Submitted by BWWR
In its latest, Keltruth starts: “I was ribbed for omitting to mention two scandals in a recent post, PwC has other problems besides Nelson’s Canadian $500 million law suit!” The thrust of Keltruth’s article is to complain about shell companies in Barbados. So, let us examine this carefully.
Our example will be an Ontario corporation called – guess what – Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. The self-same Nelson that is the plaintiff in the $500 million law suit that exercises the mind of Keltruth almost exclusively. If you go online and use http://www.canada411.ca/ you can look up Nelson for yourselves. And guess what you will get……a notice that says: “No Listing for “Nelson Barbados Group Ltd.” were found in “Orillia”. Try expanding your search location”. Now, we know that Nelson’s address is the same as that of the law firm of the Goat (K. William McKenzie) Nelson’s counsel, so the address entered is correct, according to the Ontario corporate records. Yet it is not listed for a telephone. Yet, Keltruth complains of this same thing in relation to Barbados companies.
Next up, let us do a white pages search – same site – for Donald Best (or D. Best) in Orillia. Mr. Best is registered as Nelson’s sole director. Predictably, there are no listings for any D. Best in Orillia and some 120 listings for D. Best/Donald Best in Ontario.
Please see link detailing cost paid by Nelson Barbados Group Limited
When I was a young woman, many years ago, and I wanted to get in touch with Kingsland Estates Limited or any of the other sugar companies, I would not have found them in the telephone directory. I needed to know the name of the plantation or the name of the manager of the plantation I wanted to reach and that is what would be listed. The Knox family, all of them raised, financed, educated, housed and supported by Kingsland Estates, of which Madge was a “directing mind”, know this.
These days, now I am an antique (or just old, depending on your perspective) many companies operating in Barbados do the same as Nelson has done in Canada. Their registered office is that of the office of their attorneys-at-law or accountants. Exactly the same pertains in any major off-shore investment country. There is no obligation for any company to have a telephone number as long as there is an address listed for them at Corporate Affairs to which mail can be sent. This, Mrs Accountant Kathy Davis, is called a “Registered Office”. There is no obligation for any company to submit it and its officers to a Keltruth and BFP witch hunt by listing a telephone number at which it can be reached. If Keltruth and BFP want to question any of what they stigmatize, with no grounds whatsoever, as “shell companies” then they can write them a letter. Of course, they would then have to provide a return address and give their real names.
A shell company is precisely that. Wikipedia provides that, “A shell corporation is defined in Barron’s Finance & Investment Handbook as “a company that is incorporated, but has no significant assets or operations.” As there is no obligation for companies registered with Corporate Affairs Barbados or its Canadian counterpart in Ontario to list their assets, how the hell does Keltruth determine, other than through the now famous psychic abilities of Jane Goddard née Knox that these companies are shell companies. More to the point, is there any evidence to show that Nelson Barbados Group Limited is NOT a shell company? The “proof of the pudding” will be whether Nelson has assets that can be charged if it fails to pay its legal costs next week. I can’t wait to see what will happens there and if the Goat, like Alair Shepherd, will be the ONLY counsel whose costs are paid by the losers in the Kingsland saga.
Bottom line: Keltruth complains of people hiding behind the very corporate veils behind which Madge Knox/Allard/Goat are hiding and, of course, takes the view that while it is quite in order to do that in Ontario (specially if you happen to be them) somehow doing it in Barbados is wrong. Interesting theory. Will it survive?
Just prior to my departure, Brutus asked if I could find certain judgments in the Kingsland Estates matter. My source has come up trumps and I am able to post both the original judgment of Greenidge J. in High Court Action No. 1805 of 1998 and that delivered by Chase A.J. in the Appeal. I am very interested, Brutus and Pat, to get your “take” on them.
Some while ago, Keltruth complained, supported by its toady and alleged fellow-Allard-supported blog, BFP, that certain corporate files were missing from the Corporate Registry and inferred that these had been stolen. Myself and others with intimate knowledge of the office in question, took up the defence on BU of the Corporate Registry, staffed by decent, overworked Bajans who, with the best will and intentions in the world, sometimes misplace some of the masses of files in their care. We explained that in our experience these files do always turn up. It seems that this is what has happened and Keltruth has reported it. However, has Keltruth also had the honesty or integrity or class to apologize to the staff of the Corporate Registry for suggesting unambiguously that they were delinquent in their duty of care and professional standards? Hell no. But there again as my dear late mother used to say, “You can’t expect a silken purse out of Madge Knox’s ear.”
Finally, Keltruth, as usual, right at the top of its diatribe, gets it wrong. Nelson’s suit is expressed in US dollars, not Canadian dollars as Keltruth has said. And please, Keltruth, do not impugn the sovereignty of Canada and of the United States as you have repeatedly tried to do that of Barbados by telling us it is the same thing.
Related Links
114 responses so far ↓
David // August 20, 2008 at 7:20 AM
@BWWR
We were not sure if you wanted to have the first paragraph published and we left it off.
BWWR // August 20, 2008 at 7:37 AM
David, always use your best judgment. Works for me.
» Enron, AIG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and today’s Barbados Offshore Companies Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA. // August 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM
[...] I was ribbed for omitting to mention two scandals in a recent post, PwC has other problems besides Nelson’s Canadian $500 million law suit! The omitted scandals were PricewaterhouseCoopers’ involvement in both the Enron and the AIG sagas. Enron was linked to companies in the Caymans, but Barbadian offshore reinsurance companies were involved with AIG. Were these “shell corporations“? Would they be found in the Barbadian Corporate Registry (CAIPO)? The named companies were Union Excess Reinsurance Co. and Capco Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [...]
Anonymous // August 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Iain Deane,
Would you also consider your fictional alias BWWR as a shell?
BWWR // August 20, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I have sent David an e-mail advising that my source has contacted me to say that Nelson Barbados paid the costs in Canada in the security motion.
When I asked how much those costs were, my source was most obliging and sent me a copy of the correspondence and cheques from the Goat Pen. I have now sent these on to BU for it to post. The amount was just slightly under Canadian$225,000 or Barbados$425,000.
The issue of who paid for the expert’s report of Barbados$56,000 that has so exercised the minds of Keltruth and BFP is now answered. It was NOT PwC nor was it its counsel. It was Nelson itself. Maybe Keltruth could let us know how much Nelson paid for its own two expert reports.
The state of play now, as I understand it, is that the matter of whether Canada has the jurisdiction and competence to try the case comes before the Ontario Court in early December, which means that realistically, we can look for a decision by about the end of January – just at the time that Madge Knox is summonsed by writ before the Barbados High Court to give evidence in the fraud action against her.
Just before I went on holiday (and I had a wonderful and all-too-short time) Brutus asked for details on the injunctions in respect of Kingsland that impacted on the ability of the directors to deal with the assets of the company.
My understanding, subject to correction, is that there were two injunctions. The first was given to the estate of Colin Deane and its executor (and if you wonder who that is, it is the same person that Anonymous, wrongly, identifies me as being). The second was given to Madge Knox.
The first injunction (interlocutory, not Mareva) was applied for ex parte, but Kingsland sent legal representation and so, when the injunction was granted, it was granted as opposed ex parte or inter partes. That injunction was in force from early June 1997 until whenever the shares owned by Colin’s estate were sold to Classic – and the earliest that could have happened was June 2005. A period of 8 years. The injunction was a total freeze of the assets of Kingsland and there was nothing the directors could have done with the company, including to pay for the preparation of audited financial returns.
The second injunction, obtained in October 1998, was ex parte and was obtained by Madge Knox. By consent of all parties, this injunction was allowed to subsist, until the case was determined in its entirety. Madge’s injunction was more or less the same as the one Colin’s estate had, except that Madge’s injunction also prevented the shareholders of Kingsland from dealing with their shares. Meanwhile, Madge was, on her own admission, using her shares to fund her action. The Privy Council too thought that this was unfair and so it ordered Madge to fortify her payment for security for costs by $300,000 to $1.3 million.
I hope this helps.
Barbados » The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part IX // August 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM
[...] The Other Side Of The Kingsland Estate Court Matter Part IX… PwC has other problems besides Nelson’s Canadian $500 million law suit!” The thrust of Keltruth’s article is to complain about shell companies in Barbados. So, let us examine this carefully. Our example will be an Ontario […] [...]
David // August 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM
We have posted the link which details the cost paid by Nelson.
Keltruth Corp. // August 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I see that J. RANDOLPH ROBINSON has written about the wicked blogs. He had good words to say about BU. Congratulations!
Since Keltruth Corp.’s blog is not anonymous, we were also pleased that we avoided any criticism.
Does anybody actually know J. RANDOLPH ROBINSON? His writing style reminds me of someone.
Amused // August 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Keltruth,
From your latest post on your blog, can I ask do you even know what an IBC is?
I think you may have embarrassed yourself.
It is normal for an IBC not to have a phone number, they are prohibited by law from doing business in Barbados.
Brutus // August 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Keltruth, why don’t you post the last audited financials of Kingsland so we can judge the work of PwC for ourselves?
BWWR // August 21, 2008 at 3:22 AM
Keltruth,
ANYONE who writes anything adverse to your position or fails to praise you to the skies and acknowledge you and your infallability and espouses you points of view – reminds you of someone. And by inference, someone of whom you, and by extension the rest of the world, do not approve. Your paranoia is getting worse and worse. You are now, by your own definition, an emotional vampire. You and your good buddy at the Tourism Authority need meds FAST.
I for one am not surprised that you were not mentioned in Mr Robinson’s review of blogs – and it is not because you are not anonymous, but because, rather than reporting and supporting your reports in an even handed manner so as to allow the Bajan public and other interested parties to make up their own minds, you/BFP produce carefully selected tidbits that will support your views, even if the vast bulk of unreported evidence (all of which you must have in your possession) says that you are a blasted liar – sorry, wrong words – rephrase – have uttered damnable falsehoods.
You are NOT a news blog and have no right to be reviewed as one. You are a public relations blog mouthpiece for Peter Allard and the woman who laid her fortune and future at his feet, Mental Madge. I am sure that when Mr. Robinson gets round to reviewing blogs in your category, whatever that is, he will give you a mention – honourable or dishonourable – as he sees fit.
Please publish the last audited financials for Kingsland. Believe it or not, we do not need the accounting “skills” of Kathy Davis or the great “Prof.” Knox to read and understand them for ourselves. Therefore no commentaries interdispersed with tidbits. The WHOLE document, if you please.
It was you, Keltruth, that placed this issue into the hands of the Court of Public Opinion. For years we have been subjected to your sole side of things. Now, as in any court of law, we, the Bajan Public who are the defendants that your mother is suing, are exercising our rights to cross-examine you. Is it your intention, anonymous or not – we really don’t care, to show the same contempt of the Court of Public Opinion as you have all the other courts that have had the timerity to rule against you? Is it your intention to show the same contempt for the sovereignty of our wonderful country that your paymaster, Allard, has shown? It certainly looks that way to me.
BWWR // August 21, 2008 at 5:04 AM
I seem to be rushing ahead of myself these days and I put that down to jetlag. Yesterday, I wrote to BU in response to Keltruth’s twisting of the issue of shell companies and within a short while of it being posted by BU, my source sent to say that Nelson had paid its court-ordered costs in the amount of approximately Barbados $425,000 – almost half a million.
This morning, I responded to Keltruth’s comments about the article by J. Randolph Robinson without having read it. I had my copy of yesterday’s Nation on my bedside table, but jetlag claimed me last night and in any case, Keltruth did not provide directions on where Mr. Robinson’s article was published. I found that out by entering his name (as provided by Keltruth) and followed by the word “blog” into a google search.
First, I want to say that I will remain anonymous, no matter what Keltruth may wish.
Second, I am not Mr. Robinson. I think you will find that Mr. Robinson is not a nom de plume.
Third, is Keltruth anonymous?
I think Keltruth, from the point of view of the courts, IS anonymous and I think Keltruth knows this. All its articles are attributed to “admin”, but yet there are no less than five different hands at work in them – and I have no intention of disrespecting their anonymity by playing their guessing-games.
I won’t go into the legal minefield of what it would take to sue Keltruth, other than to say that it would cost about US$3 million and take about 15 years. Briefly, you would have to get a final judgment in Barbados and then enforce it in Miami. Then, you would have to pray that the Keltruth Corp. was in fact a registered corporation and also that it was not a shell company. A nightmare.
So, Keltruth ought not to take any comfort from Mr. Robinson’s statement that the blogs to which he refers are anonymous, because, to all intents and purposes, Keltruth IS anonymous.
Mr Robinson discusses a certain action in Toronto (read Ontario) that is being used to fuel the denigration of Barbados by two blogs and he excludes BU from the possible malefactors. So, I recommend that, ignoring the self-serving comments of Keltruth, you go on to Google and ask about lawsuits pending in Toronto/Ontario involving Barbados. You will find that exclusively the blogs that come up are Keltruth, Barbados Free Press and BU – but of course, BU is excluded specifically by Mr. Robinson as being fair and balanced (admitted grudgingly – but hey, it is admitted).
At this point, let me not fall into the Keltruth habit. Mr. Robinson’s article can be read online at http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/309580565601318.php .
Keltruth has been very quick to disclaim that the article refers to it, but we all think differently. We think it applies to Keltruth and BFP. Of course, if Keltruth and BFP wish to object in court, they can do so by suing for defamation. They would both have to identify themselves without ambiguity – that is the names of their writers and, in the case of Keltruth (a foreign business) post a great deal of money in respect of security for costs and, if countersued, damages, with the Barbados courts.
My only reservations about what Mr. Robinson wrote is that in a small society like Barbados, blogs like BU that are operated without bias, serve a vital purpose that is not served by the conventional press. I have taken my precautions to ensure that no court order obtained in Barbados will be enforceable to reveal my identity. This can be done by encryption and I think that blogs are entering a phase when contributors need to NOT rely on existing legislation that can be changed in order to serve a political agenda.
Otherwise, Mr. Robinson has said what I have been saying all along. The sole function of Keltruth and BFP is and always was to denigrate and adversely affect Barbados and its people simply to bludgeon us all into submitting to the outrageous demands of Mental Madge Knox and the little Knox’s, Billy Goat McKenzie, Fishy Heaslet and King Peter Allard.
Wondering // August 21, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Who is the “WE” BWWR refers to in every article and reply? Is BWWR writing for the bajan public? If so I think you need to speak for yourself and not others on this subject BWWR…we can draw our own conclusions thanks.
Keltruth Corp. // August 21, 2008 at 9:16 AM
BWWR,
Thanks for your reply on behalf of J. RANDOLPH ROBINSON.
BWWR // August 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Wondering, I do not seek to speak for the Bajan public, merely a portion of them whom I know who have all asked the same question of Ketruth. I am sure the people to whom I refer as “we” are happy to have me ask the questions for them and we look forward to hearing what your questions are and to reading your conclusions – if any.
BWWR // August 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM
You seem a little agitated, Keltruth. Just reveal all, answer the questions, stop the childish games and realize that we are not children and let the light shine in and you will feel MUCH better.
Wondering // August 21, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I won’t draw a conclusion until the matter is concluded. I await the outcome because it looks like a very complicated situation for all involved. I will say however I see a lot of name calling and sense much agitation in “your” articles. At least we know who keltruth is and why they stand where they are….
BWWR // August 21, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Well, Wondering, there are areas I am not clear on. Maybe you can, since you know who they are, get Keltruth to assist me by answering my questions. As for the rest of it, well the choice of anonymity or lack of it a personal thing. I am too old for the “I’ll show you mine if you show you yours” game. Keltruth and you can go right ahead and show me yours, but understand that is your choice and I am NOT showing you mine.
Pat // August 21, 2008 at 2:52 PM
@ Wondering
You say WE know who Keltruth is and why they stand where they are…
Well, I for one dont. So, could you please explain who they are? And why they stand where they are? While you are at it, could you please also tell me why they have failed to answer my questions? Since you know…..
Amused // August 21, 2008 at 3:39 PM
@wondering
“I won’t draw a conclusion until the matter is concluded. I await the outcome”
———
dont forget we have had an “outcome” in the high court, the court of appeal and the British privy council.
if there is another negative outcome for keltruth in toronto will that “conclude” it for you?
will we need more?
Wondering // August 21, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Mussolini has joined us! Hey Pat. Now ladies I merely pointed out the obvious hate/dislike that BWWR has for the Knox family. But you see this is why I have resisted posting on this blog….question you BWWR and a witch hunt ensues.
BWWR has been so nice as to point out the identity of Keltruth every article posted so you should ask “her” if you are unsure Pat. Not to mention how forthcoming Keltruth has been in revealing her identity.
And yes WE the bloggers know the IDENTITY of Keltruth since it had been made so clear by the blogger posting as Keltruth and you BWWR. If I pitched marbles with them I would gladly get them to answer your questions BWWR and Pat. A lot I am not clear on myself.
I frankly don’t care who you are BWWR. But I do have respect for Keltruth for not hiding behind anonymity when posting articles relating to the Kingsland Estates fiasco. It gives some credibility. The cards are on the table so to speak.
I have been a keen reader of both sides to this story and I try to approach it subjectively and hope to draw my own conclusions once all the facts have come to light (if that ever happens). I like to be neutral in most subjects as it leads to a lot less stress on my mind. But get real here ladies…you may try to play it down but something stinks in this case.
Now BWWR your articles make for great reading and I am glad another side is being told but lose the personal attacks and name calling. Coupling those with serious subject matter make it no more than “propaganda” and seriously undermine your credibility.
Anyway, I will return to the woodwork for I fear I am fighting a losing battle trying to get you to exercise some restraint so we can take your articles seriously. As they say, you can’t teach an “old” dog new tricks and we all know that arguing with the much more experienced “elderly” is like arguing with a piece of board.
I bid thee farewell.
Pat // August 21, 2008 at 5:28 PM
@ Wondering
“But get real here ladies…you may try to play it down but something stinks in this case.”
You sure got that right. Go read the judgment possted in the above ariticle.
The Justice stated that Mrs. Knox had no legal right to put aside the agreement entered into by the other shareholders and Classic ( and he quoted the Case Law). The Justice further stated that the Directors all acted in good faith – they themselves were shareholders and not outsiders. He also said that NO ONE received financial statements, not the Directors, not Madge Knox, because Kingsland did not have the money to pay for such, and it seems to me, that Mrs. Knox knew that.
So, pray tell us why this matter is still being pursued in the courts? It does stink!
over n away // August 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I saw something somewhere about a $22 million debt the Government owed Kingsland since 1990 which was for the credit of SBG and then Classic. I will try to find where I saw that written down.
Something real stink here for true.
Pat // August 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM
@ over n away
I think I recall that the government did owe Kinglsland money ($2 million?). However, I also read where Kingsland owed the Agricultural Credit Trust some $12 million. However, I also read that there were injunctions filed against Kingsland where all the assets were frozen, and therefore monies could not be disbursed.
over n away // August 21, 2008 at 10:03 PM
I saw $22 million from 1990. Did not see that any injunctions were filed. Tomorrow I will search for where I saw it.
Brutus // August 22, 2008 at 12:29 AM
BWWR,
Many thanks for posting the original judgment and the appeal – they are very interesting from a legal point of view. Fortunately I just discovered the series of articles by Pat Hoyos (referred to by other bloggers) and they are even more enlightening.
http://www.broadstreetnews.com/index.php?categoryid=24&p2_start=0
Brutus // August 22, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Classic Investments offers to buy Marjorie Knox’s shares in Kingsland Estates Ltd.
Patrick R. Hoyos Published: September 2, 2005
Just over a month after being allocated nearly 5,000 shares in Kingsland Estates, Classic Investments has made an offer to Marjorie Knox to buy her shares for $52.50 per share.
In a letter to Mrs. Knox dated August 23, Managing Director Richard Cox told Mrs. Knox that Classic’s offer to acquire over 25% of the Kingsland shares had been accepted by all of the other shareholders, apart from her.
Mrs. Knox, who is 83, took the family-owned company to court over what she claimed was a breach of her pre-emptive right to be offered shares before a non-shareholder, but lost twice in the Barbados courts and also at the Privy Council. Hers was the last case from Barbados to be heard by the Privy Council, which has now been superceded by the Caribbean Court of Justice.
In the letter, Classic offered to buy Mrs, Knox’ entire shareholding, or any part she was willing to sell. With 28,570 shares, the offer would appear to be worth nearly $1.5 million to Mrs. Knox.
However, in a reply to Mr. Cox dated Wednesday, August 31, Mrs. Knox said she was prepared to sell all of her shares to Classic, but at a somewhat higher price. Quoting two independent valuations of the company’s 1,020 acres made in 2003 by Chartered Town Planner Leonard St. Hill and Veteran Realtor Nick Parravicino, Mrs. Knox said she was prepared to accept one-seventh of Mr. Parravicino’s appraisal plus one-seventh of monies which she said the government owed to Kingsland for lands it had acquired but to her knowledge had not as yet paid for.
With Mr. Parravicino valuing Kingsland at $225 million Barbados dollars in December 2003, that puts Mrs. Knox’ asking price in the region of $32 million dollars plus the value of the land acquired by the government.
This valuation was based, he noted on achieving an average price of $5 per sq. ft. on all 1,033 acres.
But Mr. Parravacino went further. He stated that a price of $8 per sq. ft, and in some cases $50, was “realistic and achievable” and thus the worth of the land could be as high as $348 million.
As for the government, two pending acquisitions had been noted in the 1997 sale agreement between Classic and Kingsland: specifically, nearly 16 acres at Kendal Hill, Christ Church, and about 8,000 sq. ft. at Wotton for a roundabout on the ABC Highway. The notice to acquire Kendall Hill was gazetted as long ago as December 1990.
No value has as yet been assigned to these two properties, but some estimates put their value alone at more than the original $17 million offered for the entire company and its debts by Classic.
The negotiations for both pieces of land were mentioned in the sales agreement, to the effect that the purchaser – Classic – would “participate in the negotiations with Government concerning the compensation.”
If Classic were to purchase all of Kingsland’s original 200,000 shares at $52.50, it would pay just over $10.25 million for them, plus assume some or all of Kingsland’s debt.
BWWR // August 22, 2008 at 8:29 AM
There were two injunctions in force in respect of Kingsland, as I have said earlier. One from 1997 to 2005 and the other from 1998 to 2005.
Brutus, your facts may well be correct, but I don’t know. You appear to have access to documents which I do not. I would be very pleased if you would post them so I can see for myself.
However, with respect, I do not think that the articles of Patrick Hoyos in September 2005 are of any merit at all in the issues before a Canadian court as has been discussed here. These issues deal with a case that was filed in October 1998, completed hearing in December 1999 and was ruled on in June 2001, was appealed and had its appeal decided in 2003 and then, three months before the Hoyos article, in June 2005 was ruled on by the Privy Council. During all this time, by virtue of the two injunctions, Kingsland did not operate and the directors lacked the legal capacity to do anything with the Kingsland and its assets.
Those time lines that I have stressed repeatedly are important. For a final time and very briefly, let me re-stress them.
1997, October and the other Kingsland shareholders offer to sell their shares to Madge and she refuses. 1997, December 17 the other shareholders enter into a BINDING LEGAL AGREEMENT IN WRITING to sell their shares to Classic. 1997, December 19 the directors of Kingsland receive an offer from Peter Allard to buy 2 ½ acres of beach front property and to refinance Kingsland and sundry other issues – because of the December 17 agreement, the refuse as to do otherwise would expose them to a lawsuit from Classic. That is the end of 1997’s events.
1998, October and Madge Knox offers for the shares already committed to Classic on the basis that she has a right of first refusal under the articles of Kingsland. The other shareholders do not agree and Madge Knox sues them and Kingsland and Classic to enforce her alleged right.
1999, and the case completes hearing.
2001, June and the High Court rules against Madge Knox on the basis that under the articles, Classic is a selected person and she has no rights superior to those of a selected person. Madge, on consent of all parties, appeals to the Barbados Court of Appeal.
2003. The Barbados Court of Appeal denies the Appeal and upholds the judgment of Greenidge J. On consent of all parties, Madge appeals to the Privy Council.
2005, June. The Privy Council denies the Appeal and upholds the decisions of Greenidge J. and the Barbados Court of Appeal.
THEN, if you are correct, in September of 2005, in order to provide the shareholders of Kingsland with audited financial returns, I am told – but it is largely not material – Kingsland sells 500 of its 100,000 un-issued shares to Classic. Also, Classic makes an offer to Madge for $52.50 per share, being the increment from $30 a share that it is now prepared to pay to the other Kingsland shareholders in recognition of the 8 years that it has taken for Madge’s litigation to be determined, I would imagine. Madge provides details of this offer to Pat Hoyos. Madge rejects the offer as is her right which no one has questioned. I also sincerely doubt that Pat Hoyos was fed by Mental Madge ALL of the documents. Just look at the problems we have getting them to answer any questions or post any documents adverse to their position. Experience teaches us that Mr. Hoyos’ information from the Knox faction cannot be other than completely one-sided.
However, even if Madge had accepted the Classic offer of September 2005, it would have gone nowhere as it stood, because you see she had already been served with notice of proceedings back in 2002 by the estate of Colin Deane and its executor. So, she and Classic would have had to barter a deal with Colin’s estate and executor – easily solved, by the way – just pay the legal costs ordered by the Courts and there goes the charging order and the reason for seeking same. No one has yet shown me that any such effort was made.
The alleged $17 million, of which I have not seen any proof whatsoever, that Classic would allegedly share in was not to the benefit of Classic alone, but to the benefit of all the Kingsland shareholders, of which Madge is one, in that it would put the company on a more secure financial basis. So the idea that Classic alone would benefit from this cannot be correct. Madge too, as a shareholder, would benefit from the improved financial solvency of Kingsland.
Also, I don’t know why it seems so very difficult for some people to understand that the value of shares in any company is determined by what someone is prepared to pay for them and it does not mean that because you own X% of shares in a company that those shares are worth that percentage of the assets of the company. As far as transfer tax is concerned, the value of shares for that purpose is determined by the Corporate Registry, which had set that in 2005 at $40 per share. Therefore, Classic may have thought it was being generous by offering $52.50 to Mrs Knox. Anyway, it is a moot point. She decided to reject the offer and I don’t think anyone would question her right to do so. Is there any evidence that I am missing that has been posted that shows that someone has disputed her right to refuse the offer? I would like to see it. But absent that, with respect, the valuations of the assets of Kingsland by no matter who are not of relevance. Classic offered in 2005 what it thought was a fair price and Madge Knox rejected it. End of story. She keeps her shares, or will keep whatever is left of them after Colin’s estate has satisfied its claims for its costs of defending its right to sell its shares for the best offer that was on the table at the time. I think too that a brief, very brief, examination of the two offers is in order. Classic’s offer apparently, according to Keltruth, was $6 million for Colin’s shares and we see that he owned 28,750 of them. So you can work out that price for yourself – BUT, please factor in that Colin’s estate also had a law suit (and injunction) pending against Kingsland and so it has to be assumed that part of the reputed $6 million paid by Classic was to settle this lawsuit out of court. Contrast this with Madge’s reputed offer of $3.60 per share and I am told that Madge made no effort to address the matter of settlement of the outstanding litigation.
Bottom line: which would anyone accept? $6 million, or $102,852? And once bound to sell to Classic contractually and Madge, having no right of preemption or first refusal, would you undertake the expense of a lawsuit against Classic when it enforced through the Courts its right to purchase?
What has bothered me all along has been the picture of alleged downright malpractice and mala fides provided by Keltruth and BFP and, with respect, by omission Mr. Hoyos himself with respect to, not only the Barbados High Court and Court of Appeal, but, according to Keltruth and BFP and by omission, to BSJ, on the part of the Privy Council. It didn’t add up. Then, the Heaslet fishing expeditions with Peter Simmons in which BFP and Keltruth, while sounding off as loudly as they could about them, failed to publish. I started to question the reports I was reading – and with, as it turns out to my satisfaction, very good reason. Too much bleating by Keltruth and BFP and, in my experience, when something bleats, it is usually a goat. This certainly turned out to be a little billy goat.
But that is not all. As I see it, this case is one dealing with private, individual Bajans in a private company registered under the Laws of Barbados and subject to Barbados courts and laws. There is no role here that I can ascertain for the Barbados Government or the people of Barbados, other than as the proper jurisdiction and authority within that jurisdiction. Why then is Barbados and its government and institutions being sued in Canada and, moreover, held up to ridicule and denigration in the international community? Me no understand. Mental Madge complained to the Privy Council and lost. What makes her think that the Canadian courts have either the jurisdiction or superior competence to re-try this action?
The matters discussed in the Hoyos article deal with issues within the scope and authority of the Barbados courts, not Canadian courts and no effort that I can see has been made to bring these complaints that happened post the unfreezing of the Kingsland assets before the Barbados courts. If anyone has any issues post the unfreezing of the Kingsland assets, they ought to be brought for adjudication in BARBADOS not CANADA. To my mind, these are brought in Canada as a means of retrying the matters complained of to the Privy Council. That is an abuse of process. What are they trying to say. “Last time we sued, we lost, so let us try another country?” For all of any of us knows, they MAY have a case that will succeed for matter that occurred post 2005. The fact that they have tried to bring it in Canada makes it seem to me that they do not and are trying for a nuissance-value settlement. Ambulance-chasing lawyers tactics.
When I managed to gain access to the court documents in the Canadian action, it became very clear to me that it was indeed an attempt to re-try a matter already adjudicated. Also, the lack of any legal substance at all REALLY bothered me.
I admit that we are dealing with sharks. Cox had clearly got a very valuable property by trading on the need for money of a lot of very old people, but at least he paid them about $1.5 million each, instead of the $103,000 that Madge was trying to force them to accept. So based on that, who is the bigger shark?
Finally, I have no doubt that the transfer of Madge Knox’s shares to this trust in Miami and the charging of same and the alleged transfer to Peter Allard and from Peter Allard to Nelson Barbados is fraud and I have no doubt that the Barbados courts will so decide and declare the transfers null and void. It is not a complex case – it is fraud pure and simple and as such cannot survive. How then can Nelson bring its action? Answer is that it lacks the standing to do so – and I cannot believe that Nelson took on what appears to be a $4.3 million dollar outlay of capital to “acquire” these shares without doing due diligence and finding all this out. Moreover, as this fraud action (in the Barbados courts) pre-dates the incorporation of Nelson by some years, one has to assume that Nelson took legal advice of competent Barbados legal counsel, who would certainly have advised it that it would lack the standing to bring the action it has and, moreover, the payment of Madge Knox of $4.3 million was a very bad gamble.
Anyway, I expect that there will be a hiatus for the time being in this issue, except, of course, for Keltruth and BFP. My undertaking to BU and its readers is that I will, whenever they become available to me, post any documents that come my way – with my comments as is my right. Also, I will continue to respect and take on board any opinions, whether or not they accord with my own – and I will readily admit when I am wrong, but fight my corner when I think I am right. Mostly, however, while accepting that there are lots of things in our country that need to be addressed and changed, I believe that we are quite capable of doing this for ourselves and I will fight to the last breath in my body to advance that right and I will have no mercy now or ever on people like Mental Madge and her cronies headed by Mr. Allard who seek to denigrate us and call our humanity, fairness, integrity and the capacity to administer our country and its laws into international disrepute, simply because they did not get – and will NEVER get – what they want.
over n away // August 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I am sure I saw the $22 million the government owes to Kingsland from 1990 mentioned in the Nation newspaper some time ago but I cannot find the article yet.
I searched this blog.
Thanks to BWWR here it is http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/john-knox-affidavit-1.pdf
Read paragraph 102. I cannot find exhibit P to see what it says.
Brutus // August 22, 2008 at 9:08 PM
BWWR,
In my last post I simply reproduced the entire Hoyos article – none of that is my own commentary.
You are correct, that article has little relevance to the Canadian case, but for those who are interested, this article may be relevant:
______________________________
By Patrick Hoyos Published: March 2, 2006
Peter Allard’s law firm, Gowling Lafleur Henderson of Ottawa has written to Prime Minister Owen Arthur and Attorney General Dale Marshall this week advising them that Mr. Allard has elected to proceed to arbitration over the Kingsland Estates matter.
Mr. Allard’s lawyers say he is proceeding according to the Additional Facility Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which was established by the World Bank to handle disputes between investors and contracting states, of which Barbados is one.
In a statement issued by Sean Moore of Gowlings, the firm says it has also presented to the Barbados Government Mr. Allard’s list of suggested arbitrators for the dispute and have asked the Barbadian Government to do likewise.
Mr. Allard’s basis for seeking international arbitration is that the government of Barbados is in violation of both Barbadian law and a number of international agreements, including the Barbados-Canada Foreign Investment Protection Agreement – FIPA (also known as the Canada-Barbados Bilateral Investment Treaty or BIT).
The FIPA with Canada requires both countries to provide “diligent compensation at fair-market value” for expropriated property.
Land at Kingsland Estates (KEL) has been compulsorily acquired over the years by the Government of Barbados but no compensation has been provided to date. The failure of the Government of Barbados to pay for the land, Mr. Allard claims, has suppressed of the value of the Kingsland Estates shares.
Mr. Allard, originally from Vancouver and now a resident of Barbados, is well-known for establishing and developing Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary at Worthing, Ch. Ch.
Mr. Allard acquired his stake in Kingsland Estates Ltd. by covering more than $1.75-million US dollars in legal expenses incurred by Mrs. Marjorie Knox, a minority shareholder in KEL, a company founded by her father more than 60 years ago.
Mrs. Knox has claimed for many years that her minority rights in Kingsland have been oppressed and the company is in danger of being taken over by corporate interests that would be able to acquire its land holdings for a fraction of its real worth. Kingsland owns 1,000 acres of land in the south of the island, where much urban and tourism-related development has been taking place.
Brutus // August 22, 2008 at 9:53 PM
BWWR,
Like Bush Tea (and no doubt many other readers) I am just trying to figure out if the old lady got robbed or not. And in particular, I would like to know what role was played in the affair by some of those named in the Canadian lawsuit.
Having read the judgments, I think that poor Madge never really had a chance of succeeding. My understanding is that she had the opportunity to buy out the other shareholders at $30 per share but my take on it is that she tried to stall because she did not have the financing; and by the time she found a financial backer it was too late as the other shareholders had already entered into agreements with Classic. She tried to justify her stalling by arguing in court about the pre-emptive rights and that the offer to her was not on the same terms as the offer to Classic – but these arguments in my view had no chance of succeeding and this was confirmed by the Privy Council.
The asset valuations, with respect, are indeed relevant because they establish that the company was worth a lot more than was offered by Classic. However the truth of the matter is that Madge had the opportunity to buy them at the same price (even though on less favourable terms). I suspect that if she had been able to raise the funds quickly enough she (and her backer) would have been very happy to buy the shares at the price.
We will probably never know why the other shareholders agreed to sell, but remember that the company had been in poor financial condition for a long time. No doubt it was becoming very stressful for every one and threatening to tear the family apart, and so perhaps they just wanted it to be over. On the other hand, perhaps there were other more sinister factors involved.
The Canadian case however is interesting because of the issue of government failing to pay for expropriated lands. Was there a grand conspiracy to hasten the financial demise of Kingsland and depress the value of its shares?
I can’t imagine that this question will ever be resolved definitively, but I suspect that if we knew the beneficial owners of Classic the picture would become a lot clearer.
I am not sure what Allard’s angle is, as I assume that he could easily have absorbed his early financial losses and just let the matter go. It seems to have gotten very personal now, and perhaps he is just trying to embarrass the people in Barbados who he believe wronged him. Don’t forget (if we are to believe Hoyos) that Allard had been trying to acquire some of Kingsland’s property and that Classic and Allard had some kind of alliance that went sour.
At any rate, I am just speculating. The more information that we are given, the more it becomes clear how much we do NOT know.
over n away // August 23, 2008 at 9:53 AM
All I can see so far is that family ripped off family from within and used outside power to do it.
Pat // August 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM
@ over n away
I did not gather that. I think those that wanted to sell, they were very poor and old by the time and practically hand to mouth, as the plantations had stopped producing since 1990, sold and Madge who did not, still has her shares. If the land is valued as much as John Knox implies, then she is a rich woman. If so, then she should sell some or all and pay her outstanding judgments. I cant see her working with Classic the majority share holder after taking them to court.
BWWR // August 24, 2008 at 9:18 AM
My apologies for not responding sooner, but I was not feeling too well for a few days after my trip – when you reach over 80, you have to be more careful.
Brutus, I cannot argue with you on this one. I happen to think exactly as you do. I note that you say that the Canadian case is interesting. You do not say that it is right. I agree that it is interesting for precisely the reasons you set out. However, it is none-the-less a disgraceful abuse of process and of the people of Barbados.
Pat, you are as always, correct and have put your finger right on the heart of the question as I see it. If Mr. Allard has the money to commence and start all these no-hope actions, then he has the money to pay off Madge’s costs, keep her interest in Kingsland secure and capitalise on it. I can see absolutely no error in the judgments of Greenidge, Chase or the Privy Council. Actually, as I have said, the case ought never to have been brought.
I personally have been wanting to acquire a particular property for many years, but the owners do not want to sell. So that is it. What makes Allard think he can force someone to sell something to him?
My suspicion is that Allard financed the Knox action on the undertaking that Madge would sell him the beach properties for far less than their value. The action failed and the properties were sold to someone else. Allard wants revenge and, rather than identify the opportunity to share in the profits that Kingsland will make which, according to John Knox, are enormous, he has chosen revenge. Cut your nose off to spite you face. Clearly Mr Allard has inherited his wealth, otherwise he would be looking to capitalise on what remains, rather than seeking to revenge himself for losses.
over n away, I did not post the exhibits to the John Knox affidavit, simply because the file was too large and would not send. However, if you would like BU’s readers to see that exhibit P, why do you not post it, since you have clearly seen it and are intimately acquainted with it? Go ahead. It is I am told, a letter from the Canadian High Commissioner to Barbados to a partner of the prestigeous law firm of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, which was representing Nelson (under another name) and Allard. I wonder why Gowlings is no longer on this case. It is a firm far better suited to this kind of litigation than some half-baked little goat pen in Orillia. My suspicion is that Allard could not get Gowlings to expose itself through this kind of abuse of process and had, instead, to retain farmyard stock where the standards are lower.
Pat // August 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM
BWWR
Gowling & Henderson has a national reputation to maintain. They hire only from the top 2% of law grads to work in the firm. One of my neighbours started out there. They are so busy, the now run a 24 hour service and the new young lawyers have the evening/night shifts, but they pay very, very, very well.
Brutus // August 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM
In an article by Pat Hoyos, dated June 29/05, about the Privy Council decision, he states “Meanwhile, two years ago Mrs. Knox filed a separate lawsuit against Kingsland claiming it acted oppressively against her interests.”
Does anyone know anything about this lawsuit?
Brutus // August 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM
According to Knox’s affidavit (para. 95), after acquiring Kingsland, Classic obtained a loan to pay (at least in part) for the Kingsland shares and purchase the BACT mortgage, using the assets of Kingsland as collateral.
Now, if true, that was truly a classic move!
Brutus // August 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I agree with over n away – it would be useful to see Exhibit P to Knox’s affidavit referring to the $22,000,000 owed to Kingsland by government.
BWWR // August 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I didn’t know that Gowlings now had a 24 hour service. Very interesting, Pat. It makes sense though, as nowadays if you want to do business internationally, because of the datelines you would have to do it that way. Would not have suited me at all.
I hope over n away will post it exhibit P. I don’t make any promises, but I will see what I can do to get a copy and post it if over n away is not able to get a copy.
The separate lawsuit. I have heard about it. It is against certain named directors (former) of Kingsland, but in their capacities as directors. I understand that all of the defendants are ready to ‘rumble’, but that Madge’s counsel cannot seem to make the effort to have it set down for hearing. So my information is yes, the lawsuit exists – and no, Madge seems very reluctant to have it heard. My gut feeling is that the reluctance has to do with the fact that it is probably res judicata (already tried and decided).
I believe the case in question was filed in 2001, just after Greenidge J had ruled against Madge.
For what it is worth, in the case she lost before the Privy Council, Madge sued Kingsland’s directors, not only as shareholders, but also in their capacities as directors. She complained of and lost both at first instance and on appeal, of oppression, but abandoned this complaint before the Privy Council – it was not a part of the grounds of her Privy Council appeal, which means that she had accepted the judgment that she was NOT oppressed – by the directors. My gut feeling is that this is another nonsense action. If I can get hold of the pleadings in the case, I will post them. No promises. I am pretty sure that the courts will rule that the case is already tried and determined. It explains the lack of haste with which it has been prosecuted. It was filed at least 5 years ago, if it is the one I have heard discussed. It is my experience that when a lawyer knows he is up a gum tree, he delays for all he is worth, then when it goes to trial, talks and talks and talks – for days, while opposing counsel have usually said all they have to say in an hour or hour and a half maximum.
Brutus, I agree it is most certainly a classic. While I deplore things like that, I still have to admire it – and there is NOTHING illegal about it. It shocks and disgusts me, while at the same time I have to admire the neatness of it, as compared to the ham-handed tactics of Madge and Allard. I mean, buy Kingsland with Kingsland. If that is what happened.
But has any of this got to do with Barbados and its people? Why are our systems, our country, our insitutions and our elected representatives being represented as some banana republic with no competence to self-rule. Why are we being sued? Why is this old Bajan divorcee and the Canadian trying to denegrate us in the international community? Answer: Spite and malice.
Pat // August 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Well Brutus finally picked up on the manouvre of all manouvres. I suggested earlier, I think to BT, that Madge should have bought another block and leverage thos 52,000 shares to get a loan to purchase the rest. No one saw the efficacy of it. Good for Classic. I would have done the same.
Pat // August 24, 2008 at 6:42 PM
BWWR
Gowling & Henderson had 3 shifts. I hired an intern whose fiancee was on the 4:00 pm to midnight. There were always lawyers in the offices over night and they had a suite of bedrooms with showers. That was in 2001. They had an evening maid who came in and cooked meals for the evening and night people.
Bush tea // August 24, 2008 at 8:10 PM
After all the enlightenment,
I have a ‘foolish’ question for the two ladies, Pat and BWWR.
I accept your position which, as I read it, says “hard luck to Madge, but business is business and that is the way the cookie crumbles.”
In Bush tea’s simple mind, a simple old woman has been out maneuvered out of her inheritance by smart, savvy, but heartless business people, using the Law as their weapon of choice. (I know she still own shares – and that these have value – her legal fees will no doubt cancel this)
So…
How come you two are so peeved by her (completely legal) action of taking the matter through what ever available court system (as no doubt is her right)?
…..is there some rule that once you have been legally shafted, you are REQUIRED to go away quietly and let the victors enjoy their spoil?
…And if Bush tea’s perspective is shared by Madge and her team, why should they not seek to condemn the whole society that would condone such a system where the ones with the best legal clout gets to take what ever spoils they should target?
Indeed, to my mind, if indeed such maneuvering is indeed business as usual in Barbados, then it exposes a cancer that needs to be addressed.
Any society that fails to protect the weakest among its citizens, and fails to guarantee FAIRNESS in the face of bullying – whether physical or legal.
It is also particularly noteworthy that you two (women) have chosen to adopt the legalistic rather that a humanistic attitude to the issue.
…well maybe it is more than one question…
Pat // August 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM
BT,
Not only in Barbados. That type of thing is legal in many countries. It is done in real estate on a daily basis – leverage, leverage, leverage. Oh, dont get me wrong, I think Madge was right to hold on to her shares, especially if she knew or thought that the land would be worth more in the future. What I take issue with is the whole lot of court cases, rather than sitting on her nest egg, and letting Classic or whomever improve the property to her benefit. I call it a case of throwing good money after bad. It is all the court costs that may end up leaving her poor.
Remember BT, nobody took Madge to court. It is the other way around. I was very sympathetic to Madge and her case from reading BFP and said some cruel things about the alleged wrongoers. However, after reading the documents that BWWR posted I changed allegiance.
Right now I am sitting with two dogs in my portfolio, but do I unload them? Naw, I am hoping for a silver lining.
Bush tea // August 24, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Pat,
If I find myself in any kind of legal turmoil, I will be seeking advice from you and BWWR. (pro bono of course…), but not if any kind of compassion is needed. …LOL
Suppose the case is that Madge is not driven by the money? What if she desired only to continue her accustomed lifestyle in peace? Does she not have that RIGHT? Your logic only works if money is the ultimate objective…
…lets say I am a multi -billionaire and I take a liking to your neighborhood. You have lived there all your life and would like nothing more than to live out your life in peace and die in peace.
All your mercenary neighbors sell out….and as dominant neighbor, I proceed to completely reorganize your whole neighborhood – completely shattering your world…
…you COULD take the money and be rich, but you ONLY want peace and quiet…. I suppose you would just move quietly to a new quiet neighborhood and wait for the next move… (yea right!!)
Red Lake Lassie // August 25, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Nelson company paid BDS$425,000 in costs!!!
That was so they could continue their court case!!!
They must be pretty sure about winning to do that IMHO. I’m impressed.
I read somewhere on one of the blogs (I forget which one) that none of the foundational issues surrounding Kingsland Estates have ever been heard before any court. So far it has been nothing but lawyers wrangling over what evidence will be allowed, where the trial should be held, who should be sued and if a trial should be held.
Delay, delay, delay is what lawyers do and if I had a lawyer and I was afraid of losing I would want the best one to do that delaying to wear out the other side.
But I feel it is inaccurate to state that this Kingland Estates matter has been heard in any substantive way before any court.
Nelson corporation obviously have deep pockets and if they made that kind of money they are no fools. IMHO they are pushing to get the case to a trial where the defendants can’t hide behind lawyers.
Laaaaaaaaawd I would love to see some of the big names on that list being forced to testify under oath about what they did or did not do about the valuable land that is at the centre of the dispute!
Maybe we will have the chance to hear why some of those names are on the defendants’ list!
Amused // August 25, 2008 at 1:33 AM
ok bfp
BWWR // August 25, 2008 at 3:58 AM
Red Lake Lassie, you are easily impressed. If Allard breaks wind, you are impressed by the “bouquet”. I expect you to be impressed when Nelson loses the jurisdictional motion and to see it as a victory for Nelson. I will be disappointed if you are not impressed by Madge when she loses the fraud action and is branded a fraudster. Poor you.
Bush Tea, I expect that the other Kingland shareholders, most of them older than Madge, also had dreams of a quiet life. After working all their lives and supporting Madge and her children totally, maybe they had some expectation too of a quiet life. And Keltruth, please do not tell me about how Madge, age 16, went to keep house for Vere at Adams Castle and worked like hell raising chickens. You see, I remember it. Miss Madge keeping house by giving orders to maids and yard staff and then going off with her various boyfriends. She never actually raised a hand as far as house or chickens were concerned and she didn’t cook, because Vere and she would travel the tremendous distance (about one mile) from Adams Castle to Kingsland to take their meals there. Marriage for Madge was not a move into her husband’s house, but into a house supplied by her family – with full domestic staff and all taxes and utilities paid by the Deanes. Children’s school fees paid by the Deanes not Knox. Today, she lives rent free in a house now owned by Classic, whom she is suing, along with the startlingly successful “Prof” Jhn Knox who, like Mummy, has never paid a cent of rent either – takes after dear old Dad. So, because she wants to continue her hardworking life – giving orders to servants is, I am told, hard work – the rest of her family who supported her and her children from the day she was born must sacrifice for her any prospect of their comfort and ease in their old age. Try that angle, Bush Tea.
Pat, as always, right on target.
Oh, by the way, Red Lake Lassie, why some of those names are on the defendant’s list in the Ontario action? That is what we would all like to find out. We have read the pleadings and the affidavits of the Nelson principal affiant, the great Prof. Knox, and we cannot ascertain one single reason why they are there. And by “we” I mean a group of my friends worldwide, most of us formerly in the legal or corporate field, who are confounded.
However, we know why the Country of Barbados and its most senior officers are there – to try to give some credence to the jurisdictional correctness of Canada. Pat will know what I mean when I say that this is a fiction to try to claim rights under a bilateral trade agreement.
So, once again, I go to the heart of the issue as I see it. How dare this ancient, privileged divorcee who has never worked a day in her life bring an action against and try to denigrate our country and adversely affect our people, simply to fuel her own and her master (Allard)’s vengeance because Barbados applied its laws and refused to subvert them at the whim of Allard? As far as I am concerned, the Deanes and Kinsland and Madge and Allard can tear themselves to pieces – SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT HARM (OR TRY TOHARM) BARBADOS. But Knox and Allard and their mouthpieces, Keltruth and BFP are trying to cause harm to Barbados as a pressure tactic to get us to go against our own laws.
BWWR // August 25, 2008 at 4:10 AM
Bush Tea, Pat can work for you pro bono if she likes. Me, however, I did a LOT of pro bono work before I retired and I paid my dues. So, like the old Deanes, I putting my feet up, except when somebody tries to harm my homeland. My patriotism is the only thing now that will make me work. I suspect, but I will not speak for her, that Pat is the same as me.
But yes, I know you are joking.
Bush tea // August 25, 2008 at 5:58 AM
I have to say BWWR though, that your personal dislike for Madge and her lifestyle shows.
I am not clear why you would be so upset that she lived as though she was ‘born with a silver spoon in her mouth’ as my mother used to say.
You come across as having a personal grudge which colours your perspective and drives your legal position.
She WAS rich, why should she not live the way she wanted. We all have our idiosyncrasies….
Anonymous // August 25, 2008 at 8:30 AM
BWWR
Comes acros as a nasty,vindictive liar.
I believe nothing that person has to say – something seems very fishy about all of this so called information that they are giving which they say they are doing :”just because they love their country’.
Yeah,right go tell that to the birds.
Sargeant // August 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM
@BT
Caution is the word, the stakes are high but this appears to be a family squabble. The fact that BWWR knows so much intimate details of the Deane’s life implies more than a passing acquaintance.
BTW, The Sheraton Centre sits on land originally owned by Adam’s Castle plantation
no name // August 25, 2008 at 8:51 AM
The Madge Knox I know is a good and kind woman who has worked hard and existed on a limited budget.
May the good Lord bless her and guide her through these very difficult times.
Pat // August 25, 2008 at 5:48 PM
@BT
lol!. You have many legal friends, old Cawmerians. You dont need me. Besides partners dont like it when I give their better halves advice. Cant figure out why!
By the way, I have been looking for ‘compassion’ all my life. Have not found him yet. When I do, I will open my door wide and invite him in. Take his hat and brolly and entertain him. hahahaha
BWWR // August 27, 2008 at 8:14 AM
My position has always been clear. Somebody sued my country. Certain blogs that support that body have been doing their best to denigrate and degrade my country in international eyes. Madge Knox has represented herself on those blogs as being an old widow woman. She has never fessed up to being a divorcee, but has traded instead on the natural sympathy that anyone may feel for an old widow and she has never admitted that the most of the people she originally sued are even older than she was/is. She has portrayed herself as a POOR black widow woman dependant on chickens and eggs for her livliehood. Since I knew this was all untrue, I asked a few people who are involved in the actions before the courts to let me have sight of the documents. Yes, I have inside knowledge. As a Barbadian whose country (which means me too) is being sued, I have a right to inform myself why. If commentators do not choose to inform themselves why they are being sued, they are delinquent in their duty as citizens.
The picture I have of Madge Knox ill accords with the sweet, little old lady. Rather, it fits that of a charming con artist.
Now, read what Keltruth has posted and what I, as a defendant by virtue of my Bajan citizenship, have posted.
Do I have a vested interest? YOU BET. So does every other Bajan. We are ALL OF US sued.
I also do not understand why the Madge Knox/Peter Allard supporters keep on trying to deflect the interest of Bajans from the fact that Madge Knox and Peter Allard have sued THEM! That is the central issue. Notice every time I mention that how they try to change the focus? They hope that Bajans will be redirected so that they will not have to explain why they have sued us. I intend to keep them on point.
My personal feelings towards Madge Knox arethat I have never liked her and I have known her almost 80 years. I have always considered he to be a self-serving con artist and a leech. I don’t care how ol she is, by sacrificing our country for the interests of herself and Peter Allard, she proves my point. Am I angry? Hell, yes. So should all of you be. Go ahead and prove with documents that I am wrong and I will apologise.
For years now I have read the outpourings of the Knox supporters and come to the conclusion that it was none of my business. The MOMENT they sued Barbados, it all of our business. We have a duty to infrom ourselves, otherwise we are like the peron who refuses to vote and then complains about the government. We are like the person who listens to political rhetoric and decides without proper investigation what to believe. In other words, we are suckers – and I have no intention of ever being a sucker if I can help it.
no name // August 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM
BWWR,
you are a stranger to the truth.
“On the matter of the money owed by government, my recollection (which is certainly subject to correction) was that it was just about $1 million or so. If anyone has any information as to how much this was in fact, I think we would all like to know a specific figure.”
You are the person who posted the information which says $22 million was owed by the Government to Kingsland.
You obviously have a very deep personal bitterness towards Madge Knox.
I was sent an e-mail recently which is very fitting here. I will look for it and post.
no name // August 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM
This was sent to me by e-mail ecently.
“Two wolves.
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a
battle that goes on inside people.
He said, “ My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’
inside us all.”
One is Evil. – It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow,
regret, greed, arrogance,
self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false
pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. – It is joy, peace, love, hope,
serenity, humility, kindness,
benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and
your faith.’
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked
his grandfather: ‘ Which wolf wins? ‘
The old Cherokee simply replied, ‘ The one you feed. ‘”
Brutus // August 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Keltruth, perhaps you should help us out by posting the last audited financial statements of Kingsland.
no name // August 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Brutus,
Perhaps BWWR could post them here on BU.
Brutus // August 27, 2008 at 12:08 PM
no name, I didn’t want to be so bold as to suggest that but I was hoping.
For those who are interested, Keltruth has posted Exhibit P to Knox’s affidavit, the letter from the Canadian High Commission related to the $22M offered by government.
BWWR // August 28, 2008 at 5:19 AM
Thank you, Keltruth, for posting this very interesting letter. With the lead-in you had given, I wondered if I were adding to my antiquity by becoming senile when I threw it off my computer as being irrelevant. I am glad to see the old brain is still working.
The letter, written on February 2006, references a conversation held between officials of the Canadian High Commission in Barbados and the Permanent Secretary (Barbados) for Housing and Lands. He advised that the Barbados Government had made an offer to Kingsland of “$22 million for the lands in question”.
So, here are my questions:
1. When was this offer made, i.e., did it pre or post date the injunction granted June 3rd 1997 whereby the asstes of Kingsland were frozen and the directors prevented from in any way dealing with Kingslan and its assets – an injunction that was in force for 8 years? By extension, therefore, did this offer pre or post date the signing of the Agreement on 17th December 1997 between over 70% of the shareholding of Kingsland and Classic?
2. If not, did it pre-date the the signing in September/October 1998 by which Classic contracted to purchase over 82% of the issued shares of Kingsland?
3. If the answer to those questions, as I suspect, is NO, was it an offer for shares, or an offer for land? The letter in question indicates that it was an offer for land, not shares. Because of the injunction, prior to December 17th 1997, the shareholders could have sold (those that wished to) their shares to Government and the directors were obligated to pass on Government’s offer to the shareholders. If the offer was for land, however, the directors could not deal with it as the assets were frozen – and continued to be frozen for 8 years – and government could not go behind that Order of the Court. Of course, as we all know, Moaning Madge also obtained an injunction in October 1998, but only AFTER Classic had contracted to purchase over 82% of the shares, whereby shares and assets of Kingland were frozen, until June 2008.
4. Kindly provide documentary backing along with your answer as to whether “the lands in question” referred to ALL of Kingsland’s lands, or only a part thereof. Also, if only a part, you should provide a document-backed statement as to which part.
So, let us sum up.
I see no relevance in this document at all. There is no date of this purported offer by government and we have only the word of a member of the Canadian High Commission who is out on a diplamtic limb by getting involved in the first place as it is very clear from the letter that Government had no vested interest in Kingsland and therefore it was a private matter not covered by any bi-lateral agreement.
In my view, Government shared something in common with Allard. They were too late!!
And why has Keltruth raised this issue (and I do refer to “no name” as Keltruth)? If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again…Well, according to Prof Knox, Government was delinquent in that it put the new prison at Dodds where the male juvenile offenders prison used to be and which it stands to reason Government owned, rather than paying out a lot of money for new property at Kingsland. This is much of a muchness.
If Keltruth can prove that the offer from Government pre-dated the 17th December 1997 agreement with Classic, I will join it in holding up my clothes and complaining. If it cannot, it can go to hell.
I also want to examine closely paragraph 4 of the much vaunted Exhibit P of John Knox (by the way, a most appropriate letter for this exhibit to come under) which states that Mr. Allard was not aware of the offer of Government. Well why would he be? He was not a director or shareholder and, indeed, according to Moaning Madge’s counsel, Alair Shepherd, still is not.
HOWEVER, it demonstrates that Mr. Allard did do due diligence on Kingsland. In which case, maybe our friends at Keltruth would like to explain to us WHY Mr. Allard failed to notice that on 21st October 2002 Madge Knox was served with notice of proceedigns against the shares that he claims she transferred to him and that any such transfer (in Canadian law as well and Mr. Allard is a Canadian lawyer) would be fraudulent and would be voidable at the instance of the person so defrauded.
AND he uses this fraudulent and voidable transfer of shares as grounds and standing to sue myself and every other Bajan by suing our country.
BWWR // August 28, 2008 at 6:23 AM
Sorry, Brutus. I have no access to the audited financials of Kingsland, so you have to take on board that I am a commentator who gets their information from someone who is NOT a shareholder of Kingsdland, but who has access to information from the defendants in the Ontario action.
No name, on the other hand, clearly has close connections with or is an anonymous nom de plume for a member of the Knox family and Madge IS a shareholder of Kingsland and would receive such financials. The ball, therefore, as Madge and No Name are the complainants with access, is in their court. My source has no right to these financials – OTHERWISE, I BELIEVE EVERYONE KNOWS BY NOW THAT I WOULD HAVE POSTED THEM!!!!
It is not my wish to hide anything. I want this issue given the fullest possible exposure, since it involves every Bajan as we are ALL sued. We need to understand it.
I expec to obtain later today the exhibits of John Knox and will post them, including John Knox’s P.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 28, 2008 at 7:38 AM
Simple description of this ordeal…
Identify Opportunity to Fleece Hapless Landowner(s)—>Buy Land for Peppercorn—>Approve Change of Use—>Sell and Make Millions
Its been successfully done many times before… and, as BWWR has been at pains to point out, it is perfectly legal. For everyone else here, with the exception of Pat, it comes across as highly immoral and unethical.
In Nature, this is the well observed and documented predatory sequence… Detection, Identification, Approach, Subjugation, Consumption.(I’m a Discovery Channel fan… read about it here… http://www.pewoceanscience.org/publications/files/papers/1144253520_MartinHammerschlag.pdf)
“Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed–
Who loved, who suffer’d countless ills,
Who battled for the True, the Just,
Be blown about the desert dust,
Or seal’d within the iron hills?”
BWWR // August 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Micro Mock Engineer – that is a provocative alias. But I want to point out to anyone who may wish to assume that you are John Knox that he would have to use the name “Micro Fake Professor” since no one has ever claimed that he is either small or not an engineer – so I find it encouraging that not a single contributor has sought to play the repulsive guessing game so beloved of someone who has the nerve, not only to be anonymous, but to actually call themselves “Anonymous” by trying to “out” your identity. Clearly you are not the Micro Fake Professor.
You have misrepresented my position as far as my possible or probable involvement in such a scheme as that of Clasic is concerned. I think that most people (like 99%) would be very sorry to see how things are and then do exactly the same as Classic and Pat. And myself!!!
The use of a selection of the poem, “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, is not appropriate. That is a requiem for Tennyson’s friend A.H. Hallam, who died suddenly in Vienna at a young age. Its composition took over 15 years and it is generally seen to reflect the early Victorian society of the day, where starving children were hanged in public for stealing a crust of bread etc. This poem, one of my favourites and, to my mind, one of the most important ever written, was instrumental in changing Victorian society as it existed then and, indeed, it is directed, as I said, at the society of the time. To adopt it now to a case where Madge Knox made extremely bad choices, compounded those choices by fraud (criminal and civil – and the DPP is yet to weigh in on the criminal part of the fraud -but there is no statute of limitations on the criminal aspect) and then treasonably (although not legally so) sought to expose her country and its people to denigration and derogation in the international community in order to further and promote the vengeance of a non-Bajan, Peter Allard, simply because he couldn’t get what he wanted, shows a lamentable ignorance and an even more regrettable over-estimation of the number of people and countries who give a damn in the first place. The poem, originally entitled “The Way of the Soul” is not reflective of the soul or intentions of Money-mad Madge.
Brutus // August 28, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Apologies BWWR, I misread the posting by “no name” – I thought the request was being made to Keltruth to post the audited financials here.
BWWR // August 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Brutus, we must assume that we will wait in vain for the audited financials. While Keltruth and ‘no name’ and Anonymous were able to interpret snippets of documents and financials, secure in the knowledge (gained whence I know not) that Bajans are ignorant and illiterate, we MIGHT have got them. However, do you seriously think they will post them for you and me and practically every other Bajan (all of whom, Keltruth, reads and is capable of understanding them) to pour over and reach an independent non-Keltruth-directed conclusion? No way. Such is not the way of Mendacious Madge, by whose understanding, or lack of it, are we all judged by her offspring.
So, Keltruth, you are challenged to post the audited financials of Kingsland. Go on, publish them, be a good sport for once, instead of a poor looser.
no name // August 28, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Interested Barbadians, no need to wait for the audited financial statements to be published on a blog, just check the Corporate Registry for them.
It will cost $5.00 but will be well worth it.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
BWWR,
I am disappointed that you are unable to see the relevance of my extract from In Memoriam… and I’m equally surprised that you leaned so heavily on Wikipedia for your background information on the piece… reflective of early Victorian society?… LOL
The elegy is timeless, and its general theme reflects the age-old human struggle of reconciling the cold savagery of Nature ‘red in tooth and claw’ (survival-of-the-fittest) with the belief in a loving, compassionate BBE…
“Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life”
This is a questions that plagues us all in ‘hard times’; a question that tested Tennyson’s faith in his time of grief…
“I falter where I firmly trod,
And falling with my weight of cares
Upon the great world’s altar-stairs
That slope thro’ darkness up to God”
But his faith held out, as does mine, that the resolution of this ‘apparent’ dichotomy between the savagery of Nature and the goodness of God will be revealed to us in the fullness of time…
“I stretch lame hands of faith, and grope,
And gather dust and chaff, and call
To what I feel is Lord of all,
And faintly trust the larger hope.”
English Lit. 101 :-)
Law and justice are not always the same…
Pat // August 28, 2008 at 8:53 PM
@BWWR
MME is not John Knox. He is quite intelligent. I enjoyed his repartee with BT on peak oil.
However, I was surprised that he quoted that poem above and could not understand his reasoning. I got a collection of Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s poems on speech day for placing First in Form 3. Presented by Father Jennings, I read every one over and over for years.
I responded last night on BFP to the letter “Exhibit P” to Knox’s affidavit and of course, as of now, my comment is still awaiting moderation. I went and asked them to release it. I will wait and see. I guess they did not like what I had to say, as usual.
@MME
I was under the impression that the directors of Kingsland were shopping the land around and had sold off bits and pieces to survive. So your theory does not really hold up.
Bush tea // August 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM
MME,
….Yuh Bad!!!
Micro Mock Engineer // August 28, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Pat… maybe my theory doesn’t hold up, but despite all of the legal arguments BWWR has put forward in defense of Classic and the other defendants in this case, all I see (so far) are sharks fleecing an old lady out of her inheritance… and despite ‘her’ denials, I am convinced that BWWR is one of those sharks.
Georgie Porgie // August 28, 2008 at 9:39 PM
MME
This is for you on apoptosis and cancer— have fun
http://kcampbell.bio.umb.edu/Endocrinology%20&%20Cancer%20Basics.ppt
http://kcampbell.bio.umb.edu/Cell%20Cycle%20&%20Cancer%20Fall%202007%20Campbell%20&%20Del%20Gaizo%20Moore.ppt
Bush tea // August 28, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Pat,
I can understand BWWR’s position, since I suspect that ‘BWWR’ is a PR effort by interested parties seeking to protect their own predatory interest.
..Ever time BWWR repeats that her main concern is the fact that Madge is seeking to ‘pull down our country’ by bringing this lawsuit, Bush tea falls to the floor in uncontrolled laughter…
…yea RIGHT!!!
…but you Pat- have Bush tea up the creek.
I like you! I respect you!
That you have adopted the position of supporting the legal ‘choke and rob’ assault of Madge by Classic and their cohorts is itself a blow; But for you to then condemn the victim for similarly using whatever legal tactics are available in her in own defence is surely inconsistent….
Classic can use the laws to enforce its desires but the aggrieved ‘victim’ is somehow a spoilsport for seeking to exploit her RIGHTS to respond in similar vein? …its just not like you Pat!!!
Right now, Bush tea is fairly liquid, and I suspect that my old neighbor (who owns almost an acre of nice land) seems to be having challenges with living expenses …..hmmmmm $20,000 and the right lawyer – who knows???
…after all Pat, I must be a fool to offer market value for the property with a reverse mortgage arrangement that ensures that my neighbor has a happy pleasant old age commensurate with the capitol asset value owned….
Georgie Porgie // August 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Pat
Re
MME is not John Knox. He is quite intelligent.
Are you suggesting that the Barbados Scholar John Knox is not intelligent too? Lol
Micro Mock Engineer // August 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM
BT,
MME is fairly liquid too… mainly Mount Gay Extra Old and Banks. LOL
Micro Mock Engineer // August 28, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Thanks GP… only just saw the links… appreciate it. Will post any questions I have on them over in Submissions.
Pat // August 29, 2008 at 12:16 AM
hahaha
Boys you guys have me laughing real hard.
@ GP
I have read most if not all of MME discussions on this site. I have also read John Knox’s affidavits, I take my hat off to MME. A Barbados Scholar only tells me that the person did well on the A levels and general paper. After two years I should hope everyone did well, but there were only a few scholarships to go around. I am sure John Knox never had to go home and bring in the sheep, feed the pigs, sweep the yard and study by kerosene oil lamp! All he had to do was go home, eat, study and sleep! What is it that the old people say… something about book learning?
@BT
Mr. Bush, I do not put down Mrs. Knox for trying to get her hands on the rest of the shares. I, to tell you the truth, would have done the same thing. But I would have done lots of sweet talking to those old relatives of mine. I would have offered the same as Classic (even if I had to sell the children). Failing that I would work on the weakest link, Iain Deane who had refused to sell at first. Once I had him on board, then as a team I would have launched a full assault on the others before Classic even got an agreement drafted. I am assuming that all the family were on “terms”.
But have a heart man, the lady lost every case she brought. Even to the Privy Council. Why then prolong the agony and stress. There has to be a time when we all cut our losses, no? There has to be a time when we decide that litigation should not take over our lives. Only the lawyers win. Ask you friends. They love it.
I hope you dont have you eyes on the acre we have up in Hillswick Village. lol
BWWR // August 29, 2008 at 2:38 AM
MME, Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. However, I had not consulted it and was pleased to see that some of its words were similar. I stand by what I said about the quote being inappropriate, even if YOU got it from Wikipedia.
BT, I am not a PR person for anyone and I am glad that you find my notion of patriotism amusing. That amusement is how countries and entire peoples are taken over. My contribution is to warn so that it does not happen here. I consider Madge and Allard no better than Sidney Burnett Alleyne, but I daresay there are some Bajans who may find him admirable and amusing. I don’t.
Pat, right on the money as always. It is as you say “John Knox never had to go home and bring in the sheep, feed the pigs, sweep the yard and study by kerosene oil lamp! All he had to do was go home, eat, study and sleep! ” Do you know, to this very day, that is what he does?
Finally, I was able to get sight of the court documents in Ian’s case. That was a real sweet case. Beautiful. What the Americans call a “no-brainer”. He had Kingsland and its directors by the *****. Now I know why $6 million that Keltruth says he was paid. So why didn’t Monetary Madge take his side? That is where her best interests lay. Instead, Keltruth seems to have a real deep and scornful hatred for this man – they seem to feel he betrayed them somehow. I would like to know, just cause I am a gypsy old woman, how Keltruth thinks Ian betrayed them.
Anyway, that all has nothing to do with Nelson and, as I suspected, Ian’s action was abandoned in 2005, so it seems that I was right and it was an out-of-court settlement.
Bush tea // August 29, 2008 at 6:06 AM
Cud dear BWWR,
…yuh gwine kill the Bush? now you comparing Madge to Sydney Burnett Alleyne?
What SBA what?!?
You gwine mek me hurt something with this lotta laffing hear?
Micro Mock Engineer // August 29, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Pat,
You are full of delightful contradictions… an incongruous juxtaposition of Caliban and Ariel. Were ‘she’ to possess this quality, BWWR’s PR campaign might be far more successful. :-)
BWWR // August 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM
MME,
I agree with you about Pat. She delightful. She always was. Full stop. The rest of it is patronizing. Are you implying that she is two-faced?
As for the success or lack of success of what you choose to call my “campaign”, well, I never really looked at it as being as anything as grandiose as a “campaign”. That isn’t me. I just have a strong aversion to being lied to and misled, particulary by people whose position is advserse to mine as a Bajan. I fully recognize that I am a flawed human being who makes my fair share of mistakes – and I own up to that and to them whenever anyone produces hard evidence to prove me wrong. So, Keltruth, once again, please produce your evidence.
no name // August 29, 2008 at 9:21 AM
BWWR,
You might be taken seriously if you left out the repeated attempts to assinate peoples’ characters and stuck to what you know is the truth.
The $1 million stunt you tried to pull was the last straw for me. The $1 million turned out to be a $22 million Government debt to Kingsland.
Pat // August 29, 2008 at 7:34 PM
@ MME
hahaha, Pisces!
@BWWR
So you agree with me that Mrs. Knox should have worked with Iain Deane then?
I still cant understand why the Barbados Scholar did not offer his Mom some advice, first class honours and top of the class too! Cheese on bread, why did he not offer her some money to help buy dem dere shares? Come to think of it, why did the children Kathy and John not pool their resources to help her?
BWWR // August 30, 2008 at 4:22 AM
What stunt, no name? The ball is in your court. Re-read and stop misrepresenting. In any case, there is no evidence or timelines on your $22 million AND you said that it was money OWED by Government to Kingsland. John Knox’s P is just that. Go back over it and stop wasting people’s time.
Pat, this “Barbados Scholar” still lives rent-free with Mummy. One would have thought that someone of his supposed calibre would have been able to hep Mummy out as you suggest. However, the apple don’t fall far from the tree and he is a worthy son of his parents – both of them layabouts.
BWWR // August 30, 2008 at 5:27 AM
Pat,
Should Madge have worked with Ian? From her point of view, yes most certainly. From Ian’s, no. Ian’s action against Kingsland was one of oppression and he had no need of Madge – she would have been a liability in a way and he had an insurmountable case. He complained of a period from 1982 to the time of filing in 1997 – 15 years. For 10 of those years, Madge was a director of Kingsland or one of his alleged oppressors. In other words, he might have wanted at some stage to join her as a defendant in his action. Indeed, I saw from the Privy Council record that he did state his intention of joining her with the other defendants. Had I been counselling him, I would have advised that he NOT work with her. Had I been counselling HER, I would have advised that she move Heaven and Earth to get him to work with her.
I saw, but I speak under correction as the old memory isn’t what it was, that Ian HAD at one time an association with Madge. I also see, however, that Madge appears to have gone behind his back and held secret meetings to negotiate with Cox and also, without Cox or Ian knowing, with Allard. Playing both sides – sneaky and typical of her. I see she did not include Ian in either negotiation, but then tried to rope him in to help Allard, but he didn’t like the terms of what Allard was offering and there is no record to say whether or not he was subsequently included by Madge in her negotiations with Allard – I think we have to assume that he was NOT, otherwise he would have recorded it in his affidavits. I also recall that his own negotiations with Cox were carried on with Madge’s full knowledge and it is noted that she was invited to attend these along with her counsel, but declined.
At some stage, in August 1998, Ian decided to go his own way as clearly he and Madge had different agendas. He reached an agreement with Classic and advised all the Kingsland shareholders through Kingsland’s secretary, so it was up-front. Madge’s own pleadings reveal that, upon receipt of the letter from Ian to Kingsland, she advanced a claim of pre-emptive rights to purchase the estate’s shares at a mere $3.60 per share, as opposed to the $52.50 per share then on the table for the estate’s shares from Classic. It is also revealed that when this right of preemption was denied (and that denial confirmed later by the Privy Council) by Ian, she then wrote to him offering some $30 per share and INTIMATING that she would address the matter of his lawsuit later, by which time, Ian was already contracted to Classic, so, a always, Madge had missed the boat through arrogance and beligerence.
The way I read it is that a part of the agreement with Classic would be for the withdrawal of his lawsuit and discharge of the injunction against Kingsland. It was this latter that provoked Madge to sue everybody in 1998, rather than having the good sense to either also sell, or to work with Cox.
In Madge’s affidavits (and those of the great Prof. Knox) in response, I recall that Ian’s allegations were unchallenged.
I am writing from memory on this and if anyone can contradict me with documentary proof, please feel free. But, ‘no name’ please address FACTS and document them.
no name // August 30, 2008 at 8:12 AM
BWWR,
Your comments are too personal. Only takes away from the discussion, makes you lose credibility and shows that you are not who you try to make us believe you are.
Again I suggest you leave out the personal attacks on peoples’ characters and stick to the facts and the truth.
i.e. Please “address FACTS and document them” if you want to be taken seriously.
Anonymous // August 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Iain Deane never owned neither share in Kingsland.
You musee really tink the old lady and she children foolish?
Anon 3 // August 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM
BWWR, there are a few contributors to this discussion whose hectoring and comments you would do well to ignore as they contribute nothing. I have read with great interest what you have to say and, although I do have unanswered questions, they are a lot less than before you started to provide us with documents. I do not always completely agree with the conclusions and inferences that you draw, but I certainly think your points are well made, meritorious and well supported. Thank you and please continue.
Pat // August 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM
@Anonymous
Iain Deane inherited his father’s shares.
@ BWWR
It seems to me, that Mrs. Knox really did dig herself a hole. Poor woman. Cant understand her reasoning. If she was not smart enough (I read where she went to keep house for her brother at 17) to see the benefits of having Iain on side, surely her tax payer educated son could have? She missed a capital opportunity by not purchasing his shares.
BWWR // August 31, 2008 at 4:25 AM
For the record, Pat, Ian is Vere’s son and Vere is still alive – he has to be 90 or 91 now, so Mental Madge is a spring chicken by comparison – me too.
Ian inherited Colin’s shares. Colin was Ian’s uncle. However, from all the court pleadings, it is shown that Ian never tranferred the shares to himself, but that they stayed as the property of Colin’s estate of which Ian is sole executor. So while our friend Anonymous is correct as to ownership per se in that Ian never owned shares in Kingsland, as you and I know, Pat, he would have been registered as the holder of the shares by Kingsland on the basis of his executorship. Therefore, as executor and beneficiary of the shares, they were in his sole and absolute control and, except for their not being vested in him personally, he did effectively own them.
And you are right. If Madge had been using her brains (what few she has) instead of sitting on them she would have done everything she could to get Ian to give her control of his shares and lawsuit. Then, Classic would have had a problem.
Naturally, Anonymous knows this and, rather than admit it all, seeks to confuse and misrepresent yet again by omitting the salient part of the information he/she posts. But I think we all see through Anonymous by now.
Madge did sue Ian and Colin’s estate at one point in a frivilous and vexation suit claiming rights from Colin’s estate to which she was not entitled and on which, in any case, the complaint was statute-barred (by almost 20 years). I can try (no promises) to get what I can on this case, but would rather not as, apart from false and perjurous sworn satements from John Knox, this case is not relevant to the larger issue of Nelson Barbados suing you and me as citizens of Barbados.
The result? I am indebted to Ian’s pleading in the Ontario action for this. Goodridge J. dismissed Madge’ action with costs. Madge served notice that she would appeal. Ian asked for and obtained from the court an order for security for his costs payable within a certain time and if not paid, the appeal would stand dismissed without further formality. You know how it works, Pat. The amount was $15,000. Madge did not pay and so that is that. And has Madge paid Ian his costs in this one? Hell no!
Enter Fake Prof J. Knox (a real dazzler known to his cousins and “Johnnykins” because, I understand, that this over 50 year old is seen as being a spoiled petulant little mummy’s boy). I like the name “Johnnykins” because only a Johnnykins could file the rubbish he has in Canada. Johnnykins was present in court along with Alair Shepherd when Goodridge J. read her decision to the Court. Yet, this fake professor, Johnnykins, subsequently swore in one of his interminable affidavits in Canada that he was not able to obtain details of this judgment of Goodridge J. The Deanes can keep him and welcome and I don’t think anyone can complain now of UWI terminating his employment – I am sure he provided abundant cause.
David // August 31, 2008 at 7:30 AM
We have read the back and forth with interest and with all respect to the articulate BWWR one cannot help but feel sorry for the old lady. There is the image of David and Goliath which keeps appearing in our minds.
Having made the admission we have to say that in a free market (democracy) people are within their right to exploit what the system gives them. The person being picked on is within their right to fight back. If Madge Cox made bad decisions then isn’t that how the cookie crumbles? We are attempting to be dispassionate in the argument but like we said there is something distasteful in an old woman availing herself of a process which appears she is doomed to lose given the odds.Given her age one can only assume that maybe her siblings maybe the ones driving the decisions here?
BWWR // August 31, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Not siblings, David, her children. Her surviving siblings are Vere (aged 91 and mentally incompetent, sadly) Erie (aged 89) and Keith (aged 84) Madge is 85. So, it is her children, Kathy Davis, John Knox and Janey Goddard and their backer, Peter Allard.
I agree that it is unfortunate and unattractive. However, it is, regrettably, typical of Madge and of the way she raised her children to think that they were better, brighter and more qualified than anyone else. Most importantly that no matter what happened, they HAD to be right and everyone else wrong. I watched this while her children were growing up. No matter what they did, they could always run to Madge and be told that the other party, never them, was wrong. While it leads children to grow up with a strong sense of self-worth, it does little to prepare them for the interaction of the adult world.
So, while the children are the motors, Madge herself is, in my view, the architect. Yet, she might still be able to salvage something. I believe that she can. But it will mean getting rid of (or curbing) Mr. Allard and sitting down with Mr. Cox and her family (those of them that are defendants) and working something out. I do NOT believe that she has the sense or humility to do that. So the matter will continue until she has lost everything. But, she does still have a choice, from what I can see and what I hear. Let us hope she chooses wisely.
Waterboy // August 31, 2008 at 9:43 AM
no name // August 30, 2008 at 8:12 am
BWWR,
Your comments are too personal. Only takes away from the discussion, makes you lose credibility and shows that you are not who you try to make us believe you are.
Again I suggest you leave out the personal attacks on peoples’ characters and stick to the facts and the truth.
i.e. Please “address FACTS and document them” if you want to be taken seriously.
———————————————————–
no name, you are right on target here. In this last post BWWR really only offers a bunch of petulant personal attacks and name calling.
BWWR // August 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM
You got to laugh. I write defending Peter Simmons from the misrepresentations of Keltruth, BFP and its minions and scurrilous attacks against him personally and I am named by no name and anoymous and the rest as being Peter Simmons.
I write defending certain aspects of the Chief Justice’s conduct and criminally libellous statements and personal attacks by BFP and Keltruth and minions and I am “outed” as the CJ by the above. When I write defending Mr. Cox and Classic from indefensible and groundless attacks by the above, I am outed as being Mr. Cox. I write defending my country from the most disgusting attacks that are designed to reduce our status internationally and to hold us as a country and people up to ridicule and, according to the same above, I am Ian Deane.
However, when I turn the tables on Keltruth and BFP and play them at their own game, despite the fact that, unlike them, I provide support evidence that IS admissible in a court of law, it is held by Waterboy and No Name that my attacks, which mirror those they and their cronies have launched, are not appropriate.
Well, I will continue to attack just the way I always have and you Waterboy and you No Name – can go to hell.
Bush tea // August 31, 2008 at 2:06 PM
David,
Don’t get tied up. There is a big difference between what is LEGAL and what constitutes JUSTICE.
BWWR (or more correctly BWWW – who WRITES) is highly focused on what is legal. Furthermore this PR specialist keeps referring to court cases that seem to have nothing to do with the central issue.
If I have enough money and time I can sue anyone for anything. If that person is unable, unwilling or unprepared to deal with the expensive and technical legal response – or is uninitiated in the legal requirements, or gets caught in the legal insider manipulations that characterizes Barbados, THEY WILL LOSE – right or wrong.
Who in their right mind could see such a situation as anything but a shame that needs to be addressed?
The only good thing about all this is that there is a GOD above, and that the jokers who perpetrate such schemes will ALWAYS pay a thousand times for their deeds….
…but in the meantime, it is a good test of a society to see where we stand morally…. and we seem to be failing badly.
Bush tea ain’t worried about Classic, BWWR or even Madge…. I hope the price they WILL all ultimately pay will be bearable. I am much more worried about our national social conscience…
no name // August 31, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Thanks BWWR,
but I am not going to Hell that easy.
I’ll be around.
Pat // August 31, 2008 at 8:36 PM
@ BWWR
Thanks for the info. I thought Colin was Ian’s Dad.
Dont worry about who they think you are. Afterall, they said I was ‘you (BWWR)’, then they said I was BFP, then there was no way I could be a woman, that I had to be a man. So, what else is new.
I wonder why “No Name” and “Waterboy” dont go over to BFP and ask them to lay off the name calling, the aspersions, the sensationalized rants and other denigrations they are throwing out at Barbados’ institutions and populace? What is the problem with “Waterboy” and “No Name”? I will tell you, if they did, it would not see the light of day on BFP.
@David
You are right, one does have sympathy for the old lady. If only for the fact that she is not as educated as we are. However, someone or some people are engouraging her to go on with these litigations. It is true she made some mis-steps but, imho, I blame her children for not advising her and helping her out. A woman who had finished school by 17 is not as educated as those young university grads she produced. Now this Allard, the Great White, is swallowing her whole for his own ends.
If you look at the saga dispassionately, (notwithstanding the fact that Classic and Ian did nothing illegal) it really is a pity if she loses it all.
no name // August 31, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Is the man’s name Iain or Ian Deane?
Anonymous // August 31, 2008 at 11:22 PM
BWWR cud not be Iain Deane.
Iain Deane got musee 3 or 4 passports an always goin let you know bout dem an dat he don have to live anywhey bout hey.
Iain Deane would never waste he time worrying bout Barbados.
I doubt he does even come back.
Pat // September 1, 2008 at 12:23 AM
hahaha,
I suspect Iain has three passports – Canadian, British and Barbadian. So what else is new? My parents had the same three.
I also say, as long as I have a valid passport, money in my pocket and is not wanted by Interpol, I can go anywhere and it does not necessarily mean Bim.
He visits Barbados and I suspect he was there earlier this year, in May maybe?
Iain Deane // September 1, 2008 at 1:39 AM
I hold only one passport and am a citizen of three countries. Barbados (birth), United Kingdom (mother) and Canada (naturalization). I have a 90 year old, frail father whose memory is not what it was and who lives in Barbados. I also have many friends and business interests in Barbados. Finally, I and/or the estate of my late uncle of which I am executor are parties to three unheard civil suits before the Barbados courts. The estate is also a landowner in Barbados, such land being vested in me a executor.
Iain Deane
Keltruth Corp. // September 1, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Mrs. Knox DID indeed offer the same as Classic for the shares of the other shareholders. In fact, she offered MORE. But the directors fought valiantly, allegedly racking up millions in legal fees, to avoid receiving MORE for their shares. They preferred the LOWER price from Classic. The courts did not appear to find this suspicious. The Law is a funny thing!
Keltruth Corp. // September 1, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Iain Deane said: “The estate is also a landowner in Barbados, such land being vested in me a executor.”
Yes, Iain, you are the executor. Mrs. Knox is a beneficiary who has not received what was willed to her by her brother.
Iain Deane // September 1, 2008 at 9:36 AM
As I have said before, there are many matters before the Courts to which I and the estate of my late uncle are parties and I would consider it extremely disrespectful to those Courts (by whose decisions and orders for costs etc. I fully intend to abide and honour) were I to discuss those matters or anything relating to them, except before those Courts.
I am satisfied that it is not in any way disrespectful to those Courts for me to apprise my fellow readers of Barbados Underground (since the issue has been raised and does not relate to or impact on any pending or determined litigation) as to the amount of passports that I may or may not have and what citizenships I hold. I have also suggested the compelling reasons that make frequent trips by me to Barbados not only a necessity, but a great pleasure and I would also add that I have a sister, a nephew and great nephew who are resident in Barbados and for whom I have tremendous affection.
That is all I have to say. That is all I intend to say.
Anonymous // September 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Iain
So how many times in the past 12 months have you actually visited your 90 year old frail father?
Iain Deane // September 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous, none of your damed business.
Anon 3 // September 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Mr. Deane, some people have no manners or broughtupsy at all and Anonymous clearly is one of these. In my view, your position is 100% correct and I respect it. I believe most people will agree on this. The fact that you have three citizenships is by no means unusual in Barbados. Many Bajans have moved away from Barbados to pursue their professions and taken out citizenships in the country they are working in. In my experience this does not mean that Barbados does not hold pride of place in their hearts. On the contrary. Usually, absence makes the heart grow fonder. It certainly did mine when I was away from Barbados working for all those years. Also, when you are working overseas, the requirements of that work can sometimes mean that you cannot always get back to Barbados as often as you would like. At one point, because of work, I didn’t manage to visit Barbados for over three years. But we Bajans always come home at some point – it is our little rock and, even when we are vexed with it, we still love it.
Anonymous // September 1, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Anon 3:
“The fact that you have three citizenships is by no means unusual in Barbados.”
But is it common for people to hold conversations with themselves?
Anon 3 is clearly another Iain Deane alias.
Pat // September 1, 2008 at 11:44 PM
@ Iain Deane,
I wonder why you responded. I was having such fun speaking for you.
Funny, I have multiple passports. Depending on where I am going I decide which one or two to travel with. For instance, on a Bajan passport you dont need a visa for Egypt, while for Tanzania you pay only $25 for a visa. On my other passports, I would pay more, up to $100 for a visa. However, while travelling in some countries I always use a “first world” passport. Or, I use one to get in and another to come out.
Iain Deane // September 2, 2008 at 5:18 AM
I remember you from the Registry from my days in articles very well and with great fondness, Pat, the only bright spot in an otherwise dull and exceedingly dusty environment. And I have enjoyed your speaking for me, but cannot say whether I always agreed or not due to court reasons.
As for making a comment, I sometimes do. Most recently, I felt that I could make a contribution to the travel agent issue. Travel (and by extension, passports) is a way of life in my profession. It has nothing to do with issues before the courts, which I cannot discuss, so I feel I have the right to blog on them. I was also somewhat surprised to discover that I had managed to slip in and out of Barbados undetected on so many occasions. Like you, I don’t do anonymous – well, neither does Anonymous, not very well anyway.
I was equally surprised that any ex patriot Bajan, with family in Barbados, was required to submit a schedule of their visits to Barbados and reasons for same.
There was a time that I held three passports and I used them like you. I recall that one Saturday back in 1992 I was asked to start filming on a theatrical ad for Inter Continental Hotels and would leave on location the following Tuesday – for Cairo, then Tokyo, then Sydney,next Aukland and an overnight flight to Argentina (where memories of the Falklands War were still green) and then on to Rio and from Rio to Paris, Amsetrdam and then back across the pond to Washington, ending up some weeks later with a severe case of jet lag and exhaustion in London.
At the time, we needed visas for many of the locations – so my UK passport was sent to the Japanese, my Barbados passport to the Ozzies and my Canadian passport to the South Americans. Some one asked me why I would send the Barbados passport to the Ozzies as it was unlikely they would ever have heard of Barbados. I pointed out that this was not true, as we were in the habit of administering a beating to them at cricket at least once a year – and by the way, had the idiot never heard of Garfield Sobers.
But that was when I was acting. These days I don’t do that any longer and in my field (businessman – with the emphasis on producing classical music events) I am unlikely to be faced with such stringent deadlines. So, I have only one passport and it contains details of my place of birth (Barbados) and my British patrial and citizenship status and, along with my Canadian Citizenship Card, I can go anywhere in the World. It also saves me quite a bit of money in passport renewal fees.
Actually, it is better that way because, also in 1992, I did a guest spot in a American CBS Network series that was shot in Eilat in Israel and we travelled from London to Israel on El Al. Even then, the security restrictions before you could board the plane makes the post 9/11 precaustions look weak. What really disturbed Israeli security people was finding my three passports during their search and the only thing I had going for me was that they were all in the same name – seems that had I been a spy, they would have been in different names.
It’s been great to talk to you, Pat. It would be fantastic to meet up after these 40 years again some time. When next you are in Bim, if you give my sister a call (she is the world-famous Deane that my counsins at Keltruth have written about) she will give you my e-mail address.
Bet wishes,
Iain
Pat // September 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM
@ Iain
It is a small world. I cant help laughing.
We called all of you by your last names. Like Fitzwilliam, Serroa (who I found arrogant and rude) Haynes, etc., but I never linked you. Were you there when he (serroa) reported me to the Registrar because he wasted time downstairs and wanted to browbeat me to take his docouments moments to three o’clock? Just because I asked them to line up!
How was I to know who was first in line with no line? hahaha! At the end of the day they all had to line up. This was after I dealt with W.O.O Haynes and Rochester from Nova Scotia.
Did you realize that the two guys behind me used to give me hell because I made more than they? We got extra for our “A” levels then and they did not have any. lol
I may be home in February next year. I will be in Jamaica for Christmas and an aunt who lives states side, whom I have not seen for a while may be going down. I will see.
I had problems at Schirpol in 1986, with the Israelis. I had business with ESA at Nordydk (?) and in the departure lounge one of the dogs fell for me. lol. But it was quickly resolved. I think they smelled the herring I was smuggling in my hand bag.
I travelled quite a bit with my jobs. I have had many as I was more of a ‘generalist’ and not a specialist. I was in London in 1996 meeting with DTI and at Ashton in the same year. But most of my business travels were in the USA.
I could have worked on APEC, but I was getting tired and stressed and was not looking forward to those long flights! Now I am retired.
I promise I will not speak for you again. I also understand why you cannot talk. I am a good reader and I picked up where you do go to Bim and was there recently. Some people when they read, see only what they want to see.
You do have a good memory. I did leave home 40 years ago. I suppose you must have left at around the same time.
It was nice meeting you again. I miss Colin Williams. He was one hell of a gentleman. Had his eyes on me ‘methinks’!
Looking forward to talking to you in the future. I will give your sister a call when I go home. Or, I may even call her from here.
Keep good. Chin Up.
All the best,
Pat.
Iain Deane // September 3, 2008 at 2:39 AM
Hi Pat,
I was there at the same time as Michael Fitzwilliam and the other guy. As for Colin Williams, he and I were in articles together. Great guy.
I did leave Barbados about 40 years ago, but I lived there again between 1993 and 2001. I expect that if I ever retire, then like most Bajans, it will be in Barbados. Like you I have lived all over. Only way to go.
Please feel free to speak for me any time you want. I’ve really enjoyed it. And you certainly got the signs right. I was very impressed. I will e-mail sis and ask her to give you my e-mail and phone number.
Best,
I
Pat // September 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM
@ Iain,
Thanks, you are too nice!
Pat
Anonymous // January 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM
@All… As some of you might be aware, I’ve been a little busy lately…
But might I please present the concept of the Quantum Uncertainty Field.
This was discovered by some very bright people some time ago. (QED, et al.) It can be argued that the unknowable “Knowledge Membrane” (or “Knowledge Space”) can actually be quite large.
Or, perhaps put another way, there are some things which can simply *not* be known.
The phenomenon of anonymous communications (speaking from personal experience from the BBS days in the mid 80s on) brings this truism up to the tangible level of our very world views.
Or, in the “high-bandwidth”: Most of what you “hear” is probably lies.
Deal with it. Manage.
Chris Halsall // January 29, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Ironic… (smile…)
That Anonymous post above is mine. (Just in case the pedantic style wasn’t obvious…)