The Nassau Institute: Comment

Stolen Property

6 November 2004

Appendix V of the Report on Trade Liberalization by the Tourism Taskforce published in April 2003.

The following is Appendix V of the Report on Trade Liberalization by the Tourism Taskforce published in April 2003. This case is a chronology of the experience of events that was intended to demonstrate how the rule of law is violated in the Bahamas.

V. Stolen Property

A current case illustrates the point that the justice system needs to be revamped. The principals are identified as John and Jane Smith…she is Bahamian and he is American. When John retired early in the United States, they elected in 1998 to relocate to Nassau where Jane would manage the remaining commercial real estate inherited from her deceased parents; and they jointly would start an Internet based service company for Bahamian business. The story starts with one property and one lessee identified as “Client” that produced three “related” legal disputes:

The Eviction, Cutlass Assault and Assailant cases.

1. Client signed a five-year lease with Jane’s mother in 1996.

2. Jane in early February 2000 gave Client a 90-notice to vacate on the basis that he violated the terms of the lease…he was $4,000 in arrears on his rent. This is the Eviction Case. In addition, he violated the terms of his business license and the “environmental code” insofar that he was polluting the water table. This conduct caused Jane to lose the renter on an immediately adjacent property.

3. In May 2000 Client erected a sign in violation of the lease agreement.

This was the occasion for the Cutlass Assault Case that ran parallel or at the same time as the Eviction Case. While John and Jane were supervising a handyman in removing the sign, Client and a relative arrived on the scene and Client pushed both John and Jane and threatened them with death with the cutlass in his hand. The police were called, took the cutlass but did not arrest Client.

a. The Attorney General’s Office did not prosecute the Client for “assault with a deadly weapon”; and John and Jane on their inquiry were told that the police lost the case. With a direct appeal to the Chief of Police, the case was recovered and a prosecution date was set.

b. In July 2001 the Magistrate hearing the case excused himself from the case and another Magistrate took it in September.

c. The case came to trial in October 2001. The arresting officer did not appear with the cutlass and the Bahamian handyman, who witnessed the entire affair, simply refused “to get involved” and was never called for fear of his becoming a hostile witness. The Magistrate issued a warrant for the officer’s arrest and adjourned the case.

d. The case came to trial in December 2001 but the Prosecutor was new to the case and the cutlass and the officer who took it from Client were not present. The case was adjourned.

e. The case reconvened in January 2002. Client testified that he did get upset and did indeed come running out of the building with a cutlass that he “held at his side the whole time.” The Magistrate adjourned the case to review the documents and develop his judgment.

f. The case reconvened in February 2002. Client was not present; the Magistrate still was not able to give a judgment and he adjourned the case.

g. The case reconvened in March 2002 and the Magistrate acquitted the Client of the charges “because the prosecution did not adequately prove its case.”

4. In the first week of June 2000 Jane took possession of the building, locked Client out and hired guards.

5. One week later Client forcibly re-occupied the property at night. The Police were called but would make not make an arrest since it was a “civil matter” for the courts.

6. Jane immediately initiated new eviction proceedings through the Magistrate's Court.

7. The case convened on June 16th, 2000. Client failed to return to court and the Magistrate ordered Client to leave the premises within 30-days.

8. On July 17th Client requested a new hearing to overturn the eviction and got it.

9. The court reconvened on August 4th, 2000 and the Magistrate ruled in favor of Jane and ordered Client to leave the premises immediately. He did so for three months.

10. On November 7th, 2000 Client broke in and reoccupied the property. He had a notice of appeal that was “granted out of time”.

11. The next day Client filed for an injunction allowing him to remain on the premises until the appeal went through. The injunction was wrongly issued since John and Jane were not present and it was based on false information.

12. As of the date of this Report Client is still occupying the building and not paying rent; and the legal actions of John and Jane are suspended pending a ruling on the Client’s injunction. Separate from this experience at this property Jane was assaulted and robbed of $1,200 in February 2001 while she was collecting rent at another property. A car approached her as she was leaving the property; the Assailant jumped out, grabbed the rent envelope and hit her in the face causing her to fall.

The sequence of events that follows is the Assailant Case:

1. Jane filed a Police Report and got a medical examination. The domicile of the Assailant was known but it took John 4 months to get the police to arrest him.

2. In late 2001 the case charging Assailant with “causing harm” was convened. Jane presented her testimony and documentation but her witness and the examining doctor were not present. The case was adjourned.

3. The case was reconvened in January 2002. The assailant was not present and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

4. The case was reconvened in May 2002. The prosecution witnesses did not appear. These included a Jamaican women who worked for a law firm and who was the eyewitness to the assault, and the examining doctor, an Asian national. The eyewitness expressed a fear of reprisal by Assailant as the reason for her failure to appear.

5. The case reconvened in August 2002 but the Judge stated that she was not ready to hear the case.

6. The case reconvened in September 2002. The Assailant admitted that he stole the $1,200 but claimed that he did not hit Jane. He produced a witness that falsely testified that Jane was wearing 6-inch heals and tripped on the pavement.

7. The case reconvened 12 days later and the Judge indicated that he was not ready.

8. The case reconvened in October 2002 and the Judge was not present.

9. The case reconvened in November 2002 and Assailant was acquitted because the prosecution did not prove its case beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Comments

Ken - 1 September 2009 16:10

violation of law

I think these circumstances are typical of what can happen in any relatively isolated, insular community. You are doing the right thing by bringing them to the light. This is how small people like Hart enforce their power. The sad part is when higher authority such as the commissioner fail to correct the situation, Persevere at all cost

Keith Aspden - 17 August 2009 04:25

Brent Hurt,Sgt Williams 1398, extortion and bribery

I'm so glad Brent Hurt has replied with more false information. It shows the mark of a true scoundrel. Anyone who is interested please check the facts. The malicious case brought against me by Brent Hurt, in order to escape completing our house construction, was dismissed by the magistrate Mrs Silvester after hearing that Brent Hurt had illegally paid Sgt Williams 1398 for his services. Again Brent Hurt tries to lie his way out the situation. There is no warrant for my arrest and the only person who owes money is Brent Hurt for his fraudulent dealings with honest investors. See his record with Brokercheck on the NASD website, which reveals his dishonest and fraudulent behavior by failing to escrow investors money. His record of bribery with the local police on Exuma, in particular Sgt Williams 1398, is being investigated by the police in Nassau at the moment.
I am not the only investor unfortunate to cross paths with Brent Hurt who seems addicted to providing false and misleading information, there are other cases in the supreme court which have ruled against Brent Hurt, which he yet to honor, not a word known to Brent Hurt. Would he care to comment on the promissory note for $600,000 he signed with Rick Scheck, which he has still not honored or paid, even after being ordered by the courts to do so?
I would urge anyone to vigorously check Brent Hurt's record before dealing with this dangerously sociopathic individual.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Aspden

Brent Hurt - 15 August 2009 22:34

re. Ketih Aspden

Just found this article (below) 8/16/09. Interesting reading if one likes fiction.

Easy to check the facts. A warrant is out for the arrest of Ketih Aspden in The Bahama for assault with a deadly weapon against yours truly - he didn't show up for his sentencing in June 09. Nice story above, all a smokescreen. Aspden is a deadbeat who never paid his bills and left allot of good people in the lurch. Many people looking for him as he skipped town owing big dollars - classic example of trying to cover your tracks with BS.

For the record, I'm still in the Bahamas and a proud member of the business community - check out www.youtube.com/hoopersbay.
It's easy to check out the real facts if you care too. Anyone with nothing better to do can type stuff on the internet - (no snide remarks, it took me five years to see this).

Brent Hurt, August, 2009

keith aspden - 17 March 2009 03:48

extortion and corruption on exuma

In 2004 we purchased a house on Exuma from a US builder Brent Hurt at The Village at Hooper's Bay due to be completed October 2004. The house was never finished even though it was paid for in full. When I complained to the builder Brent Hurt, he told me that he had the Police in his pocket and that I couldn't do anything. We visited the island in 2006 and stayed in another house on the island. A police officer Sgt Williams 1398 visited us and warned us to stay away from our house and not cause problems for Brent Hurt. We complained to the island administrator Mr. Hart about the police officer and how we had been harassed by him.
The next day on 11th April 2006 my wife was contacted by Quinton Clark, who works for Brent Hurt. He told her that the electricity was to be connected to the house later that day and to make sure I was told the good news. When I visited our house at The Village at Hooper's Bay at about 2.30pm I was attacked in my vehicle by Brent Hurt and Quinton Clark. I immediately drove to the police station and complained about the assault in a written statement. Half an hour later the same Sgt Williams 1398 arrested me with an armed officer and I was thrown in prison, later charged with assault on Brent Hurt. I complained to the Corruption Unit in Nassau who investigated Sgt Williams and subsequently charged him with "bringing the police force into disrepute" and removed him from the island. I contacted Commissioner Ferguson who promised to put things right, but who actually did nothing, so the charge against me still stands. I have returned to the Bahamas from the UK on ten occasions each time the case has been adjourned because either the magistrate or the witness Sgt Williams has failed to attend. Eventually the prosecution has completed it's case and Sgt Williams has admitted in court that he was being paid illegally,bribed, by Brent Hurt and Brent Hurt has admitted that he was paying Sgt Williams. Even though this evidence has been heard in open court the police will not proceed with their own charge against Sgt Williams and the magistrate will not dismiss the charge against me.
The police have no case or evidence against me and this malicious charge has been orchestrated by Brent Hurt in an attempt to scare us away from our house, by bribing a local police officer Sgt Williams 1398.
I have written many letters to the attorney general and the public prosecutors office without response. The British High Commission in Kingston have contacted the Foreign Affairs Office in the Bahamas to not only express their concern over the case but more specifically to the death threats I have received from Sgt Williams 1398 saying that I could be murdered if I ever return to the Bahamas. They have yet to even receive a reply from the Attorney General.

I would welcome your comments on the above.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Aspden

Charles - 29 November 2004 13:55

Still not resolved.

It is most pathetic that the case has STILL not had a proper day in court. The victim of this injustice is still being frustrated by the dysfunctional justice system. Yet, the Attorney General does nothing, like the AG before him.

Christopher Lowe - 14 November 2004 07:09

Stolen Property

An entirely believable synopsis. An absolute frustration to the public to whom justice should be available and expedient. As it now exists God help anyone who has need of it.
A broken system.

Recent Comments

Comments

Add new comment: