Archive | Court

Vaccine mandate in Montserrat! Really?

As you read the article in this re-post which may be longer than its norm, but necessary because of what it portrays or inform, and previously posted, would you think for a bit:

We first brought this pandemic information to you in January, followed in February along with warnings and advice on how to prevent the ‘virus’ from reaching Montserrat. We at the same time presented early (WHO, etc.) safety and protected measures.

The Montserrat authorities by mid-March 2020, corruptly ignored these messages and reportedly pretended that this was just a passing situation. What followed came what turned out to be the extreme of at best of times poorly handled ‘protocols’ and late avoidance (‘safety’ measures which otherwise carefully or sensibly thought out could have made Montserrat, ‘COVID-19 free’ thru June – September.

What we would like to present here is how many of the persons tested as positive from mid-March were in fact confirmed to be a case; a report of the treatment given on the numbers of those who showed symptoms; the number of those who eventually after being sent home to isolate, ended up (“for treatment”) at the hospital, and what treatment was administered.

We have been dutifully shown the various charts of positives, etc. and recoveries, etc., but we really do not know the numbers of those positives were really COVID-19. (See other articles on this matter)

We would like to know, (a report be issued) issued on how many people died between February and present. The number of those persons who received the ‘COVID-19 vaccine’! And whether any of those persons had tested positive previously or after receiving the vaccine.

 So now, we come to the vaccine and the corrupt efforts to have sick and well, immune or building immunity to the virus, after instilling fear to access it. On the way, we are told by the authorities instructively that the vaccinated does not guarantee inability to contract and transmit the virus to anyone. (Hence the rush to advise the vaccinated to continue wearing masks and observe all safety all protocols). That under the guise of course of further protecting themselves from contracting from the unvaccinated, rather then transmitting it.

(In very simple terms) Roughly our understanding is that the vaccine contains the virus that allows the body to build “resistance” against the virus. The result is that you can get reactions like COVID-19 symptoms and you can get sick (but not seriously, also adverse events, such as dying). The claim is that this happens to an “acceptable” percentage of people because the risk for this outweighs the benefits.

Why should that not be left to every individual to choose? Instead, it is mandated – that MUST be WRONG, taking those simple TRUTHS aforementioned. It is why the matter will end up in the courts, with the less able to do, will cause damage to come.

This reaction is similar to what is happening all over the world where ‘mandates’ are enforced.

Vaccine mandate results in teacher shortage – Antigua Breaking News

Masks, school closures only increase fear of COVID-19 in students, says doctor – Cayman Compass

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Columns, Court, COVID-19, Features, Local, News, Opinions, Politics, Regional0 Comments

TMR08-Aug27_21-br-pg-5-VDH

Probate Notice –

Posted in Advertisements, CARICOM, Classified, Court, International, Legal, Local, Regional0 Comments

BACOL-speaks

BACOL speaks – Are you a policyholder? It’s about British American Insurance Co. Ltd.

Watch and be guided:
https://fb.watch/7rDXc4LXUB/

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Court, Featured, Legal, Local, News, OECS0 Comments

Dr-John-Campbell-of-the-UK-summarises-how-degree-of-use-of-Ivermectin-across-Peru-Mexico-and-India

Compulsory Jabs vs the Nuremberg Code

Contribution Part 115 – 2021 # 08)

Have our authorities overstepped their bounds by moving towards compulsory vaccinations? (What does the post-WWII Nuremberg Code have to say?)

BRADES, Montserrat, July 7, 2021 –  A recent Government of Montserrat Human Resources circular of June 30th entitled “Updated Guidance on Discretionary Leave Provisions” has come to our attention here at TMR. In key parts, it reads:

“Public officers who apply for and are awarded Government Scholarships to study at institutions  abroad  will,  from the academic  year  2021/2022  be  required  to  be vaccinated before traveling to take up these awards . . . . It will also be a requirement for public officers attending training courses abroad to be fully vaccinated.”

Of course, given the third jab proposed for Autumn this year and reports of a train of onward booster shots every year or even every six months (as TMR has already reported[1]), “fully vaccinated” is a meaningless, dead term.  No, given what officials and even BBC[2] have said, it’s not “two jabs plus two weeks and you’re good to go.” BBC: “[p]lans for a Covid booster jab programme in the autumn will be set out in the next few weeks, [now former UK Health Secretary] Matt Hancock has said.”

Now, given utterly unnecessary sharp polarisation and accusations such as “incitement,” a point of clarification: there is evidence that vaccines can be effective and fairly safe. However, as risk is not evenly distributed in the population, if one has a significant medical history, consult a physician before any serious medical intervention. Where, too, if a train of treatments is in view, overall risks obviously can rise with such repeated exposure.

However, the bigger question raised by the circular is compulsory treatment – “required,” “a requirement” –  in the context of rushed experimental vaccines that to date only have emergency or contingent authorisation, not full approval. Tests for long-term effects and risks cannot be rushed.

Where, this obviously means – never mind objections by officialdom – they are still experimental and of course, there are significant concerns about risks.  Also, after the horrific Nazi medical experiments,[3] the Nuremberg Courts that judged war criminals issued a code for experimental medical treatments, which was then embedded in international and national law as well as in ethical standards for medical and research practice. This Nuremberg Code reads, in key parts[4]:

“[C]ertain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally . . . certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts . . . The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior[5] form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”


A statement by Frontline Doctors group on Ivermectin

This is already decisive.

For, this means, sing- off- the- same- hymn- sheet PR talking points that suppress or stigmatise significant alternative views held by qualified people or simple concerns raised by the public are unethical and create liability. This includes marginalising concerns on risks of treatments,[6] the manifest fact that we are dealing with an unprecedented rushed global vaccination experiment, and issues regarding unduly sidelined evidence[7] that treatments such as Ivermectin-based cocktails can be effective. 

In short, it is arguable that we have not been given a balanced briefing that includes a true and fair view of reasonable alternatives, concerns, and risks.

Even if one could argue that we are increasingly or already beyond “experimental” treatment, a fortiori logic applies.

That is, if coercion, manipulation, hidden motives, and suppression of reasonable alternatives and/or concerns are improper for medical experiments, for cause – “how much more”  or “just like that” – they are also equally unacceptable for treatments in general. So, denial of the experimental status of the rushed vaccines does not allow one to wriggle off the hook.

The Nuremberg Code continues:

“[B]efore the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment . . .”

With a third jab and onward train of booster shots already being on the table, with emerging issues and concerns on risks (think, blood clots and heart issues for young men) and more,  it is simple fair comment to note that such informed consent has long since been undermined. Obviously, informed consent applies “just as much” to more or less established treatments.

Then, we see:


“The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature . . .”

Dr. John Campbell of the UK summarises how the degree of use of Ivermectin across Peru’s 25 states [33 million population] is linked to a reduction in Covid-19 deaths, there are similar results in Mexico and India

So, if there is reasonable access to and evidence of plausibly effective, less risky treatments (such as Ivermectin), then that should be fairly investigated and frankly disclosed.

Similarly, naturally acquired immunity is known to be highly effective. Some even suggest that it can be superior to that from many vaccines. So, why aren’t we testing for natural immunity before vaccinations and insisting on vaccinating people who have had and recovered from Covid-19?

The other methods or means test is also significant.

For, why are we using “gold standard” criteria for “evidence” that block the voice of otherwise valid “real-world evidence” and rule out otherwise plausibly credible treatments?

This lends added force to our next snippet from the Nuremberg Code:

“Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death . . .”

That speaks for itself, especially when we see:

“During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.”

Resort to compulsion cannot be justified. The circular above is ill-advised and the precedent it may set is dangerous.

Accordingly, we find a final duty of those in charge of medical interventions:

“During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. “

Where, for cause, the attempted defence: “We were following the orders of legitimate authorities” was rejected by the Courts at Nuremberg.

This you will find does have some bearing to the United Nations “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)”


[1] TMR, June 25, 2021:  https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/

[2] See BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377  and  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57548796.amp

[3] See https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-medical-experiments

[4] See, http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/

[5] That is, hidden.

[6] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/facebook-fact-check-fallacies-and-pandemic-panics-2/

[7] TMR, https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-and-the-vaccine-debate/

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, Columns, Court, COVID-19, De Ole Dawg, Education, Featured, Features, Health, International, Local, Regional, Science/Technology0 Comments

Choksi is in Dominica jail – a matter that can be scandously embarrasing for neighboring islands

Stories from Antigua Breaking News (online) keeps running coverage on the matter 

The Montserrat Reporter TMR – Facebook – Published by Bennette Roach: The Citizenship Investment Program (CIP) prominent in the islands of St. Kitts-Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, and Dominica (let’s give them the acronym, SAD), CIP in this article from Antigua is now ‘Criminal Investment Program’. The CIP is often in the regional news.

https://antiguabreakingnews.com/local-news/mehul-choksi-proving-hot-potato-for-antigua-and-barbuda-dominica-govts/

Posted in Court, Crime, International, Local, News, Opinions, Police, Regional0 Comments

Image

…Covid vaccine lottery is bribery at its best?

Image
by Hayes Brown    
An illustration of a target and a vaccine shaped like a dart hitting the bullseye

Vaccination rates are on the decline in the United States, leaving officials scrambling to figure out how to get needles in arms. The CDC’s announcement that people who are fully vaccinated can go without masks inside and outside might help. But some places are getting more creative. The incentives being offered — ranging from free beer to savings bonds to a chance at $1 million — make total sense given how important the vaccine campaign is, Hayes Brown writes.

“The best reason for getting the Covid-19 vaccine is, of course, not having either yourself, your loved ones, or your neighbors get infected and potentially die from a virus that has killed almost 600,000 Americans,” Brown writes. “But $1 million is a pretty good runner-up, I have to say.”

Read the full article here: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/ohio-s-1-million-covid-vaccine-lottery-bribery-its-best-n1267276?cid=eml_mda_20210514&user_email=1356a81638c71e78209f101bc1ed815baaebf9e49ffc91756e4b4827da5613f8

Read Hayes Brown’s analysis and see more great articles at the top of your Friday MSNBC Daily.

Critics of the digital systems argue they discriminate against those who cannot get vaccinated.

But Mr. Griffiths says he is a complete supporter of the documents, which he says are “inevitable”.

“I think the problem is not the vaccine passport and its discrimination. It’s the need to roll things out and have a proper globally equitable vaccine programme,” he said.

The World Health Organisation and World Travel & Tourism Council are among those opposed to vaccine passports amid fears they will create a “two-tier society“.

Last month, Dr. Mike Ryan from the WHO repeated concerns about the ethical and fairness issues surrounding vaccine passports.

“They do need to be considered, especially in a world where vaccine is distributed in such a grossly inequitable way,” he said.
End

But there places where the issue is taken even more seriously, and others where the whispers need to be silenced and put aside immediately.

https://www.brighteon.com/8b2f8dcd-2bfa-4189-a133-aa8cab015fec

Why no declared “treatment” #treatment for COVID-19?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYF8bnmdQfY

Posted in Court, COVID-19, Crime, Featured, Health, International, Local, News, Regional, Science/Technology, Travel0 Comments

Illustration of a dollar bill being pinned to a darts board by a vaccination syringe.

Ohio’s $1 million Covid vaccine lottery is bribery at its best Going without a mask isn’t enough incentive? How about $1 million?

Illustration of a dollar bill being pinned to a darts board by a vaccination syringe.
Shots for scratch! Medicine for moolah! Covid immunity for prizes and money! Chelsea Stahl / MSNBC

– May 14, 2021, By Hayes Brown, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

The best reason to get Covid-19 vaccine shots is, of course, to not have yourself, your loved ones, or your neighbors get infected and potentially die from a virus that has killed almost 600,000 people in the U.S. But $1 million is a pretty good runner-up, I have to say.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Wednesday announced the “Vax-a-Million” program. Starting May 26, a random Ohioan will be drawn weekly from the Ohio secretary of state’s voter registration database to get $1 million — so long as they’re vaccinated. Another five 12- to 17 year-olds will get the chance to sign up for a possible full-ride scholarship to a state college or university, again provided they’re vaccinated.

Ohio governor: Get vaccinated, win a million dollars

MAY 13, 202101:46

As a former resident of Michigan, I’m loath to say anything positive about the state’s southern neighbor. But this is actually a pretty genius idea from the Ohio government, especially given that “the Ohio Lottery will conduct the drawings but the money will come from existing federal coronavirus relief funds,” as The Columbus Dispatch reported.

Absent a decent stick — aside from, you know, the risk of dying from a virus — we’ve been forced to find carrots to convince the masses.

Daily vaccination rates have plummeted even as more and more people have become eligible to get their shots. It’s entirely possible that news that people who are fully vaccinated can go about their lives sans masks may change that and get folks who’ve been waiting to go in to see the local stabmonger.

But we’ve been hoping that more education will bring down hesitancy for months now. And while that may be the case among some demographics, others still stubbornly refuse to get vaccinated — looking at you, white Republican men. The Biden administration has so far ruled out any sort of penalty for people who aren’t vaccinated; the Food and Drug Administration still hasn’t approved any of the vaccines yet — it has only authorized them for emergency use, which isn’t the same.

More from MSNBC Daily

Must reads from Today’s list

VERY CURIOUS

Why it sure looks like DOJ weaponized subpoenas to target Trump enemies

Barbara McQuade

DISLIKE
Why conservatives would be the saddest to see Facebook go

Hayes Brown

Absent a decent stick — aside from, you know, the risk of dying from a virus — we’ve been forced to find carrots to convince the masses. That has included encouraging selfies to handing out stickers to what we’re seeing in Ohio now. So it may seem desperate at this point, but I can’t be mad at any and all efforts to get people vaccinated.

Fauci weighs in on CDC’s new mask guidance for fully vaccinated

MAY 14, 202103:05

It might not even take the full million bucks to sway people. Polling backs up the idea that offering smaller amounts of cold, hard cash could make a difference. UCLA’s Covid-19 Health and Politics Project asked over 7,000 people who had yet to be vaccinated whether they’d be more likely to do so if they were paid for it. Thirty-four percent of respondents said $100 would make them more likely to make appointments; 31 percent said 50 bucks would do the trick.

So while Ohio has the highest potential payout, other states have been reaching out to people through their wallets. After a wildly successful rollout, West Virginia’s lagging numbers prompted Gov. Jim Justice to propose giving $100 savings bonds to residents ages 16 to 35 who get vaccinated. (They’re still working on how to deliver those bonds to the newly vaccinated.) As in Ohio, that money would come from federal Covid-19 funds already sent to the state.

How West Virginia health officials are battling Covid vaccine hesitancy

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/how-west-virginia-health-officials-are-battling-covid-vaccine-hesitancy-111763013610

It’s not just money on offer. In Chicago, the city will have a series of free concerts that will be open only to people who can prove they’re fully vaccinated. A hospital group in Alaska is giving away prizes, including airline tickets and money toward the purchase of an ATV. Here in New York City, Shake Shack is offering free fries when you buy a sandwich and flash your vaccination card. Krispy Kreme’s decision to offer free donuts to the vaccinated set off a whole round of discourse about whether the company was encouraging obesity. (It wasn’t, and the fatphobia was rightly shouted down.)

My favorite bribery scheme so far? Beer. In New Jersey, participating breweries will provide a free beer if you show your proof of vaccination as part of the state government’s “Shot and a Beer” program. (Get it? It’s a pun.) It’s a better name than Erie County, New York’s “Shot and a Chaser” program — but the latter is the best anecdotal evidence we have so far that these programs can get results, especially if you offer the shots at the brewery, too.

Are there arguments against bribing the masses to go get their shots? Sure. Back in January, when the vaccines were first being rolled out, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association argued that proposals to pay people up to $1,500 for getting vaccinated were a waste of funds and morally questionable and that they might even backfire.

In a climate characterized by widespread distrust of government and a propensity to endorse conspiracy theories, those who are already COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant might perceive that the government would not be willing to pay people to get vaccinated if the available vaccines were truly safe and effective. Incentive payments might also stoke new fears and, perversely, increase resistance to vaccination.

It’s a well-reasoned set of concerns. But the article ends by noting that a “policy of paying people for Covid-19 vaccination should be adopted only as a last resort if voluntary vaccine uptake proves insufficient to promote herd immunity within a reasonable period of time.”

That sounds a lot like, well, now. That means that if you’re reading this in Ohio, good luck getting a windfall for doing the right thing. I’m rooting for you. It may be the only time I root for someone from Ohio, so savor this moment.

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Court, COVID-19, Crime, Education, Health, International, Legal, OECS, Police, Regional, Youth0 Comments

AP-logo-1

Insurrection marks moment of reckoning for Republicans

Reprint (Adapted)

By STEVE PEOPLES

1 of 4Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., left, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, right, speak after Republicans objected to certifying the Electoral College votes from Arizona, during a joint session of the House and Senate to confirm the electoral votes cast in November’s election, at the Capitol, Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was both stunning and predictable, the result of a Republican Party that has repeatedly enabled President Donald Trump’s destructive behavior.

When Trump was a presidential candidate in 2016, Republican officials ignored his call to supporters to “knock the crap out” of protesters. Less than a year after he took office, GOP leaders argued he was taken out of context when he said there were “very fine people” on both sides of a deadly white supremacist rally.

And last summer, most party leaders looked the other way when Trump had hundreds of peaceful protesters forcibly removed from a demonstration near the White House so he could pose with a Bible in front of a church.

But the violent siege on Capitol Hill offers a new, and perhaps final, moment of reckoning for the GOP. The party’s usual excuses for Trump — he’s not a typical politician and is uninterested in hewing to Washington’s niceties — fell short against images of mobs occupying some of American democracy’s most sacred spaces.

The party, which has been defined over the past four years by its loyalty to Trump, began recalibrating in the aftermath of Wednesday’s chaos.

One of his closest allies in Congress, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said “enough is enough.”

Another South Carolina Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace, said Trump’s accomplishments in office “were wiped out today.”

At least one senior White House staffer resigned, and more resignations were possible as the weight of the day’s events settled in.

But for the party to move forward, it will need to grapple with the reality that Trump in fact lost to President-elect Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes and a 306-232 margin in the Electoral College, a result Congress certified early Thursday when it finished accepting all the electoral votes.

Trump himself acknowledged his term was coming to a close but not that he had actually lost. “Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th,” he said in a statement minutes after Congress certified the vote. “I have always said we would continue our fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again!”

Former Republican President George W. Bush described the violent mob as “a sickening and heartbreaking sight.” He declined to call out Trump or his allies, but the implication was clear when Bush said the siege “was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes.”

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, a top House Republican and the daughter of Bush’s vice president, was much more direct in an interview on Fox News.

“There’s no question the president formed the mob. The president incited the mob,” Cheney said. “He lit the flame.”

While their criticism was searing, Bush and Cheney were already among a smaller group of Republican officials willing to condemn Trump’s most outrageous behavior at times. The overwhelming majority of the GOP has been far more reserved, eager to keep Trump’s fiery base on their side.ADVERTISEMENT

Still, Trump’s grip on his party appeared somewhat weakened when members of Congress returned to the Capitol Wednesday night, having spent several hours hiding in secure locations after being evacuated. Before they left, a handful of Republican senators and more than 100 Republican House members were set to oppose the vote to certify Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

It was a move led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, each with his own 2024 presidential ambitions, over the objection of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who warned that that U.S. democracy “would enter a death spiral” if Congress rejected state election results.

When they resumed debate, however, much of the energy behind the extraordinary push had fizzled. Several Republicans dropped their objections altogether. Hawley and Cruz did not, but they offered scaled-back arguments.

Hawley condemned the day’s violence but also called for an investigation into “irregularities and fraud.” Earlier in the day, his hometown newspaper, The Kansas City Star, released an editorial charging that Hawley “has blood on his hands” for enabling Trump’s false claims.

Other Republicans were clearly more concerned about the day’s violence and the events that preceded them.

“Dear MAGA- I am one of you,” former White House aide Alyssa Farah tweeted. “But I need you to hear me: the Election was NOT stolen. We lost.”

Jefferson Thomas, who led Trump’s campaign in Colorado, expressed some regret about joining Trump’s team in the first place, calling Wednesday’s events “an embarrassment to our country.”

“This isn’t what I ever imagined when I signed up to #MAGA. Had I known then that this is how it would end, I never would’ve joined,” he wrote on Twitter.

And while there were obvious cracks in Trump’s grip on the Republican Party, his fiercest detractors came from a familiar pool of frequent critics.

Trump’s former secretary of defense, James Mattis, who denounced the president as a threat to the Constitution last year, described the violent assault on the Capitol as “an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump.”

“His use of the presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo-political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice,” Mattis charged.

Anthony Scaramucci, a former Trump, often has harsh words for Trump but offered his harshest on Wednesday for Trump’s Republican enablers.

“Republican elected officials still supporting Trump need to be tried alongside of him for treason,” he tweeted.

___

Trending on AP News GOP split over Trump, election runs across deep-red WyomingTrump supporters, other passengers in shouting bout on planeSomber Senate unites to reject election challengesby Taboola

Associated Press writer Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina contributed to this report.

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, Court, Crime, Elections, International, Local, News, Regional0 Comments

ECSC-logo

Brandt prevails in Court of Appeal – pretrial Constitutional issue on witnesses during trial

By Bennette Roach

Updated: December 18, 2020

As ZJB Radio report begins, “More interesting developments in the court matter involving attorney at law and former Chief Minister David S. Brandt.”

The question being asked more frequently now and in the face of other judicial areas where money would be better served, “Why is the local government allowing the UK to expend the amount of money on a trial that may have gone wrong ‘at’ the overdue time and the way it started? For another consultation and discussion.

We have referred to this ongoing matter as historical and it seems there is little end in sight for the matter to come to a conclusion. And, whereas by virtue of the nature of the case, which we believe has other motives involved, the public seems now to have lost interest in it.

The following was noted in the ruling/decision: “Several trial dates have been set and subsequently vacated on account of supervening litigation at the instance of the appellant over the past five years. To date, Mr. Brandt has not been tried,” Chief Justice the Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE wrote.

East Caribbean Supreme Court
DPP Oris Sullivan
Helen Weekes QC – Lead prosecutor from the UK

The latest is the decision of the East Caribbean Court of Appeal dismissing appeals brought by the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against a decision by His Lordship Justice Rajiv Persaud, who ruled that consistent with his constitutional rights, Mr. Brandt could not be prevented from cross-examining any witness at his pending criminal trial.

The background of the appeals came from: “…the DPP’s application’

Dr. Dorsett, who appears for Mr. Brandt in these appeals, was appointed by Persad J [Ag.], the learned judge of the High Court presiding over the criminal proceedings… to represent Mr. Brandt for the purpose of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.

Dr. David Dorsett

[4] Mr. Brandt and Dr. Dorsett were equally aggrieved by the learned judge’s decision. Dr. Dorsett challenged his appointment as counsel for Mr. Brandt by way of CPR Part 56 proceedings, and Mr. Brandt, being desirous of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses himself, raised an objection to Dr. Dorsett’s appointment before the learned judge. Mr. Brandt’s position was that any restriction on his ability to cross-examine prosecution witnesses without the assistance of counsel, runs afoul of his rights to defend himself and to cross-examine witnesses under sections 7(2)(d) and 7(2)(e) of the Constitution of Montserrat2 (“the Constitution”).

Accused David Brandt

Mr. Brandt therefore urged the judge not to apply sections 287, 288, and 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis that they are incompatible with his rights under the Constitution.
On 28th September 2020, the judge rendered an oral decision which was later reduced to writing, by which he concluded that sections 287, 288, and 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code infringe Mr. Brandt’s constitutional rights… and vacated his earlier orders limiting Mr. Brandt’s ability to cross-examine in person and appointing Dr. Dorsett for the purpose of doing so.
The DPP also applied under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to have special measures adopted for the taking of evidence from certain prosecution witnesses (“the special measures application”). In relation to the special measures application, the learned judge was satisfied on the evidence that the application ought to be granted and, on 5th October 2020, made orders permitting the Crown to lead evidence from three prosecution witnesses, who are complainants in the matter, through a video recording to be played in court as the evidence in chief pursuant to… the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned judge also granted leave to have the said three prosecution witnesses appear remotely from another location, outside the court, when they are required to be cross-examined on their evidence… and to have another prosecution witness, give evidence by video link.
Then came the Appeals.

The Attorney General and the DPP by way of appeal against the judge’s 28th September 2020 decision, in essence, challenged the correctness of the judge’s analysis and conclusions, and his order vacating Dr. Dorsett’s appointment as legal representative for Mr. Brandt.

The CPC Appeals were launched as civil appeals and not criminal appeals even though they do not originate from a constitutional motion or civil claim in the court below, and notwithstanding that they arise from a ruling by the learned judge within the context of the pre-trial case management hearing of Mr. Brandt’s criminal trial.

Mr. Brandt, at the same time, launched a criminal appeal challenging the learned judge’s 5th October 2020 decision in relation to the DPP’s special measures application (“the Special Measures Appeal”). The Special Measures Appeal challenges the judge’s orders sanctioning the prosecution’s use of special measures for the protection of certain prosecution witnesses.

Following the filing of these appeals, Mr. Brandt applied also on 15th October 2020 to strike out the CPC Appeals.
In similar vein, the DPP moved the Court to strike out the Special Measures Appeal, in essence on several grounds:
(i) The Special Measures Appeal does not fall within the scope of permissible appeals under section 38 of the Supreme Court Act as it is not an appeal against conviction or sentence;
(ii) There is no legal basis to mount an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a trial judge’s ruling on a pre-trial issue in a criminal trial…
(iii) The issue before the trial judge was well within the competence of a trial judge without there being any reliance upon or invocation of any section of the Constitution.

In the final decision, the Appeal Court ruled “on 11th November 2020 this Court unanimously dismissed three appeals brought respectively by the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) of Montserrat and Mr. David Brandt, following the consideration of submissions by the parties on this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the appeals.”

First – “We are satisfied that the Attorney General in the circumstances has no standing as an appellant in this matter and, on that basis alone, it is sufficient to dismiss…”

In the circumstances, the Special Measures Appeal is clearly not permitted by the Supreme Court Act, is a nullity and must be dismissed…Agreed with Mr. Brandt “that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear either of the CPC Appeals. He argues that the appeals are caught by section 31(2)(a) and must be dismissed.”

And finally, “It is for all the above reasons [in the 50-clause decision] that the Court dismissed the CPC Appeals and Special Measures Appeals.”

Posted in Court, Crime, International, Legal, Local, News, OECS, Regional0 Comments

Update to CLICO policyholders

Clico International Life Insurance
Limited – Montserrat Branch
(IN JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT)

On 2 May 2014 the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in Montserrat ordered that Clico International Life Insurance Limited’s (“CLICO”) Branch operations in Montserrat (hereinafter referred to as “the Branch”) be placed under judicial management pursuant to Section 53 of the Insurance Act of the Laws of Montserrat at the request of the Supervisor of Insurance.

Russell Crumpler of KPMG (BVI) Limited was appointed as the Judicial Manager of the Montserrat Branch (hereinafter referred to as the “Montserrat Judicial Manager”).  We write to provide an update to Montserrat policyholders in respect of the wider Judicial Management of CLICO and, more specifically, the Judicial Management of the Branch. 

Further to a report filed in the Barbados Court by the Barbados appointed Judicial Manager of CLICO we understand that he has recommended to the Courts in Barbados, Grenada, Dominica, St. Vincent and Anguilla that the judicial management of CLICO be terminated, and that a liquidator appointed. 

Whilst the recommendation for the termination of the judicial management of CLICO and appointment of a liquidator is yet to be considered, we understand from the CLICO Judicial Manager that, as of 29 February 2020, all policies administered under CLICO ceased to be in effect. We understand that whilst all policies ceased to be in effect from 29 February 2020 onwards liabilities accrued to that date in respect of those policies will essentially be fixed. We further understand that this is with the intention of being able to calculate the amount owed under each policy for the purposes of potential future distributions.  We expect to be able to provide further updates on the appointment of the liquidator over CLICO and the effect the liquidation may have over distributions as the process develops.

Accordingly, we provide notice to all policyholders of the Branch that any premiums received for the period 1 March 2020 to date will be returned. We anticipate that the return of those premiums paid to the Branch will be completed by the end of December 2020, and no later than 31 January 2021.  

We also request that no further premiums are paid by Montserrat policyholders to the Branch either personally, or on their behalf by their employers. 

Where premiums are being paid on your behalf by your employer we will also be liaising with them to ensure they are aware that no further payments should be made (and where relevant no deductions).  

We will provide a further substantive update once the Barbados Court has delivered its final determination in respect of the recommendation for the termination of the judicial management and appointment of liquidator.  

In the interim, we thank you for your patience. Should you have any queries in respect of this notice or the information contained therein, please do not hesitate to contact Christina Rodriguez on behalf of the Montserrat Judicial Manager at christinarodriguez@kpmg.vg.

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Columns, Court, International, Legal, Local, OECS, Regional0 Comments

Please Support The Montserrat Reporter

This is bottom line for us! Unless we receive your support, our effort will not be able to continue. Whatever and however you can, please support The Montserrat Reporter in whatever amount you can (and whatever frequency) – and it only takes a minute.
Thank you

TMR print pages

Newsletter

Archives

CARICOM – Staff Vacancy

CXC HEADQUARTERS - Executive Search

https://indd.adobe.com/embed/2b4deb22-cf03-4509-9bbd-938c7e8ecc7d

A Moment with the Registrar of Lands