I see that Quel Truth has spewed again. Of the avalanche of complaints this time, only one that I can see is of any merit. But man whoever writes Quel Truth in a BAD way. They hop from one point to another and some of the statements are very difficult to follow. Medication needed BAD!!!
Quel Truth disclaims (and I have highlighted certain areas):
Disclaimer: We wish to remind our readers that while we quote public court documents, the contents of these documents should be taken as unproven allegations. What we state here is our opinion. I am not a lawyer. On the other hand, we welcome and value comments. Under the circumstances, anonymous comments are most welcome. Please follow these guidelines:
- Please refrain from making defamatory or libelous statements like calling people frauds or liars. It is acceptable to present proof and to state that someone has lied. It is not acceptable to call someone a liar.
The very first thing you notice in this disclaimer is the link on the words “too long” at the very end. If you click on this link on Quel Truth, it will take you to Barbados Underground’s last article on Kingsland Estates. However, if you happen, as I did, to print out the latest Quel Truth, make sure you got nuff paper and ink in your printer. 22 pages long, chile.
Quel Truth has been at great pains to identify me as the Chief Justice, Peter Simmons and Iain Deane. So much for the respect for anonymity.
Quel Truth, having stated that it is not a lawyer, goes on to provide SEVERAL pages of legal opinion, just to prove that it is what it claims – not a lawyer – in fact, not even a rational or reasonably intelligent person(s). If it were, it would know that it is not defamatory or libelous to call people frauds and liars if you can prove that they are both. In the case of Madge Knox, Greenidge J. has said that she “delayed, hindered or defrauded.” If you defraud, you are a fraud. As for the: “It is acceptable to present proof and to state that someone has lied. It is not acceptable to call someone a liar.” Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is the difference between saying that someone has lied and calling them a liar? Educate us, Professor Knox. And he wonders why they don’t want him teaching at Cave Hill.
Anyway, applying the yard-stick of Quel Truth, I am attaching something my “supplier” just sent me. The Writ of Summons for Fraud against Madge Knox. The Supreme Court and the Court of Public Opinion can judge whether Madge has defrauded and lied, ergo, if she is a liar and a fraud.
Happy, Quel Truth?
Quel Truth’s latest raises a lot of points. As I said, I printed it out. You see, one of my grands gave me the boxed set of Harry Potter and I finished them night before last and I loved them. So I didn’t have nothing to read in bed last night, so I printed out this Quel Truth and chile I slept like a top.
1. Although a company is required to file financials, the registrar can waive this if he/she is given good reason. Quel Truth in its previous article actually had the honesty to state this and to provide a copy of a letter from Financial Services to the Registrar asking for a waiver. Might this have happened again?
I have to axe another question, though. A common sense question. Given the amount of lawsuits flying with Kingsland and Classic both in Barbados and Canada and given the amount of blog coverage and given the two Queen’s Council were involved in the last AGM of Kingsland (according to Quel Truth, Mr. Clyde Turney Q.C. and Mr. Leslie Haynes Q.C.) is it not reasonable for us, the public, to assume that these two senior attorneys would ensure that they and Kingsland and Classic did not do anything illegal? And I want to go back to Keltruth’s disclaimer, “Please refrain from making defamatory or libelous statements”. Is Keltruth aware that to accuse someone of illegal conduct or a lawyer of illegal or unprofessional conduct is defamatory and actionable without proof of damage? Well, now you know, Quel Truth. Better hug your anonymity close.
2. We then learn that 28,570 shares has secured $10.5 million from FirstCaribbean International Bank. This bit of Keltruth’s article is very unclear and it raises some questions:
- We know that Madge Knox has raised some $10.5 million against her shares in Kingsland from Peter Allard. Is this what Keltruth is now admitting and referring to?
- Is FirstCaribbean International the bank used by Mr. Allard for these transactions?
- Later on in its incoherent ramble, Quel Truth lets us in on the fact that Classic owns a total of 176,182 shares in Kingsland and that FirstCaribbean International has loaned it over $22 million in respect of these shares. Well, if Madge could be loaned $10.5 million by Allard on her 28,570 shares, isn’t $22 million secured against 176,182 shares extremely modest and careful by comparison to Mr. Allard?
You see, Quel Truth, in addition to being able to read, we also know how to count. But in any case, what has the value of the shares got to do with financials of the company? The value of the shares is determined by what somebody is prepared to pay for them.
And the shares are valued by the Registrar of Corporate Affairs for tax purposes if they are transferred. So, Quel Truth, some questions:
- How much did Madge Knox pay in transfer tax when she transferred her shares into the trust?
- How much did the trust pay in tax when it transferred those shares to Peter Allard?
- How much did Allard pay in transfer tax when he transferred those shares to Nelson Barbados?
- Oh, and how much stamp duty was paid on each transfer if you please?
Please remember that these are shares in Kingsland Estates Limited, a Barbados-registered company, and that taxes are payable on all those transfers. Therefore, the Registrar would have had to give Madge Knox et al a valuation of the shares on which to base the amount of transfer tax they are required to pay to the Government of Barbados.
3. We then go on to the matter of the transfer of the shares of the late Colin Deane. It seems Madge is saying (through Quel Truth) that she had a right to be given full details of the transfer of those shares (28,570 of them) from the estate of Colin to Classic. Keltruth attaches what it describes as a very large file. 14 pages to be exact. By page 5, I was ready to throw in the towel, but I didn’t. I persevered and by pages 13 and 14, the last two pages of the attachment, I hit pay dirt. The last will and testament of the late Colin Deane. And do you know what I discovered?
- At paragraph 4 of the will, Colin gave and bequeathed his shares in Kingsland to Iain Deane. I don’t see no mention of Madge Knox or anybody else there.
- The only mention I see of Madge Knox is in paragraph 3 and that is for remaining land at “Alma”, a house up by me at Enterprise.
- Madge is not a beneficiary of Colin’s shares in Kingsland and therefore she is not entitled to any accounting of them. If she thinks she is, she ought to take Iain to court. But you see, a little bird (Quel Truth) tells me that she has already done that – and lost – again – with costs against her. Which, predictably and as usual, Quel Truth thinks is unfair.
Keltruth does have one valid complaint. Fair is fair. The issue of the lost Kingsland Estates Limited file from the Corporate Affairs and Intellectual Properties Registry.
I preface this by saying that it is now a few years since I visited the Corporate Affairs Registry, but I am assured that it has not changed. Therefore, on the assurances of a friend of mine that it is still the same, Quel Truth has a valid, though very much overstated, complaint about the disappearance of the Kingsland file. However you want to twist and turn, the file should be there.
Let me also say, though, that it is by no means unusual for files to go missing at the corporate registry. They always turn up after a period of time and then you find out that there was no theft or bad faith involved. They were simply misfiled. That always happens when you are dealing with a manual, as opposed to electronic, filing systems. Of course, if the electrical system breaks down and it has not been backed-up, like my old computer, bare trouble. So manual is more reliable and the personnel at Corporate Affairs are decent civil servants working honestly and in good faith with the systems given them. That there are so few slip-ups is greatly to their credit.
That does not alter the validity of Quel Truth’s basic complaint and, if the systems are not improved and updated soon to reflect the greater volume of work, it means that, apart from the corporate situation, there is the possibility of some Bajan who holds an intellectual property right on something – it might be a trademark or an invention – and who may have lost his documents – having problems establishing ownership, because the file is missing. Can you imagine if Mr Gates and company were Bajan and had invented and registered Microsoft in Barbados and the registry had misfiled the documents?
The source of the problem with lost files is not difficult to find:
- Any member of the general public can examine the corporate file of any company and ascertain, among other things, who are its directors and officers, as well as view its articles of incorporation. This is right and correct in a democratic society.
- Unfortunately, the Corporate Affairs and Intellectual Properties Registry has ABSOLUTELY NO SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS WHATSOEVER. You go in with your briefcase (although I am sure you could take a backpack or even a suitcase) and no one checks its contents going in or coming out. THERE IS NO RECEPTION WHERE YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN. YOU JUST WALK IN.
- You go to the counter and you give the name of the company file you want (or intellectual property file). The file is then brought to you at the counter and you sit, unsupervised and for the most part unobserved, at a series of long tables with your briefcase or handbag or suitcase.
- If you want a copy of any documents, you fill in a form, indicate the pages you want copied, and pay a fee. The receipt is not even issued with a name. You fill that in yourself.
- There is nothing that I could see to prevent you from putting the file into your handbag and walking out with it – and as far as I can see there would be no evidence or paper-trail to say you had had it in the first place and there are no copies of the file kept just in case. You don’t believe me? Just go in there and look around for 15 minutes or so.
As Barbados becomes more and more of a player in the international scene, there could be serious repercussions if the issue of security here is not dealt with.
On another matter, I want to thank Quel Truth for answering one of the questions that we have all been asking – finally.
By posting the Minutes of the March 2007 Kingsland AGM, the question as to who owns Madge Knox’s shares in Kingsland is finally answered. Madge Knox owns them. If you look at the list of attendees, you will find that Mr. John Knox is present at this annual general meeting holding a proxy for his mother, Madge Knox, a shareholder. We do not see notice of absenteeism for Nelson Barbados or Peter Allard. In this capacity, John Knox exercises the rights of his mother as a shareholder at the AGM of Kingsland Estates. At no time does John Knox protest that he is representing anyone other than his mother, and if you read the minutes, Mr. Knox protested quite a lot.
Therefore, on what basis does the Canadian action by Nelson Barbados rely for its right to sue anybody? As I have maintained all along, Nelson Barbados has no right to sue anyone on this issue ANYWHERE, far less in Canada.
I want to refer just briefly to Keltruth’s article of 21st June all about the subject of the Billy Goat on the back steps of one of Madge’s daughters. Keltruth made light of this, while suggesting that it was a joke rather than a threat and that it was going to turn Little Billy Goat over to the RSPCA. I remarked that it would make a good goat stew and that I was pleased to see that Madge had decided in future not to take legal advice from farmyard animals but, in effect, to eat a little goat stew instead.
Keltruth, chile, forget bout threats, soul. I believe that the arrival of the goat was because it had heard through the grapevine that Madge was paying top dollar for legal opinions from goats. We Bajans have much better ways to deal with people like Madge, the Prof, Peter Allard and Little Billy Goat McKenzie. We Bajans use these weapons very well, particularly with people who try to hold us and our institutions up to international ridicule and to compromise our sovereignty. Weapon No 1 is Ridicule and Laughter – that is for the people we intend to forgive. For those we don’t intend to forgive, Weapon No 2 is Silence and Withdrawal. I wonder which of the two Bajans will use here.
Note: “FCIB” cannot be used to define FirstCaribbean International Bank. The intellectual property rights to “FCIB” are owned by:
FCIB WORLD HEADQUARTERS
8840 Columbia 100 Parkway
Columbia, MD 21045-2158
USA
Phone: 410/423-1840 · 888/256-3242
Fax: 410/423-1845
E-mail: fcib_global@fcibglobal.com
I can find no evidence that FCIB has anything to do with FirstCaribbean International Bank.
Related Links
Barbados Underground 
The author of this peice ignore the main point of the quel truth article that the companies involved never produced business records for the shareholders from day one. Madge Knox was being railroaded and the people trying to steal her shares saying they were worthless when they were worth tens of millions of dollars. Everything go back to that!
Iain Deane stole her inheritance when he was the executor of her uncle estate. She never received a penny from the estate that Deane supposed to distribute to the beneficiaries.
It all go back to screwing the old lady for millions with no business records. SHAME IAIN DEANE!
BWWR,
Whose money did you say FCIB lent out without seeing audited financial statements? Doesn’t FCIB have a responsibility to the people who bank there?
I moved my money from FCIB long time ago.
More on this later. Got to run.
ba88/98 , chile, all I could say is thank the Lord for BU. If you tried to put that pon Keltruth, the would “moderate” you for defamation.
“From day one” – but sweetheart, what is “Day 1”? Remember, Madge was a director of Kingsland for 10 years – years when no financials were produced.
Also, girl, what is your problem? Madge still owns her shares. Of course, they got a charging order against them and the various defendants she sued and lost to must be eyeing them now. So they must be hoping she is right and that they are worth tens of millions of dollars. Lemme see. $4.32 million to Allard, about another $6 million for the defendants in the Privy Council case, at least another $2 million for the other cases in Barbados she has lost and, of course, her own fees for the Canadian action that would be about #1 million and the defendants’ costs, another $4 million – so we not looking at much change so far out of $16 million. So, chile it is not just Madge who hopes the shares are worth what you and she say they are.
AND WE HAVEN’T EVEN STARTED WITH DAMAGES YET.
The issue of piece of land not the property of Kingsland Estates is not relevant here. This is a discussion about Kingsland Estates, not piece of land up by me. Also, Keltruth has said in effect that Madge complained to the courts about this matter of the land up by me and she lost. I am going to trust the courts to decide if Madge get teef. The Courts say no.
Also, in view of what I said here, do you really think that if Madge’s shares in Kingsland – that she still owns – are not worth enough to cover the amount she owes everybody in costs and damages, she will get anything out of that piece of land up by me? Dream on.
No name, you have struck the nail on the head. You have removed your money from FirstCaribbean. Therefore, you are not in a position to ask FirstCaribbean to explain.
No doubt, if a shareholder of FirstCaribbean wants to raise the issue at an annual general meeting, the Bank will address it then. And even if you DID have your money with FirstCaribbean, you would not be entitled to demand any explanation. Your rights are limited to what was in the contract you signed with the Bank when you opened your account. If they default on that, you have a complaint. If not, sweetheart, it is none of your damned business. You have to be a shareholder, not a consumer, to ask those questions.
Thanks BWWR. Very informative as always. Also, the questions you pose are right on point. I hope, but do not expect, they will be answered. I think I may call in a favour from my old firm and see if I cannot get the information on transfer taxes from the corporate registry. I would ask what the valuation for transfer tax of Kingsland’s shares are and what Mrs. Knox and the rest paid, if they paid, by way of transfer taxes for these shares that Nelson claims it owns.
Your comments about the staff working at the Corporate Registry are correct. For many years, I have been visiting there and even when it was in James Street and the space very limited, they were always polite and very helpful, even when they couldn’t find the file I wanted. Usually, some time later, I would receive a telephone call saying that the file had been located.
Decent, hard-working Bajans doing the best anyone could expect with what they are given.
BWWR, once again hats off to you. Very good analysis. If only some of the consultants I used to hire could do basic analysis…. I am eagerly awaiting Keltllruth’s response.
With regards to the registry. When I left, there was talk of microfiche. They used to use copyists to hand record all legal documents in large ledgers. I guess that also went by the wayside and now there is no visible “back-up” to a misplaced, lost or stolen file.
As of December 2005, Kingsland’s shares were valued at $40.00 per share for the purposes of transfer tax and stamp duty. I have no answers yet on the question of transfer taxes paid by Madge and then the rest, but this will be forthcoming I am sure.
BWWR we have read the mountains of writing on this matter so far. If this matter stays on the present course it seems that huge resources of time and money will be expended. It is possible that the result maybe a loose-loose.
What will it take to bring both parties to the table to smoke a peace pipe and parlee for awhile. All concern are not getting any younger and one reaches a stage where a stress free life assumes priority.
David,
I agree with you completely. However, I don’t think it will happen. There is a popular idea that I am an insider. I am not. I am just extremely friendly with some insiders and I enjoy their full confidence – and documents.
The evidence I have shows that there have been many good faith efforts on the part of Mr. Cox to get Mrs. Knox to the negotiating table. However, these have been met wit a degree of rudeness and bad faith acts, mainly by Jane Goddard and John Knox, that has not allowed even for discussion. I think it is entirely possible that Mr. Cox has finally taken the view that he has to fight this to the end and he will not entertain any idea of negotiations now. And I don’t blame him. After all, alone among the Kingsland shareholders, Kingsland supplies Madge with housing rent-free, and the Prof, of course, who lives with Mummy.
The situation now, as far as I can see, is that there is no benefit whatsoever to Mr. Cox to settle with Mrs. Knox. It is all merely a matter of time. Let me explain just a little.
Iain has a charging order and the chances are that he will win the fraud action and the transfer of Madge’s shares will be voided by the courts. Forget about the share certificates being in Canada. The Court in Barbados will order Kingsland to cancel them and reissue them and hand them to Iain. Madge can appeal, but she will have to pay a hefty deposit for securit for Iain’s costs before an appeal will be allowed.
Madge can then opt to redeem the shares by paying Iain what she owes him in costs and damages, or Iain will put them on the open market for sale and sell as many of them as will satisfy Madge’s debt to him.
The rest of the shares will be returned to Madge, but you can be sure that by that time they will be subject to other charging orders and injunctions and she won’t have them for long.
With them will go any standing Madge has to bring a case anywhere.
Keltruth reported that Classic had borrowed against its shares $22 million. I don’t know if Madge sees it, but that too is a very real danger right there. If Classic can prove that this money was borrowed to pay the Kingsland debt to the Barbados Agricultural Credit Trust and to reactivate the company (and you can be sure this is what will happen) Classic is perfectly entitled to require Madge to pay her share of this $22 million pro-rated to her shareholding.
If Madge were my client, I would BEG her to let me settle things and I would go to opposing counsel in Canada and Barbados and ask on what basis they would agree to discharge the actions. I would redeem the charging order from Iain and reach an agreement for costs and damages with everone else. Then I would hold on to my shares in Kingsland and do what I could to support Classic so that both Classic and I could make a profit. After a while, if the shares are as valuable as Madge says, I would have covered my expenses of the unsuccesful lawsuits and I would be making some money.
Given that Madge has the backing of the Canadian billionaire, she can afford this. But will she? Hell no. Instead, she will take the advice of “counsel” (and I am glad Henry got out of that) and mostly of those children of hers whom she thinks are far brighter than they are.
So, yes, I agree that a settlement would be good and personally, I enjoy a stress-free life. However……..you can lead the goat to your washing line, but you can’t make him eat.
David,
I just went on Keltruth and saw a link to “Iain Deane’s Reply” and it brought me here to this article by me, Black Woman Who Reads. I am NOT Iain Deane and, while I choose to use a moniker, I do like credit for what I write. I also do not think that Keltruth ought to be able to allocate credits on Barbados Underground.
That Keltruth sees nothing wrong or dishonest in its actions goes, in my view, to the degree of complete disregard for the rights of others and of any vestige of honesty or integrity that is Keltruth’s hallmark and that resonates throughout its legal actions.
Not for nothing has it been called Quel Truth.
But never mind, if Quel Truth wants to credit Iain Deane for something I wrote on Barbados Underground, all I can say to Quel Truth is Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
BWWR a very unfortunate situation. As you and others know the BU household talks about the importance of the family unit alot. Therefore when we see such a family ripping itself apart is hurts.
BWWR,
Are you awake or just living in a dream?
That Keltruth sees nothing wrong or dishonest in its actions goes, in my view, to the degree of complete disregard for the rights of others and of any vestige of honesty or integrity that is Keltruth’s hallmark and that resonates throughout its legal actions.
__________________________________
and this from someone who calls Cox “her friend”
David, I agree with you. Family is most important and it is sad when they tear each other apart. But unfortunately this sometimes happens.
Anonymous, I do not call Mr. Cox my friend. In fact, I have never even met Mr. Cox. My views are got through an anlysis of the documents and judgments. Mr. Cox appears to me from those documents to have acted in a straightforward and acceptable business manner. Whereas, Madge Knox appears to me to have acted as a fraud and liar – sorry, Quel Truth – FRAUDULENTLY and UNTRUTHFULLY.
So anonymous, if you have documents that prove that Mr. Cox has acted fraudulently or untruthfully or attempted to impeach our sovreignty and the respect in which our island and people are held, please post them and, if I agree, I will revise my opinion.
And please don’t point me towards Keltruth. The documents it is posting have all been decided on by the Privy Council. And if not, that is Madge’s problem. The documents posted on Keltruth, if you read them as the judges have had to without Keltruth’s subjective interpretations, do not convince anyone of anything, other than that Mr. Cox is a good businessman – and the goat pen needs cleaning. Baaaaaaaa
BWWR
I know enough about Cox’ history to refute your description of him as a businessman. But that’ it from me, because this whole thing is so sinister, it stinks.
Anonymous,
I not looking for no arguments. I looking for answers, document-backed. I am only looking in the Kingsland issue. I see no evidence of irregularities or bad faith by Mr. Cox there. If you have any hard evidence to the contrary, please post it and let us all see it. It is not enough to say that you, an anonymous person, know enough about Cox’s history to refute my descripton. If you have the evidence, share it wih us.
Pingback: » Canadian Action: Tabulation of Clients and Their Lawyers Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA.
Keltruth, nobody cares who the lawyers are. This case will not survive the jurisdictional motion. It is a nothing case and so none of us care what the names of the Canadian lawyers might be.
Annon3 says “nobody cares who the lawyers are”
You are wrong.
For the sake of the BU family can Kelthruth et al tell us the significance of the last blog? Are you saying that the combine reputation of the lawyers in the pending case tells a story?
It seems that you will get no answer to that, David, nor to any of the other questions posed to Keltruth.
Pingback: » Did Defendant Clyde Turney Threaten a Witness in the Canadian Action? Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA.