 |
| Omnibus Judgment, at 176. |
It appears that the lawyers and law firm defending HAMILTON RESERVE BANK from customers who could not withdraw their funds on demand, are completely bereft when it comes to professional ethics. One of the victims has pointed out to me, (and this information I have confirmed in the Omnibus Judgment published on September 15) that HRB alleged that they were engaged in terrorist financing, and that such crimes were facilitated by a specific member of the Saint Kitts & Nevis Police, as well as one of the Nevis regulators. The fact that there was not factual basis for the claim did not seem to bother these attorneys. The Government facilitating terrorist financing? One of the fantastic claims asserted by the bank, to muddy the water, nothing less.
Obviously, the bank's goal here was to make sensational allegations, to delay the proceedings for years, whilst the Court examines all available evidence, to determine whether there is a grain of truth, as terrorist financing is probably the most serious claim one can advance, and which requires extensive inquiry. The have taken the term 'Dilatory" to a new level.
Will there ultimately be Defamation cases following on the heels of the resolution of the many Hamilton Revenue bank cases? What would you do, if defamed like that?
