» Peter Simmons’ Phone Call - Part II - What is it all about? Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp.

Peter Simmons’ Phone Call - Part II - What is it all about?

Posted in May 11th, 2008

Confusion

A reader caught up with me the other day and asked,
“What is this Simmons’ call about? I’m confused.”

At this point I realized that most people don’t know what is going on, and those that do are not talking! Let’s get to it!

Stuart Heaslet - Peter Simmons Connection

This story begins with Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary in Christ Church, Barbados. Stuart Heaslet is a 54 year old engineer who was training Bajans to run the Sanctuary. He was also a participant in the Friends of Graeme Hall (FOGH), of which Peter Simmons, the former High Commissioner, was a spokesman. Heaslet had great respect for Peter Simmons.

Over time, Heaslet reports hearing several things that caused him grave concern. Eventually he wrote an affidavit (Court File No. 07-0141) reflecting these concerns.

Quotes from the Court document

Here, with my comments in parentheses, are some relevant quotes (please excuse any typos) to give you the gist of things:

“His career as diplomat was exemplary while he was the High Commissioner for Barbados in London England. His connection to the existing government was solid, and with the fact that his brother David was formerly Attorney General of Barbados and a long serving elected official combined to make him a good spokesman for FOGH.” (Page 3 - 7 Heaslet appears to be saying that Sir David Simmons’ past political connections were helpful with regard to FOGH.)
“I was invited by Peter Simmons to this house on March 14, 2007 to meet his brother Sir David Simmons. He had with him a copy of a document which I understood to be a lawsuit which named him. Throughout the course of the discussion Sir David expressed his displeasure at being included in the lawsuit and that he wished to be removed from it. He also let me know that the existence of the lawsuit could compromise the efforts of FOGH to see the creation of a National Park.” (Page 4 - 11 Since Heaslet represented that he had no knowledge of the lawsuit, this paragraph infers that Sir David intended his desire to be removed from the suit to be relayed to another party.)
“In early August, 2007 Peter Simmons contacted me by telephone. We discussed matters related to the National Park project and then he advised me that John Knox was at risk because of his apparent cooperation with the plaintiff in this action. He told me that some of the defendants in the lawsuit were going to see to it that their contact, the president of the University of West Indies where Mr. Knox works, would terminate Mr. Knox’s employment as a result of this cooperation. I relayed these comments to Mr. McKenzie.” (Page 5 - 14 John Knox is a witness in the Canadian Action. He is a son of Marjorie Knox, and a brother to me. John no longer works for UWI, and up to the last time I checked, has not been paid for the last course that he taught in 2007! Bill McKenzie is the Canadian lawyer for the plaintiff, Nelson.)
“On August 10, 2007 I spoke again with Peter Simmons by telephone. This time he repeated the comments about John Knox. and also added that certain defendants wished to make it known that Mr. McKenzie was in real danger and should “watch his back” because there were people in Barbados very angry with Mr. McKenzie. I asked him if it was his intention that these comments be conveyed to Mr. McKenzie and he said yes so I did
so.” (Page 5 - 15 I think this paragraph is self-explanatory.)

Who will report on this story? Will it be the Nation, the Advocate, the DLP, the BLP, BFP or BU?

Disclaimer: We wish to remind our readers that, while these are public court documents, the contents of these documents should be taken as unproven allegations pending the outcome of the case. What we state here is our opinion. On the other hand, we welcome and value comments. We would especially like to hear the opinions of those with knowledge of the case. Anonymous comments are most welcome.

See Stuart Heaslet’s Transcript from Court File No. 07-0141

Previous:
Next:
- Peter Simmons’ phone call - Part III

5 users commented in " Peter Simmons’ Phone Call - Part II - What is it all about? "

» Peter Simmons’ Phone Call - Part I - Dr. Sharon S. Smith Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA. said,

in May 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

[…] Peter Simmons’ Phone Call - Part I - Dr. Sharon S. Smith Posted in April 17th, 2008 by admin in Government, Politics and Development, West Indies News, Canada, Barbados News alert: We have received a box of important court documents on the Canadian action, involving Kingsland Estates Ltd. We will be scanning and posting these. Stay tuned! Jump to Part II […]

draining the swamp said,

in May 13th, 2008 at 6:23 am

I agree with the Barbados Free Press that connected to your story. They said:

“Now we see exactly what it means when a senior politician is appointed as the highest judge in the land: because David Simmons unethically linked the dropping of a personal lawsuit against him to the efforts of citizens to create a National Park.

Shame! Shame!

What foul lack of integrity and bad character would cause a man to try and save his own skin by destroying a national initiative that would have benefited all citizens of Barbados?”

anon 12 said,

in May 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am

I just read this in your subsidiary or parent organization, the Barbados Free Press.

Any comments, dear Mrs. Davis?

Black Woman Who Reads
May 15, 2008 at 11:16 am

Staggering that John Knox’s contract was not renewed, simply because he gave evidence against Peter Simmons in a case in Canada.

I wonder how many other contracts were not renewed for the 2007-2008 academic year by Cave Hill? Does anyone know? Was John Knox the only one?

It is not at all true, in fact it is a lie, to say that Peter Simmons threatened John Knox.

I have heard the recordings and read the transcripts in issue - and I am surprised that the transcripts, which are now public domain, have not been published by the Nation and the Advocate - and even more shocked that Barbados Free Press has not published them, since the Knox family clearly have it in their back pocket and would, if required, produce these to BFP.

I see that a decision was made regarding this alleged threat by Peter Simmons in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice J. Brian Shaughnessy) on February 8, 2008.

With all the facts in front of him, including expert testimony from both sides, the Judge decided that no threat had been made by Peter Simmons.

I am perplexed as to why this decision was not published in full by the Nation and the Advocate and by their self-appointed and self-annointed conscience, the Barbados Free Press?

Maybe the Judge made the wrong decision for you, BFP?

Justice Shaughnessy does deal with the issue of John Knox’s employment and the claim that he was discriminated against at Paragraph 64 of his judgment. He says:

“[64] ……Mr Knox states that his employment at his former job as lecturer was not renewed for the 2007-2008 academic year. Apart from a vague reference to a Mr. Leonard Nurse no further particulars relating to the termination of his employment are provided………. ”

Well, since Mr. Knox’s affidavits cover in great detail the gamut of every part of Bajan life going back 50 years and more, including the construction of the new prison, it does make one wonder why he has not provided more details on his own circumstances. You know, document-backed facts and not speculation.

Now I don’t know. I merely offer an alternative interpretation for your review, discussion and determination.

These are some facts that cannot be disputed by way of background.

First, John Knox is over 50 years old.

John Knox lives with his mother in a house the property of Kingsland Estates Limited on which he pays no rent - presumably because he thinks that his mother is a still a shareholder of Kingsland Estates Limited and therefore it is owed to him to live and run his business affairs rent-free.

John Knox has operated several (now defunct) businesses from that house. John Knox has never paid rent and, until he was almost 40, did not pay any utilities either.

So his businesses had none of the overheads that we other poor mortals have to endure to make a crust - yet those businesses have not succeeded within the terms that any reasonable person would measure success by. In other words, no matter what John Knox would like to think, they failed.

The tone of Peter Simmons’ alleged threats as regards John Knox are far from threateneing. Peter refers to this middle-aged man as a boy. Peter says that John Knox is being misled. Nowhere is there anything that can be construed as a threat. Indeed, Peter’s comments could be fairly charaterized as paternal, fond, but disappointed.

Therefore, I ask you to consider that, given John Knox’s record in his own business, he merely made an almighty mess of his work at Cave Hill so that the UWI felt that it could not in good conscience continue his employment due to its responsibility to provide its students with better lecturers than “Professor” Knox?

Seems reasonable to me, but there again I have the advantage of being able to access the same documents as BFP which BFP, in the interests of truth and fair play, refuses to let its readers participate in. Naturally, they will say the matter is sub judice and you must then ask since when that has stopped them.

By the way, in these days of the internet, smoke can definitely be generated without there being a fire. You all know this.