I am posting this one because it has the date when she was issued her Bahama Residency Permit.
BTW... these are letters that were written by people in the Bahama's - they sent them in to the Tribune which is one of the newspapers there - These were printed in the Editoral section of the Tribune.
The Public Is Owed An Explanation
No URL available
posted by newsadmin 108 days ago view profile
Studying the documents we have we get the distinct impression that if the Immigration Department had been allowed to follow its usual procedure for processing Anna Nicole Smith's application for permanent residence, it would not now be caught up in this political brouhaha.
Prime Minister Christie has assured Bahamians that Ms Smith's receipt of her certificate within 21 working days of her application was solely due to the "new levels of effectiveness" introduced in the Immigration Department. As a result of these innovations, he said, "we will be moving with speed (in granting citizenship and permanent residency), and if you don't like it, then lump it."
According to the Prime Minister, the alacrity with which Ms Smith received her residency was due to departmental efficiency, not to friendship.
However, we believe that if Mr Christie had before him the documents now on our desk - which was supplied to us by Mr Ben Thompson, who claims he is the owner of the Eastern Road home in dispute - he would have avoided the subject entirely, or been more discreet in his choice of words. But no, he accused us all of telling an "outrageous lie" on his minister.
Our impression is that the Immigration Department took a back seat in this matter because, like the Callender law firm in a letter of explanation to questions later asked by Immigration, it too was "fully aware of the close relationship between Minister (Shane) Gibson and Ms Marshall (another name used by Ms Smith) and the subject of the application for permanent residence was a matter of regular discussion between Ms Marshall and Minister Gibson."
Callenders, in a document made available to us by Mr Thompson, maintained that when it informed Immigration by letter that "Ms Marshall recently purchased a B$1 million home on the Eastern Road, which she is currently renovating" their statement at the time "was not false."
Ms Marshall/Smith, said Callenders, did purchase the property for $950,000 with money advanced to her by Mr Ben Thompson, a property developer of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. She was to have executed a mortgage in his favour as security for the loan. The conveyance was not stamped. It was to have been stamped and recorded at the same time that the mortgage in favour of Mr Thompson was stamped and recorded.
Callenders never sent the conveyance to the Immigration Department. However, it has since transpired that Immigration has a copy of the unstamped conveyance. It's a mystery to Callenders how or when Immigration received its copy or, having received it, why no enquiries were made as to why it had not been stamped and recorded. Did Immigration receive the conveyance before or after the residence certificate was granted?
A deed not stamped, registered or recorded should have put Immigration on notice that the process was incomplete. The red light of warning blinked on. However, it seems the department ignored the warning.
Callenders explained that the document was executed, but never released because the mortgage that was to accompany it was never signed by Ms Marshall/Smith. In other words it is claimed that at that point the legal effect was suspended.
Also what has to be remembered is that any sale of land to a foreigner has to be registered and a certificate of registration under the International Persons Landholding Act 1993 has to be obtained. This was not done.
There is differing legal opinion as to the validity of a deed where there is no registration. However, what is without doubt is that a deed cannot be recorded without a deed of registration.
The practice of Immigration has been to request a copy of the deed with the registration certificate attached as proof of ownership. It appears that this was not done in the Anna Nicole case.
It was Immigration's responsibility to check all the documentation. It should have paid special attention to the incomplete conveyance. Certainly a call to Callenders would have immediately put them in the picture. But it is understood that no call was made.
The sequence of events that then followed was that Ms Marshall/Smith gave birth to a baby girl on September 7, her 20-year-old son died in her hospital room on September 10, and she was granted her residency certificate on September 11.
On September 28, while her son's body awaited burial, she and her lawyer-boyfriend took a catamaran ride to Sandy Cay where in a "commitment ceremony" before a Baptist minister, they exchanged vows, and then plunged, wedding gown and all, into the ocean. The ceremony was not a legal marriage.
Meanwhile, questions swirl around her as to whether she is in fact qualified for residence in the Bahamas.
If Immigration had done the due diligence required of it - if only by one phone call to Callenders - it would have discovered that by September 25 the agreement between her and Mr Thompson had fallen through. Mr Thompson claims that because the transaction was not completed, she no longer owns the $950,000 home. If this is so, then she has not fulfilled the requirements for permanent residence.
Dates and documents suggest that another force was moving in the background that took the process out of the hands of both Immigration staff and Callenders.
Today the public is owed an explanation.
Editorial from The Tribune
http://www.bahamasb2b.com/news/story.php?title=Public-Is-Owed-Explanation