{"id":212942,"date":"2026-01-16T11:31:02","date_gmt":"2026-01-16T18:31:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shockya.com\/news\/?p=212942"},"modified":"2026-01-23T04:25:13","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T11:25:13","slug":"eastern-caribbean-supreme-court-flags-howard-kennedy-letter-as-contempt-issue-in-transnational-media-law-cartel-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shockya.com\/news\/2026\/01\/16\/eastern-caribbean-supreme-court-flags-howard-kennedy-letter-as-contempt-issue-in-transnational-media-law-cartel-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Flags Howard Kennedy Letter as Contempt Issue in Transnational Media Law Cartel Proceedings – by Alki David"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is Alki David.<\/strong>
Reporting, not commentary.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

January 16, 2026 \u2014 No verdict. A jurisdictional moment.<\/strong> Antigua & Barbuda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In open court, Mr Justice Rene Williams<\/strong> raised jurisdiction himself\u2014direct, on the record\u2014asking whether the Court holds power over proceedings spanning England, California, and Antigua and Barbuda<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alki David – reporting on today’s events – Jurisdiction is power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With counsel present, the Attorney General appearing as amicus<\/em>, and the full Court watching, His Lordship addressed the scope of authority. He noted on the record that banks and media companies named in the proceedings were in default.<\/strong> The observation was procedural. No remedies were ordered.<\/strong> No determinations were made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His Lordship also personally identified Howard Kennedy\u2019s<\/strong> January 7 letter and stated, in open court, that it constituted contempt of court<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court was invited to treat the letter dated 7 January 2026<\/strong> sent on behalf of Howard Kennedy LLP with caution. As set out elsewhere, the letter contains a material misdescription of foreign appellate proceedings<\/strong>, conflating the California Court of Appeal with the Supreme Court, and thereby overstating the procedural posture of those proceedings. This error is not determinative of outcome but taints the reliability of the correspondence as a whole<\/strong>, requiring independent verification of its assertions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, the letter was transmitted directly to the Court on live issues<\/strong>, while expressly declining appearance or submission to jurisdiction, a posture which the Court has already noted on the record. In assessing weight and credibility, the correspondence must also be viewed in the wider procedural context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That context includes an incident involving Mr. Ajay Fournillier<\/strong>, an associate of Howard Kennedy LLP, already recorded in the filings<\/strong> and reported to police on 25 July 2025<\/strong> following events at the High Court of Justice<\/strong>. No new allegation is made herein. The reference is to an existing matter of record only<\/strong>, relevant to conduct, credibility, and the Court\u2019s assessment of procedural propriety surrounding the January 7 correspondence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ajay Fournillier: Courtroom Incident, Correspondence, and Regulatory Context<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ajay Fournillier<\/strong>, an associate at Howard Kennedy LLP, who works alongside Rebecca Hume<\/strong>, partner at the firm, and Mark Stephens<\/strong>, was identified in proceedings before the High Court of Justice of Antigua and Barbuda in connection with events arising ahead of the 16 January 2026 jurisdictional hearing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the relevant period, an incident occurred in court amid heightened procedural and jurisdictional dispute. The episode was referenced as part of the procedural background only. No findings have been made<\/strong> as to intent, conduct, or liability arising from that incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Separately, Ajay Fournillier is the named author and signatory<\/strong> of a formal letter dated 7 January 2026<\/strong>, addressed directly to The Honourable Mr Justice Rene Williams<\/strong>. The letter was submitted without prejudice to jurisdiction<\/strong> and sets out Howard Kennedy LLP\u2019s position that the Antigua court lacks jurisdiction over the firm and its lawyers, that service was invalid, and that neither the firm nor the named individuals would attend the hearing. The correspondence states it was written \u201cto assist the court in advance,\u201d while expressly disclaiming submission to jurisdiction 2026.01.07 – Letter to High Cou\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Mark Stephens – Enforcement interest was heightened in light of Mr David\u2019s publicly documented association with Julian Assange<\/strong> and repeated disputes concerning attempts to appropriate or interfere with Hologram USA technology<\/strong>, which Mr David asserts as proprietary intellectual property. These factors were referenced as part of the broader context giving rise to jurisdictional, regulatory, and enforcement scrutiny. No findings have been made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In parallel, Howard Kennedy LLP and named individuals associated with the firm are subject to ongoing regulatory and law-enforcement scrutiny<\/strong>, including matters involving the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)<\/strong> and the UK National Crime Agency (NCA)<\/strong>. No determinations or adverse findings have been made<\/strong>, and any such inquiries remain separate from the Antigua proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court noted the existence of the correspondence and surrounding events without determining<\/strong> the merits of the objections raised. Jurisdictional and procedural issues remain live and subject to judicial ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A written ruling is due the first week of February<\/strong>. Until then, no conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parallels noted (procedural context only):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n