Categories
News

British Developer Pleads Guilty in Turks and Caicos Islands Corruption Case

British developer pleads guilty in Turks and Caicos corruption case
Published on June 3, 2013

PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands — British developer Richard Padgett pleaded guilty in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) on Friday to charges of bribery and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice by agreeing to present false or forged documents to a Commission of Inquiry.

At a plea and directions hearing on April 15, Mr Justice Harrison agreed that Padgett should be allowed to enter his pleas at the first reasonable opportunity. His case was adjourned to May 31, this being the next most convenient date for the judge to return to the TCI.

Padgett is currently suffering from ill health and in the opinion of his doctor is not fit to travel to the TCI, it was therefore agreed by the court that his pleas be entered from England, by a video link to the Supreme Court.

Padgett and the Crown were represented in both jurisdictions by counsel.

After his pleas of guilty were entered, the case was adjourned to September16 for mention as to the appropriate date of sentence.

Padgett, who has been on bail throughout the proceedings, remains on bail.

The TCI government also announced on Friday that it has settled all civil claims and proceedings against Padgett and his companies. That includes civil claims arising from the Third Turtle Development referred to in the report of the Commission of Inquiry, and a separate civil claim arising in relation to Crown land on East Caicos acquired by a company controlled by Padgett.

Under the settlement, Padgett has transferred to the government land valued at approximately US$7 million, and has made a cash contribution of $75,000 to the costs of investigating the claims.

Situs Judi Slot Gacor Online Gampang Menang 2023

Judi Slot gacor menjadi salah satu jenis judi online yang makin lama digandrungi oleh Beberapa orang sebab jenis judi ini menawari kemudahan di dalam main-main disertai bersama dengan hadiah Jackpot besar. Tidak heran membuat banyak orang melacak jelas tentang website slot online paling baik dan terpercaya ringan menang 2023 di Indonesia. Sebenarnya sangat ringan utk menemukan website slot luar negara yang terdapat di Internet. Seluruhnya website berikut menawari website slot ringan menang meski keaslinya website slot hoki berikut diragukan. Tidak sedikit orang hasilnya tertipu oleh oknum-oknum yang membuat website slot terkini 2023.

Website slot gacor ringan menang Slot Gacor yakni salah satu website slot online terpercaya di Indonesia yang menghadirkan jajaran game slot yang gacor hari ini berasal dari para provider slot yang kembali gacor terkenal dan berstandar Internasional. Seluruh slot yang kembali gacor berikut berasal segera berasal dari provider sebab telah punya lisensi formal maka mutu slot yang gacor hari ini yang ada terjamin keadilan dan konten positifnya. Anda dapat menerima info slot gacor hari ini atau bocoran slot gacor hari ini yang diberikan membuat para membernya. Disediakan banyak cara utk Unggul Up terasa berasal dari Transfer Bank hingga slot gacor maxwin. Pada website slot gacor ringan menang ini juga, ada banyak kategori judi online yang lain yang bisa anda mainkan maka cuma bersama dengan akun slot gacor sedang malam ini anda telah bisa memainkan sepenuhnya kategori game judi online yang Terkenal. Agen gacor Slot Gacor mempunyai system keamanan terenkripsi maka data membernya dapat safe tanpa butuh cemas bocor pada pihak Ke3. Jika ada ganjalan kala main-main slot gacor 2023 atau game judi online Yang lain, anda bisa menghubungi Live Chat 24 jam/7 hari nonstop yang diberikan oleh BO slot gacor teranyar ini.

This takes total land recoveries made by the civil recovery team to 3,058 acres, in addition to $19.6 million in cash paid or to be paid to the government.

Attorney General Huw Shepheard commented: “We are pleased that these disputes have now been settled with the transfer to TCIG of a substantial amount of further land of significant value. This settlement brings to a successful conclusion the civil claims brought in relation to the major developments referred to in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. As reported, other claims and investigations continue to be progressed by the Edwards Wildman civil recovery team.”

20130603-092600.jpg

Categories
News

The Electoral and Constitutional Fiasco in Turks and Caicos Islands

Published in TCI POST on 09th March 2013.

The Attorney General vs Ms. Amanda Missick
The Acting Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands has filed in the supreme court against Ms. Amanda Missick stating the following:
“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.
FACT: It is a fact that Ms. Amanda Missick has a property 60804/138 with a TCIG belonger discount charge (see exhibit A)
According to the Integrity Commission and the Attorney General such a charge is considered to be a contract with Government and the Candidate shall to give NOTICE to the Integrity Commission on or before Nomination Day, in accordance with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution.
Disputable: It is disputable whether someone who has a Crown freehold property with a subsistent belonger discount charge (having had the property for less than 10 years after obtaining freehold title), is considered as having a contract with Government.
FACT: If a potential Candidate does not comply with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution 2011 he /she shall not be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly. It states: 49.—(1) No person shall be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly who, on the date of his or her nomination for election: (f) is a party to, or a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a company which is a party to, any contract with the Government and has not, by that date, disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it;
FACT: The Constitution does not give a defined time period prior to Nomination Day during which such notice of contract with Government should be made. It simply states that such contracts should be “by that date (NOMINATION DAY), disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it”
FACT: There is no prescribed form for giving such notice of contract with Government to the Integrity Commission. It simply says “disclosure in notice to the Integrity Commission”. This fact is also supported by the varied instruments of submission used by other elected members of the House of Assembly during the 2012 nomination process, who have made declarations under section 49 (1)f. Some used emailed submission, some used written hand delivered letters and some could have even called in.

Amanda-Lease Cancellation
THEREFORE:
FACT: Ms Amanda Missick made a Declaration to the Integrity Commission in on Oct 24, 2012 and this was publicized by the Integrity Commission in a Contracts Notice Register (see exhibit B). This declaration should have satisfied the condition under Section 49 (1)f of the Constitution, for nomination in the By-election, since such the notice is not time bound prior to nomination day and there is no legal requirement to make another declaration to the Integrity Commission unless there is additional information to be declare or remove, which is not the case with Ms. Missick.
Conclusion: Ms. Amanda Missick should not be disqualified. She did declare her interest to the Integrity Commission on time as she did so on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013, on a form used for members of the House of Assembly to declare their registrable Interest (including contracts with Government) which is a public document.
Also if the Judge rules that Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is NOT contract with Government, then Ms. Missick would have had nothing to declare and should not be disqualified.
Furthermore:
If it is determined by the Courts that Crown Freehold title with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government, this should not affect Ms Missick as she made declaration of such contract on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013.
I rest my case and the learned Judge should see it likewise.
So I am encouraging all PNPs to Stay the Course!
Cheshire Hall Voter (Plaintiff) Vs Oral Selver

Oral Leasehold
A Cheshire Hall Voter filed in the Courts on March 8, 2013 against Isaac Oral Selver on the grounds that he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 49(1)f of the TCI Constitution.
It has been discovered that Mr. Oral Selver is the Leasee of Crown land 50206/1/1 – North Caicos (2.5 acres) which was issued on 12.11.2004 for a period of 3 years. Mr. Selver failed to pay his lease and in April 2011, he wrote to the PS of the Lands Department to have his lease extended. His letter was acknowledged in April 2011, and he was given conditions upon which the lease would be extended. The conditions included obtaining a building permit which he had, as stated in his reply letter and payment of arrears on the lease. Mr. Selver accepted the Offer and paid the arrears on the Property on December 24, 2012 (shortly after 2012 general elections).
Oral Lease Payment
The Plaintiff is of the view that Mr. Selver had a contract with Government on nomination day 2012 (October 25, 2012) and did not declare this interest at that time as required by Section 49(1)f of the constitution.
The Plaintiff is also of the view that Mr. Oral Selver still has a contract with Government i.e. the lease on property 50206/1/1 as he has accepted the conditional offer to extend the lease and is actively engaged with the Lands Department to retain the lease, which still remains in his name on the Lands register (see exhibit). Also of note is that the application procedure by the Lands Department for the termination of the lease has not been done. This procedure was use in the termination of a Conditional Purchase Lease (CPL) owned by Ms Amanda Missick, on property 60400/277 –Chalk Sound. Ms. Missick obtained the CPL around the same time as Mr Selver in 2004 and was denied extension without hesitation, that culminated in the cancellation of her lease on March 22, 2010.
Therefore:
We conclude that Mr Oral Selver failed to declare his contract with Government by nomination days October 25, 2012 and March 1, 2013 and should be disqualified under Section 49 (1)f.
The Attorney General
Vs
George Lightbourne
Hugh Derek Taylor
Josephine Connelly
Edwin Astwood
Vaden Delroy Williams
The Acting Attorney General is challenging the defendants listed, under section 53(2) of the constitution “An application to the Supreme Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1) may be made by the Attorney General or by any person who is a registered elector; and an application for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(b) may also be made by any member of the House of Assembly” It has been determined that the defendants have not filed all of their contracts (Crown freehold property with subsistent belonger discount charge) with Government and should be disqualified.
Contracts Notice Register – General Elections_001 Copy
The question for the Judge to rule on in this case is whether Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government. If the Judge rule that it is then all of the elected members listed above will be disqualified and cease being members of the House of Assembly.
The next question to be determined by (Judge or AG?) is how should the vacated 5 seats in the House of Assembly be filled?
I am of the view that:
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Wheeland), should go to a By-election if the elected member is disqualified.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had only 2 candidates contesting and returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Grand Turk North or Grand Turk South), that the seat should be turned over to the other candidate upon disqualification of the elected candidate. If the non-elected Candidate is unavailable then the seat should go to a By-election.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning more than 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg All-Islands Constituency), that the vacated seats due to disqualifications should be filled using the non-elected candidates based on the next highest number of votes and availability.
The British has indeed made a mockery of our democracy and the judicial system has fallen victim to the poorly drafted and ill-conceived laws enacted by the British, including of 2011 Constitution which is top of the list.
This is indeed a time for the PNP and PDM to come together and form a coalition Government and to fast track this country towards independence. I firmly believe that it is our people as opposed to our leaders and elected officials that are against unity and coalition in preference of the euphoria of partisan politics. It is however, our leaders who must make that bold decisions and lead the people in the direction of a united front in the best interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

20130309-124642.jpg

20130309-124544.jpg

Categories
News

Dellis Cay Groundbreaking June 2008

Dellis Cay Groundbreaking in June 2008.
Please click on the link and watch the video.

20130308-151702.jpg

Categories
News

The OUTCRY of ILLEGAL POET Turks and Caicos Islands

PLEASE WATCH THE OUTCRY OF ILLEGAL POET FROM TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS.

CLICK THE LINK BELOW

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO WATCH THE VIDEO

Dear JAGS-Turks and Caicos Islands

Categories
Turksjournal Picks

CHANGE FOR TURKS AND CAICOS.

ARE YOU READY

Categories
Turksjournal Picks

Change for Turks and Caicos Islands.signed BY YOU.

Categories
Genel News

Shaun Malcolm again in the Court Hearings

Shaun Malcolm again in discussions with his letter.The guy is champion in TCI  with his letters to UK Government before and during UK Commission of Inquiry and  Interim Government in Turks and Caicos Islands since 2009

 

Ashcroft case ‘a threat to free speech’ court told sues Independent for ‘defamation’

 

A “fundamental bulwark” of free speech could be lost if The Independent is denied the right to defend its decision to publish extracts from a letter written by a Turks and Caicos politician alleging that Lord Ashcroft posed a threat to democracy on the islands, a court was told yesterday.

The Tory peer is seeking damages from Independent News and Media (INM), former owners of The Independent, over articles published in November 2009, one of which quoted from a letter to David Cameron from an opposition Turks and Caicos politician, Shaun Malcolm. The letter pleaded that if the Conservatives came to power, they should not allow Lord Ashcroft to influence British policy on the islands, which have been under direct rule by the Foreign Office because of corruption in the government of the former Prime Minister, Michael Misick.

Lord Ashcroft worked for many years with William Hague, and bankrolled the Conservative Party while Mr Hague was party leader. The Independent alleged that he profited from a short-lived construction boom on Turks and Caicos, fuelled by the corrupt sale of crown land, the court heard. Mr Malcolm alleged in his letter that Lord Ashcroft’s wealth gave him influence which “we feel puts any hope of democracy at risk,” the court heard.

David Price QC, for INM, argued that this was comment, and in law even a ” whacky opinion” can be justified if it has any basis in fact. An appeal court has spent two days listening to arguments over what grounds the newspaper company can use to defend the case. Mark Warby QC, for Lord Ashcroft, claimed the allegations against the Tory peer were so “garbled and unclear” that it would be unfair to expect him to answer them. This argument has been upheld by Britain’s most senior libel judge, Mr Justice Eady, who said Mr Malcolm’s claim that Lord Ashcroft exercised a “level of influence” was a “defamatory comment” lacking “a factual basis”.

Mr Warby added that INM’s legal team had repeatedly gone back to Justice Eady with amendments to their case, but had failed to persuade him to lift the order.

The court reserved its judgement.

The  Independent 03.02.2012

https://www.windycityhabitat.org/