from the aspect of the number of defendants listed including the citizens of Barbados, What they expect to take one wild swipe and catch whatever they can?
    I would be the happiest person in the world if it took a court case to bring out the gross misconduct that is forever taking place in this island but this one seems nothing more than a joke and an absolute waste of taxpayers dollars.
    Oh also as I asked in my earlier post: my recall is that this case has already been to appeal in the UK courts so now tell if or why is the Canadian Court our Highest court of appeal?
    My last check informed me that the Privy Council is indeed our highest court of appeal and it has been heard there already, however if the Canadians courts are now our highest appeal court please let me know.

  21. Wishing in Vain

    YUM YUM I like it!
    Do not get your nickers in a twist my friend only the truth spoken about these grey areas in our goverance.
    I am sure that were you to remove your blinkers you to would agree that the extent of the stealing and corruption is at a all time high.

  22. YUM YUM I like it!

    Wishing in Vain

    I can assure you that my undergarments are most definitely unruffled and my visual fields remain unrestricted.

    “Do not get your nickers in a twist my friend only the truth spoken about these grey areas in our goverance.”

    It does seem however that you have a problem separating a ‘fact’ from an ‘opinion’.

    If we knew the truth it wouldn’t be grey area would it?

  23. Thistle

    I ain’t saying nuttin, but I going laugh ma belly full when dis ting jump up and slap all a wunna straight in de face.

  24. light hearted

    You know the people at BFP are trying so hard to pin corruption on people that they are taking all kinds of wild swipes and hoping that something sticks. Tou know like blind Elda. People file lawsuits everyday some for millions others for billions. That does not mean that most of them have any merit. In fact close to 90% of them fail but the court must give a hearing unless its a proven case of triviality.

    I suspect that this is just another one of those suits that will get lost in the system. One just has to look at the number of people the suit is trying to capture. One of the key principles in trying to successfully work a suit is to limit the targets. Once you let it get wild and start naming everybody under the sun that has a little prominance in the society people immediately know that your case is weak and you are looking for someone, anyone to stick in on. Law just does not work that way.

    On another note i find it very interesting that BFP which is so gunhoe on integrity, corruption, transparency and accountability, has not jumped all over the “hardwood” issue. Now here it is that real evidence of corruption and mis-appropriation of public funds exist and BPF has been relative silent on the issue. Now i wonder why that it is? could it be that they dont care?

  25. Wishing in Vain

    Light hearted,
    Much of what you have said is the same as what I have been saying this is a silly case.
    Their dismissal of the HARDWOOD HOLDINGS issue does not do the job for them because it is one of those situations where the Opposition has made a declaration and has delivered hard and convincing evidence of the misuse of public funds.
    It is clear and there for the average man to see in black and white, but this does not fit the bill of their intent and mission.
    Maybe if we wait another six months we may finally get that money laundering story that BFP promised so many months ago, the difference here is that Mr Thompson told the public that he would reveal the corruption that is going on at HARDWOOD HOLDINGS and he held a public meeting and laid it out in a very clear and precise manner, documents were well presented, whereas BFP has told us about a hot money laundering story so many months ago my memory fails me but on todays date 26th Oct 2007 not a script to be seen on this missing story.
    Maybe a case of needing some integrity legislation for BFP ????

  26. Thistle

    That is why I said I’m going to laugh my belly full when the bubble bursts and people get mud all over their faces, but my comments are apparently still “awaiting moderation” for some unknown reason.

  27. BFP

    So Wishing in Vain…

    Is it ok and ethical for the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and a High Court Judge to be represented by the same lawyer?

    Should tax dollars be used to pay for Justice Kentish’s lawyer when the allegation involves her work as a lawyer in private practice?

    Yes or no to these very simple questions.

  28. BFP

    Point 1/

    The Canadian case is a different plaintiff than the Barbados case. Veco was not involved in the Barbados case. We really don’t know what is going on yet.

    Point 2/

    We never followed the Barbados case much and never heard of it much either, but if the Chief Justice and another Justice (Kentish) were involved in the Kingsland matter, how can the trial in Barbados have been fair?

  29. more

    WIV, do tell us on which land in Christ Church is HARDWOOD planning to build?

  30. Jerome Hinds

    I am not sure my previous post was successful. So I am sending again in a REVISED format .

    JH
    *****************************************

    light hearted

    October 26th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    On another note i find it very interesting that BFP which is so gunhoe on integrity, corruption, transparency and accountability, has not jumped all over the “hardwood” issue. Now here it is that real evidence of corruption and mis-appropriation of public funds exist and BPF has been relative silent on the issue. Now i wonder why that it is? could it be that they dont care?

    ***********************************************
    light hearted,

    You have struck the nail on the head !

    These BFP guys are truly amazing at all times !

    All of a sudden David Thopmson & the DLP is their new TOY !

    Not a word about Rommell Marshall attempt to DEFRAUD de NIS & employees !

    * But they run off to Dominica…..behind Roosevelt Skerritt COURT CASE !

    Not a word about the pertinent questions asked by the DLP about Hardwood Inc !

    * But they run off to Canada looking fuh David Thompson !

    Not a word about their long Promised Money – Laundering story !

    * But then again……their non- publication clearly shows what they think about ACCOUNTABLITY !

    Their now INFAMOUS response….” If yuh doan like US….form yuh own BLOG !

  31. Wishing in Vain

    If this went before the Privy Council and the appeal was heard and a decision given are we now then to assume that the Canadian Courts are more important than that of a ruling of the Privy Council, this is very confusing to me indeed.
    Why do we not send it to trail in Russia, China or India and see what they get out of it?

  32. Straight talk

    WIV:

    Did you notice “Canadian Investor” specified in Page 21’s reference?

  33. Wishing in Vain

    Yes I saw it with a $ 800 million investment.

  34. Straight talk

    As I understand the Agreement between Canada and Barbados, if a Canadian citizen is implicated in a fraudulent transaction, whether as perpetrator or victim, a Canadian court can claim jurisdiction.

    If this case had no merit whatsoever, I would not expect our illustrious cast of defendants to even seek legal representation in Canada.

    I stand to be corrected.

  35. Wanting An Answer From WIV

    BFP said:

    “So Wishing in Vain…

    Is it ok and ethical for the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and a High Court Judge to be represented by the same lawyer?”

    What does Wishing in Vain say about that? I’m curious.

  36. I and I

    The defendants petitioned the Canadian court to drop the case this past summer, but look what happened: the court heard evidence and added VECO and David Thompson as defendants.

    BFP you should get some transcripts of the procedings and post them. Let people read the truth about what is happening in open court in Canada.

  37. Frankology

    I do not understand why all the fuss about this case. Any court will try any case once it is lodged. Just look at the American official that is suing God. We now have a new past time, going to court. I see no problem with Hon. Owen Arthur and Hon. David Thompson having the same lawyer. Remember, this case went to the Privy Council from the Barbados jurisdiction and lost, probably they hope to see light at the Ontario tunnel. Wait for the continuing saga in 2018.

  38. I and I

    How could it be the same case if VECO is now a defendant?

    There is something that we are not seeing here. Something new and the VECO connection makes it particularly interesting. There are revelations coming out of Alaska every day about recordings and previously unreported VECO bribes and corrupt politicians.

    I wouldn’t bet one way or the other about the Canada trial.

    As I say there is something we’re not seeing yet.

  39. I and I

    Should tax dollars be used to pay for Justice Kentish’s lawyer when the allegation involves her work as a lawyer in private practice?

    That is a good question. I don’t think my tax dollars should pay for Kentish’s lawyer. Where do we draw the line? I think she should pay for her own lawyer.

  40. BFP

    Lighthearted said… “On another note i find it very interesting that BFP which is so gunhoe on integrity, corruption, transparency and accountability, has not jumped all over the “hardwood” issue. Now here it is that real evidence of corruption and mis-appropriation of public funds exist and BPF has been relative silent on the issue. Now i wonder why that it is? could it be that they dont care?”

    BFP says…

    Hardly ignoring the story, and we are not at all displeased that you are hoping that we would have the staff of a regular newspaper…

    We have published the following stories that address the Hardwood Homes issue in one way or another….

    Adrian Loveridge Tackles Hardwood Housing

    Barbados Poll Results: Bajans Don’t Trust Thompson Any More Than They Trust Arthur – Which Is Not At All!

    Strange Timing Of A Hardwood Homes Story In The Nation News – And A Question For Minister Clyde Mascoll

    Barbados Prime Minister’s Office To Companies Registrar: “Hotels and Resorts Ltd. Is it a private or Government owned company?”

    Who Is Behind These Controversial Barbados Companies?

    Barbados Wooden Houses: Image Problem or Design Flaws?

  41. Waterboy

    Wishing in Vain
    October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
    If this went before the Privy Council and the appeal was heard and a decision given are we now then to assume that the Canadian Courts are more important than that of a ruling of the Privy Council, this is very confusing to me indeed.
    Why do we not send it to trail in Russia, China or India and see what they get out of it?
    ————————————————————–
    From what I have read on the internet etc. the case that went to the Privy council was about minority shareholder rights(Mrs. Knox) and interpretation of The Articles of Association of the company (Kingsland Estates).

    This case in a canadian court is centered around a Barbados/Canada agreement and Canadian investors/citizens being disadvantaged in some way, perhaps by a conspiracy against them.

    All too complicated for me to understand but it certainly will be interesting to see what happpens.

    If the case was a frivolous as some say it should have been thrown out of court by now.

    With the inclusion of David Thompson and the allegation that he has the same legal firm representing him as the PM and AG certainly seems to have WIV and Jerome on the proverbial backfoot!

  42. iisnoone

    The Privy Council case was about a very narrow issue of Mrs. Knox’s rights. This is different. This case has been brought by a Canadian company. Did you not notice that Mrs. Knox was one of the defendants in this case?

    Jerome Hinds wrote that this whole affair is “conjecture and speculation”. I read Keltruthblog, and all I found were facts. Tell me precisely what part of this is “conjecture and speculation”.

  43. Wishing in Vain

    If any of us were honest with ourselves we would admit that none of us have a grasp on matters before the courts therefore none of us are educated enough about the matter to make any meaningful contribution.
    As I said earlier based on the extended list of defendants listed in this case including the citizens of Barbados it seems to be a wild swipe in the hope that something will stick.
    It appears to be more of an annoyance than a real case.
    Seeing that the citizens are listed as defendants in this case should they obtain a verdict in favour of the defendants would it be reasonable to expect that each of us as citizens will get a berry from the split on the sale of the lands of Kingsland Estates?

  44. Wishing in Vain

    Why not place a call to Mr Clyde Turney QC and or Mr Leslie Haynes QC as these are the ones that attended the Privy Council hearings and see if they can shed any light on these matters.

  45. Hants

    My personal interest in this case is that as a Canadian citizen, I am trying to understand how a Canadian provincial court can be used to sue someone in a foreign country for acts relating to property that is not on Canadian soil.

    Does this mean that we Canadian citizens (Barbadian by birth) can sue Barbadians (lawyers and real estate agents ) if we think we have been defrauded and cannot get a fair hearing in Barbados?

    More importantly,how would the Canadian Government deal with this issue if the Prime Minister of Barbados is found guilty of fraud in a Canadian court.

    Canada is not a 3rd world country.
    I bet this case will be dismissed either at provincial court level or in the Supreme court of Canada.

    They should take it back to the UK and Caribbean courts and stop wasting the Canadian Taxpayers money.

  46. Wishing in Vain

    It appears to me that their effort failed at the appeals court in the UK the Privy Council and that they are trying any and every means to avoid serving the courts decision.
    Why would this case be heard in a small town in Canada and not in the Superior Court of Canada ?
    The next chapter of this story will be published in the year 2050 !!!
    As I said I am not armed with the details of this case but from all I am seeing it appears to be nothing more than a case of hot air blowing off.

  47. Straight talk

    WIV:

    Well played. You’ve stepped back from a position that none of us here could possibly comprehend.

    Let the law move in its own mysterious way without our layman contributions.

    This saga if I read correctly began under a DLP government in the early 90s, and yes WIV was then a BLP supporter.

    I have a feeling that if this case ever proceeds, it will highlight the corrupt machinations of the political elite, both wings.

    I cannot believe that a multi-millionaire would go to all this trouble without feeling a very strong basis of truth in his case.

    If he has done all this for trivial or malicious reasons he will suffer his judicial comeuppance.

    His reputation as a philanthropic friend of Barbados will be in tatters.

    The field is set, the lines are drawn let us all see where the dice fall.

    Seconds out!

  48. Wishing in Vain

    This seems to have more twist and turns than ever.
    It is my feeling that this is an attempt to avoid carrying out the wishes of the other Courts so the plan is to try another angle and another court.
    What I am still trying to find out is how or why this is being heard in a small town in Ontario how did it ever get to this stage?

  49. Anonymous

    Only a complete IDIOT would believe such crap.

    It’s all FAKE.

  50. Rumplestilskin

    Note that the original ‘Keltruth’ website was in existence for several years, probably eight to ten, as I remembered reading the original site, focused solely on the Kingsland issue, several years ago.

    It would seem that the site, as now designed, is now purporting to be unbiased, which would appear to be far from the ‘truth’.

    One must always be careful to interpret ‘agendas’ from what one reads.

    As the saying goes, there are three sides to every story.

    Some of the above posters are very right, anyone can bring a case as long as they have the funds.

    I read only today about a Canadian judge warning a plaintiff’s lawyer about bringing an unsupported case to court. The judge noted that in the event the plaintiff lost, the costs awarded to the defendant and paid by the plaintiff would reflect the unsupported case. In effect, the plaintiff would suffer for wasting the court’s and defendants time.

    Note that the jude did not just dismiss the case, but instead warned the plaintiff on consequences.

    Thus, references above by some posters to the judge not dismissing the case vs those in Barbados and therefore giving credence to the case is completely wrong and misleading, deliberate or otherwise.

  51. Wishing in Vain

    Am I not right to say that the lady from Keltruth use to blog on here at BFP?
    Was it not pertaining to Allard and the swamp issues?

  52. Rumplestilskin

    That is correct. By ‘site’ above I refer to ‘Keltruth’.

  53. Jerome Hinds

    BFP
    October 26th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
    Lighthearted said… “On another note i find it very interesting that BFP which is so gunhoe on integrity, corruption, transparency and accountability, has not jumped all over the “hardwood” issue. Now here it is that real evidence of corruption and mis-appropriation of public funds exist and BPF has been relative silent on the issue. Now i wonder why that it is? could it be that they dont care?”

    BFP says…

    Hardly ignoring the story, and we are not at all displeased that you are hoping that we would have the staff of a regular newspaper…

    We have published the following stories that address the Hardwood Homes issue in one way or another….

    Adrian Loveridge Tackles Hardwood Housing

    Barbados Poll Results: Bajans Don’t Trust Thompson Any More Than They Trust Arthur – Which Is Not At All!

    Strange Timing Of A Hardwood Homes Story In The Nation News – And A Question For Minister Clyde Mascoll

    Barbados Prime Minister’s Office To Companies Registrar: “Hotels and Resorts Ltd. Is it a private or Government owned company?”

    Who Is Behind These Controversial Barbados Companies?

    Barbados Wooden Houses: Image Problem or Design Flaws?

    BFP,

    A spirited reply..¬

    But not a word about the Rommell Marshall case……and the consequences his actions have for the NIS funds & employees ” life line ” !

    Yet you rush off to Dominica…about Skerritt !

    Yet you rush off to Canada…about David Thompson & Owen Arthur retaining the same law firm….!

    So much for ACCOUNTABILITY & BALANCE !

    Quite intriguing !

  54. Kathy

    Rumplestilskin:
    “It would seem that the site, as now designed, is now purporting to be unbiased, which would appear to be far from the ‘truth’.”

    The writer on the keltruth blog has publicly declared her interest in the situation on this blog (BFP). She is the American daughter of Mrs. Knox.

    If you can can find anything on the keltruth blog that is not factual, let us know.

  55. Bajan Observer

    Guys…I hearing more and more stories of corruption and dishonesty in this Country, probably the name of this island should be changed in….”Crookland”.

  56. BFP

    Wishing in Vain does not seem to want to comment on the central issues raised by this article, namely…

    1/ Is it ok and ethical for the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and a High Court Judge to be represented by the same lawyer?”

    2/ Should tax dollars be used to pay for Justice Kentish’s lawyer when the allegation involves her work as a lawyer in private practice?

  57. Wishing in Vain

    If any of us were honest with ourselves we would admit that none of us have a grasp on matters before the courts therefore none of us are educated enough about the matter to make any meaningful contribution.
    As I said earlier based on the extended list of defendants listed in this case including the citizens of Barbados it seems to be a wild swipe in the hope that something will stick.
    It appears to be more of an annoyance than a real case.
    Seeing that the citizens are listed as defendants in this case should they obtain a verdict in favour of the defendants would it be reasonable to expect that each of us as citizens will get a berry from the split on the sale of the lands of Kingsland Estates?

    I have no feelings on the matter as I really do not know anything about the case and what is happening with it (I am sure many others making contributions are just as uninformed as I am) but yet are willing to rant and rave, until I get more details and some insight I have no basis for an opinion.
    What I said and will continue to say it appears to be a silly case with every citizen named as part of the defendants to have attempted to swipe so broadly would suggest to me that they do not know where their real target area is located.

  58. Red Lake Lassie

    Since when did Wishing in Vain not comment on something because he didn’t know anything about the subject? 😉

    WIV you don’t have to know about the case to comment upon Arthur, Thompson and Kentish being represented by the same lawyer.

    You don’t have to know anything about the case to hold an opinion about whether Justice Kentish should have tax dollars pay for a lawyer to defend her about an allegation that happened during her private law practice.

    Why are you avoiding the central questions?

  59. Wishing in Vain

    Do any of us have sufficient background information on this case to make an educated decision? I think not, we are all guessing about most aspects of this case, do you think that it is giving Owing or any of them any sleepless nights? I think not, we are likely to be the ones getting more excited and worked up about this than those listed as defendants in this case.
    My best guess is that it is designed to delay the final outcome by more time and more years before those involved get any money out of it.
    My guess is that it will be passed onto their Great, Great , Great Grand Children, I am sure this is the design of what is taking place here.
    I am not at all sure that a Canadian court holds any sway over a sovereign state as Barbados is, maybe some legal mind can address this matter.

  60. iisnoone

    WIV, if I understand the essence of what you are saying it is this:

    Since none of us knows what is really going on, we should ignore the fact that our PM is being sued. Even though I know nothing about the case, it does not carry any weight. We should not care about this, and we should avoid any emotion like excitement.

    My philosophy is different. If I am driving at night and I see two lights approaching me, I assume that it is a car. I don’t say that I cannot prove that it is a car, and I definitely do not say that I should ignore it!

  61. Red Lake Lassie

    WIV’s partisanship is making him blind, deaf and mute.

    I don’t think that tax dollars should pay for politicians’ lawyers for things they did before they were elected. Same for judges. Kentish is accused of participating in a fraud when she was a lawyer, not as a judge. Why should my tax dollars pay for her lawyer?

  62. iisnoone

    Red Lake Lassie, if the government is paying for the Honourable Madame Justice it may also be paying for three Cox’s, Clyde Turney, several Deanes and the rest of the “Moving Defendants” listed on Keltruthblog.

    I would be interested to know who is paying what, but I fear that the people who know the answers will decline to comment.

  63. MIA

    Re. Statement “Folks, it would be like, I dunno (Americans please forgive me) George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton being sued and choosing the same lawyer. It just wouldn’t happen.” This happens all the time in US and Canada. In a democratic system one is allowed to get the best representation one can get, hire the best legal expertise one’s resources allow. It has nothing to do with one’s politics. A recent example is lawyer Ted Wells representing I. Scooter Leiws Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney right hand man. This same Ted Wells represented Mike Espy, Agriculture Secretary, in the Clinton Administration.

    *******************

    BFP Asks…

    At the same time in the same case? No way!

  64. Backra Johnny

    As a citizen of Barbados and therefore a named defendant in this case, do I dare to ask who is defending me??

    And further, if the plaintiff should win and we the taxpayers have to pay huge sums in compensation, can we then bring a class action suit against our representatives in government for not representing us properly ??

    Just a thought ….

  65. Inkwell

    There is a material defect in the Amended Notice of Motion filed under Court File No: o7-0141 filed in the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice dated Oct-17-07 that renders it invalid. I trust the legal eagles on this blog have spotted it.

    Since the cat seems to have got WIV’s tongue on the questions asked him by BFP, I will answer on his behalf.

    1. YES. Is it ok and ethical for the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and a High Court Judge to be represented by the same lawyer? They are being sued in their personal capacities. What’s your point?

    2. NO. Kentish should have to pay her own legal fees. The state should cover the legal fees only for institutions or offices falling under the governance of the Crown, i.e , The Barbados Agricultural Credit Trust, The Attorney General Of Barbados, The Country of Barbados.

    This is the closest that I have come to supporting anything that WIV says (and that scares the hell out of me), but the essence of this suit has already been ruled on by the Barbados Supreme Court and even if you say “yeah, right” to that, the ruling has been upheld by the Privy Council.

    The case lodged in the Canadian court seems more intent on causing embarrassment to the defendants (and WIV can’t decide whether he should be happy or not).

  66. Wishing in Vain

    light hearted trust me that contribution is not so light hearted at all it is hitting hard.
    However what you fail to mention is that HARDWOOD HOLDINGS was on the verge of getting a $ 45 million contract from gov’t (who else) for work to be done now here it is we have a company with a history of issuing bad cheques, arrears on the least payments that Murrell has been neglecting to pay, even after the input of $ 2 million of our taxpayers dollars in this shell of a venture they are unable to manage the company whjat are we to believe they will do with a $ 45 million award?
    If they manage to steal out of the $ 2 million budget what does it leave us to think that they will do with a $ 45 million award????
    More steal in there big time !!!!

  67. Wishing in Vain

    lease

  68. Wishing in Vain

    arrears on the lease payments

  69. Wishing in Vain

    This is the closest that I have come to supporting anything that WIV says (and that scares the hell out of me), but the essence of this suit has already been ruled on by the Barbados Supreme Court and even if you say “yeah, right” to that, the ruling has been upheld by the Privy Council.
    I get very scared myself when we come this close to agreeing, but so be it.
    My real issue here is since when has it changed that a Canadian Court becomes our highest court of appeal?
    As this case has been thru every step in the legal system both in Barbados and in the UK and a decision has been taken and verdict given how does a Canadian court come into play?

  70. Wishing in Vain

    This is the closest that I have come to supporting anything that WIV says (and that scares the hell out of me), but the essence of this suit has already been ruled on by the Barbados Supreme Court and even if you say “yeah, right” to that, the ruling has been upheld by the Privy Council.
    I get very scared myself when we come this close to agreeing, but so be it.
    My real issue here is since when has it changed that a Canadian Court becomes our highest court of appeal?
    As this case has been thru every step in the legal system both in Barbados and in the UK and a decision has been taken and verdict given how does a Canadian court come into play?

  71. Anonymous

    I thought Life of Barbados was dead.

    How come it is being sued?

  72. Wishing in Vain

    Just another example of the wild swipes of this suit, I really like and the citizens of Barbados bit as well!!!

  73. hahahahaha

    the funniest post on this story comes from jerome hinds. when bfp was still new he would be on here singing their praises because he thought that anyone criticising the blp must be pro-dlp. he echoed all the phrases about accountability etc but then when the dlp displayed their similarity to the blp by refusing to stand up and act and bfp started criticising the dlp, jerome gets all angry.

    the issue is that certain principles apply across the board and if the dlp is not abiding by those principles then they deserve just as much criticism!!!

  74. Yardbroom

    Off Topic discussion about Free Trade transferred to “About Us & Submissions”

  75. No Name

    Off topic discussion about Free Trade transferred to “About Us & Submissions”

    Auntie Moses

  76. anon

    I refer to the following comment made by Wishing in vain

    “My last check informed me that the Privy Council is indeed our highest court of appeal and it has been heard there already, however if the Canadians courts are now our highest appeal court please let me know.”

    The Caribbean court of justice is now our highest court of appeal. At the time the case you refer to was heard by the Privy council the Carribbean Court of justice was not recognised as our highest court of appeal.

  77. Yardbroom

    This case is about an agreement signed between Canada and Barbados, and how their respective “investor” Nationals can be protected. It therefore has nothing to do with the Privy Council’s previous judgment. The mention of Barbados is simply because the State has a duty to protect the interest of all Nationals, foreign as if they were native.

    BFP: Has put the comments I made into submissions, without understanding the relevance of bilateral agreements, and how they have impacted on this case, in essence they are this case.

    *******************

    BFP Comments,

    Hello Yardbroom,

    Yes, you are correct that I didn’t understand your very good point and the connection. I moved your comment because Mr. Allamby jumped right on it to hijack the discussion somewhere else as per his usual style.

    So I’ll put a direct link to your comment LINK HERE

  78. Sargeant

    BFP did you just disclose a contributor’s name when he used a nom de plume? I thought that was against the rules

    *********************

    BFP Replies,

    Mr. Allamby was banned from this blog earlier for various offenses, and is banned under any name. His new identity as “no-name” was disclosed several weeks ago at BU. Further, he writes enough information in his own post that it is obvious he wishes to make his own identity known to his readers. We are merely acknowledging that we know who “no-name” is.

    We’ve given Mr. Allamby several chances at BFP – certainly more than he deserves. He sometimes has something worthwhile to say, but most often seems intent upon leading the threads someplace else – especially if the conversation or article is critical of Mr. Thompson or the DLP.

    So… did we reveal his identity? Hardly.

    Once again, we will not reveal a commenter’s identity and we have not done so here.

  79. Wishing in Vain

    Anon my comments referred to the case and the period when it was heard by the Privy Council, I am aware that the Caribbean Court of Appeal is now our highest court of appeal (I wish that it were not so based on the evidence that I have seen and where politicians go from that to CJ the next day leaves you to wonder) but I was talking about the conditions that applied at the time this case was heard.
    Once again Yardbroom you were excellent in your submission as always.

    ***************

    BFP Comments

    Perhaps as a member of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Chief Justice David Simmons could judge the Kingsland case where he is a defendant? Why not? It sure wouldn’t be any MORE crooked than what goes on ’bout this island anyway!

  80. Anonymous X

    BFP,
    Is that the same Allamby who got David Ellis in trouble when he read the email to Lynch?

  81. Inkwell

    “There is a material defect in the Amended Notice of Motion filed under Court File No: o7-0141 filed in the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice dated Oct-17-07 that renders it invalid. I trust the legal eagles on this blog have spotted it.”

    It is interesting that there have been no queries as to the material defect referred to since October 27th. Readers just seem to want the salacious details.

    Look at the cover page of the motion here.

    Click to access 071017_Amended_Notice_of_Motion_from_Silver.PDF

    It has been filed naming R.J. Cox et al as defendants instead of R.I. Cox et al. Many a case has been thrown out on a lesser technicality.

  82. Pingback: » Canadian Action: Tabulation of Clients and Their Lawyers Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA.