OP ED: Editorial on behalf of PNO and for the benefit of Mr.James Bryson.
My name is Steven, and I am an BAR regulated and Licensed Attorney at Law. I am able to litigate Federal proceedings in both the State of Florida as well as the State of New York. I am not including my last name nor Bar# as I am not retained in any official capacity on this matter that has inundated my father in law’s daily Panamanian blog. A blog that he started to merely occupy his time during his well deserved retirement, has polluted this past year for him. I am dedicating my time to this out of love for a 6ft 235lb Teddy Bear of a man that simply enjoys Politics, Wildlife, and eating with my lovely Mother in Law.
Having said that, I graduated from VANDERBILT LAW SCHOOL, with an aim to build my career in corporate law. I at the present time am not acting in any official capacity as to not embroil my firm in an international discord that has been existing and apparently and seemingly adjudicated upon for over 12 years now.
So, in the interest of jurisprudence, I am composing this statement once and for all as to what Mr.James Bryson and therefore PNO has come to both realize and understand as to the battle between TRES CRUCES DE ORO and RED FROG BEACH/OCEANS GROUP INTERNATIONAL

QUESTION 1: Who in the eyes of the law owns the land in question? ( 22 Hectares of beachfront property in Bocas del Toro) ?.

First off, I had to take into consideration greatly the term of “law”. I of course practice in the United States. This is occurring in Panama. So, many calls and favors to colleagues who have expertise in this arena were consulted with. Taking into account that in Panama you have issues such as “Rights of Possession“, “Concessions“, and then the goal of actual “Titled Properties“. In this respect, this issue had more verbiage leading up to what the end should clearly be seen as. In the United States, and as in the case of basically every single developed country that utilizes the concept of trial, jury, and adjudication, there is eventually a final decision presided upon by a SUPREME COURT. It would be counter-intuitive to even use the term of “SUPREME” if any decision presided upon over said court was then to be consistently challenged or questioned.
TRES CRUCES DE ORO has in it’s possession a SUPREME COURT ruling of which I personally asked and required to have translated to me in English. I then went as far to have a very long conversation with my college friend who went to LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and returned home to practice law in the Republic of Panama.

SUMMATION: TRES CRUCES DE ORO is the legal and recognized owner of this property in Panama according to law. They are the ones in possession of the Title. This is not an opinion of emotion or vested interest. It is one of the most basic rules of ownership. If it is the position of RED FROG BEACH/OCEANS GROUP INTERNATIONAL that this Title is in any way fraudulent, then their case and discord lays NOT with TRES CRUCES DE ORO, but rather the Government of the Republic of Panama, ANATI, and the Supreme Court itself. This may ruffle some feathers, but in the eyes of the law, you need a Plaintiff and a Defendant, and seeing as this was already adjudicated, the defendant is no longer TRES CRUCES. The complaint now rests upon the decision, and at least as implied in the term “SUPREME“, the decision is viewed upon as FINAL. I can’t see any way around this incredibly blatant fact. As a lawyer it is what stands out. If your calling into question it’s authenticity, the discord is with those who presided over granting it, and not the grantee.

QUESTION 2: Are the parties involved in this complaint comprised of “Land Thieves”, “Invaders”, “Opportunists” and possibly “Criminals”?

In practicing law, I have access to search engines and portals that provide me with the necessary public information regarding any persons of interest in any of my cases. (PACER, Global Verification Network, Justia, PublicData, to name a few). I spent hours in looking into all of the names for all of the parties that appear as officers of the two factions. What I found……NOTHING. I have access to the highest level of legal insight. I am not quoting, “BocasBreeze“, “BocasUnidos“, “Panama Guide“, nor even “PanamaNowOnline“. Outside of those types of sources, NOTHING is credible.

SUMMATION: The background checks revealed that none of the names of any of the groups have ever been convicted of any crimes. BOTH groups however, had people with questionable press attached to them that could easily be found online. In the case of RED FROG BEACH it was Mr.Wright J Thurston, and in the case of SIX DIAMONDS RESORTS, it was Mr. Francis (Frank) Delape. While these persons had poor reputations, and claims of scams attached to them. Neither has any criminal judgments levied against them. Those are the facts. I have additionally confirmed that NEITHER of these men have had anything to do with the organizations for some time. JB advised RED FROG of Thurston having his name appear on LinkedIn as recent as July of this year, and it has since been removed. In the case of Delape, it is even more alarming as he has not been involved in any TC or SDRI capacity since 2009. BOTH have been printed and quoted as being involved more recent than that, but the facts state otherwise when looked for.
When investigating the group of Haley, Bolton, and Cranney, there was nothing to be found to imply a history of criminal activity. BEYOND THIS CASE. (PillarPanama, et al) However that same thing can be said about the current leadership group of TRES CRUCES as well. Neither William Baquet nor Richard Kiibler have anything at all of concern in their history. Mr.Baquet is actually a FINRA regulated banker in New York, one of the toughest and most stringent of states to comply with as you could imagine, and in the eyes of all legal oversight he is in full compliance. In the interest of Mr.Kiibler, nothing appears at all as well,,,BEYOND THIS CASE.
I share this due to the level of outrageous claims and rhetoric that has been provided to us attached to these people. I mean it is indeed slanderous in the least and outright libelous at worst if unfounded. ‘Land Thieves“, claims of “Political Extortion“, “Physical Intimidation“, “Arson“, and even “Death Threats“. If any of these are in the least bit true, the sock just doesn’t fit the foot. It would be the biggest jump in character portrayal I have seen in all my years of practice. Bankers and Business owners don’t generally make the leap to Piracy that seamlessly. While there are certain to be claims to form opinions on people. The internet is rife with the ability to state whatever, as whomever. However, from a legal perspective they clearly don’t hold weight. For example, we were provided with volumes of information to these claims. If “Land Theft” occurred, how did a group of gringos from America curry such favor? If there was indeed “Arson” and “Death threats“, especially to an American, it would most certainly be reported. We were unable to unearth a single municipality or police report to substantiate any of these claims. And it is indeed these salacious claims that I feel were thrown at “JB” to indeed make for interesting copy. All the way back to the reader contribution. But they have no legals substance to support them. So when we receive and or are directed via link to videos that claim people to be “Invading“, I find that truly to be a bit dramatic. In that the “invaders” are the ones in possession of the TITLE. This I find odd, and relied greatly upon my friend to provide clarity for me.

QUESTION 3. Why was a completely un-involved 3rd Party in the form of ( PanamaNowOnline) made to be such a sticking point for open discussion? I want to go on record here as stating that I personally advised AGAINST “JB” to allow RED FROG BEACH to NOT avail themselves to a live interview with me. Seeings as he was trying to be an interested third party seeking clarity, he was attempting to rise above the muck and get to the real legal claims. I wanted to pursue questions in the same exact manner in which Mr.Kiibler afforded us to do. JB in his continued effort to show good faith went out of his way to work with Mr.Haley to find a compromise. One of which I felt was not required. There was an initial agreement to have an interview, of which I have seen the emails documenting such, as I am blind copied on all JB sends. After the completion of the TRES CRUCES interview, which indeed overwhelmed us with information, there was a shift in tenor to conduct said interview. JB was met with conditions of which TRES CRUCES did not demand of him. First and foremost being, the consistent and relentless requests for JB to remove reader provided content to his site. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and I found it incredibly out of character to request. A not for profit blog of a retired American living abroad, being bullied and badgered into removing something he did not even then, nor has ever, claimed to be FACT. It was as if these people completely overlooked the concept of free speech especially in the age of the internet. People are literally eviscerated and called names every day from all corners of the world online, and suddenly James Bryson is being identified as a slanderer? It was a fight picked with the wrong people. James has a reputation and a scope of contacts and friends that will run through walls for him. And the further benefit of free legal counsel. We reacted accordingly. JB is tired of all of this topic, but to mandate a removal of contributed content to any news source would require undeniable proof that it was incorrect. Throw in the fact that it was a reader opinion, it is the same point I made at the beginning. RED FROG BEACH does not have a problem with PNO, but rather I imagine needs to sue the INTERNET.

So against my urging of him doing so, James graciously allowed RED FROG to answer a series of questions that I composed myself. Questions I felt were germane to the pillars of the contention and the true crux of the matter. Albeit minus all of the inflammatory charges and claims that I have already addressed and found to be unsubstantiated above. We made it abundantly clear we wanted to stay on topic, and this request was NOT appreciated. Mr.Haley rather did the exact opposite and I feel tried to emulate the interview of Mr.Kiibler, minus the strength and conviction to do so live and unprepared. PNO had ceased picking up articles, and I myself removed comments in which Haley was aimed upon, and we were rewarded with a cowardly and long winded reply that he has weeks to prepare for. And……yet again,,,,,JB kept his word. In a sea of papers and periodicals that were NOT in the opinion of Mr.Haley himself providing equal footing, PNO went out of it’s way to do so. NO MORE.

What was provided back to PNO, and subsequently JB posted was indeed a prostitution of what I submitted in my questions to Mr.Joseph Haley. Thus he went off the rails in a manner that the TRES CRUCES interview did not have the courtesy to prepare for. I administer depositions all the time. If Mr.Kiibler was able to opine liberally into different areas during a live exchange is one thing. That occurs in depositions. “Live” conversation is precisely what is requested when seeking the truth. It removes the ability to know what is coming and often leads to real answers. RFB did not approve of the TC interview of course. However it was live and unscripted. What Mr.Haley did was use my father in law by being given weeks to do nothing more than provide brief answers to my questions, then wander off into a path that we specifically requested he not do. It was incredibly self serving and something he could have done live and recorded with not a single complaint being levied upon him. But NOT when we agree to ask specific questions that are then polluted into more unsubstantiated claims. I can illustrate with these examples.

I inquired the following ” Tres Cruces has produced a resolution from ANATI, a certification from ANATI, Supreme Court ruling in their favor in recognition over the disputed property. What documentation can your site show that demonstrates equal, greater, or any ownership over said property?– In turn, JH replied – “The ANATI documents and Supreme Court ruling do not constitute recognition of ownership”.

**That was not the question that I inquired. What I asked was “What documentation can your side show that demonstrates equal, greater, or any ownership over said property? That question was slyly bypassed and not answered, and rather replied to with more attacks on the validity of what was provided by Tres Cruces. Of which I already explained above, was verified by my colleague in Panama as being completely unquestioned. I was then inundated with 2000 words from a non-lawyer educating me on Panamanian law.

I point this out because, as much as I vehemently did not want JB to allow him to not perform a live Q and A, I am smart enough to see that Mr.Haley made it very difficult for the readers by consistently answering questions posed to him in INTERVIEW format as if he was answering an ESSAY question on a test. This was accomplished by routinely answering a direct question by making a reference to another. EX: ( “See our Website”, “Its all on our website”, “See explanation in 5 below”, “See #1 above”.) In terms of being a fair and balanced quid pro quo, the requirements were not meant. It is not the duty of the interviewer to have to investigate to retrieve a direct answer. That is why in law we have “Voir Dire” during jury selection. We seek direct answers to live questions to determine the effectiveness of the prospective juror. The jurors do not have weeks to provide an answer.

SUMMATION: Both as his lawyer and son in law, I feel that JB felt compelled to assuage Mr.Haley to providing any type of response as a matter of demonstrating his fair play and desire to hear both sides. In doing so, Mr.Haley took advantage of the PNO platform to not stick to the questions provided in lieu of him NOT conducting a live interview, and instead remained stuck to promoting his own personal agenda. He had mentioned he has had zero to little luck in any Panamanian publication in hearing his side, and rather than appease us with an equal commentary, he went off the reservation and wasted my personal time. If he wanted to opine on his own views of the people of TRES CRUCES or otherwise, he should have stepped up to the plate for a live Q and A, and he could have answered as voluminously as Mr,Kiibler did and said whatever he wanted unscripted, unrehearsed, while recorded, and without a week to prepare for. JB is a saint for posting it anyway.

So people, in the interest of apprising all going forward. Any and all emails, posts, comments, links, or information sent to JB concerning these parties or this issue will be first proofread and edited by me. I feel we have been wrangled into this and JB’s fun past time has been infected with duplicity. We have had “ghost” people contact us with Employment titles that can’t be verified online in any way, shape, or form. No LinkedIn, No Facebook, not even through Immigration into Panama of which I also have access to. All of which is why I try to focus primarily and exclusively on the legal aspects.

The last of which I was able to verify was the following as it pertains to the legal aspect of what I learned.

This dispute is full of information from both sides much of which PNO cannot identify as fact or fiction. Some of the characters involved and claims made do appear at first blush to be outrageous and hard to believe. That is why in law we try to steer clear of interpretations and focus on black and white. There are two points I would like to clarify to Mr. Haley and his group whereas, they appear incorrect in terms of the law from my perspective. The first being in reference to the Supreme Courts ruling and what it actually says.  Hence my question “did you read and understand it? ” The Supreme Court in it’s ruling clearly stipulates and orders that all previous rulings regarding this matter are hereby ordered to be revoked, vacated and replaced by its ruling.  That ruling did more than rectify a boundary correction as represented by Mr. Haley.  It acknowledged some very important facts to both myself and my friend in Panama. The first being that the inscription of the BH title since its inception was in fact defective and ordered it to be amended.  That in no point does their property come near the sea.  Additionally, it acknowledges a ruling from another chamber of the Supreme Court that in fact restituted the legal validity of Mr. Narvise Rights and noted a certification number reflecting the same that goes back to Sept 13, 1995.  Meaning the cases being championed in  Mr. Haley’s reply as to why they own the land hold no weight or validity.  I say this with no malice towards RFB/OGI, nor even Mr.Haley himself. It is just what is revealed to me in the scope of the law.

Mr. Haley notes in one of his replies that Mr. Kiibler references a victory in the lawsuit in the US and Mr. Haley states that his group in effect won said lawsuit under appeal.  I have taken the time to find the decision of the appeals court in Texas and read it thoroughly.  Mr.  Haley is incorrect they did NOT win the appeal and beat the Tres Cruces/Six Diamonds on appeal as stated. Here is the distinction. The lawsuit was brought by RF against Six Diamonds in Houston, Texas.  It was thrown out with prejudice and the RF group were sanctioned and ordered to pay $385,000.00 by the Federal Court Judge.  RF then appealed the ruling and the appeals court ordered that the resolution be altered such that the case was thrown out not by prejudice and that the Judge’s sanctions were excessive.  Vacating the order to pay $385,000.00 to Six Diamonds based on an issue that was not yet proven to be ripe.  The term ripe referring to the fact that there was a pending forthcoming decision in Panama’s Supreme Court. Awards are often and routinely vacated in the event there is connected and non adjudicated issue pending.  The result of which after the fact ruled in favor of Tres Cruces and Narvise.   So legally, after BOTH interviews (loosely phrased) I think it is important to clarify that under appeal RF did not win or defeat Six Diamonds or Tres Cruces as noted by Mr. Haley. What occurred is they were merely able to successfully overturn the sanctions granted by the initial Federal Judge where RF presented their lawsuit.  That much is correct and accurate.

If this has bored or has been received as ponderous, apologies are in order. But in truth this whole story has grown cobwebs. My sympathy and remorse centers around NOT the case itself, but the people (of which I am certain most are gringos, or Ex-Pats, that have lost money both in initial investment and further expense in continuing this pursuit). To those who have been footing the bill, I feel for you. If they were being billed in the US, your invoices would be triple or more.  Panama is not Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles. To suggest otherwise is narrow thinking. This issue has now gone through FOUR Panamanian administrations. I don’t see that changing. I don’t see Panama de-stabilizing the belief in the function of the Supreme Court, and reversing a ruling, over gringos fighting for land in Panama. Not going to happen in mine nor my friends opinion.

Please contact either of these groups independently if you disagree with this assessment.

PNO and James Bryson have done what they/he endeavored to accomplish. This all after shady Cease and Desist orders, questionable contacts, and an overall nastiness that just got under his skin. He is far from one to back down. He would much rather just punch some people, whereas I would choose to just take what we learned and share it.

That as they say my friends is all. PNO has done a fair share of lifting for many people here. My comments are my own and I FIRMLY stand behind them. I am making no personal assertions or claims beyond what I can with absolute 100% certainty back up with email chains, sworn statements, and 18 years of practicing law at the highest of corporate levels. As stated earlier, it will be myself that will make any statements on this topic if any are deemed required. So unless the bill payers choose to merely pay more bills, I would advise to tread lightly and not bother my father in law further.

Regards

Steven