Comments on: Govt Satisfied With Court Ruling: MacLean Case

By: Ringmaster

Ringmaster — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:31:33 +0000

It would seem that at least the Government (taxpayers) will get their costs back. Assuming of course Mr. McLean has the money.

By: Trulytruly

Trulytruly — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:24:42 +0000

Having got this far do you think he will appeal?

By: Attitude Of Gratitude

Attitude Of Gratitude — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:15:27 +0000

While I can respect were your coming from-
I’m a fourth generation Bermudian who has both black and white in my family. To look at me you would never know that to be the case. Both sides were poor people who emigrated to Bermuda for a better life. Please stop lumping all white people into this group of well off people who grew up with a silver spoon in there mouth!

By: Onion Juice

Onion Juice — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:31:56 +0000

‘IF’ pigs had wings they would probably fly, but it does exist and even though its uncomfortable for people like you, we still have to deal with it.
Even though most white people don’t like to hear about it(and some black Surrogates) they have benefitted and are benefiting from it economically and socially.

By: YOSH

YOSH — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:18:57 +0000

In reality if this is the outcome of the case,the tax payer (people who live and reside in Bermuda) will have to pay not the “government”. Where does the government source it’s revenue from….

By: Where is the $18m

Where is the $18m — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:13:40 +0000

Hey Mikey,

Wheres the 18 mill????

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:04:06 +0000

Correct in that assessment, I think he was talking about locally though. And as an added note, it would be idiotic to try and take this higher to the Privy after a ruling like this. But well caught correction.

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:00:19 +0000

They may have to pay him compensation for the voiding, but it is going to be well below and more reasonable than the $90m he was trying to extort. In the previous ruling, the judge even highlighted that the only reason MacLean brought this to court was because the arbitration he was already engaged in wasn’t going his way. In this ruling the judge even called into question the affidavits MacLean filed as Mr. MacLean failed to make any assertions to them. Additionally, everything that Mr. MacLean claims he also says that he gave the evidence to the police, so there would be a police investigation into their validity, so why do we need an inquiry?
What appears to be happening here is that Mr. MacLean wants compensation for monies that he hasn’t spent on a deal that by all accounts was given to him as a result of a questionable process, for a development that he has provided no evidence he could pull off, particularly in the face off of his failure to secure the Par-la-ville hotel for which he still has not produced the $18+ million that he borrowed and claimed to have not spent.

By: Cow Polly

Cow Polly — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:50:49 +0000

TRUTH – until there is a shred of credible evidence that there is probable government corruption NOT possible, the Premier should not waste the tax payers money or time calling for an Inquiry.

By: Ed Case

Ed Case — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:31:18 +0000

Boring as usual. What would you moan about if race didn’t exist?

By: hmmm

hmmm — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:26:21 +0000

Nobody people originated in Bermuda. So where are you traveling back to so we can give Bermuda back to the birds and bugs.

By: Truth is killin' me...

Truth is killin' me... — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:42:17 +0000

MacLean come CLEAN!! Maybe if you were honest about things you would get more sympathy.

By: Sad

Sad — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:32:25 +0000

Interesting that you and others are up in arms about the 30 year airport deal that will be completed by a globally respected firm who has a long successful record of such developments. A project that is being overseen by the UK and Canadian Govt to ensure that it is completed properly and prudently.

Then on the other hand you have no issues privatising the public waterfront for 262 years to an unproven developer with financing from who knows where. A project that was granted under highly suspicious circumstances according to a CoH insider and the Ombudsman.

On top of that you and other supporters of this so called developer have yet to ask him why the $18mn parking lot money was wired to his personal account and then on to wherever it ended up while the parking lot is now in Mexican hands. Despite these facts you still support the man’s claim to the waterfront?

You’re a damn hypocrite. Now continue on with your sad race baiting while also standing up for malfeasance. Joker.

By: RBKing

RBKing — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:01:09 +0000

Maclean has lost. He completely lost. You need to read the court ruling.

I hope the court makes an award for costs.

By: RBKing

RBKing — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:59:04 +0000

In this guy’s court case, which he lost, he was alleging damages of $90m.

Where would he have got the idea that a government contract should yield him personally $90m?

Who in their right minds would think that is reasonable?

By: jt

jt — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:58:59 +0000

We should all care and be thankful that MacLean and those guiding this scheme were stopped.
Where’s the $19 million by the way? That issue has been quiet. Governemnt better not let that fade.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 02:00:34 +0000

They can go back to arbitration and yes Mr. MacClean might get some money.
A Royal Commission or inquiry is not required to investigate his allegations.
He either has evidence or he doesn’t.
If he has some actual evidence to back his claims of corruption he should take it to the police. If he doesn’t, he should admit it and hope that the leaking of the affidavit can’t be traced back to him. As it is, these allegations are unfounded and uncorroborated but the opposition, instead of confronting Mr. MacClean and trying to aquire the supposed evidence or encouraging him to go to the police, will continue to flog this horse for political purposes. It serves no one but themselves.

By: Onion Juice

Onion Juice — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:52 +0000

Well, stole but who cares right.

By: Onion Juice

Onion Juice — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:05 +0000

For Christ Sake, they Legislated a Law to justify canceling contracts, gotta give it to them, a calculated move, devious but calculated.
Know I see how the Europeans went around the world and claimed land.

By: Yamon

Yamon — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:26:06 +0000

The highest court is the Privy Council

By: Unbelievable

Unbelievable — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:15:04 +0000

Cuz it’s that campaign that’s under way to remove the OBA. The story is tilt written as I said. Just keep watching.

By: Ringmaster

Ringmaster — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:10:10 +0000

The PLP are always going on about the OBA giving away Bermuda to people who are not born Bermudians. Michael McLean was born in Jamaica. The PLP should be celebrating the Chief Justice’s ruling. Where are the PLP to support this ruling?

By: max

max — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:56:30 +0000

We all knows the old Gov set up this 262 lease situation, not benefiting the people.
And, they borrowed & someway made $18M travel to Arabia or somewhere.

Now these characters, they’re licking their lips for the Peoples Money we could use on schools, etc.

Gov Auditor said it was a dodgydeal.
Compensation for what? Why? LOL

By: Unbelievable

Unbelievable — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:24:45 +0000

Co-sign.

By: TRUTH

TRUTH — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:20:14 +0000

This case never did have anything to do with Government Corruption. I made that point before. That is why the Opposition was requesting an Inquiry to address the possible concerns of Government Corruption. The Case had specific objectives:

1. The questioning of Voiding the Waterfront Lease
2. Financial Compensation for MacLean. That the Trust is entitled to recover all consequential loss as a result of the voiding.

This is what many folks overlooked. It looks like MacLean may be able to at least get the financial compensation he really wanted. The Dunkley government knew this, but still put misinformation out in the public eyes. This is still likely to cost us the Taxpayers huge amount of money.

By: Sickofantz

Sickofantz — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:05:51 +0000

So you are truth! The report clearly indicates that no evidence was given of any wrongdoing of the government ministers despite assertions.

I wonder why?

By: jt

jt — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:04:49 +0000

Based on statements from MacLean which alleged payment methods that were so infantile in their ease of detection? Like putting funds in Minister’s mother’s bank account? Sorry, this guy has exposed himself in this and the Par La Ville affair. I don’t want any more money wasted on an inquiry centred on his words.

By: James

James — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:57:27 +0000

MacLean lost big, and his claims of corruption were rubbished by the highest court in the land.

Why in the heck should we run to set up a Commission of Inquiry based on the allegations levied by a man who is now 0 for 2 on these high profile cases against the Government? Does he have a shred of credibility?

By: Unbelievable

Unbelievable — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:53:49 +0000

This story is still not written and so that’s why the Premier is not jumping on the inquiry bandwagon.

By: TRUTH

TRUTH — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:47:53 +0000

Looks like Government will still have to pay MacLean. In away, MacLean still has the option to ensure payment or he can take the case back to Supreme court.

I think since this court case did not or was not intended to address Corruption within the government. Dunkley should now push for an Inquiry to address possible government corruption alleged of 4 of his Minister.