OP ED: James “JB” Bryson: To those that have been keen to keep contacting me in regards to this 12 year old issue between two groups battling over land in Bocas, I am providing to you the following. Below is a direct response from Mr.Joe Haley, CEO of Red Frog Beach in Bocas del Toro. PNO conducted a live interview with the opposition to him, by speaking with Mr.Richard Kiibler for a very long time, in the presence of my son in law Steven who is a highly respected lawyer in the US.

I am providing this brief OP ED, prior to PNO posting what was delivered to us in a completely UNEDITED fashion, as I keep my word. But I have to tell you all, this entire ordeal has left an extremely poor taste in my mouth.

Briefly, after allowing an EX-PAT to openly complain about his issues with Red Frog, my site and me personally have been deluged and pulled into a 12 year old battle that is IMHO totally insane. My follow up editorial will provide a summary for exactly how I feel and perceive this issue after more or less dealing with it for 8 Months, and hearing BOTH sides.

I have tried more than many will know to actually try to foster a dialogue between these two warring factions to no avail. I was more than happy to have Mr.Kiibler agree to have direct questions both asked and answered from myself and Steven. ( I am unable to intelligently champion everything he said as fact, but he did indeed answer every question and put himself out there to be heard). He did indeed have to answer live questions on the spot.

PNO wanted to do the same with Red Frog. We were rebuked. Yet in still, I remained committed to providing a platform for Mr.Haley to reply. Red Frog Beach was getting murdered in the local papers and I was interested to hear the opposing side. Whereas Mr.Kiibler did indeed have a long interview that at times went sideways, he was answering questions in real time and un-rehearsed. In my mind that needs to be noted.

My conversations with Mr.Haley leading up to trying to get an actual interview were informative. Mr.Haley indeed has a story, but for an odd reason it connected PNO. Much of the discussion around doing an interview was strangely connected to PNO being asked to take down the reader contribution. (BTW thanks a ton Peter, who knew?). I would in retrospect, love to take down all this shit, but to make it involved in any topic of providing a reply is just silly. PNO gains ZERO from ANY of this. I am not a for profit site. I give away my ad banners to Ex-Pats.

I was originally provided a much longer reply with numerous links that Red Frog wanted me to post. I refused. If an interview was not going to be on the same level, than I am certainly not going to act as a de-facto PR arm of Red Frog and just post hyperlinks and replies to Kiibler’s answers. Made no sense to me and didn’t provide progress in my eyes. All that does is continue the argument. There are as many people that contact me disliking Mr.Haley as they do Mr.Kiibler. To have one answer questions from Steve and another merely reply to those answers was horseshit.

We then agreed to have Steven, (again my Vanderbilt educated son in law) to essentially donate his time and ability to compose what we felt were the ESSENTIAL questions surrounding the ownership of this property. He literally gave THOUSANDS of DOLLARS of billable hours to me for FREE. Removing all of the heightened rhetoric and claims of criminal behavior. What was sent back is exactly what you will be reading now simply because I’M TIRED OF THIS SHIT.

Mr.Haley we feel used this opportunity given to him by PNO, not to move further away from the salacious and dirty end of the pool, but rather dive head first right back into it. This disappoints me on a number of levels. First being, I waited quite some time to do something in the form of a response while not demanding an interview with Steven. Steven felt that I should have dropped it the moment he refused, but I felt I wanted to hear his side. Secondly, in this time I did NOT pick up additional articles on the topic that appeared in the papers. I also removed negative and defamatory comments made about Joe and RFB in our comments section. Steven admonished people for being rude. And additional commentary stating that what Peter originally wrote was added to illustrate it was one person’s opinion. All of this occurring after I received a Cease and Desist at the very beginning. I have never been more fair to a perfect stranger. I have since even been more or less subpoenaed for emails of which I now have Steven handling. I mean Who da thunk it? PNO letting a guy speak of his sister’s poor investment leading to 9 months of this type of skullduggery and smoke and mirrors?

My point is one of disappointment, for as much as I try to be a calm intermediary, the tenor of this argument remains stuck in the muck of horrible claims from the other side. This week I am allowing Steven to write his own official OP ED for the benefit of PNO, which will CLEARLY state what we ( PNO ) feel about this issue in CLOSING. After that I could give two royal shit’s as to what occurs.

Below is the view of Mr.Joe Haley as received directly from him.

(AGAIN-to RE-ITERATE, the opinions,claims, statements, and answers given by Mr.Haley DO NOT reflect the stance or opinion of PANAMA NOW ONLINE nor James Bryson. These are the opinions of one man in response to the questions provided. OUTSIDE of stating we received them directly from Mr.Joe Haley, the authenticity or validity of what is provided is up for discussion)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Email Interview questions for Joe Haley/ RFB or Bastimentos Holdings. Questions in BOLD and Answers in ITALICS** – all evidence supporting our answers is being uploaded to the Bastimentos Holdings website and will shared with PNO via hyperlink. ** Answers sent in BLUE, yet cannot be copy and pasted and we want everything read exactly as received. (JB)

1.) Tres Cruces has produced a Resolution from Anati, a certification from Anati and a Supreme Court ruling in their favor in recognition of their ownership over the disputed property.   What documentation can your side show that demonstrates equal, greater or any ownership over said property?  

The 3 documents Tres Cruces de Oro presents do not constitute recognition of ownership. The two ANATI documents are illegal and will be annulled as they were before in 2015. The 2019 ANATI resolution is meaningless considering 26 illegalities of the action as documented in our revocation suit before ANATI. This resolution was even more illicit than the previous one received in 2012. Unbelievably, this most recent title resolution was dubiously granted by Adolfo Noiran, in his last day of office. The 2011 Supreme court ruling’s only relevance is a boundary distinction that doesn’t impact our rightful possession which will be explained in further detail below.

It’s important to first understand what land ownership means in Panama as it’s different than in most countries. There is both titled land that is similar to what other countries have and “possessory rights” land. Prior to 2005, it was possible to transfer possessory rights land and register the transfer under Agrarian law. After 2005, possessory rights could be transferred but there was no public mechanism to record it. Titled land in Panama is recorded in a public deed or “escritura” found at the Public Registry with each parcel called a “Finca.” Our group purchased Finca 122 in 2004 with the public deed noting the north boundary as the sea (including the piece Six Diamonds Resorts International and Tres Cruces are trying to steal from us). The group that sold us this property disclosed that there was a pending boundary correction suit in the courts brought by Mr. Narvise who had attempted to squat on approximately 1 hectare of land and had been evicted by local government officials several times leading up to our purchase. Regardless of the boundary question outcome, the seller had maintained its possession of the entire land as per Agrarian law and we have done the same. In Panama, you must demonstrate possession for at least 1 year and properly maintain the land per law before you are deemed to be the legal occupant. Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro has NEVER possessed more than 1 hectare of the land in question and many occasions wasn’t even on that 1 hectare for several years at a time. In fact, Mr. Narvise was evicted on several occasions by local law officials. It’s impossible to demonstrate “ownership” without possession and secure titled land through ANATI without it, unless the applicant circumvents Panamanian law to achieve that end. Nonetheless, we have allowed Mr. Narvise to stay on approximately 1 hectare of our land as gesture of good faith to a community icon that interacts with our resort guests.

We have vast amounts of documentation that clearly demonstrates we are the rightful owners and possessors of the said property. We have good faith purchase documents showing clear ownership transfer for the land since 1979 and documentation of the publicly recorded boundaries, including Reforma Agraria Constitucion de Finca 122 of 1979, Escritura Compravente Finca 122 of 1991, Theobald purchase agreement of 1994, our group’s purchase agreement of 2004. We have court rulings and government actions that provide evidence to our rightful ownership including Agrarian Court annulment of Mr. Narvise possession of 1996, Catastro Inspection of 2003 documenting Mr. Narvise had little to no possession, the 2006 Appeal court ruling noting Mr. Narvise had no possession, our Master land scheme approval for the entire area, the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 annulling the illegal action by the adverse party, 3 clarification orders from the Supreme Court to the Public Registry to enact its ruling, the 2019 Superior court in David confirmed Tres Cruces has no evidence of occupation, the 2019 Public Minisitry rejecting Tres Cruces de Oro claim. We have numerous current suits before the Panama courts detailing  our rightful ownership including our revocation suit before ANATI, impulse for the revocation suit before ANATI not acting in due time, 2 amparos de Garantias Constiucionales before the Supreme Court opposing the June 28, 2019 titling, 2 administrative claims before the Public Registry. We have overwhelming amounts of documentation proving our companies’ rightful possession over 25+ years including Teak Plantation permits from 1996, affidavits from witnesses confirming our rightful possession, dozens of certificates of occupation for the land, hundreds of pictures detailing our legal possession over the years, and numerous buildings including caretakers homes, security posts, roads, and tourist outposts.

Finally, If an objective reader took the time to review all of our documentation from both sides, its 100% clear that in simple terms, Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro bought a bad land claim and instead of seeking retribution with the sellers, they have instead enlisted questionable partners and received suspicious government favor to try to take our land. Furthermore, they have employed similar tactics against other victims in Bocas.

2.) Tres Cruces submitted to PNO cancelled checks and copies of a purchase agreement wherein they were sold the Rights of Possession by Mr. Narvise in 2006 for the property in question. Does your side have records that substantiate what you paid and from whom concerning this specific parcel of land in question? Has it ever been proven that your seller did indeed have a claim or right to sell your group the property in question that Tres Cruces purchased from Mr.  Narvise? 

Yes – it is all on the Bastimentos holdings website

Yes – in 2004 the Motta group sold our original partners the entire 550+ hectares as per the public deed “mar y mar” (sea to sea), disclosing Mr. Narvise was squatting on less than 1 hectare and had been evicted several times not being able to prove legal possession. In addition, Mr. Narvise had no publicly recorded finca like our company did. Therefore, our legal position then and now is even in worse case, we would allow Mr. Narvise to continue to stay on 1 hectare of our property. All supporting evidence is on the Bastimentos Holdings Website.

3.) Regarding the Supreme Court ruling from the Sala Primera of the Supreme Court ruling dating back to 2011.  Have you yourself read the actual ruling? PNO required before these questions were posed to have a certified translation sent in order to attempt to understand better. 

Yes – see explanation in 5 below PNO required before these questions were posed to have a certified translation sent in order to attempt to understand better. 

4)  Assuming you have indeed read what we have read, do you understand exactly what is stipulated in terms of its ruling and what was ordered and awarded to Mr. Narvise and in kind ceded to Tres Cruces?  

Yes – see explanation in 5 below

5). Having read it myself perhaps you can explain after said ruling, what is the Red Frog or Bastimentos Holdings official stance on any claim?  It appears to be stated that the court indeed ruled that Mr. Narvise was in fact the owner of that property and apparently 3 different surveyors all recognized that the BH property apparently did not reach the sea. That seemed to be a big point with TC and their stance.  More or less the pillars of their position. How would you reply to that?  

Incorrect, see #1 above explanation on “ownership” in Panama.

This is a ruling issued by the Supreme Court on 2011 on the boundaries of finca 122. This process started in the Bocas del Toro Court, where Judge Manuel Garcia ruled against Bastimentos Holdings and then it was appealed to the Superior Court in David, Chiriqui. The Superior Court in David then ruled in 2006 in Bastimentos Holdings S.A. favor based on two arguments:  1) Mr. Narvise has not proved that he has possessory rights (he has to go back to Court to try to prove that he has such possessory rights) and 2) the principle of “Public Registry’s good faith” which basically means that in the Public Registry the north boundary of that land is the Caribbean Sea, so Mr. Narvise would not have any claim to that land. Therefore, the court ruled that it is necessary to start a specific proceeding to prove that it is not the north boundary of the lot, which was never done.  Tres Cruces de Oro then presented an appeal before the Supreme Court which remained there until 2011. Just 6 weeks after the Minister of the Presidency’s visit , in December of 2010, the Supreme Court shockingly ruled that Mr. Narvise’s occupation certificate is evidence enough even though there is a resolution from 1996 that annulled that same resolution, and that the Public Registry had made a mistake when indicating that parcel 122’s north boundary was the Caribbean Sea. Possession needs to be proven before the authorities and it is lost if it’s not held for one year, therefore, the Court’s ruling is both suspicious and meaningless in the context Agrarian law as discussed in #1 above.

The Supreme Court referenced “approximately” 15 hectares without any reference to a plan which is also suspicious, and impossible to formalize any legal boundary designation. This ruling was especially questionable considering the only evidence added to the case after Bastimentos Holdings victory in the appeals court of 2006 was a report documenting Bastimentos Holdings as the sole possessor of the area. In addition, although there was no legal relevance to the possessory rights reference, why would the court magically increase the size from 1 hectare of potential possession to 15 hectares, especially considering neither Mr. Narvise or Tres Cruces de Oro had even been near the land in over 4 years? So, while the boundary question was ended, creating possessory rights parcel to the north of Bastimentos Holdings Finca 122, the remaining possessory parcel size, plan, and rightful occupation was yet to be decided before ANATI could grant title to either party. All the while, Bastimentos Holdings continued its maintenance of the entire property as required by Agrarian law including maintaining its teak and eucalyptus plantations, improvement of access roads, building of tourist outposts, and employed several caretakers living at different locations throughout the property. In short, regardless of the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, Bastimentos Holdings was the rightful and legal occupier so only Bastimentos Holdings was eligible for receiving legal title. Supporting evidence on the Bastimentos Holdings Website.

Of note is this case originated in the Bocas Court where Judge Manuel Garcia ruled on this case and started the connection with his other dealings with Carmen Evilsilda Martinez, tied to numerous other land scandals. Furthermore, Judge Manuel Garcia has just been named legal advisor to the Mayor of Bocas.

6) You had mentioned previously that your position is that the Supreme Court justices that made this ruling were possibly corrupted by another government official(s).   Is that correct and factual and perhaps your main basis for maintaining your claim?

The facts are the following: Jimmy Papadimitriu, the ex-Minister of the Presidency, visited Red Frog in December of 2010 on the pretense to look at buying a 5-hectare piece of property next to North beach for $1.5M. When he visited, he was more interested in the property to the east, known as North Beach. Bastimentos Holdings explained that the property was not for sale and that it was only waiting for the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Superior Court ruling of 2006 on behalf of Bastimentos Holdings. Approximately six weeks later, the Supreme Court instead shockingly ruled against Bastimentos Holdings which is extremely suspicious considering the only evidence added to the case since 2006 was a government inspection of the area documenting Bastimentos Holdings was the sole occupier of the area, and that neither Tres Cruces or Mr. Narvise had been seen near the area for over 4 years. Franklin Oduber, ex General Administrator of ANATI later confessed to Bastimentos Holdings employee that Papadimitriu was a part of the Tres Cruces group. Papadimitriu and his family were accused of involvement in other land scandals in Panama as well. Also, of note, Richard Kiibler was offering other landowners in Bocas the ability to get an expedited title through someone he worked with named Ernesto “Tito” Bosquez. We have evidence of several other questionable actions in connection with Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro and past Panamanian government offiicals which are on the Bastimentos Holdings website.

7.) In reading an English translation of your Amparo to the Supreme Court to in effect stop or look for a reversal. Having spoken to a colleague and friend who is a lawyer in Panama, he’s explained to me that an Amparo is much like a Mandamus here in the US legal system. That appears to have been ruled against your side as well as endorsed by the Supreme Court of Panama. Have you seen what we were sent as well and if so, what is your interpretation of the same?  

Yes, if you are referring to their posting on the Six Diamonds Resorts International website. This document is only related to the form, not the merits of the case. An “Amparo” is a legal action presented when the aggrieved believes his constitutional rights have been breached or not recognized. In this case, the Amparo was presented against the decision of ANATI to decide on an “Advertencia de Ilegalidad”, which was an action whereby the lawyers were informing ANATI that there was an illegality being committed with the Providence of February 23, 2012. Basically, the Court in this case only indicated that ANATI was in its right to rule against the “Advertencia de Ilegalidad” and that there was no need for an Amparo in this case. This was based on the Courts analysis on the laws pertaining to the Government offices having a right to previous control on the form and compliance with requirements of these actions. It has little to no impact on the actual merits of the case.

8.) In terms of the specific land in question it is clear from our communications and dissemination of information that is property TC owns. Is it that specific property that has been promised, guaranteed, or sold to your investors?  Hence all of the people on the petition. 

Bastimentos Holdings, made up of 300+ shareholders, is the owner of the original property, with the developer promised some form payment for the development services. Shareholder’s only possibility of receiving some sort of return of investment is if any or all parts of Bastimentos Holdings land is developed or are sold. Richard Kiibler and Tres Cruces’ attempt to take this land over the last 12+ years has stopped any potential development or sale for all of Bastimentos Holdings land. No acquirer wants to buy or develop land that is in conflict or even near it and without title. Contrast that with what would have been promised or sold to Tres Cruces de Oro’s investors. Did Tres Cruces do Oro disclose it paid $1.6M to Mr. Narvise for land in 2006 that was clearly being occupied by Bastimentos Holdings that was demonstrated legal possessory rights with roads, bridges and tree plantations? That is a lot of money to spend without checking the details of the land being purchased.

9.) PNO were also given again translations in English of the 3rd Chamber courts. Are you privy and have you read that ruling? 

Yes – see explanation in 7 below (* out of sequence. Questions were numbered incorrectly when sent but his answers remain in the correct chronology. JB)
7). That case clearly had nothing to do with the ownership that was previously granted by the 1st Chambers ruling but was indeed a case regarding the title granted by the land authority and its validity, which I’m clear was in fact annulled.   Ownership was not granted to Tres Cruces de Oro as explained above in #1 as they did NOT have legal possession of at least 1 year or legitimate titled land. The 1^st chamber ruling had nothing to do with “ownership” – it only dealt with the boundary question. The boundary question being answered made the area possessory rights which meant that would have to be settled in the Agrarian Courts first before any title of ownership could be granted by ANATI. What is in the TC interpretation regarding the 3rd Chambers ruling was inaccurate in your opinion?  Richard Kiibler’s interpretation of this legal situation can only be summed up, as he himself says, “fake news.” For example, on the first line of the Six Diamonds website, Richard Kiibler lists the US Federal Court ruling as victory, but does NOT disclose that Bastimentos Holdings won the case after that in the Appeals court. Another example on the Six Diamond’s website lists the ridiculously one-sided La Prensa story but doesn’t include our group’s response. Richard Kiibler’s interpretation of this Bastimentos Holdings victory is not only inaccurate but irrelevant and his demonstrates his bad faith omitting important court rulings and distorting the situation in an unethical way. Is there something or somewhere within said ruling that did indeed grant something to BH?  This Supreme Court ruling of 2015 annulled the ANATI resolution from March 12, 2012 granting illegal title to Tres Cruces. This is clear and we are 100% correct and he is wrong – it means that Tres Cruces NO LONGER HAD LEGAL TITLE TO ANY LAND THERE. All that was left is the question did they really have possession of the 1 hectare that Mr. Narvise squatted on from time to time. Furthermore, the Supreme Court later clarified with 3 separate orders that the public registry should annul both fincas Tres Cruces de Oro created. The Public Registry has still not complied with the Supreme Court in over four years and could be found in contempt of the Supreme Court. The fact that the public registry has not enacted the Supreme Court ruling made it possible for Tres Cruces to again allegedly manipulate ANATI to grant them illegal titles again on June 28, 2019, which by law, now has to be revoked and sent to the Agrarian Court to rule. The fact that the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 still has not been acted upon for over 4 years, even with 3 additional orders to the Public Registry by the Supreme Court, is clear for anyone to see that this is extremely suspicious and deeply concerning.

In addition, we have a sworn declaration from the surveyor who made the plan Tres Cruces de Oro used for titling, manually altering it for its title application. The plan used for the title application was over 4 years old which in itself is suspicious. Considering Tres Cruces had not even attempted to come on our land during that 4-year time frame, this apparently was their only hope to provide some sort of document. The topographer also stated that there could be an overlap over another titled property and that the plan is missing information, which is required for titling, such as the equipment used. Furthermore, the topographer stated this was not the right plan to be used for titling. However, somehow Tres Cruces de Oro somehow got away with it, receiving title in 9 months, without inspection from ARAP or MiAmbiente for the plan de manejo, without possessory rights evidence, despite a documented conflict over an area which required ANATI to send the file to the Agrarian court, without valid neighbor affidavits, with a plan that overlapped another finca and which had 4 hectares in the water.

10.)  How do you see this situation unfolding from here Mr.Haley?  

We remain hopeful that the new Panama government will realize what’s at stake if it doesn’t follow the rule of law. Six Diamonds Resorts international/Tres Cruces/Akave/Desarollo Bocatoreño/Cinco Cruces de Oro/Semper Fidelis actions are putting many victims’ livelihood at risk in Bocas Del Toro. The very future of Bocas Del Tourism depends on this group being stopped by the new government simply following the law. Our group and other victims simply want the same thing – the law to be followed. If so, Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro/Akave/Desarollo Bocatoreno/Cinco Cruces de Oro/Semper Fidelis will lose any pending cases before the government, and perhaps be subject to criminal charges. If the law is followed, then all of the victims will be able to finally advance development and the community would receive all the benefits, restoring confidence in investing in Bocas Del Toro. If the law is not followed, the consequences would be catastrophic as our resort and other legitimate businesses that are victims to this adversary will fail. It would mean hundreds of jobs lost, resorts in decay and ruin, destroyed reputation of Bocas drying up new capital investment, and drastic decline in Bocas Tourism. The Bocas Community is uniting again to stop this group by lobbying the Panama and USA governments and circulating petitions for justice but needs the Panama government do their part following the law so that this group is eradicated from Panama forever.

11.) My final question would be the following as PNO has received voluminous amounts of emails from both sides of this dispute. Many of which stated that your company Red Frog and/or BH has other issues beyond TC.  Locals and others inclusive of Indigenous persons that your group has similarly tried to take lands by force or occupy lands that don’t appear within the boundaries of your properties.  Both sides on our blog have made the same assertions of each side. Without getting into mud slinging, how would you simply respond to any accusations?  And if these people are incorrect, were the boundary surveys provided to PNO by TC accurate surveys?  

It would be very interesting to look into the emails you received from Six Diamonds Resorts International, Tres Cruces de Oro, et al as their group numbers only a few who have no track record of any development or construction in Panama, questionable ties to actors in other land scandals, have defamed our company in public, and have used aggressive tactics to intimidate several victims in Bocas. On the other hand, the victims in Bocas represent real businesses including for example Fincos Los Monos, Sand Dollar Bed and Breakfast, Bocas Divers Paradise, and our resort. Our group alone have 300+ legitimate shareholders many of whom have put their lifesavings on the line for 16+ years and we have 140+ employees with 700+ family members whose very livelihoods are put at risk as a result of this group. Many of which stated that your company Red Frog and/or BH has other issues beyond TC. Whatever they are saying is absolutely false and absurd to even believe one email from the other side considering all responded above and documented. Locals and others inclusive of Indigenous persons that your group has similarly tried to take lands by force or occupy lands that don’t appear within the boundaries of your properties.  These accusations by others are not only completely ludicrous but defaming and disparaging and would suggest you look into those names of those asserting these false claims. We realize you would like to conclude your involvement in this, so please feel free to send us the emails and allow us to follow on their veracity. Both sides on our blog have made the same assertions of each side. It’s very hard to believe any of these emailers or bloggers have any credibility whatsoever and we can only assume its Richard Kiibler and those who he has put up to it. Richard Kiibler is projecting his own misdeeds onto us continuing his abuse on our company and others and its extremely damaging to us all.

Without seeing them, we can only assume these are more false claims by Richard Kiibler, William Baquet, their agents, partners, and assumed friends sending you these emails. Richard Kiibler et al have no credibility whatsoever as evidenced by his mistruths and distortions during his PNO interview – here is a sampling:

Responding to JB’s question what about the other (victims) that make up the other 7 or 14 land claims” Richard Kiibler answers, “They don’t’ exist James” and Richard Kiibler says, “We own a lot of land in Panama very very little has any issues whatsoever” This is absolutely not true. We are in direct contact with several other victims of the Six Diamonds Resorts International and its affiliates in Bocas Del Toro who have issues with Six Diamonds Resorts International, et al and can provide documented evidence with their permission.

Richard Kiibler says our company “stormed our property like it was Normandy Beach” after the ruling and says that “Our workers have never ever left the property since 2004” Neither of these statements are true. Our company has never left our property in 25+ years including having caretakers live there, we use our roads, bridges, our guests use our tourist outposts, maintain our Teak Planation, have certificates of occupation every 3 months, and have our master land scheme approved for the entire area. It is the Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro group that comes on occasionally once in 2007, then in 2012, then a few times in 2018, and now again after its new illegal title June 2019.

Richard Kiibler says, “it’s not our position is to not fight in the press” and claims we are the ones disparaging them. This is not true and is exactly what they themselves are doing to our group. We have only provided information to interested people of how we understand the story, then leave it up to them to make their own inferences. Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro paid for a full-page ad in La Prensa on July 22^nd, then suspiciously gets the Panama America to do a one-sided story on July 29^th and La Estrella to do a similar one-sided story on July 31^st. Those publications never asked our group for our position, so we asked by law to publish our response. Then unbelievably, they actually changed our response to help Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro. Then Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro filed a criminal lawsuit against Joe Haley, gets it suspiciously admitted in 4 days, especially troubling considering the only evidence was our companies’ response, which was 100% factual. Then Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro incorrectly announces the admission of the lawsuit in another one-sided story from the Panama America on September 13^th. Then they published an editorial in La Critica on September 14^th defaming our lawyer, then again on September 17^th in the La Estrella with outlandish claims. These publications have never asked for our side of the story. THIS IS EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO US especially considering Richard Kiibler claims our group is damaging his.

Richard Kiibler claims we are the aggressors when we have clear evidence that they are indeed the ones coming onto our property making threats. We have full time security there and caretakers that live on the beach and when the Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro occasionally attempts to invade, we do not allow them to trespass on our property but do allow them to walk on the 10-meter public space. We have received favorable rulings where the courts and government officials have found there has been no evidence of intimidation when he and his partners invade our property.

Just recently, October 14, 2019, Richard Kiibler invaded our property again making veiled threats to our officers and our senior shareholder and even his wife. He even went so far as to threaten to take additional large titled land from our company. Also recently, Richard Kiibler’s group tried to invade another victim’s property on Isla Colon with 15 hired men scaring the rightful landowner. Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro et al over the years have scared rightful landowners off their land. We are united and will not yield, no matter how much intimidation and aggression he and his group bring.

Bastimentos Holdings can emphatically confirm that we have no other land conflict with any locals. It can only be assumed this originated from Ashburn Dixon, the Bastimentos Representative, who works with Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro. In fact, a few years ago, Ashburn Dixon tried to induce some local indigenous people to squat on our land promising to give them 1 hectare each if they took the risk. It’s absolutely absurd to say we have taken anyone’s land especially, the indigenous citizens who work with us. We are proud of what their employment means to their families and the community. Richard Kiibler quite simply tries to project his own misdeeds onto his victims. He has no credibility, whatsoever, with anything he claims. How could he when he told scores of investors and government officials that they are big time developers and would build Harbor of the Americas, Playa Diamante, Peackock Beach, Emerald Monkey, and others and all of them failed. They have not built anything promised in 12 years – how could objective person believe any of their claims?

In addition, the surveys Richard Kiibler provided to you are inaccurate and/or irrelevant. Richard Kiibler has no credibility with documentary presentation as well choosing to present only what is convenient (see example in response in #7 above) and misleads readers with his own statements. The old maps are meaningless considering possessory rights laws explained in #1 above. Any other plans are inaccurate as exemplified with all the issues as testified by one of their surveyors in #5 above and that fact that we haven’t allowed them to trespass on our land wouldn’t give them any ability to conduct a legitimate survey.

To conclude we would only ask the reader to consider the source – who are you going to believe?

Oceans Group International and Bastimentos Holdings has brought over $100M in investment to Panama developing our resort, which has been an important part of the Panamanian economy since 2003. Our Resort brings 10,000 plus tourists to Panama and Bocas del Toro every year. It directly employs over 140 people in Bocas and Panama City, and indirectly contributes to employment and economic well-being for thousands of Panamanians. It provides potable water and electricity to neighboring Indigenous communities, works with other area businesses, and is a proud member of the Bocas Chamber of Tourism. It started the Foundation at Red Frog, which is now an independent non-profit, working with other local organizations to improve life in Bocas del Toro. Our Resort is the only Green Globe certified resort in Panama and partners with the University of Minnesota for study abroad programs in Panama. ATP listed our Resort as one of five key resorts in the country, advertising in 7 languages in over 50 different countries, and is one of the most “liked” boutique island resorts in the world on Facebook. It has received numerous international awards including “One of the Hottest Beaches in Central America” -Forbes Traveler, “Top 20 Oceanfront Developments in the World” – Oceanhome Magazine, and “Best Leisure Development in Panama” – American Property Awards.

Six Diamonds Resorts International, and its subsidiaries and affiliates including Tres Cruces de Oro disclosed to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission that they: “Engage in the development, sales, and management of resort, vacation, and retirement communities in Panama.” Yet in over 12 years in Panama, they have promoted and marketed such projects such as Harbor of the Americas, Peacock Beach, Emerald Monkey, Playa Diamante, and Isla Diamante, all of which failed. In 2016, the US Securities and Exchange Commission revoked Six Diamonds Resorts International registration. Six Diamonds Resorts International and their other companies have conflicts with several other landowners in Bocas, has had company officers involved in other land conflicts, and received favors from past Panama governments, including the granting them 2 illegal titles on two separate occasions, wrongful eviction notices, and approval of suspicious documentation. We invite the public to study the background carefully of Frank Delape, Richard Kiibler, William Baquet, and Ernesto Bosquez. While the legal facts may seem complicated, any fair-minded person would conclude that Six Diamonds Resorts International/Tres Cruces de Oro, et. al, are exploiting the system that is meant to protect us. Everyone who owns land in Panama or works in Panama’s tourism industry should be alarmed by their actions. They threaten local economic security and if unchecked will undermine legitimate development and foreign investment in Bocas del Toro and Panama.

**END***