CJ

Tales from the Courts – Vernon Oliver Smith Vs Marston Gibson and the Attorney General XXX

This case, when it first went, unlisted on the court lists, to court, was before Justice Randall Worrell. Several things happened, not least Worrell J. being forced to recuse himself from hearing the case, because of the involvement of his wife. BU expresses its disbelief that Worrell did not know well in advance that he was conflicted and did not declare this, thus instead wasting court time and attorneys’ fees. We also know that the defendant, Marston Gibson, himself oversees what cases are scheduled before what judge and it is too much for us to believe that Gibson did not know of Worrell’s conflict.

We also learned for the first time, as did a disbelieving legal fraternity given voice to by Sir Henry Forde QC, that the courts have a “secret list” of hearings. We were also amazed to learn that the Marshall of the court had to be prompted sternly to announce the title of the case, “Vernon Olivier Smith vs Sir Marston Gibson”. That the Press was denied entry to a matter of national importance taking place in open court was also deeply disturbing and went against the basic principal that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.

Most alarming of all was the information that the defendant Marston Gibson, having failed to file either an acknowledgement or a defence under the Civil Procedure Rules, refused to present himself in court, as is required. That, in our humble and inexpert view, must surely be tantamount to contempt of court.

We are happy to report that last Friday when the court lists were released, the case of Vernon Olivier Smith vs Sir Marston Gibson was set down for hearing on Friday February 26, 2016 before Madam Justice Pamela Beckles, the sole member of the Bench whose application of timely justice has been remarked on favourably by the CCJ.

While BU itself cannot attend the hearing, or not officially anyway, for obvious reasons, it is hoped that in this case of national importance where a CJ is being sued by a senior queens counsel on matters that allegedly amount to gross misconduct on the part of the CJ, Beckles J. will allow the press and public into her court. Bajans are entitled to know and observe exactly what is going on when allegations of gross misconduct are being adjudicated against the head of the judiciary whose salary and emoluments we, the taxpayers, pay. There can be no excuse whatever for a closed hearing. IT IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE!

We have been able to ascertain that the application before the court is for summary judgement against Marston Gibson under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The plaintiff Mr Smith QC is represented by Mr Edmund King QC, Mr Hal Gollop QC and Mr Michael Springer QC. The defendant, Sir Marston Gibson is, so far as we know, represented by Ms Donna Braithwaite QC of the Attorney General’s office.

Tags: ,

109 Comments on “Tales from the Courts – Vernon Oliver Smith Vs Marston Gibson and the Attorney General XXX”

  1. Well Well & Consequences February 25, 2016 at 10:38 AM #

    Since a local publisher is supplying the books, am sure contrary to what others want, there will be a steady supply available to Amazon going forward, about 20 people I know ordered the book the same week I did, it’s safe to say it is doing wonderfully….since some books dont sell at all.

    Like

  2. Violet C Beckles February 25, 2016 at 3:04 PM #

    Well Well & Consequences February 25, 2016 at 10:38 AM # @@@

    Cases deal with time line , David Simmons was AG back 1995 when Violet Beckles took her Plantation Papers to him , He did nothing, This was after years of giving her the run around the letter she wrote to the GG send her to this AG Simmons at that time,With Sir Richard and Dealing with Sir Cow, People must understand even the lawyers on this blog that many things had to be done to hinder things, Even the Deed of the High Court where CJ Gibson is working from is in Question,, We have the answer , Sir Richard holding and seeing the Deed for the Plantation of Kensington then Signed a lease agreement with the CJ Simmons to build the High Court , We sure CJ Gibson must have seen that from his side by now.
    So now all the lands of the UDC, NHC and even Habitat 3 is nothing more than land and money laundering Fraud,for all the VAT and taxes end up in lawyers pocket, With names of people never born, never found, between Barbados England and Canada,fake names use to make deeds and move money through the CB,stamped and sealed,

    This why the court had to adjust to the fraud,We are glad some cleaning is being done , for most of the lawyer in Barbados are crooks ,, What law are they using to support this riddled system?

    Beatrice Henry 93 Violet Beckles 92 really gave them hell for living so long to fight them all,
    This is why people cant get deeds, no proof of root title, 70 year clear title replace with 20year good title to go around Clear Titles, Every lawyer office money made is real estate that dont belong to the seller, Gab the money and run , that leave a dirty trail ,
    Papers removed , back dated,forward dates, entries numbers missing out of turn, names removed from searches, at the land Registry and Archives, With Crook ass lawyers at each GATE telling lies,and even the works at each post have orders to block,

    Just a Matter of time before these Madoff and Standfords of Barbados end up the same way ,,, Years in Jail ,

    Like

  3. Well Well & Consequences February 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM #

    I was talking to someone in NY yesterday and they asked me how the people in Barbados can look at themselves in the mirror after doing these nasty things to each other….I told him they look in the mirror and admire themselves just fine and sleep just fine as well…..he was amazed….Alex.

    Like

  4. Well Well & Consequences February 25, 2016 at 3:38 PM #

    At least they cannot blame neither BU nor Naked Departure for Philip V. Nicholls’ book which is now be read worldwide….lol

    Like

  5. Well Well & Consequences February 25, 2016 at 6:09 PM #

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/78263/parris-adjourned

    Like

  6. John February 25, 2016 at 8:27 PM #

    I don’t know why I am asking, probably just to be cussed because it really is of no importance to me but ….. “did the matter of national importance get heard and what was the outcome if heard?”

    Like

  7. Well Well & Consequences February 25, 2016 at 8:56 PM #

    Lol….good one.

    Like

  8. Gabriel February 25, 2016 at 9:12 PM #

    The book was seen available for sale at a Sky Mall book store for just over $69.-

    Like

  9. Well Well & Consequences February 26, 2016 at 5:41 AM #

    Lol….Something very nice for Clico policyholders to wake up to this morning.

    “LEROY PARRIS has failed to persuade the court to unfreeze the $3.3 million at the centre of a legal battle and the Chief Justice has said the insurance company Parris once headed is entitled to the money.

    In another twist in the legal wrangling since the collapse of the regional conglomerate Clico International Life Insurance (CIL), Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson, sitting in the High Court on Monday dismissed Parris’ attempt to regain control of the money in a fixed deposit account at Scotiabank.

    “The Bank of Nova Scotia is directed, until the further order of the court, to maintain the $4 500 000 in term deposit . . . held in the name Branlee Consulting Services Inc,” the Chief Justice stated.

    In addition, the court removed the estate of David Thompson from the list of defendants against whom the action had been brought. In an earlier application Justice William Chandler had granted the judicial managers of CLICO the freezing injunction against the account in the name of Parris and his Branlee company.”

    See more at: http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/78288/parris-loses#sthash.lxqGhJKH.dpuf

    Like

  10. balance February 27, 2016 at 2:47 AM #

    “de Ingrunt Word February 23, 2016 at 10:22 AM #

    Ahem David, that Barrow quote should be banned. He was being as facetious and duplicitous in his own way as others in the profession are today.

    The Honorable gentleman was a lawyer who plied his trade in Coleridge St.

    He sat in the House and oversaw/passed/approved legislation which absolutely required folks to engage attorneys.

    His remark sounded absolutely righteous to the victimized mass then and resonates even more today but if we take it beyond its face-value quotable status it’s full of noise but meaning not one damn thing!

    It was difficult then and absolutely impossible now to navigate life in BIM without going into ‘Coleridge’ street.

    All smoke and mirrors David all smoke and mirrors!”

    Very insightful , De ingrunt, very insightful.

    Like

  11. John February 27, 2016 at 1:36 PM #

    I see the matter of National Importance has been adjourned for 45 days!!

    Wonder if the CJ in his wisdom chose a Saturday or Sunday when the Courts are closed.

    What a waste of time.

    Like

  12. David February 27, 2016 at 2:05 PM #

    Parris loses (and justice loses as well)

    Extracted from Facebook.

    "In addition, the court removed the estate of David Thompson from the list of defendants against whom the action had been brought."

    In their rush to vilify Leroy Parris, I think the general public are missing this ‘story within the story’ and what it says about the manner in which fraternity and familiarity impedes justice.

    If the court and the judicial managers Deloitte have established that the payment from David Thompson to Leroy Parris was illegitimate / illegal, why is the former Prime Minister and his estate being relieved of any liability? Inquiring minds want to know.

    ‪#‎cultureofdeceit‬ ‪#‎fraternitywins‬ ‪#‎allonebiggang‬

    Parris loses

    Like

  13. Hants February 27, 2016 at 2:23 PM #

    Like

  14. Alvin Cummins February 29, 2016 at 9:46 PM #

    @David,
    The answer is very simple. Despite the rumour and innuendo, the shouting and the tumult, David did nothing illegal, and the 3.3 million he was accused of really was a business transaction between Parris and Clico. David Thompson was Parris’s lawyer ipso facto he facilities the transaction and there was nothing illegal about his function or actions.

    Like

  15. Alvin Cummins February 29, 2016 at 10:01 PM #

    @Well Well,
    We agree. I am almost through reading Philip Nicholls book. It should be required reading for all lawyers who hope to be honwsrt lawyers. It illustrates that the malfeasance within the judicial system goes far back, it demonstrates the impotence, and duplicity within the very system that should be the protector of the innocent It is a book amused should read, because; as you intimated he is a lawyer, and if so he needs to read it otherwise I have to paint him with a brush similar to other so called “decent” lawyers. It ia an expose of a broken system.

    Like

  16. de Ingrunt Word February 29, 2016 at 10:19 PM #

    @ David February 27, 2016 at 2:05 PM…Fah absolute sure, I need to read that judgement if its available to understand the ‘story within the story’. Like you that had me kerfuffled but wid all the lawyers bout this place and there not being a whimper I thought I had misheard…

    You say ” If the court and the judicial managers Deloitte have established that the payment from David Thompson to Leroy Parris was illegitimate / illegal…”

    Yet the learned and well educated @Cummings says “David did nothing illegal, …”

    So Mr. Cummings based on your vast experience can you please tell me how a sitting PM who has responsibility over Finance and related matters can act in his private legal capacity to move this insurance comp check through the Law firm bearing his name and do so LEGALLY?

    It was reported that a ‘commission’ was deducted from the check yet the partners of the firm bearing the PM name say they knew nothing of that check transaction. So if the estate of David Thompson has been removed from the suit does that mean they are being enjoined to explain your ‘business transaction between Parris and Clico’.

    Like

  17. balance February 29, 2016 at 10:25 PM #

    “In addition, the court removed the estate of David Thompson from the list of defendants against whom the action had been brought.”

    To jeff and Caswell. Please enlighten me as to what the above means.

    Like

  18. ac February 29, 2016 at 10:42 PM #

    Balance what is there to be enlightened find a dictionary and first look up the word remove and you would be enlightened

    Like

  19. David March 1, 2016 at 3:14 AM #

    @Dee Word

    What did Mr.Bumble say about the law?

    Like

  20. Jeff Cumberbatch March 1, 2016 at 5:30 AM #

    @Balance, it simply means that the Thompson estate is no longer a party (defendant) to the matter. Its application not to be proceeded against was successful.

    Like

  21. David March 1, 2016 at 5:54 AM #

    @Jeff

    How is such possible if the estate benefited from the proceeds of the 3.3 million, a matter pending?

    Like

  22. balance March 1, 2016 at 5:56 AM #

    “ac February 29, 2016 at 10:42 PM #

    Balance what is there to be enlightened find a dictionary and first look up the word remove and you would be enlightened”

    Thanks Ac. I was only seeking clarification because I do not know everything and I did not want to cast aspersions on either the characters of the Honourable Chief Justice or The Judicial Managers but I smell a rat because in my view either the incontrovertible reference to the involvement of Mr Thompson’s estate in the issue under question is tainted or the decision of the Chief Justice. Some could very well unfairly but justifiably ask why did the Chief Justice not recuse himself from this matter knowing that his selection as Chief Justice was tainted with controversy beginning under Mr Thompson’s watch.

    Like

  23. Jeff Cumberbatch March 1, 2016 at 6:08 AM #

    @David, I would have to read the decision to answer that fully, but unless the newspaper misreported the judgment, this ruling would mean that there was no illicit benefit to the estate as is presumed

    Like

  24. balance March 1, 2016 at 6:31 AM #

    Payments related to CLICO Executives
    There were also a number of payments funded by CIL, which related to CLICO Group Executives:
    • On January 16, 2009, a payment for $3.333mm was made to the law firm Thompson & Associates by CIL. We examined the invoice from Thompson & Associates dated December 30, 2008, which described four different legal matters in detail and the „fees‟ or „retainers‟ for each. The invoice was approved by Mr. Leroy Parris, as Chairman. The invoice was paid by CIL cheque on January 16, 2009 and deposited „to the credit of the payee‟ that day. CIL recorded three of the four matters as an inter-company receivable from CHBL. We were advised that the fourth amount for $237K was believed by CIL to be its expense at the time the invoice was
    © Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. 13

    received and therefore this item was not charged back to CHBL. In CHBL‟s accounting records, three of the four matters were recorded as separate transactions as “Professional Fees”, totalling $3.096mm.
    • We have been advised by CIL that the $3.333mm payment was actually to the benefit of Mr. Leroy Parris, the former Chairman of CIL and CHBL, and related to partial payment of a “gratuity”. We have been advised that Mr. Parris acknowledges that this payment was related to the “gratuity” payments owed to him under his employment contract. The employment contract was between CHBL and Professional Financial Services (“PFS”), which we understand to be Mr. Parris‟ company through which his remuneration was paid, and was signed by Mr. Parris, Mr. Duprey, and Mr. Terrence Thornhill. Part 4 of the contract provided that:

    “The employer will pay to Professional Financial Services Inc. and/or Leroy Parris a gratuity of US $5,000,000.00 on the 15th day of May 2008 in such manner as may be agreed between the parties on terms as set out but amended herein as to the date of payment but in no way otherwise in a letter dated December 5, 2002 between Leroy Parris and Lawrence Duprey”.
    • We have not seen a copy of the letter dated December 5, 2002 referenced in the employment contract.
    • CIL provided a letter dated June 18, 2010 from CHBL to “PFS”, which indicated that:

    “In addition, under contract commencing May 15, 2005, Clico Holdings (Barbados) Limited will pay to you, a gratuity of BDS$10 million on May 15, 2008. BDS$3,333,333 of this amount has already been paid”.
    • We found no reference to this payment in the Minutes of CIL or CHBL at or around the time it was made. However, in July 2009, shortly after the appointment of Dr. Frank Alleyne as the Government‟s representative on the Board of CHBL, there was reference to a request from the Oversight Committee for information relating to payments made to Mr. Parris, specifically a copy of Mr. Parris‟ employment contract;
    • As of the date of this report, we have not had the opportunity to ask either Mr. Parris or Thompson & Associates about the circumstances or timing of this payment and the creation of the invoice.
    • CIL also funded approximately $2.1mm dollars relating to Mr. Parris‟ annual bonuses in the years 2003 to 2008. We reviewed Mr. Parris‟ employment contract, which indicated his entitlement to receive an annual bonus of $300K per year between 2003 and 2007, increasing to $600K per year in 2008. We also reviewed supporting documents for the payments such as cheque copies and vendor histories from the accounting system. These payments were paid by CIL on behalf of CHBL to different associates and related companies of Mr. Parris, such as David Thompson, Thompson & Associates, Branlee Consulting Services Inc., PFS, as well as payments to Antigua Commercial Bank. Some of the documents we reviewed showed that the releases of funds by CIL were made based on directions from Mr. Parris that were acted upon by Executive Management, such as Mr. Thornhill.

    received and therefore this item was not charged back to CHBL. In CHBL‟s accounting records, three of the four matters were recorded as separate transactions as “Professional Fees”, totalling $3.096mm.
    • We have been advised by CIL that the $3.333mm payment was actually to the benefit of Mr. Leroy Parris, the former Chairman of CIL and CHBL, and related to partial payment of a “gratuity”. We have been advised that Mr. Parris acknowledges that this payment was related to the “gratuity” payments owed to him under his employment contract. The employment contract was between CHBL and Professional Financial Services (“PFS”), which we understand to be Mr. Parris‟ company through which his remuneration was paid, and was signed by Mr. Parris, Mr. Duprey, and Mr. Terrence Thornhill. Part 4 of the contract provided that:

    “The employer will pay to Professional Financial Services Inc. and/or Leroy Parris a gratuity of US $5,000,000.00 on the 15th day of May 2008 in such manner as may be agreed between the parties on terms as set out but amended herein as to the date of payment but in no way otherwise in a letter dated December 5, 2002 between Leroy Parris and Lawrence Duprey”.
    • We have not seen a copy of the letter dated December 5, 2002 referenced in the employment contract.
    • CIL provided a letter dated June 18, 2010 from CHBL to “PFS”, which indicated that:

    “In addition, under contract commencing May 15, 2005, Clico Holdings (Barbados) Limited will pay to you, a gratuity of BDS$10 million on May 15, 2008. BDS$3,333,333 of this amount has already been paid”.
    • We found no reference to this payment in the Minutes of CIL or CHBL at or around the time it was made. However, in July 2009, shortly after the appointment of Dr. Frank Alleyne as the Government‟s representative on the Board of CHBL, there was reference to a request from the Oversight Committee for information relating to payments made to Mr. Parris, specifically a copy of Mr. Parris‟ employment contract;
    • As of the date of this report, we have not had the opportunity to ask either Mr. Parris or Thompson & Associates about the circumstances or timing of this payment and the creation of the invoice.
    • CIL also funded approximately $2.1mm dollars relating to Mr. Parris‟ annual bonuses in the years 2003 to 2008. We reviewed Mr. Parris‟ employment contract, which indicated his entitlement to receive an annual bonus of $300K per year between 2003 and 2007, increasing to $600K per year in 2008. We also reviewed supporting documents for the payments such as cheque copies and vendor histories from the accounting system. These payments were paid by CIL on behalf of CHBL to different associates and related companies of Mr. Parris, such as David Thompson, Thompson & Associates, Branlee Consulting Services Inc., PFS, as well as payments to Antigua Commercial Bank. Some of the documents we reviewed showed that the releases of funds by CIL were made based on directions from Mr. Parris that were acted upon by Executive Management, such as Mr. Thornhill.


    Like

    0

    0

    Rate This

    Like

  25. balance March 1, 2016 at 6:35 AM #

    My view might be myopic but I posted the above because either the information in the report is incorrect or the Chief Justice’s decision is awry but both cannot be correct.

    Like

  26. Violet C Beckles March 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM #

    Here is an out line of what goes on the so-called Barbados High Court, Fraud Judges and Lawyers , Jerry Nurse Case,
    http://nakeddeparture.com/2016/02/29/barbados-50-years-masonic-supreme-court-land-property-corruption/

    Most you you think land fraud is a joke and only Applies to Violet Beckles , it also applies to All of you that is to own land in Barbados ,, It messes up the Banking and Clear Titles,
    90 % of lawyers in Barbados in this, So now they must keep tourism going to feed the fraud, PONZI just about done,People dont stay fooled for ever and those who Chuse to cover it up,DBLP

    Like

  27. David March 2, 2016 at 11:25 AM #

    Interesting you Jackasses behind Naked Departure would seek to post lies about David of BU yet come here to promote the site. We will ruminate how to respond soon.

    Like

  28. Bush Tea March 2, 2016 at 11:41 AM #

    @ David
    How is such possible if the estate benefited from the proceeds of the 3.3 million, a matter pending?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    All things are possible if only you believe …..that you are dealing with brass bowls.
    We just need to trust the learned CJ …who Thompson moved heaven and earth to bring to the job…

    Like

  29. Bush Tea March 2, 2016 at 11:45 AM #

    @ David March 2, 2016 at 11:25 AM #
    Interesting you Jackasses behind Naked Departure would seek to post lies about David…
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Boss take it easy… what are a few lies on you and BU?
    They ACTUALLY crucified Jesus – and all he did to them was heal the sick, feed the hungry and make some wine to keep them merry…

    Welcome them …and show them how maturity works…..

    Like

  30. David March 2, 2016 at 11:56 AM #

    @Bush Tea

    The three of them are still posting on BU not so? Turning the other cheek, for now.

    Like

  31. ac March 2, 2016 at 1:56 PM #

    Well leave it to a blp yardfowl to conjuere up all sorts of malicious intent referencing the removal of the DT estate as a defendant in the Clico vs. L P case to shady dealings of the judge.More shoes would be dropped which would move the case further away from the intended targets who were malicously harmed by the propaganda wheel of the BLP executioners in their high performance of evilness . evidence which would be presented pointing wrong doing in the direction of the 14 year reign of the blp under whose watch the Clico demise began.

    Like

  32. ac March 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM #

    with such an interesting development whereby the judge has seen it necessary to remove DT estate as a defendant the question which now should be asked is how did the BLP yardfowls formulate so many allegations which tied DT to theft now that the law courts which are privy to all factual information decides differently
    One can only conclude that some or all of the Clico documentation presented on BU by some BLP foot soldiers as evidence was fraudulent delivered against a backdrop of hatred and revenge of DT

    Like

  33. TheGazer March 2, 2016 at 6:37 PM #

    @David
    Continue to turn the other cheek.
    You are doing a great service here. Don’t let others distract you with nonsense.

    Like

  34. Gabriel March 2, 2016 at 8:02 PM #

    Philip Nicholls’s book is a revelation of the trickery,treachery and nastiness that is the legal profession in Barbados.It ranks with the filthiest low life gutter rats that one expects to find in the jungle called Nelson Street.I think given a preference I would take my chances in the jungle because you know what is expected and therefore one is prepared.I always knew some of the low down skunks mentioned and a few of them octogenarians are still at it.I wonder how long before jungle justice takes its place.Thieves.Bastids.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: