Barbados Chief Justice blasts profiteering, weasel lawyers

Chief Justice Marston Gibson recently sent an email to Andrew Pilgrim, president of the Barbados Bar Association. That email was also mysteriously and anonymously delivered to many Bajan blogs and every newspaper on the island. After reading this latest in the battle between the lawyers and the Chief Justice, all we can say to Mr. Gibson is… Give ’em HELL, Sir!

“The system which we have, with its court delays, is what the attorneys know, with the ability to bill for every court appearance. Obviously, then, the longer a case exists, the more likely it is to generate fees for an attorney handling that case. The problem is that there is, equally likely, a dissatisfied client who wonders why the case is taking so long to resolve and who, again likely, will be told “it’s the court’s fault.” If what is reported in the Sunday Sun says or implies that, then I stand by it.”

“There will be no more distribution of files by a single senior legal assistant neither will there be any more situations, reported to me anecdotally, of lawyers choosing WHEN to file a matter depending on WHICH Judge is doing chamber court. Random selection by computer will be the order of the day.”

… Chief Justice Marston Gibson blasts profiteering Barbados lawyers and slaps them upside the head with some new procedures.

From: Office of the Chief Justice

To: Mr. Andrew O. G. Pilgrim
President, Barbados Bar Association

Leeton, Perry Gap
Roebuck Street

Subject: Our 14 March 2012 Conversation

Dear Mr. President,

I refer to our conversation last evening, 14 March 2012, in which you intimated to me that the Bar Council, or a majority of them, were “up in arms” over a report in the Sunday Sun of 11 March 2012 of my address to the Fair Trading Commission (FTC). You indicated to me that they had written a letter which was “ready to go” to the newspaper “to print.”

My practice is to pick up the Sunday Sun at a gas station on my way home from church. This past Sunday I did not do so and did not see the report until a friend pointed it out to me on Tuesday 13 March, at which point I noticed some inaccuracies. The one glaring example related to the Court of Appeal. In attempting to “set the context” in which the proposed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is to work, I stated that I had discovered 363 pending cases in the Court of Appeal, some filed long ago as 1993 and a few filed by attorneys who have since passed away. One of those attorneys, I pointed out, had been elevated to the same Court of Appeal, had died, but his pending matter was never heard. Other attorneys, I had noted to the audience, had been elevated to the High Court, had retired but their cases remain unresolved. Apart from a passing reference to attorneys who had passed away, there was not even a mention of the number “363″. I decided, however, to “let it be.”

What I had said to the FTC is that a large challenge will be to get “buy-in” to the concept of ADR from the Bar. This is not new. You and those of your Council members who attended will, doubtless, recall the lecture of Mr. Stuart Kennedy at the Bar Association in October last year when he noted the same thing. People are naturally suspicious of change and attorneys are no different. The system which we have, with its court delays, is what the attorneys know, with the ability to bill for every court appearance. Obviously, then, the longer a case exists, the more likely it is to generate fees for an attorney handling that case. The problem is that there is, equally likely, a dissatisfied client who wonders why the case is taking so long to resolve and who, again likely, will be told “it’s the court’s fault.” If what is reported in the Sunday Sun says or implies that, then I stand by it.

I also recall that, attending that lecture, was an eminent QC who remembered his initial reluctance at the ADR concept but, having had the scales removed from his eyes, now is the beneficiary of a reputation that he not only does things but he “gets things done.” That is what I meant by “buy-in” from the Bar – your clients will see you as someone who gets their cases resolved rather than as someone who is there when their “day in court” is transmogrified into “years in court” whether it is the court’s fault or not.

You mentioned your letter to me of 8 March 2012 which referred to a prior letter to me of 17 January 2012. I am in the course of replying seriatim to the 11 issues in 17 January letter. I am not sure why you or your Council members believed it sensible to ‘demanded’, in the January 17 letter, that I should resolve, “within 14 days of this correspondence” “a number of issues affecting the administration of justice which have been the subject of a number of meetings and written correspondence between the respective Chief Justices (including those acting in the post) and the Barbados Bar Association since October of 2009.” If my arithmetic serves me correctly, at the date of the 17 January letter, I had been in office exactly four months, two weeks and three days!

I will complete my reply to that letter after my meeting today with the Judges since many of the issues implicate how we Judges do business in the Supreme Court. I give you but one example. Issue number 1 in the 17 January letter asks that chamber court matters be scheduled by appointment. I am going to suggest to the Judges a temporary measure which I outline in my letter to you. But two of your members, Mrs. Angela Mitchell-Gittens and Mrs. Liesel Weekes accompanied Registrar Marva Clarke, Deputy Registrar Jackson and me on a visit to the Trinidad Courts at the end of January. They either have reported to you, or will report, to you that chamber court does not exist in Trinidad. All cases filed in Court are assigned to a Judge by random selection of JEMS. That Judge is then responsible for every application, motion, conference or pre-trial review of that case. We will adopt that system this year or early next year. There will be no more distribution of files by a single senior legal assistant neither will there be any more situations, reported to me anecdotally, of lawyers choosing WHEN to file a matter depending on WHICH Judge is doing chamber court. Random selection by computer will be the order of the day.

It is because several of your 11 issues have repercussions with the Judges, the fact that I was planning to visit Trinidad exactly 13 days after the date of your letter and, more simply, because, with four months’ experience, I had to “get the lay of the land” that I have not yet responded until I had something to say to you, at least something more than “I have received your letter and will get back to you when I can.”

I am not sure whether all of the above assuages what feelings of umbrage your Council members have taken but that is my position. You should be receiving my letter on Friday 16 March 2012.

Finally, Mr. President, and I will expand on this point in my responsive letter to you, I am concerned over the public diffidence at the pace at which the Disciplinary Committee works. I have received several complaints, some in writing but most of them verbally, especially during the Question and Answer sessions which invariably follow my public lectures. At one of the seminars on Criminal Law issues sponsored by the Bar Association which, regrettably was also not well attended, you stated that you supported amending the Legal Profession Act to tighten up the procedures by which disciplinary matters are handled. I hope that you, and your Council members, will see the wisdom in publicly allaying public concerns about this since, as outgoing Chief Justice Hugh Rawlins of the OECS recently said, it is imperative that the Bar retain, in some cases regain, the “trust and confidence imposed in it by the public.” I will continue to work on the public’s concerns with the Court system. I trust that the public can rely on you and your Council members to work on regaining its confidence in our noble profession.


Marston C. D. Gibson,

Chief Justice.


Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law

41 responses to “Barbados Chief Justice blasts profiteering, weasel lawyers

  1. robert ross

    @ BFP

    Contrary to what you suggest, I know of no “battle” between the CJ and the Bar and to suggest that there is is simply mischievous.
    In January, the President of the Bar Association wrote to the CJ with a list of matters which he asked to be addressed relating to the administration of Justice relating, particularly, to the matter of delay.
    Two months on, the CJ had not even acknowledged that letter. Seemingly, the CJ and Mr Pilgrim happened to meet and it seems that the latter forcibly reminded the CJ of his failure to reply. The result was the email though why by email I can only offer conjecture.
    The reference to ‘random’ selection of judges is not something which operates as a criticism of lawyers. It is to streamline and make more coherent the system in an effort to reduce delays. The CJ referred to public perceptions about the causes of delay – and noted that fees might be charged for multiple appearances in consequence of delay – but, I agree, in a way which might just be taken as a criticism of the lawyers.

    In other words, BFP, please do not treat this email as a corroboration of the standard ‘Joe Public’ perception of lawyers as crooks. The CJ is not doing that – though as a publicity exercise on his part it is rather interesting.


    Sir Richard L .Cheltenham Ph.D QC ,
    Ralph Thorne . QC
    , David Simmons EX AG/CJ,,
    ,Kieth Simmons,.

    C. Lindsay Bolden CBE, LL.B,QC
    Richard P.Byer,
    Jennifer King,
    Balfour S. Layne
    Cicely P.Chase Q.C,LL.B(Hons)U.W.I
    Jackman ,,,
    Add yours, More to come

  3. robert ross

    @ Plantation

    Go for it

  4. robert ross

    @ Amused

    Now work that one out.

  5. 235

    I like I begining to like this man!!!

  6. Sunshine Sunny Shine

    IF the letter I just read is any thing to go by, I will say that the Chief Justice is starting to make his move in addressing the “weight” around the “Albatross” neck. Clearly the letter is a response and an indication that the Chief Justice has identified the areas of “red” and the shades of “grey” that is our poor rakey system of judicial practice. Alluding to what we already know about our courts and the practice of law is not important at this stage. Moreso what the CJ knows and identifies in his short tenure so far is the important issue. His is the voice that can bring the much needed reform to a system that is practices protectionism, fraud, manipulation of law rules and regulations and the embezzlement practices of court delay for profiteering.

    The Chieif Justice must hold strain against the back-lash that will come from those disgruntled by his proposed changes. I do believe that the nastiness of the more blood sucking and thieving lawyers will seek to frustrate his efforts since he is not a CJ actively involve with politics and whose loyalities are that of a specific party. The next few months will be interesting and I cannot wait to see what else the CJ will expose and change in a system that has and continues suck the life blood of a poor and struggling people.

    To you Chief Justice Gibson: Please bring the pigs to fine market

  7. caribeye

    Go CJ go! And may you never have oversight over any judicial process that may involve the CLICO Group of Companies. We want you around for a long, long time. Clean up the legal profession as much as you can Sir. You will always have the backing of the people of this country!

  8. legal independence


    Clico— the CJ will never retain any respect if he refuses to deal with matters that are in front of him, but he could probably hand Clico and other related matters over to a respected and truly independent
    International tribunal for recommended sanctions ( including criminal ) without strings.

    That way he would be seen to have dealt with it, without staining his hands.


    Marston C. D. Gibson Barbados Chief Justice.
    We here at Plantation have all you need , The police Fraud Squad have Most papers and statements needed. Who after the PM DAVID died stop the work of the Fraud Squad? Letter reads

    10th August 2009

    Mrs.Violet Beckles
    King Street

    Dear Ms Beckels

    Thank you for you letter dated 7th August 2009 in relation to land issues.

    I do not have the power to direct the Commissioner of Police in his duties but I will seek to find out what is happening with your matter in relation to other Government Departments

    All the best!
    Yours sincerely

    sign David

    Prime Minister
    end of letter

    On October 9th 2009 , Fraud Squad Police came to her home about 10am , Statements took about 3 weeks , Ist Violet Beckles 18 pages, next statement 22pages. Signed with DEEDS of the Plantation ownership , from 1926 to 1977.Beatrice Henry 1892-1985 Dec13,, Violet Beckles 1918 to Aug23-2010 ,, PM David Oct 23 2010 DIED.
    Now the Police stop and give no Findings. Police said the person(s) dead so the case dead ,,Bullshit, Fraud still lives and so does her Heirs.

    Sir Richard L .Cheltenham Ph.D QC, and C. O. Williams need to be CHARGED.NOW ,, An indictment against both will also show up with CLICO Books and land deals…

  10. millertheanunnaki

    @ Sunshine Sunny Shine :March 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Don’t fall for that sweet talk coming from the part where the sun does not shine.
    The more things appear to change the more they remain the same. Remember the January 2008 general elections promises? Where are they today? In the dustbin of short memory.
    The CJ is a socialite not an action man or else he would walk softly keep quiet and carry big stick. He cannot be fired under a political street light. But he is up against a fraternity within many fraternities. The convoluted maze would never lead to the legal sanctum sanctorum to slay the corrupt devil dragon with a masonic sledge hammer.

  11. robert ross

    A socialite? Well that’s the evidence thus far. He has to say something which sounds as if he’s on the job some time, but his email, if one looks closely, is pretty slippery – the idea of the homespun churchman who stops and buys his newspapers at gas stations like the rest of us – the man of the people and all that.
    Mind when he became an honorary Rotarian, I did not share with others the view that he was putting himself in a false position – and I still don’t.
    Now the record is that in October 2010 the CJ met with representatives of the Bar Association at the Supreme Court building. The agenda came from the BBA. Matters discussed were basically of three kinds and, in the BA view, they were things which could be implemented quickly and easily. The matters related to (a) Criminal Law; (b) Family Law; (c) delays in the system . The CJ’s response seems to have been positive and there was a general understanding that other matters.would be discussed at a later time but that, in the meanwhile, something would be done to address the matters actually discussed.
    Now of course nothing happened and that, seemingly, is why the BA President wrote as he did in January 2012….three months on from the October meeting. Two months went by and the CJ had not responded to the letter – five months in all. The email response deflects the issue by insinuating that the BA had better put its own house in order and in wittering about public perceptions.
    I have no idea who leaked this email or with what object. But it has clearly played into the hands of all those who regard the legal profession as shitty and, for those who want to read it that way, it’s a very clever way of presenting the a man who intends to ‘take on’ the lawyers. The email dodges and weaves and mixes different issues in a way which deflects criticism from himself. Meanwhile, the one positive thing the CJ said will not be implemented until ‘later this year or early next year’. Now where is the hope in that? And why wouldn’t the BA begin to feel let down?

  12. robert ross

    Forgive me,..I just noticed that I referred above to a meeting in 2010. I should have written 2011. It’s an age thing.


    Carrington & Sealy Ivan Jessamy / Mr al
    Yearwood & Boyce George Denis Clarke QC et al
    Ministry of Housing/ Land registry Samantha Jennifer Cummins et al
    Maureen Crane Scott now Justice et al
    Carline Mildred Herbert et al
    Smith & Smith Sleepy Smith
    Adriel Brathwaite/ Attorney General
    Prime Minister Of Barbados /EX Attorney General

    Responses to Barbados Chief Justice blasts profiteering, weasel lawyers

  14. Sunshine Sunny Shine


    Are you telling me that all those prominent people you have been listing are really very well organized white collar crooks? If what you are saying is true, do you think with the system of justice in this country rigged to protect the very same people that are responsible for passing laws, rules and regulations that we would ever see any justice in these alleges?


    Sunshine Sunny Shine
    1 . YES organized white collar crooks
    2. YES rigged to protect, very same
    3. YES rules and regulations .
    4 YES we will see justice
    The EX CJ David Simmons seem that have his name at the bottom what is written in the books, His Brother Keith at the BAR to delays cases against who comes before him , As in Ralph Thorne ,Who made QC while before the BAR for funds on a case he not earned ,nor filed ,, The new lady there replace Haynes ,to block all new cases , Turn people away with added blocks not written , Just her say so , the run around.

    Both Parties Must be removed , The BLP and the DLP will party till they are dead and our cases will be delayed till we are dead,
    Bajan Free Party(BFP) , All are Welcome to Chuse,

  16. robert ross

    @ Plantation

    If that’s to be the ‘third force’ – the BFP – let’s run with it….but an ‘F’? I’m not too sure about that. Better ask my ‘brother’ and ‘friend’.


    Free is what we looking for , to be Free from the others who took our trust. They have to know that we are Free, and think like Free Men , Free Woman Free Persons not to be lead like animals trained to the Fraud of Life they want for us ,
    Truth is what we looking for , and its the only way to get in side and show our country what the Minister with the Lawyers were doing in the Dark and in the light ,
    Most will leave the Island like the Judges that was all in this , Like Blackman who ran , as they say ,
    Like lawyers 20 years ago or more than now Judge and Justice. Who all got a part of the PIE , called Barbados ,
    We are not here to go to school for house keeping , beds and bathrooms ,
    As houses build on tax payers money for their enjoyment to live off the rents.
    UDC, was to laundering land and make new DEEDs out of air for UDC lawyers Keith Mayers.
    Central Bank With Mrs Williams also laundering Land , lawyers signed papers before they were even lawyer as yet.
    There is no Title company or Title insurance before buying any land or house here that i see or heard of, Barbados is a sad true story in the Sun .. Bajan Free Party , LETS GET THE RATS OUT THE PEOPLES HOUSE.
    land tax numbers were transfer no land was convey .
    They know i know , so no TV nor radio will put me on ,
    The PM will not read the CLICO report ?, for he know its about him and who knows him better than himself.All the names i talked about knows Me , And none cant call me a lie,with out telling us the truth.
    I am more than 90% Right,and they are more than 90% WRONG. Truth will set us all Free.

  18. robert ross

    @ Plantation

    Yes, I do understand and am with you. My concern was that the ‘F’ might be used by Foes to translate as “Fraud’ or ‘Fools’…well, if that matters.


    @ Robert Ross ……Well we have been (F)ed for along time with the (F)raud they have been treating us like( F)ools (F)or a long time.
    If they look at Us as ( F)oes that is not a bad word. Think of Peters$3.7Billion,Rothstein $1.2Billion, Madoff $65 Billion, Stanford $7 Billion PONZI KINGS, next will be COW, CLICO et al…. Standford and COW at the Oval 20/20 cricket 20MILLION USD grand prize
    Now think of how much money they made of free land, UDC, NHC, lawyers and OWEN Author , Ministers who are lawyers also. The Banks RBTT, First CARIBBEAN,CENTRAL BANK A $MILLION DOLLARS WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR. OFFSHORE BANKING , THE LIST GOES ON , YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW IT STARTED ,
    So We must know how it will End,
    We are the Ones We have Been waiting for, there is no One to do this but Us… I am sure you heard that before President Obama US of A

  20. Petersen Pipes

    The new CJ was strong and clear. he said some strong words against the lawyers. He sounds disgusted with the Barbados bar.

    I can’t blame him! 🙂

  21. Sunshine Sunny Shine


    I really do not think that nothing less than a revolt will change anything in Barbados. This particular criminal activity has been going on for a very long time. So long that it has become part of the accepted norm in Barbados. So long that those who commit the acts believes that it is legitimate business and nothing immoral about it. You would need to to make some serious documentation available that will prove that the name prominent persons are really ravenous crooked wolves who have gain riches by nefarious means. There are systems set up in this country to protect these people at all cost and their tentacles and alliances to their masonic links ensures that none be implicated in obvious white collar crime. Proof that is absolute is the only hing that could incriminate them. And the justice serve to them cannot be from within since the judicial process in this country has been seriously compromised.


    Sunshine Sunny Shine , et al ,,I Agree
    What ever it takes , what ever I can do , I Will,
    They remember the very good and the very bad , no one in the center of life. Most of all things i wanted to do in life i have done, We are all here for a reason and i know My reason.This is It,, to help clean up this Mess.No longer do i study the crooks for i know what they have done, All i will study is how to fix it,,The Police and others know that we Know the Truth and that is all We will speak until the People get a full understanding of what they have done and still doing.If Every anyone want to go to court i will speak and show what they know i have ,The Country will know soon , then we will listen for the spin on what they will say, They will never at this rate open any books to the public,I know they will not show us the plantation deed on records and D’Acry Scott.. books. We hope by the time the VOTE is near we have reach the People minds to know .If they cant take the Truth ,they then need to close all Churches and let the Devil Rain.
    It time to Believe what you never knew nor heard before to move a head.
    To have confidence in the Truth.
    Bajan Free Party

  23. robert ross

    @ Plantation

    Blessed be.

  24. The Spy

    Lawyers on the run, FFinally.

  25. robert ross

    @ Plantation

    Is it time to post blogs in the name of the BFP and see what happens?

  26. robert ross

    @ B Free PRESS

    Are you able to give us some background to this. You say it came anonymously and was circulated widely. Consider this:

    1. The email was sent to Pilgrim on 15 March.
    2. The CJ sent his promised response to Pilgrim on 19 March.
    3. BU posted it on 25 March.
    4. BFP posted it on 26 March.

    In other words, the email was already stale by the time it was posted since the CJ had sent his promised response dealing with the substantive issues on 19 March. Why then was it ever ‘anonymously’ circulated and by whom?

  27. BFP

    Hello Robert,

    There’s not much to tell from our end. We received the email on the 25th of March through some Italian anonymous remail server. There was no indication of who sent it. We know that it was also sent to various media on the island because a little birdie at one of the papers lets us know a thing or two once in a while.

    What is the agenda of the person who sent it? We don’t know.


  28. robert ross

    @ Cliverton

    Thankyou. Re: Italian anonymous remail server: didn’t we have a similar thing some while ago sent anonymously from Russia or somewhere? See I find it all very odd. Both here and on BU the post and the reaction were the same: CJ blasts the lawyers – and a good thing too.. In both orgs I seem to be the only person to take a different view about the email – not because I don’t think lawyers ought to be blasted but because, for me, the email is so issue-incoherent that it seems like a device – to deflect criticism and win friends.

    Why write such a long email in the first place when the substantive document was to follow shortly afterwards? Who had an interest in that? Certainly not the lawyers. BU insists that it was posted on the Barbados Bar Association web site – presumably the ‘inner’ site which requires a password for access. Yet the email, as stale as it was, IS so sensitive that I can’t see how the BU Committee could possibly want to see it there. Or did someone on the Committee who had seen it relay it to a friend who posted it? Well, who knows. But as a publicity exercise, it’s clearly first rate.

  29. robert ross

    @ BFP
    At one point above I wrote BU…the BU Committee..I meant BA.

    There is something else which arose on the BU post which is of interest. Someone asserted that there were many attorneys who were not members of the BBA. Initially I contested this because s.44 of the Legal Profession Act makes membership compulsory. Further scrutiny of the Act suggested that under other sections there was the possibility for the exemption (in some way or other – not necessarily membership of the BA) of attorneys and solicitors who were practising at the time of the fusion of the profession in 1973. It was then asserted that the BA is a trades union so that to require them to join the BA would be unconstitutional.

    I tried to explore this further with the BA but got nowhere. Calls were not returned. The fellas who argued the BA is a trades union and who said they ‘personally’ knew eminent people who refused to be members went no further than the assertion though indicating they would ask these eminent people when they had the time. Yeah right. I asserted that it wasn’t a Trades Union (a) because it wasn’t registered as such; and (b) because it was a statutory body created by statute in 1940.

    The point is this: the BBA clearly knows that some attorneys are not members despite the effect of s.44 of the Act. The Registrar must also know since to get the practising certificate you have to present the receipt from the BA establishing payment of the fee to the BA. This situation is being allowed to pass – in other words, seemingly, the dignity and prestige of some senior lawyers seems to be taking priority over the legal requirements. If those lawyers are right in their stand, then presumably many others would follow them UNLESS they are covered by the exemptions I mentioned. Apparently, in 2009 the then President of the BA threatened to have a particular attorney disbarred for non-payment of the fee. The President, we were told, was given a two-fingered salute.

    But there is a disturbing consequence to all this. It may be that since those eminent lawyers are not members of the BA, they may not be amenable to the scrutiny of the Disciplinary Committee, which is created under the 1978 Act which, as I say, under s.44 requires all attorneys to be members of the BA. The Committee is to be composed (under the Act) of seven members of the BA and the Registrar (or her nominee) acts as Secretary. The Committee reports to the CJ. Now it may be that the Disciplinary Committee is a separate legal entity from the BA despite its composition but somehow I don’t think so. The idea I suppose is that the profession is intended to be self-regulating – and that, of course, means membership of the BA.

    So: we’ve reached a point in all this when we might feel entitled to say that it’s about time that the whole thing was tested, that the BA should not hide behind a vale of secrecy to save face, that those eminent ones who refuse to become members should put their silk gowns where their mouths are, and that they should all be reminded that ‘be you ever so great, the law is above you’.

  30. Does anyone really think or believe that the CJ is definitely interested in or capable of getting to the root of the problem and correcting it (since it is most likely that it will inevitably involve disbarment and incarceration of quite a few lawyers) ? (Note the length of time it has taken for him to respond to the President of the Barbados Bar association). And is the Barbados Bar Association… a trade union… whose interest it is to protect its members…really interested in change ? What politricks ?
    How do we show the CJ “(He) will… have the backing of the people of this country” ? Do we assemble en masse in front of the Supreme Court ?
    While it would appear that “nothing less than a revolt will change anything in Barbados”,does anyone really think the people of Barbados (docile and sheeplike as we are) would ever assemble in any appreciable number to demonstrate against the injustices we are suffering at the hands of the members of the Barbados Bar Association and the judiciary ? Fat chance !
    Does anyone think,given the CLICO fiasco,that any government led by Freundel Stuart,Owen Arthur (or David Commissiong for that matter) would ever consider bringing in an impartial,independent investigatory body (e.g from Australia,Canada,U.S.A) to look into the allegations made (e.g by Plantation Deeds From 1926 To Up Today And See Massive Fraud) against so many lawyers? Dream on ! It’ll never happen ! It is an unfortunate truth that violence is often the precursor to meaningful change.

  31. robert ross

    @ Pieter Pieper
    So are you for the BFP? Or if not, WHAT DO WE DO?

  32. Sunshine Sunny Shine

    Plantation Deeds

    YOur solo efforts are well appreciated but you must understand solo against this type of syndicate is fool hardy. You need supportive numbers if you want to bring down a very well organized system of infelicitious undertakers. I really do not think that you will strike a hard enough blow to inflict enough damage to produce the intended result. Your blogging of the information is reaching thousands if not millions. But scandal and corruption is so wide spread that many readers: far, near and in house are not duly affected enough to want take a moral stance. This particular syndicate was establish on the premise that Barbadians are docile, mere talkers and not action figures and forgets in time. They also know that in the history of Barbados, cases are seldom won againt prominent figures or the crown. Barbados is an island that has always been good for exploitation and exploited we have. I really do not know Plantation but all I can say is: where there is a will there is a way. Keep the fight up maybe you might surprise all of us


    Sunshine Sunny Shine, Than you for your support and All Others.

    The Few The Proud The Marines


    Thank you

  35. @ robert ross

    There is no gainsaying the fact that BFP serves a great purpose.No one can deny that not only does it enable free expression with many kernels of truth,but truth be told,it is more informative than the “main stream media”.What do we do ?Perhaps try to take it to the next level by organizing…a la Tahrir Square… but is such possible ? I doubt it at this stage.

  36. robert ross

    @ PP
    and in the light of your earler observation, whether it could ever be possible.
    BUT if emails can be sent by some, why not others? If letters can be written by some, why not others? If some can call in, why not others? If we expose whatever the evidence is on this or that to the world – someone has to listen. Not to do so would be bad for business. But to do that takes organisation and determination – inside here and outside here. As for here – where have all the flowers gone? See my comment in the Raul Garcia post.


    Robert Ross,Sunshine Sunny Shine,235 ,pieter pieper ,and all others

    It has began , All those who care in their own way , We All may meet soon in 3 weeks or so, Give it little more time, nothing to loose for we lost so much Already .The joke on us all is over .


    for them

  39. Newbie

    I for one would be willing to join any effort aimed at shaking the roots of corruption in Barbados. If we cannot rely on our present judicial system to achieve justice then what is the point of showing the system any respect. There are companies like ROUND HOUSE in BATHSHEBA who are abusing their employees rights because they believe there is no access to justice for poor people in Barbados. They have trumped up reasons to get rid of people who gave them years of service without giving the employess a cent in severance or lieu of notice, while smiling and saying see you in court. This is the Barbados that expects workers to put their heart and soul into serving visitors only to be handle like this after years of giving such service.


  40. Tony Webster

    Mr. Editor; I came acrooss this piece while researching the matter generally, and specifically with regard to recent “pronouncments” from on high, inter alia: how to use ADR to clean-up the back-log, and more lately “son of ADR”: how to forcibly “throw-out”, or “discontinue”, all the most embarassing old cases. Wait a minute: better is to come: to get a feel as to whether these are good ideas, the boss is asking the Bar Association, what’s their take on it? No, we don’t wish to ask all those plaintiffs who have paid their attorney’s fees already how THEY feel, (maybe, several payments), we’re now about to ask the same guys who – on many instances, wrap the whole process up in sticky tape – and thereby contributing to the legal arthlesclerosis which now threatens a key pillar of our constitution!
    Judging (sorry the pun) from the above correspondence, the boss was about to lay down the law (sorry etc), but the latest attempts to cut the gordian knot of this systemic mess of legal ineptitude, seems to indicate that the boss is running up the white flag! Whaddawedo next? Get a new boss?

  41. ..I am still awaiting, a reponse from the Chief Justice’s office, regards my situation, while reading these comments, which further proves that I have to get up, and get. The Judiciary, must, and should be policed. How can you the consumer be trying to raise standards, and respective same, when you are the one who has to wager, for your own rights. As I said, I await a reponse from anyone in the Judiciary, after running around, approximately ten (10) lawyers, for a matter directly dealing with a Foreign Bank, and how this must be played out, in that foreign land. I am amazed the the CJ has taken such a slight to foreign concerns. And yet, I exude so much patience with this Judiciary, after this matter has been before the High Court on (6) occasions. You tell me Sir.