Breaking News: Barbados Chief Justice Engaged In Illegal Activity, Must Step Down Or Be Impeached

justice-simmons-puppet-sml.jpg

Is David Simmons Unlawfully Occupying the Office of Chief Justice?

Friends, I have just read a well-researched article at the Keltruth Blog that has left me at a loss for words. It seems that there is an excellent case for the impeachment of Barbados Chief Justice Sir David Simmons on more than one cause.

We’re going to write more about this after a staff meeting today, but meanwhile head over to Keltruth Blog and let us know what you think.

One Thing Is Certain

The serious and well-documented issues raised in the Keltruth Blog article cannot be ignored for long by either the Barbados Media or the government. They will have to say something!

Keltruth Blog: Is David Simmons Unlawfully Occupying the Office of Chief Justice?

63 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Political Corruption, Politics, Politics & Corruption

63 responses to “Breaking News: Barbados Chief Justice Engaged In Illegal Activity, Must Step Down Or Be Impeached

  1. passin thru

    After reading the Keltruth article I agree this will be in the Nation within a few days because the government and the CJ must respond. It must drive the media mad when blogs break a story like this that should have been picked up by the Barbados newspapers a long time ago.

  2. Anonymous

    The Chief Justice doesn’t have to step down. There could be an explanation, but the government or Simmons should explain.

  3. Psychiatric Hospital

    Kathleen Davis,

    Does madness run in your family?

    Has your mother Marjorie Knox ever been kept in a mental institution?

  4. Frankology

    Is Keltruth trying to use tactical movements to increase the rationale with the court case with the list of prominent Barbadians. This might be a PR for them and we must ensure that we thread carefully with our statements. Remember, we are not speaking about the BLP only, we are dealing with some people that have impeccable character.

    I researched the three areas and there are within our Constitution, but it is not a crime that call for Impeachment or a disgrace that anyone can be fired. It would have been impossible for the Chief Justice to be give such a high office, without the Opposition being consulted. We know of countries who extended the age time frame of its Judiciary, this can be done thru consultation.

  5. reality check

    Assuming the CJ properly and legally had his time extended by the GG from the age of 65 to 67 ( highly doubt this or that it was documented ), this would mean that every decision made by him after his 67th birthday is invalid and must be reajudicated
    by a judge who has standing or legal capacity.

    One would think that the powers that be would be scrambling to concoct something on this one, but as we well know by now, they don’t follow the Rule of Law, they make the rules up as they go along.

    What a democracy!

    What a farce!

  6. Psychiatric Hospital,

    Your enquiry about my mental state is a valid question, and deserves a full reply.

    Imagine an old lady being attacked by six vicious pitbulls. Next you see a young man jump in with his bare hands to save the old lady. The unprincipled person would see this as an act of madness. The principled observer would view this as an act of heroism.

    When duty calls, you have to put your life on the line to protect your principles. Some people understand that and some don’t. Keep blogging!

  7. Wishing in Vain

    Does madness run in your family?

    Has your mother Marjorie Knox ever been kept in a mental institution?

    You are yet to reply to the question as above???

  8. Wishing in Vain

    A simple yes or no will suffice.

  9. Hants

    BFP…..sensational title to this story but is it true ?

    More breaking news re Integrity legislation and the no confidence motion is expected from the DLP meeting in Paynes Bay tomorrow night.

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

    BFP Comments…

    This is the crowd that spend hundreds of millions on a new prison and neglected to pass a law declaring it a prison – thus no prisoners could be transferred until a last minute law was rushed through. This after years of building. What a joke!

    Do you really think that the Government approached the Governor General prior to the Chief Justice’s 67th birthday to formally seek permission and a letter?

    No way! What a joke. They will have to admit the truth and grandfather him into the post or backdate a letter dishonestly.

    What’s your guess?

  10. Kathy

    Neither my mother nor myself has had any history of mental illness.

    Neither of us has ever been a patient in a mental institution.

    We both enjoy excellent mental health! And I wish you the same.

  11. Waterboy

    Wishing in Vain
    November 17, 2007 at 7:55 pm
    Does madness run in your family?

    Has your mother Marjorie Knox ever been kept in a mental institution?

    You are yet to reply to the question as above???
    ————————————————————–
    WIV is this you or an imposter?

    If it is the “real” WIV shame on you. What relevance does this question have?

  12. anon

    What was the age of Sir David’s predecessor on the date he retired?

  13. Frankology

    What was the age of Sir David’s predecessor on the date he retired?
    ……………………………………………………………………………….
    This is something that I was trying to ascertain, but to no avail.

  14. Frankology

    Got the facts No Name.
    Every Governor General since Independence were in office past 70 years.
    Sir Winston Scott was 76 years when he died
    Sir Deighton Ward was 75 years when he died
    Dame Nita Barrow was 79 years when she died, and;
    Sir Clifford Husbands was 70 years.

    Reality Check, all seals signed by the Governor General are legal. I am sure that Keltruth seems to have an agenda and might be looking for any loop-hole to commit these people.

  15. Bush tea

    Frankology
    I am still trying to work out if you are kidding or what…

    The age limitations refers to Judges – of whom the CJ is top boy.
    The age of the GG is not relevant to the discussion.

    …also you lost me completely on the racing track issue – but you and No Name seem to understand each other well.

    Kathy,
    Don’t bother to respond to nonsense, it is not needed or helpful. Readers can easily discern who needs help here…

  16. Pooncharkin

    If it is one thing that boils my blood it is an apologist, or spin doctor.

  17. Frankology

    Opps, man is still proned to make one mistake per year. I erred with the GG’s. Will be back with the CJ’s. Bush Tea you always getting loss but you don’t admit like me. Ha! Ha! Ready for the discussions.

  18. reality check

    WIV

    I can’t believe this is you or your post or that your supporters would ascribe to this kind of personal attack.

    keltuth has a lot of factual based material.

    so far, reviewing the Keltruth site and BFP Marjorie Knox has led a very active life especially for 85 years of age.

    At one moment she is mad, another moment she is a drunk and the next she is a prostitute?

    You shoud be ashamed of yourself!

    Keltruth asks a perfectly legitimate question
    based on the law as put out by government web sites.

    Sir Denys Williams, the former CJ, I am sure had special legislation to extend his jurisdiction while Owen was waiting to put in his impartial non- political buddy to the post.

    This set of imperious thugs wouldn’t think about the rules until after the fact. They make them up as they go along.

  19. theNickster

    “From 1976 he served continuously for 25 years in the Parliament of Barbados and in 2001, he retired from active politics. Appointed twice as Attorney-General of Barbados, first, from 1985 to 1986, and from 1994 to 2001, he reformed and modernized the laws of Barbados in a wide variety of areas; represented Barbados at regional and international fora(?) and has published widely. Sir David also acted as Prime Minister of Barbados on many occasions between 1994 and 2000.” (left the spelling and grammar untouched)

    “105.2 The officer may be removed from office only for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehavior.”

    “105.3 The officer shall be removed from office by the Governor General if the question of his removal from office has been referred to a tribunal appointed under this section and the tribunal has advised the Governor General that he ought to be removed from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehavior.”

    Even if you can scour something that looks vaguely impeachment worthy, and you can effectively find some proof of the CJ’s “misbehavior” the final say still lies with the tribunal and Governor general. I’ll put it this way, that “tribunal” isn’t made up of random people off the street, and the only way the CJ goes is by embarrassing some very powerful people. Good luck with your impeachment idea.

  20. Waterboy

    Address of the Chief Justice, Hon. David A.C. Simmons K.A.,
    B.C.H.
    on the occasion of a Special Sitting of the Supreme Court,
    October 1, 2002, to mark the Commencement of the
    Law Term 2002-2003

    “I begin this report with some tributes. Since October 2001, there have
    been three retirements from the Bench.Sir Denys Williams retired as Chief Justice
    on October 10, 2001 having reached the compulsory age of retirement.”

    Link here:

    http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/Documents/LawTerm20021001.pdf

    Does not say how old Sir. Denys was when he retired but that he reached the MANDATORY retirement age.

  21. Pogo

    If the law says he must be gone how can it be that he most senior judicial officer of all has not respected the law?

    Everything he has done since he reached 65 required retirement age is not official. Or can’t anyone read the simple rules. The last person who could be above the law is the CJ or the office is a farce.

    Someone got to explain this. If he given a judgement on you it is right to have it ignored now.

  22. iisnoone

    The Nation of Barbados appears to be in a constitutional crisis.

    It is most regrettable that while this is being viewed around the globe, I have not yet seen a response from the Barbados Government.

  23. Brutus

    Note that the Constitution goes on to say

    84.2
    Notwithstanding that he has attained the age at which he is required by the provisions of this section to vacate his office, a person may sit as a Judge for the purpose of delivering judgment or doing any other thing in relation to proceedings which were commenced before him before he attained that age.

  24. iisnoone

    Brutus,
    That is an important point. So if a case were started before a judge were 67 he could finish it.
    Thanks for finding that.

  25. reality check

    waterboy

    Thanks for giving us a copy of the October 2002 CJ speech.

    So this should mean the CJ should be clearing out his office other than for giving judgments on matters he has already heard?
    I trust they are preparing a smaller office for him as his workload diminishes. Maybe he can work out of his home?

    I wonder what non partial independent judge they have in mind as a replacement?

  26. John

    Hang on a minute.

    If the info in the link below is correct, Sir Denys was born in 1929.

    http://www.info-regenten.de/regent/regent-e/barbados.htm

    That would make him 72 in 2001, just before Sir David became Sir David and took over at the beginning of 2002.

    Did we have an acting Chief Justice between 1996 and 2002 and who was he?

    I always thought that with age came wisdom (I keep telling myself that) and that wisdom was the hallmark of a good judge.

    Should a judge who is performing and rendering wise decisions be forced to retire because of age?

    On the other hand, the age thing is good because it allows the GG to dispense with a judge who isn’t performing without lifting a finger.

    For me, if I were a judge, (highly unlikely, more like impossible) I would look forward to the day when I could retire and pray without ceasing that I did not make any mistakes with the lives of people, or for that matter, the life of anyone, while I was a judge.

    It has to be a pretty tough job and I think I would be looking forward to retirement.

  27. John

    Sir Denys Williams acted as GG for about six months after the death of Dame Nita and until Sir Clifford was appointed in June of 1996. If Sir Denys was born in 1929, he would have been 67 at that time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors-General_of_Barbados

    I suspect there may have been a person or persons acting as Chief Justice while Sir Denys was acting as GG back in 1996.

    I do not know the date of Sir Denys’ retirement as Chief Justice.

    Maybe it was shortly thereafter.

  28. Rumplestilskin

    As usual rabid ramblings without facts can expose the agenda of certain persons.

    I believe that you will find that the mandatory retirement age is indeed 72.

    Legislation, I cannot direct you and have no desire to as I have no intention wasting time on what I already am aware of, but have seen this age quoted a number of times, cannot remember where.

    Beware of publishing or linking to ‘exposes’ written by persons who have their own personal agendas to spread and their own venom fuelling their writings.

    As noted previously, a fair and balanced approach to publication is what drives opinion and change.

    Although blogs are nothing more than personal opinion, and the rantings of whomever may have ‘airplay’, to be taken seriously such publication must convince.

    Writings cannot convince if such are replete with inaccuracies.

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

    BFP Comments:

    Reliance upon the Constitution of Barbados would hardly seem to be ranting. Now Rump, you have made a claim that you have “heard” the retirement age is 72 for judges… contrary to the Constitution.

    Well, maybe so. This IS the government that changed the Constitution with 3 days notice and zero public debate, so maybe they changed some law sometime and didn’t tell the people.

    Nonetheless, the article at Keltruth is well written, well researched and deserves a serious answer from the government or the Chief Justice.

  29. more

    Rumplestilskin
    It is time the Government realizes how important its websites are and that information there should be kept up-to-date.
    A good lesson to be learned.

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

    BFP Comments…

    And what is the law?

    There not only is the issue of the CJ’s age but also his political background that appears to be against the Constitution.

  30. John

    1. their last case copy for web
    12/3/2005

    2. Final sitting
    12/3/2005
    Retired Justice of Appeal Colin Williams, along with retired high court judges Mr Justice LeRoy Inniss and Mr Justice Lionel Greenidge, were toasted by members of the judiciary, the magistracy, fellow lawyers and members of the Registration Department in a farewell luncheon at Accra Beach Hotel.
    3. WANTED!
    10/1/2005
    Mr Justice Carlisle Payne retired in February and soon to retire are Justice of Appeal Colin Williams and Justices Lionel Greenidge and Leroy Inniss.
    4. WANTED!
    10/1/2005
    Mr Justice Carlisle Payne retired in February and soon to retire are Justice of Appeal Colin Williams and Justices Lionel Greenidge and Leroy Inniss.
    5. CJ’S VERDICT
    12/3/2005
    “Others have proven that their judiciaries are not incorruptible,” he added. “Long may it continue but it will only continue as long as we have men and women of the calibre of [Justice of Appeal] Colin [Williams], [Mr. Justice] Lionel [Greenidge] and [Mr. Justice] LeRoy [Inniss].

    Here are some articles from the Nation on the recent (end of 2005) retirement of four judges, ….. because of age!!

    None of their ages are given so I am none the wiser as to the mandatory retirement age but age is the reason judges retire in Babrbados.

  31. Pingback: A Big Question Being Asked Of The Chief Justice Of Barbados «

  32. Brutus

    The copy of the Constitution on the government website linked by Keltruth appears to be outdated.

    Here is what 84(1) says in the version of the Constitution on the caricom law website (http://www.caricomlaw.org/doc.php?id=656)

    84. (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a
    person holding the office of a Judge shall vacate office when he
    attains,
    (a) in the case of a Judge of the High Court other than the Chief
    Justice, the age of sixty-five years; and
    (b) in the case of the Chief Justice and a Justice of Appeal, the age
    of seventy years.
    (1A) Notwithstanding subsection (l), the Governor-General,
    acting on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, may permit
    (a) a Judge of the High Court, other than the Chief Justice, who
    has attained the age of sixty-five years, or
    (b) the Chief Justice or a Justice of Appeal who has attained the
    age of seventy years,
    to continue in office until he has attained, in the case of a Judge of the
    High Court such later age, not exceeding sixty-seven years and, in the
    case of any other Judge, such later age, not exceeding seventy-two
    years, as may have been agreed between the Governor-General and
    the Judge of the High Court or other Judge.

    I am not a lawyer – I am reading all of this now for the first time, so it is all subject to correction.

  33. Brutus

    Note that caricom law has also posted a recent amendment to the Constitution – http://www.caricomlaw.org/doc.php?id=112.

  34. Brutus

    BFP, where in the Constitution does it state that a former member of Parliament or former Attorney-General is not eligible for appointment as Chief Justice?

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

    BFP Comments

    The Constitution does not specifically prohibit the former Attorney General from being appointed as the Chief Justice. It says that the office of the Chief Justice shall be free of interference from the executive branch. The question then becomes “How can a person be a lifelong politician, Attorney General and buddy of the Prime Minister and member of the Cabinet and then suddenly become Chief Justice WITHOUT the office of the Chief Justice being subject to interference from the executive branch?

    Simmons appointment stunk at the time and stinks no less now.

  35. John

    In New Zealand it looks like the mandatory age for retirement of judges is to be raised from 68 to 70

    http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/judicial_retirement_age/2007/feb/20/d01

    Egypt is raising their age from 68 to 70.

    In Australia the age is 72.

    In the UK I believe it is 75 and it used to be unlimited. Need to check that a bit more. Came across a comment where some judges were quite able and were sitting at 84.

    At their own instigation they ceased because if their age got out it might reflect badly on the decision they rendered.

    The point that comes across from my googling is that these countries are following what is written in their laws and looking to go through the process of varying those laws to meet what they want.

  36. Hants

    BFP…….. please verify that David simmons is allowed to continue as CJ until the age of Seventy.

    According to Brutus
    “(b) the Chief Justice or a Justice of Appeal who has attained the
    age of seventy years,”

    BFP if this is true, you should print a retraction of the words in your Title “Must Step Down Or Be Impeached”.

    Its your call.

  37. iisnoone

    Frankology said:

    “Is Keltruth trying to use tactical movements to increase the rationale with the court case with the list of prominent Barbadians. This might be a PR for them and we must ensure that we thread carefully with our statements. Remember, we are not speaking about the BLP only, we are dealing with some people that have impeccable character.”

    Should readers interpret this statement as: “You have the right to remain silent”?

    What are you trying to say?

  38. Frankology

    iisnoone, let me tell you in bajan terms, Keltruth mussee got a agenda wid dis issue. Duh only tryin’ tuh look fuh some loop hole to implicate these people. Get muh drift.

  39. John

    Hants

    The problem seems to be that there might be two constitutions, the one the GOB publishes and adheres to …. and another one which Brutus has found.

    The first one doesn’t match the facts, the second one does. Which has precedence, the one the GOB publishes or the one some other institution publishes.

    Until the GOB acknowledges it is not following the constitution as it has published, we will have this confusion.

    It seems that the ball is in the GOB’s court. It either can continue to follow the constitution it has published and be in violation of its rules, or correct the error, if it exists. It is simple!!

    BFP can’t do a thing.

    This is like the AG’s recent announcement that they had forgotten to change the law and make Dodd’s a prison ……. so the prisoners could not be transferred.

    This was even although Parliament had approved the spending of $180 million on what it thought was a prison at Dodds.!!

    It just forgot to call it one.

  40. pogo

    This is getting stranger and stranger.

    How many copies of the constitution are there? Are there different versions some changed secretly? One day GOB uses one constitution and then when that gets broken and inconvenient they pull out another copy?

    If we had one constitution and it got changed can someone remind when and show us the law that changed it?

    Have the changes been legal?

    A real mess. Trouble like this gets worse when a CJ came right from the cabinet and is still running that way. No matter who is looking things don’t work out.

  41. Quite Concerned

    There is nothing more dangerous than ignorant people…Well perhaps, ignorant racist imperialist people.Kathleen Davis and BFP should do their research.Fact:section 84.1 of the constitution states clearly, that the CJ can hold office until the age of seventy(70).Then it goes on to say ,it can be extended to the age of seventy two(72). This has been pointed out by an intelligent blogger.

    Is Sir David seventy?No!!! Is Kathleen Davis a nasty vicious liar ,with an obvious vendetta?That should be obvious.

    Will she, BFP and other malicious bloggers with their own agendas be one day held accountable?Time will tell.

  42. John

    When did Sir Denys reach the age of retirement?

    Was it in 1996 when he acted as Governor General until Sir Clifford was appointed in June?

    If so, why then did Owen wait until 2002 to appoint a new CJ, Sir David?

    That is six years!!

    Was the constitution changed back then?

    If it was changed I would have said it was recent. But if it was recent then the possible 6 year wait is incomprehensible to me.

    There is something missing here. Maybe it is very simple but it eludes me completely.

  43. John

    Quite Concerned

    I guess I am ignorant.

    Since you are not, can you tell us when the retirement age for judges in the constitution was changed?

    I just have no recollection of it whatsoever.

    I’ll see if I can find it in the Nation archive.

  44. pogo

    Quite Concerned has us quite concerned. Calling people names and insulting them adds nothing to the discussion.

    Rather than ranting on showing your own prejudices why not add something positive? Do some research and explain why we have this puzzle?

    If you are telling us there are inconsistent constitutions both you and Keltruth should be thanked so Barbados can cure the embarrassment right away. We sure look foolish.

    And a question: who decides which constitution prevails? The Chief Justice? Looks like no win there since how can he decide impartially on something that concerns him? No judge which works for him can do it either.

    While at it can GOB please tell us which laws we are seeing in parliament and in law books are the correct ones or are there various versions depending on who you are?

  45. Quite Concerned

    Education is free in Barbados up until tertiary level.There is a free public library in Bridgetown. If Pogo , John and Kathleen would do us all a favour and avail themselves of this “freeness’, you would learn that there is ONE CONSTITUTION.

    For decades, the constituion allowed for court of appeal judges ,including the CJ to serve up until the age of seventy.(which could be extended to seventy two)

    I would also suggest that Kathleen dust the cobwebs off her copy of the constitution and maybe she will find section 84.1

  46. Hants

    http://www.barbados.org/constitution.htm

    I could not find a section relating to the tenure of the Chief Justice in the above online document.

    Could it be that the reference to Judges leaving office at age 65 or 67 is taken to include the Chief Justice?

  47. iisnoone

    Brutus,

    Please confirm.
    Barbadians have to go to Caricom to get the current Barbados Constitution?

  48. Kathy

    Hants,
    Your link contains section 84(1), which refers to the mandatory age of retirement for judges. Searching the document for 84(1) also provides the following quote: “A person may be appointed under the provisions of this section to act as Chief Justice or other Judge notwithstanding that he has attained the age at which that office is required by section 84(1) to be vacated by the holder thereof.”

    It appears that after the age of 65 or 67, someone can be appointed as Acting Chief Justice or Acting Judge only. 84(1) specifically refers to both Chief Justices and judges for the mandatory retirement age.

    The Caricom link from Brutus contains an amendment to section 84(1) dating back to 1978 (cobwebs indeed), but the mandatory age is not specified there.

    My only copy of the Constitution is online on the official Barbados Government Information Service web site.

  49. Brutus

    My experience is that several government websites have old copies of legislation that do not reflect subsequent amendments. Caricom Law tends to be more current, but they also do not appear to update the site for new and amended legislation. The safest bet is to go to the Government Printery and buy a copy of any legislation you need, after consulting the “Consolidated Index” for any amendments.

    Kathy, I suggest you check the link again:

    http://www.caricomlaw.org/doc.php?id=656

    This version of the Constitution reflects amendments up to 2003.

  50. Kathy

    I did and you are right. I will immediately post this on Keltruth Corp. blog. I will have to make a disclaimer, as I do not know if the Caricom site is official.

  51. Kathy

    I noted that the Caricom copy of the Constitution has a notation that “Act 2003-10 has not been proclaimed”.

  52. John

    Lord have mercy.

    There is another one at Barbados .org that says something different.

    So where did the Government Information Service get theirs from?

    The one at Caricom says the 2003-10 revision wasn’t proclaimed. Does that mean that whatever change was made in 2003 is yet to take effect?

    Wasn’t there a change to do with World Cup too? Was that one proclaimed?

    As I get a chance I going at the Government Printery and see what they have.

    I have a far way to go before I stop being ignorant.

    It is fun though, just shows you never stop learning.

    So who is responsible for updating the Government Information Service website?

  53. Hants

    (a) in the case of a Judge of the High Court other than the Chief
    Justice, the age of sixty-five years; and
    (b) in the case of the Chief Justice and a Justice of Appeal, the age
    of seventy years.

    BFP…….You should delete this entire post as you have been mis led by a “well researched article that appears to be “unwell”.

    Defend Keltruth and attack David simmons but use information that is factual.

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

    BFP Replies

    Hi Hants,

    First of all, we’d like someone to answer the question of which version of the Constitution is lawful.

    Secondly, it is not only about the age reference although all discussion has centered upon that – it is about the requirement in the Constitution that the office of the Chief Justice be independent and free from influence of the executive branch…. which it is not now and cannot be under the direction of the former Attorney General. Heck, they even gave Simmons an award for being a great politician and presented it while he held the office of the CJ.

    The article stays, and folks will sort out what is the truth and what is not. So far, without knowing what is the legal Constitution, the jury is still out.

  54. more

    I want to see a current copy of the Constitution. Everyone should.
    And there should only be ONE CURRENT COPY.

  55. John

    Looking at the Caricom law version the number next to 84.1 is 1990-17.

    At the beginning of the constitution, there is a list, I assume of changes, with 1990-17 included.

    Does this mean that the change to the Tenure of Judge’s section occurred in 1990?

    If so, what is the GOB doing operating with a version of the constitution which predates 1990, ….. years before it even came to power?

    Who put that up on the GOB website?

    Why do we have to go to Caricom to get access to our constitution?

    Can’t these guys do anything right?

  56. Royalrumble

    Say what you want about the Chief Justice his integrity and ability to bring resolve to the matter I am about to reveal is widely appreciated. In fact, by the end of this letter we will see who the real piranhas in Barbados are and who are the corrupt and crooked.

    In 2006 a lady from one of the St. Michael poor districts died leaving three children and a chattel house in need of repair. The lady, a former maid, struggled, likes most families of her circumstance, to raise her children. Her sons are labourers and her daughter to this day is unemployed.

    When their mother died she did not leave a Will. Nothing would have prepared them for what was about to hit them. They were told that if they needed to collect on the $30’000.00 left as their mother’s gratuity they would have to take out Letters of Administration. The daughter being the oldest of the three decided to make the application which she did through Attorney At Large, Richard Byer, a former DLP parliamentarian and close friend of David Thompson.

    Since the house was not in contention and sat land not owned by the family the only real property to be decided was the $30’000.00 gratuity. To make a long story short $10’000.00 was to be given to each sibling.

    When the young lady sat before Byer she was never given a hint as to the cost of the services being offered. It was only when she received the letter of particulars from Byer that she discovered the following:

    To receiving instructions and giving advice 200.00
    To filing for and obtaining Letters of administration 2,000.00
    To administration of estate and supervision of
    Administration and winding

    Advised client that other beneficiaries be notified 507.50

    Write letter to Credit Union 507.50

    Write letter to accountant General for Gratuity 507.50

    Receive and perused correspondence for Acc. General 507.50

    To Filing application 30.00
    Registrar fees 150.00
    To record order 2.40
    To para-legal services 150.00
    To certified copies of Letters of Administration 6.40
    VAT 634.50
    Total $5,203.30
    When the young unemployed lady objected to paying the high cost of the letters she was taken before the Deputy Registrar who not only determined that she should pay the cost of the letters but and additional $500.00 dollars for the human tick and attorney At Large, Richard Byer.

    My reason for posting this information is two-fold. (1) The cooked up stories that this BFP is running around the globe trying to pin on the Chief Justice of Barbados is not resonating with us. There real and substantiated cases right here in our country to show that there those amongst us who are willing to hang the poor out to dry for their selfish and greedy means.

    Secondly, there are many more DLP hongs out there waiting for a DLP victory at the polls to strip the vulnerable groups of this country of their hide just to maintain their life styles. While the Dems are crying wolf about the high cost of living and pretending to be the champions of the poor deep behind the scenes their members of fortunate standing in society are taking advantage of the underprivileged.

    Barbadians are warned to be on their guard as this is only the tip of the iceberg.

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

    BFP Comments…

    And this relates to the subject of the independence of the Chief Justice of Barbados in what way?

    Time and time again the BLP’s answer to charges of corruption is “The DLP did it too!”

    Yes, RR, we know the DLP were also corrupt when they formed the government. Also meaning “like the current BLP”.

  57. Wishing in Vain

    Royalidiot,
    Address this below.
    I went and I heard a great series of presentations by a number of speakers and unlike the blp meetings that I have attended in the past where the PM tries to deliver speeches blind drunk, none of the DLP speakers were drunk but the atmosphere was intoxicating they delivered one telling blow after the other they addressed the cost of living as Mr. Thompson stated the two sentences that Owing dedicated to the subject in his most recent budget, clearly stated to me that when he delivered his budget he did not consider the cost of living to be an issue, it is only after the DLP and the nation has cried out so loudly about it that these clowns have taken it onboard and dabbled with attempted solutions none of which are meaningful.

    To me the moment of the night was revealed in the motion to proceed with the No Confidence motion against ASSCOLL and the motion to update the Defamation of Character act along with the moving of an act for Integrity of Legislation in Barbados.

    I trust that this progressive forward looking step will meet with the approval of the cabinet of Barbados and be allowed to pass into law these changes.
    The Motion of No Confidence will be an opportunity to fully explain to the citizens of Barbados the various relationships that existed within the setup that was HARDWOOD HOUSING, the rape, the fraud, the mismanagement, the shared directorship of Chairman of HHL Hoyos, and his directorship on the EGFL, ASSCOLLS close involvement in the day to day operation of HHL, the use of HHL workers at his wifes building site, the hire of a number of illegal workers even having stated that there were none there,the question of the LIE that ASSCOLL based his decision to jump into bed with HHL on and that LIE was decided to help this person who had constructed 500 homes in Grenada after the Ivan, when he actually never did anything not a single houise was built by Murrell in Grenada if ASSCOLL did not know this to be the case at the time then he ought to have researched it fully before committing $ 2 million of our taxpayers dollars to a doomed venture, where Murrell can lease equipment for $ 26,000.00 and then forwad lease it to HHL for $ 56,000.00 according to ASSCOLL to save HHL $ 44,000.00 a month in lease payments, he is the financial mind here but if this is his finance ability he better call back Gearbox and reincarnate him and give him the job as this seems very warped to me, there are many questions to ask, many questions for the blp to lie on.

  58. Royalrumble

    Wishing in Vain your response clearly explains why the majority of Barbadians do not feel that you all are ready for the serious task of running a government.

    What has any of the nonsense you wrote have to do with the plight of this young poor family. Except you are saying that you do not care about their problems and that what you all see as the problems in this country are the only things that matter and to hell with everything else.

    You and the DLP need to listen to the public a little more and stop trying to force your issues on them. You are pushing corruption as an issue but the most recent poll shows that only 1% of the electorate feels that way. Yet you persist.

    Oh how foolish a political bunch you all are.

  59. Wishing in Vain

    I am sure you and your clan of crooks would much rather if the issue of corruption would die.

    There is a very simple way to relax the pressure and that would be for you and your cabinet to subject youselves to a full investigation of your assets and teh relation to those assets before and after being an elected official.

    To subject yourself to a full police investigation for your acts of dishonesty, remember them?

    Why would you have chosen to dedicate two sentences to the issue of the cost of living in your most recent budget?

    Did you not know that it was a real concern to those that put you in power, why did it take the opposition to awaken you from your slumber to make you aware of of the real issues of state? I say again as the lady on the call in show said the other day the opposition is getting more done in opposition than the ruling party is doing in gov’t.

  60. Hants

    Royalrumble you are trying to make people guilty by association. You are treading on dangerous ground.

    Just a hint. “Danos” and “Veco”. I guess they don’t count because they are criminally associated with a USA senator and a Jamaican project.

    If you are really the PM’s press secretary,your Boss will not be pleased with this ant’s nest you are stirring up.
    If you are just a BLP supporter then all is forgiven.

  61. Frankology

    Royalrumble, I read your submission, it is pathetic, I empathise with this poor lady. Regardless of political persuasion, no one should try to justify this wicked action by shifting the real cause with submissions that are totally irrelevant. This story need ventilating. Thanks for letting the public know.

  62. Leviticus

    Royalrumble has his own issues in life.
    I remember Velzo posting a year ago that Royalrumble tried to steal his own family’s land in St. Philip. Why don’t we ignore him?
    Read his posts discerningly and ask yourself how a person with such limited intellectual skills could be a press secretary to the Prime Minister?
    When we see Owen on t.v. we see Falstaff and his press secretary doesn’t understand the great disservice he is doing to his own boss by parading his ignorance on these blogs. We have to ask what kind of stupor Owen was in when he appointed him.

  63. Wishing in Vain

    We have to ask what kind of stupor Owen was in when he appointed him.
    My bet is that it was one create of RUM my friend.
    If we care to admit it or not our Prime Minister is an abusive drunk and a low life thief, all the while our Deputy Prime Minister is an abusive homosexual that has a propensity for beating women unmercyfully does this combination not make for a disasterous group???