There should be a simple rule imposed from now on: if you name any individual in the House (or make it so that that individual's name becomes obvious), you should immediately have to repeat your statement outside the House, so that individual has legal recourse. Parliamentary privilege was not designed to protect crooked MPs from the Law or to allow them to slander the public. This is another bastardisation of the Westminster system peculiar to the Bahamas.

Another folly which will be in receivership within 3 year of opening. The liquidators can do a job lot sale with the other monstrosity just down the road. Pardon me, I meant to say: Another wonderful first for the Bahamas and another marvellous, well thought out profitable project, just like Baha Mar.

You might not like the man, but everything he says is eminently sensible. Sarkis is receiving bad legal advice and going about things the wrong way. I am sure someone is advising him this way to generate legal fees, whatever the outcome for Sarkis. If he is stupid enough not to see this, then it just confirms my view of the man: a clueless playboy playing with Daddy's money.

LOL. I don't think you have ever seen $300 in cash, let alone $3 million.

Since the man contributed financially to the FNM and to this paper, it is quite OK that you should give him a bit of publicity and air his outlandish claims. However, every time he opens his mouth it becomes even more obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together that he is talking out of his arse. You have done your duty, you have aired his nonsense. Now let him sue, if he has the guts. And if Daddy gives him a few more million to flush down the toilet to keep company with the untold hundreds of millions he flushed over the past decade.

The only problem with your line of reasoning is that you have to prove those "corrupt practices" in Court. Which he has singularly failed to do. May I remind you, it is a Court which declared default and a Court which transferred the ownership of the security. Your line of reasoning is that the Judge was in on it too? And the appellate court on top? Yeah, the whole world woke up one morning and decided it had nothing better to do that strip Sarkis of Baha Mar. As if Baha Mar were some huge asset. It is not. It is a crappy hotel which will never make money. A folly from start to finish which could only have been conceived by someone with no experience whatsoever and financed by someone not answerable to shareholder. Wake up and smell the roses.

Sure. Now all you have to do is prove your conspiracy theory.
PS: I have a bridge or two I can sell you, if you are interested. Cheap.

All your points are irrelevant to the issue addressed in this article. The issue is simple: did Sarkis default? Yes. No doubt about it whatsoever. None. Secondly, were the Chinese within their rights to exercise the security? Again, yes. Full stop. Whatever came afterwards, is a matter for police, courts, etc.; and if there was malfeasance, those people should go to jail for it. But it changes not one iota Sarkis's position as no longer being the owner of Baha Mar. Quite legally. There is no power in heaven or earth that will change that simple fact: the man defaulted and his security was taken from him. He can now bleat about what happened afterwards till the cows come home. It will not change that fact one bit.

Izmirlian is talking a whole load of rubbish. He defaulted on payments and the security for the payments was taken from him. End of story. He can sue all he likes. Everything that came afterwards...the sale, the potential self-dealing, everything, has nothing to do with that simple fact: you default, they legally take your security. So, like a good boy, shut the hell up and go waste some more of Daddy's money on lawsuits, if you must. I hear they are particularly expensive in the USA, so try there. I am sure Daddy will give you the dosh.

What a great idea! Build a luxury resort in a war zone. Genius. Wonder why no one thought of this before?