Premier Ewart Brown wanted share of companys business court told

Photos

Ewart Brown corruption

see larger image

uploaded by Sal

UPDATE:

more stench from plp corruption: their consultant pals in US swindling same as Erat Brown stole MILLIONS from Taxpayer's left with BILLIONS of plp debt with DALY cost in interest ALONE $263,000!!

In 2006 then Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton announced he would be spending a total of $350,000 on an ambitious anti-gang initiative for Bermuda

overseas law enforcement agency assists in corruption claim probe

"Bolden also alleged the former Premier had earlier asked for a 60 percent share of the commission he earned from work on Bermuda's public pension funds."

As in the Turks & Caicos, Bermuda needs a Royal Commission to investigate the PAY-TO-PLAY culture of corruption under Ewart Brown & his PLP gang of liars & thieves.

it is always the thief who acts outraged when he's caught,hence the charade of Brown's protests.

They don't even hide the corruption anymore,

I'm ashamed of our government. The silence of PLP members and MP's says volumes about their hypocrisy;They have no social justice conscience.Life is good for the pigs at the trough , feeding off a gravy train of corruption and entitlement EB & his friends,and family, all the race baiting consultants financed by the TAXPAYER'S HARD EARNED MONEY.

For the past 13 years a culture of corruption has grown deep roots,they are un apologetically corrupt,the plp motto "I got mines, screw you,its our time!

Former Premier Ewart Brown tried to get his wife on the board of a private firm pitching for business with Government and get himself a personal stake in the company, it has been alleged in court.

Businessman David Bolden claimed a Government Minister told him the Premier wanted ten percent of his wireless technology company, and for Wanda Henton Brown to be placed on the board.

Financier Mr Bolden also stated under oath in Supreme Court that the former Premier asked for a 60 percent share of the commission he earned from work on Bermuda’s public pension funds.

The businessman, who said he rejected both approaches from Dr Brown, made his claims in answer to questions from a prosecutor and the judge during his trial on charges that he and wife Antoinette Bolden stole from a company they part-owned, Emerald Capital International [ECI].

Dr Brown denies the accusations and described them in a statement today as “outrageous” and “a total fabrication”.

Since the allegations were not made in front of the jury in the case, The Royal Gazette could not report them until the trial finished. Dr Brown tried unsuccessfully to prevent publication beyond the end of the trial.

He instructed lawyers Mark Pettingill and Marc Daniels, of Charter Chambers Bermuda, to represent him. In a letter to The Royal Gazette on June 9, Mr Daniels wrote: “Any and all comments relating to Dr Brown being involved in any type of ‘kick back’ or payments to him or advantage from the Boldens personally or any company with which they are involved is unequivocally denied.”

After a hearing in his chambers over the issue today, the Chief Justice refused to gag The Royal Gazette from publishing this story once the jury had returned its verdict, and he ordered Dr Brown to pay our legal costs.

A few hours later, the jury cleared the Boldens of 18 counts of theft and money laundering and found them guilty of one count of misleading the Bermuda Monetary Authority. Mr Bolden’s allegations about Dr Brown came when prosecutor Susan Mulligan asked him, during cross-examination on June 8, why he did not attend the Cabinet Office presentation on November 4, 2008.

Before he had chance to answer the question, another of the Boldens’ defence lawyers, Andrew Martin, asked to address the trial judge, Chief Justice Richard Ground, in the absence of the jury.

Once the jury went out, Mr Martin explained: “The area into which we’re going, and some of the answers which may come out, may have somewhat of an inflammatory effect.”

Mr Martin said he felt it was appropriate for the Chief Justice to hear the answers in the absence of the jury as “my concern would be that the answers may be publicised in the newspaper and that may have a detrimental effect on the course of these proceedings”.

The Chief Justice then asked Mr Bolden why he was not present at the meeting with Government.

Mr Bolden replied: “The former Premier Ewart Brown had asked me to pay him 60 percent of any Government business that I had previously.”

When Mr Froomkin complained he could not hear what Mr Bolden was saying, his client repeated: “The former Premier Ewart Brown had previously asked me to pay him 60 percent of any Government business I had. I refused to do that. I did not want to go to this meeting and find myself in a situation where another approach would be made.”

He said of his concern: “This was something I made aware to all the parties involved.”

Prosecutor Susan Mulligan probed Mr Bolden further about the context and timing relating to his allegation about Dr Brown.

He told her: “This was just a couple of years ago. It was a well-publicised case in terms of pension funds.”

Ms Mulligan asked: “And those pension funds were Government funds?”

Mr Bolden replied: “Yes ma’am. As well, an overture was made after the company was set up. [The] Bold [company] ma’am.”

The prosecutor asked: “This is before the test meeting?”

Mr Bolden replied: “This is the asking for payments was before, the asking for participation in the company was after.”

Ms Mulligan inquired: “He asked for payment in relation to the pension funds. Was it a fund you were administering?”

Mr Bolden replied: “No. Commissions.”

Ms Mulligan asked by whom the overture was made after the Bold wireless technology company was formed.

Mr Bolden replied: “By one of the Government Ministers, that the Premier would like to have ten percent of the company and his wife be placed on the board.”

The Chief Justice asked Mr Bolden: “So you’re saying the Premier, in respect of unrelated business, had before the meeting asked you for a share of any Government business?”

“Yes,” said Mr Bolden, saying he was afraid if he attended the test meeting, the issue would come up again, which it did.

The Chief Justice asked: “It came up again because another Minister came and asked you for ten percent?.

Mr Bolden replied: “Yes.”

Ms Mulligan said she thought Mr Bolden should be permitted to give some answer before the jury. She suggested to the court that Mr Bolden could give a fair and honest answer that he did not attend the meeting because he was concerned over a conflict with a Member of Parliament.

Mr Martin said: “I don’t have any suggestion. I just wanted to avoid it becoming a distraction from the real issues in this case.”

He suggested the “real issues in the case” unfolded at the subsequent meeting between the ECI partners, where the issue of salaries and expenses for the Boldens was discussed.

The Chief Justice said: “I would hate to do anything to distract the jury from that meeting.”

He went on: “It’s rather difficult because one doesn’t like editing the facts but I don’t want a hoo-ha about this.”

He expressed concern that “when mud gets thrown around it sticks God knows where on the jury’s mind”

Following Ms Mulligan’s suggestion that Mr Bolden could say he was “conflicted”, the judge asked him: “Are you content with just saying that? I don’t want to edit you either. It’s your evidence.”

Mr Bolden indicated he was and the lawyers for both sides indicated they agreed.

This meant the allegations did not come out in evidence in front of the jury, with Mr Bolden merely telling them “I was conflicted” in respect of the meeting with Government representatives.

The jury did not hear any evidence that the discussions with Government over the wireless project ever moved beyond discussions.

Dr Brown was not present in court when the exchange occurred. He later instructed lawyers to try to delay this newspaper from publishing Bolden’s claims while he sought further legal advice.

During the hearing in the Chief Justice’s chambers relating to that matter this morning, Dr Brown’s lawyer, Mark Pettingill, explained Dr Brown wanted a reporting ban and planned to seek an injunction. He also told the Chief Justice his client wished to instruct London Queen’s counsel to represent him.

Mr Pettingill said Dr Brown and his wife had been “defamed” by Mr Bolden.

He added: “Their position is unequivocal; the defendant perjured himself in making these defamatory remarks.”

The Royal Gazette contested Dr Brown’s attempt to stop us publishing this story, and our lawyer, Jeffrey Elkinson, addressed the Chief Justice saying freedom of the press must prevail.

Mr Elkinson made reference to a previous action in 2007 brought by Dr Brown, when the Supreme Court refused to gag the media from reporting further revelations from a leaked police dossier on the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal.

After hearing from the lawyers, the Chief Justice ruled against delaying further the publication of the material, saying he had no power to make such an order.

He ordered Dr Brown to pay The Royal Gazette’s legal costs relating to the action

PAY-TO-PLAY corruption again in news again,yesterday it was the Bolden case,today it's Ewart Brown  blocking  Morgan's Point  land swap deal ,so he could control contractors & reap the profits.
there is no way Morgan's Point can beat Atlantis in Bahamas.

Bermuda is a vastly overcrowded place, totally dependent on food imports with an economy that is utterly dependent on cheap energy & cheap 3d world labour.

Peak oil has jacked up prices permanently to over $100/barrel.

Bermuda is totally dependent on Belco monopoly of burning oil for electricity,they will have to build 3 more plants to service 1000's of new condos & Morgan's Point!

international business contributes 60% of GDP, tourism only 28%.

13yrs of plp incompetence, corruption & looting the treasury has left it bankrupt, allowed crime to explode & the economy & real estate to crash.
Bermuda is in deep trouble. And that doesn't even take into account rising sea levels from climate change