I did not have to tell you anythng. He ‘who should not be named’ did it all by himself! lol

Regards and have a nice day in Bim! I envy you – being in Bim!!!!

I don’t see any question from you.

Is it then, a novelty? R u the only one?

Black woman who reads?

Lord! :)

I will not contest that the lawyer named is PWCs. Like you, I have to take the word of Keltruth that the lawyer in question is PWC’s lawyer.

What I will do is suggest a scenario.

Peter Simmons lawyer says that his client cannot afford a study to refute the one that Nelson Barbados has filed (paid for by we not know not whom and for a sum we know not what).

Al the other lawyers make the decision that they will win the motion and costs will be awarded against Nelson Barbados, so Peter’s study will have to be paid for by Nelson Barbados – and it will not be costs in the cause payable at the end of the case, they will have to be paid straight away.

So, one of the lawyers asks who will pay for the study. PWC says that it can be billed to them and then Nelson Barbados can pay them back.

And so it proves to be and PWC sends in to Nelson Barbados its account to be settled by Nelson Barbados, including the study.

Nelson Barbados sends it on to Keltruth, saying in effect, post this and raise a fuss – and Keltruth does exactly that.

So, after all that, Brutus, yes, I am going to contest it as to who paid the bill. Nelson Barbados aka Allard/Knox/Little Billy Goat paid it. Nelson Barbados paid for Peter Simmons’ study, through PWC.

On the other hand, this has not been contested by BWWR (who appears to be an insider) so perhaps it IS true.

However it is being repeated by others as fact, which is unfortunate.

My pingback is probably being held in moderation.

Chile, all I can say is poor you. Or as Pat would say, you know not what you readeth. Suggest you read again – CAREFULLY, chile, and SLOWLY and let it all sink in this tme. Poor soul.

Pat, when it is over I will get ALL the court documents are we can collaborate on that trilogy.

As some of the others my warning bells are ringing with Price Waterhouse Coopers paying $56k or whatever it was for “a favour” to the brother of the Chief Justice.

Too many “favours” on this island between big companies and politicians.

I could not agree with you more and I am struggling to understand Allard’s actions myself. Either the man is a spoiled brat who cannot take no for an answer or there is something between him and Madge Knox that we cannot expect Quel Truth to tell us. It just does not make business sense to me at all. But I am sure that I can get my hands on documents that show that Allard is financing Madge Knox and I am going to e-mail these to you when (and if) I manage to get them.

It is an interesting case yes. But I am far more interested by your article on the consumer watchdog. High time Barbados had one.

A little inconsistency does rear its head BWWR. If Peter Allard is allegedly financing Madge, and after so many cases which have been loss and much money spent, it shatters the assumption often made that people who have money would have created a disciplined behaviour which serves to protect it.

This case begs the question to both sides. How long is too long?

Neither of us have any way of knowing the state of finances of Peter Simmons. $56,000 is a lot of money and Peter may have been unable to afford it. It is very possible.

But look at the other side. Neither of us have any way of knowing the finance of Nelson Barbados and we have no way of knowing how the invoice of Nelson’s expert was paid – if by Nelson, Madge Knox, Peter Allard or by Mr. McKenzie’s law firm – or Mr McKenzie himself. Hell, we don’t even know how much the invoice was for the plaintiff. We do know that O.B.N. Security and Investigative Consultants Inc. was instructed and produced a report for Nelson.

I am not saying that you are not wealthy, passin thru, I am saying IF you were wealthy and IF you were involved as a co-defendant in a lawsuit and one of your co-defendants could not afford to pay for a study needed for the defence, you might consider saying to him, “Look, man, come let we get the study done and me pay for it so we can get this thing done and over.” You might even add, “We gon win, so I will get the money back because the court will order the plaintiff to pay it back to me, so no worries.”

And so, the matter is not held up while your co-defendant goes looking for the money to counter the study by the other side. This saves money for all the defendants and is not really a gamble, given the flimsy nature of the plaintiff’s motion. We have no way of knowing if there was an agreement with Peter Simmos or maybe ALL the defendants to pay back PWC.

BWWR has, in my humble opinion, got it right as to how Keltruth got a copy of the invoice of Dr. Sharon S. Smith for her study carried out on behalf of Peter Simmons and paid for by PWC. I would guess that after Nelson lost, the judge heard a motion for costs and awarded costs against Nelson Barbados. PWC’s counsel and all the other counsel would then have needed to submit to Nelson Barbados a statement of their costs, backed up with invoices. Dr. Smith’s invoice would have been amongst those.

The reverse is not true with the O.B.N. Security invoice paid by Nelson. Since Nelson has to pay costs, then there is no reason why they would send the defendants the O.B.N. Security invoice. So we do not know to whom the O.B.N. Security invoice was sent (it could have been to Peter Allard or Madge Knox, but we do not know). We don’t know how much it was for (it could have been for $100,000 for all we know).

What I think the Canadian courts have to ask themselves and take under advisement is HOW DID KELTRUTH GET HOLD OF IT?

Of course that question is one each of us Bajans must ask ourselves as well. How did Keltruth get hold of the invoice and also WHY? Might it be that Madge Knox is paying the costs of Nelson Barbados and had commissioned the O.B.N. Security study and was paying for it out of money “loaned” her by Peter Allard against the security of her shares in Kingsland?

More questions for Keltruth and more chances for it to practice its evasion skills. I wonder what it will come up with this time. Maybe I will be named as being Mr. David Thompson this time in order to try to ACshift the focus of all BU readers.

Pat is right. Your mother is one of the plaintiffs masquerading as a defendant – and you can preach like Paul about what the court documents say – they are fraudulent – like you.

Madge could not sue as plaintiff, because she is not Canadian, but Bajan and she could not sue in Canada on a matter of Bajan land involving Bajan people and Bajan companies and Bajan laws. She cannot sue in Barbados, because the Canadian case is merely regurgitating the accusations on which she lost at the Privy Council. So, she has to find a “moniker” and her moniker is Nelson Barbados Holdings/Investments. She also has to make it seem as though her standing to bring an action has been transferred to Nelson, and, as we have all seen, this has been done fraudulently.

It is all fraud.

We have all, Pat included, read your site, Quel Truth. We have all seen the documents. AND we have all realized the fraud you are trying to perpetrate with them. However, because we are a just and equitable people with a rule of law and right of self-determination that pre-dates that of Canada by some hundreds of years, we have given you the benefit of the doubt and asked that you explain certain glaring inconsistencies – and all you have done is speculate about the identities and monikers of people asking the questions and try to distract us to avoid answering.

Why has it not occurred to you that we are able to read and reason and are at least as bright as you and your cohorts?

Why has it not occurred to you that Bajans find it repulsive and offensive that you and your cohorts have dragged our island and people and institutions into an action in Canada that has no basis, no foundation and no jurisdiction?

Well, Quel Truth, we Bajans ARE offended. We are offended by the attempted betrayal and denigration of our country and people and institutions by some old Bajan divorcee and her three children who owe everything to Barbados and who are intent on sacrificing us Bajans on the alter of a Canadian billionaire, simply because we insist that our laws be obeyed and that our sovereignty is not up for grabs – at any price.

But, we are a peaceful people who, while me may from time to time loose our cool and say things we do not mean and would certainly never carry out, we are law abiding and we intend to prove it by our actions, or lack of actions, in your direction and that of your cohorts. We also intend to show peacefully that we resent people like you and your cohorts trying to make us look like some violent banana republic.

I, personally, object to your family and cohorts, naming the Island of Barbados as a defendant in your sordid case. This includes me and all my relatives. I assure you we number in the thousands, having descended from one Scottish planter who had 36 children from both slave and white women alike.

I count two former Chief Justices, Denys and Colin Williams in my family, so please, answer the questions posed.