The Beauty Of Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary
In the recent months we have read Barbados Free Press, Keltruth and the submissions to BU by BWWR concerning the Nelson Barbados (Kingsland Estate) versus Barbados government, prominent Barbadians and organizations. We have followed the exchanges between the two sides of the issue with a keen interest. While it is not a sexy topic for many in the BU family it does not make it any less interesting. For better or worse we have decided to offer our perspective on the long standing dispute between the Knox family, allegedly funded by Peter Allard and the government et al.
It has become obvious to the BU household that high powered politics is being played on both sides of this issue. This is to be expected given what is at stake. What we have come to realize is that the current path on which this matter is heading will be detrimental to both sides. There will be no winners! We are aware that the court will eventually rule in this matter but inevitably the reputations of many of the parties involved would have become sullied. It is a pity that the process of alternative dispute resolution has not been seriously attempted.
In recent weeks, and to the horror of the BU household we have witnessed the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary (GHNS) being used as a bargaining chip in the unfortunate affair. As the end of the year approaches we urge both sides to take a deep breathe and take stock. Alot of money has been spent, many relationships have been ruined or become strained while the parties grow old. How long has this matter been in dispute? Too long!
Our sources indicate that although Minister Richard Sealy has been quoted in the media a willingness to meet Peter Allard, the owner of GHNS, up to last week this meeting had not occurred. If Minister Sealy has made a genuine offer then the honourable thing to do is to instruct his staff to open the line of communication with Mr. Allard.
Secondly if as we suspect the sale of GHNS is being used as a bargaining chip in light of the bigger issue i.e. the court case of Nelson versus Government of Barbados et al, we suggest the following: both sides should demonstrate good faith by delaying/suspending all pending litigation activities. This would create a climate more amenable for both sides of the longstanding dispute to hopefully reach an amicable agreement in the national interest.
Whatever the court verdict there will be no winners.
@BWWR
Thanks for the update on Iain Deane’s pleadings in the action he filed against Kingsland and its directors and “his magnificent piece of work”. Glad to hear that he and Mr. Cox (fondly referred to by BWWR as the Great White Shark in an earlier post) and Kingsland came to an amicable agreement, one with which both sides could live through some sort of ADR.
I agree with you and David 100% that it would be preferable for the parties in the Nelson/Kingsland action to get involved in ADR ASAP.
But what the heck has Iain Deane, Nelson, Kingsland, and Knox to do with the closure of Graeme Hall Sanctuary?
You say that “the Minister has no need to meet Allard over Graeme Hall – all he has to do is wait and then acquire Graeme Hall for the Nation”. You make it sound so simple – inaction = action. Do nothing and the Sanctuary will fall right into Government’s lap and we will all live happily ever after. Maybe you would not be so cavalier in your attitude if you were one of the employees of the Sanctuary that will be on the proverbial breadline come December 15, 2008.
Well let’s hope that Government and the Minister do not take your advice but have better judgment and meet with the Sanctuary representatives and explore all the options before expending taxpayer funds.
Nostradamus // November 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm.
I think you can take it that my delay in responding to your comments is caused by the fact that they are of no merit and really do not deserve a response. However, for the record and to give you something else to try to twist, let us look at what you have said.
I admire neatness and good execution, particularly if it is without malice. The execution of Iain Deane (or rather his counsel) was superb – factual and clear and reliant on admissible documentation, as was that of Mr Cox. While I personally would have no interest in doing business with a great white shark, there is nothing to prevent me from admiring it. It is a beautiful creature, or do you, who purports to want to protect other creatures have an embargo (or prejudice) against Great Whites?
On the other hand, I abhor sloppy and muddled objectives and execution riddled with unfair, unlawful and untenable objectives with a clear and evident underlying malice and lack of truth – in other words, I have no time for your lot, Nostradamus. By the way, I would change that moniker if I were you – you flatter yourself and you do not do it justice.
In my view, while it is desirable to go to ADR with Nelson and the almost 70 defendants, including Kingsland, as Nelson is, frankly, gutted, it is up to Nelson to propose ADR to the Country of Barbados and others with compelling reasons to bring them to the table. But there is a problem there and that problem is the estate of Colin Deane – in other words, Iain Deane.
Iain has sued Madge Knox for fraud. I have already posted to BU a copy of the Writ of Summons that attaches the Statement of Claim. I see that the remedies asked by the estate of Colin Deane are:
1. A declaration that the Declaration of Trust made on the 28th day of November 2002 between the Defendant as Trustee of the one part and Eugene Estwick John Knox and Maria Jane Goddard of the other part is void as it was made with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff as Judgment Creditor;
2. An order that the Defendant do deliver up to the Court the said Declaration of Trust for cancellation;
3. Costs;
4. Such further or other relief as the Court deems fit.
This action for fraud, No 2279 of 2003, is set down for hearing commencing January 21st 2009 – in a few weeks time. Given the obiter dictum of Greenidge J., it is unlikely that the defendant (Mental Madge) can defend the action. Therefore, her shares will be handed to Iain by action of the charging order granted him against them and they will be sold either in whole or in part in satisfaction of the money Mental Madge owes to the estate of Coin Deane in court-ordered legal costs. THAT ASIDE, HOWEVER, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE TRANSFER OR CHARGING OF THOSE SHARES TO PETER ALLARD AND FROM ALLARD TO NELSON WILL BE VOID. Once that happens, Nelson will have lost its standing and right to bring its action in the first place.
My point, therefore, is that for any ADR to be considered by the defendants in the Ontario action, they would have to be first assured that Nelson has the right to bring its action in the first place (quite apart from the jurisdiction and other ludicrous claims by Nelson that you could drive a million judicial articulated lorries through and still have room for more). If Nelson is confronting the hearing of the jurisdictional motion commencing December 8th and then Mental Madge is facing the fraud action commencing hearing January 21st, it appears to me that there is no need of ADR from the point of view of the opponents of Mental Madge and Nelson as Nelson lacks the standing in the first place. As a human being, I recommend ADR solely to save on further legal fees and costs, not to let Nelson off from paying a single of its obligations in law. As counsel, I would strongly urge against any negotiations at this stage.
The stgarting point for Nelson, therefore, is to work out something to protect its standing to bring the action. No standing, no action.
Common sense dictates to me that the only way to deal with Mental Madge and the Allard lot is to see them off entirely. Do not give way to them at all. If Mr Cox is a great white shark, I have to say that the conduct of Mental Madge and Almighty Puny Pete is that of slime – the lowest and the nastiest and the vilest – and the stupidest.
You, Nostradamus, who singularly fail to live up to your moniker, are a clear indication of why there has been no ADR. You do not seem to realize that you and those you so evidently back are up the gum tree. Your approach is as if your opposition (and there can now be no doubt that they are YOUR opposition) are in complete control and I doubt they will be prepared to put up with your ridiculous posturing and arrogance. It is because of that posturing and arrogance that there will likely be no ADR. Now you go, like a good boy-girl and prove me wrong. Try being an adult for once. Behave responsibly and not like some petulant, spoiled brat who needs a smack (I said “a smack” not “smack”, but in your case, I can rulke out neither as being beneficial).
As for expending taxpayers funds that you urge be avoided, just what in Hades do you think has been expended for over a year now on this ridiculous, frivolous, vexatious and already-tried case in Ontario? Just so you know, those were taxpayers funds. If the government is having to face the same arrogant ignorance from you and your lot that it is facing as a Nelson defendant, then the matter will come to final resolution without negotiations with Allard and the expenditure of some more taxpayers money. And do you seriously think that a settlement with Allard will not involve the outlay of considerable taxpayers money? Hello!!!! Anyone in there????!!!!
You talk like an extremely stupid lawyer of the type that ought not to be allowed to practice law at all. You are the supplicant in the matter of ADR. You have no bargaining position at all. ADR is too LATE!!! If it is undertaken now, it will be through the goodwill of your opposition, not because they have the SLIGHTEST reason at this stage to go to ADR. There is NO BENEFIT for them in ADR. I also think there is no benefit for the government and people of Barbados in negotiating with Peter Allard. It is our country governed by our laws and institutions and a government elected by a majority of our citizens. In the long run, given the slimy and disgusting conduct of Mental Madge and Almighty Puny Pete, I say it is cheaper to just get them the hell out of the picture and be done with it.
For over a year now, we have all been able to read the attacks on Barbados launched almost daily by Keltruth and BFP, the Knox/Allard mouthpieces. Well, if they feel that way about us, why in hell should we talk to them? Let them go to hell and leave us to get on with what they claim to despise.
But the truth is they do not despise it – they desire it for themselves. Well, IT IS NOT FOR SALE.
@BWWR
Would you be insulted if I said that your last post was wearisomely verbose and of tiresome length? You are right up there with People’s Democratic Party and Negroman posts.
However with regard to name calling and personal insults you are the undisputed champion. This is what Wikipedia had to say about your technique.
“Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits”
Remind me again what the connection is between Iain Deane, Nelson, Kingsland, Knox, Cox (great white shark),ADR and the closure of the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary?
By the way I have no “embargo or prejudice” against great white sharks. I just wouldn’t recommend swimming with one! Admire from afar.
Nostradamus, we have a lot in common. Verbosity. In my case, my excuse is age. What is yours? By the way, best not to use the Adrian Loveridge patented “remind me” statement too much or people will think you are he and he does seem to have an interest in Kingsland as I see his name all over the John Knox affidavits and even in some decisions from the Ontario courts. Of course, we know you are not Loveridge.
The connection you ask? Simple. Almighty Puny Pete. Did you miss that? Poor you. As I advised you before, read, my dear, read – even if you don’t get it at first, maybe it will filter through to you later like it has all the rest of the country.
As for your Wikipedia, seems to me that if somone sues a country in order to go behind the courts of the country and then ‘arranges’ for two blogs – and a Loveridge – to degrade and run down that country and its people and institutions using manufactured and one-sided slime tactics, then there can be no strictures on name-calling etc. (no matter how these are defined by Wikipedia ot anyone else) as one merely mirrors and uses the tactics used on one’s country – but admittedly to far better effect. But of course Barbados is not your country, is it – or Mr Allard’s and IT NEVER WILL BE. So why don’t you leave a discussion of patriotism to those of us who are Bajan?
BWWR
Touche! It is amazing how some people think because Barbados is a small island, the people are pea brained, or, as we say up here, dickheads. You tell um girl!