Adam court case ends but access saga rolls on
(CNS): Former Cabinet minister Mike Adam and his two sons walked away from court this week with a clean slate after a magistrate recorded no convictions against the men, who had all pleaded guilty to common assault in September following a row with a neighbour over access rights to their West Bay home back in January 2020.
Although the Adam family can now put the court part of the saga behind them, the dispute that led to the altercation is still not resolved. Speaking outside the court on Monday, Adam said he was happy that this part had come to an end but that the four-year saga would not be over until Lissa Lane is declared a public road.
“This whole thing… is a matter that blocked our access to a registered right of way,” he told Sandy Hill from Cayman Marl Road about the long-running dispute with Wilson Mendoza turned physical after he had repeatedly blocked the family’s access to their home.
Mendoza has been seeking to prevent the formalization of the road leading to the Adam home as it crosses his land. But it appears that the easement is a registered access and the continued efforts by Mendoza to assert his belief that there is no right of access has led to significant clashes with his neighbours as well as with the police and the NRA.
While apologies have since been exchanged between the two families, social media posts by Mendoza since then suggest that the feud is far from resolved, regardless of the historic easement rights.
Nevertheless, Adam said he was hopeful that the NRA would resolve this in the coming weeks by gazetting the road in question.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Local News
Back with these car clips that don’t belong to any of us and we’re not even recorded the same night. I’m so confused why you keep including them trying to prove some sort of point. Smh.
The only thing this video shows to me is the mental anguish you have my ENTIRE family in!!!
Go to hell!
Wendy Adam @ 17/12/2021 at 11:38 am
OH WELL, THE TRUTH HURTS, DOESN’T IT?
U ever noticed people who don’t tolerate lies disrespect, or BS,… r always labeled “Difficult”, “Crazy”, “Toxic”, “Bitter”?
XXX
I’m going to reply the comment that I made to your sister Cindy Adam on her FB page in mid-January of 2020 so the world can further see it…
XXXX
PART 1
Cindy Adam, I noticed you deleted my comment for the world to see. You choose to make this public, so let it remain public.
Cindy Adam, you quoted “I will not sit back and let the courts deal with it.”
XXXX
That cycle of own satisfaction for your father is over, it’s time to realize that other people have rights and exist. This is a civil society and everyone has a right of freedom to be regardless of where they come from.
It’s the responsibility of our justice system to maintain law and order and address violations. Those two things exist simultaneously. If I’m attacked unprovoked, I have a right to defend myself.
In regards to your so-called elderly father, he’s XXXX been constantly trying to deprive us of our rights. Your family and friends have been interfering with our daily lives by causing assault, aggressive driving, harassment, provocation, property damage, obstruction of justice, defamation, slander, libel, and the list keeps going.
You claim we’re a wicked and evil couple, so why don’t you all just voluntarily stop crossing our property and use the various access points as you all have done in the past? We have every right to protect our property and the well-being of our 3 young children per the (9) causes below.
1) Nuisance – for the noise and general interruption to our use and enjoyment of our property;
2) Nuisances by, and Control of, Animals – for the ferocious dogs to be at large, not keeping dogs under proper control and fouling by dogs;
3) Trespass to land – for the traversing of the easement outside the terms of the easement (being a vehicular right of way as indicated on the registry);
4) Trespass to property – for the damage to our slat fence and sliding gate as a result of aggressively dealing with those articles;
5) Encroaching – for the encroachment on our property that is affecting our proprietary rights. Under law, we have a right to absolute freehold title;
6) Maladministration / Political cronyism – for the illegal naming of Lissa Lane over our parcel – The process required by the RNNL (1997 Revision) set out under section 3 in relation to street naming/renaming was not followed by MEYSAL and Lands & Survey;
7) Maladministration / Political cronyism – for the unlawful preliminary prescriptive right granted over an existing easement;
8) Abuse of right of way – Three other means of access to two main roads (King Road) & (Shetland Lane) exist for the Adams on their properties – The right only arises by way of necessity, not convenience. A way of necessity can only exist where the alleged implied grantee of the easement has no other means of reaching his land. Having an alternate way will not itself give rise to a way of necessity; and
9) Defamation, Slander, and Libel – for the communications that have falsely debase our characters.
Unlike us, your father dragged others to fight the war he himself started. For example, Sandy Hill who got played was dragged into this chaos, intensified division, and incited violence on our Island.
What you all and the public need to realize is, that it’s our land, not crown land, every square inch of it inclusive of the road and we’re not SELLING. You’re seeking the Government’s help? Well, they’re the ones (inclusive of your father) who got us into this mess. You’re naming the Government entities, but you’re not naming the individuals responsible.
XXXX
This might be slightly technical for some of you to understand, but I surely know that the Government officials listed above know exactly what I’m talking about.
For one, by unlawfully provisionally approving an additional Easement but by Prescription Vehicular Right of Way (VRO) running parallel to each other (just over our parcel 4 B3) to the Proprietors Michael Adam and Lissa Adam of (4 B2) over an already existing VRO which was registered on 16/10/73 over our land as clearly evident on the Land Registry and indicated on the Registry Map.
Now, even though the law states that – “Access routes depicted on maps are indicative location only, and may not represent the true ground position until detailed survey” the Registrar still approved it. She also stated that to be fair, she wouldn’t grant a new one unless the old one was removed. Particularly, since she had received evidence from both parties that proved (old one) it was abandoned / never used.
Well, guess what, she never removed it and left two VROs burdening our property. However, the decision of the Registrar of Lands in this matter is not enforceable by police absent a Court order and penal notice as she has no power, she’s not a judge.
Hence, the right of way begins at the end of King Road across from Jude’s Lane and ends on our property. However, the owners of the lots to the East of us (4 B4, 4 B8 & 4 B9) were not initially dragged into this mess.
In other words, the Registrar unlawfully provisionally approved the VRO just over our parcel (4 B3) even though she knew that the Adams must cross all the adjoining parcels mentioned before reaching ours. As well as knowing that parcel 4 B8 was landlocked.
Wow, what a screw-up! What can the Government do to fix this mess she created? Attempt to unlawfully take proprietor’s land.
For two, the Government wanting to unlawfully take our land to put a 24-foot-wide dead-end public HIGHWAY bisecting our parcel directly in front of our home that will not benefit the public interest.
Even though we would be compensated for the portion of land acquired, WE DON’T WANT OR NEED THE MONEY. Please advise the Government to reallocate that half a million-dollar road proposal and inject it into the uncompleted West Bay high school that we desperately need and let us build our private road at our own expense.
Typically, public use has been defined as Government projects intended to bring a benefit to its citizens, such as widening roads.
The Governor is the ultimate decision-maker empowered to authorize the taking of land as a public road. This is done on advice from the Roads Authority and as the law states has to be in the public interest. Which in this case there isn’t, as the Government is unable to justify its taking by failing to provide an adequate public purpose.
In a nutshell, this decision was not properly taken and was motivated by ulterior motives.
It’s about fact and law. We have enough material once it has been reviewed, that there is clear evidence capable of being believed by a tribunal of fact in a court of law.
Under this right, “property” we have a right to enjoy the land that we own, we will continue to stand up for what we believe in, even if it means standing by myself. I’m my own person. I’m in charge of what I do. I get to decide what I want and what I like.
We refuse to willingly give up our personal freedom by simply being a faceless body in the crowd. it’s a right that we all have and is such a shame not to fully exercise it. because even if I’m standing alone, I’ll know for a fact that it was my choice.
PART II
It’s time for all of you to wake up from that nightmare you all insist to be in. There is no such thing as “blocked road access” to your parent’s home, there are two real road accesses on their property that are clearly visible on the main road with gates and locks that belong to your parents. Wake up and use them, all of you know that those accesses are real but prefer to pretend to be suffering to the world.
The only material thing that can be slightly damaged if you use your land for access would be the grass, but for God’s sake, you insist to use my land and are putting my 3 young children at risk.
In particular, our 9-year-old son Adrien, which you all are aware has a congenital abnormality to his right ear and it prevents him from hearing in stereo mode as the average person. In other words, at times he can’t differentiate directional hearing.
AS SUCH, WE WILL CONTINUE TO UTILIZE ALL OUR POWERS TO STOP THE ADAMS FROM CROSSING OUR LAND.
You won’t be suing us for protecting our proprietary rights. You want to sue someone, then sue the Government. Our lawsuit against the Government has already been filed.
I’ve only addressed certain matters as there’s plenty of more history and recent incidences between us.
There are three sides to every story. Your side, their side, and the TRUTH, and the only people who are mad at you for speaking the truth are those people who are living a lie. So tell the truth, or eventually, someone will tell it for you.
Warmest Regards,
Wilson Mendoza
Cameras don’t lie. Mafia-style thuggery, intimidation and behaviour. Shameful.
CNS: Here is the comment I made (December 4, 2021) on Cayman Compass FB news post that you referred to in this news article.
Mike Adam, I hope this post finds you. As I will state some facts just so that the public is crystal clear, as I’m not the one having to put on a façade. I’ve accepted your apology just for this incident, but an apology is not going to fix the current issues. What about everything else? Perhaps, what about an apology to those that have been or will possibly continue to be dragged into this mess?
Lands and Survey, Department of Planning, Department of Environment, Abernethy & Associates Ltd, Roland Bodden & Co Ltd, Giglioli & Company, Cayman Water, CUC, Central Planning Authority, Building Control, Department of Environmental Health, RCIPS “police officers” “senior officers” including members of the Commissioner Ranks, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Waide DaCosta Attorney-at-Law, The courts of the Cayman Islands, The Department of Immigration, Ombudsman Team Members, The Ministry of Planning, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure, NRA, some Ministers from the previous Cabinet, Attorney General, The Governor, KSG Attorneys-at-Law, Department of Community Rehabilitation, Cayman Marl Road, Cayman News Service Ltd, Cayman Compass, etc.
I suppose only time will tell…
This was a civil matter, that has instead turned criminal, and it should not have been anyone else’s problem but ours. I didn’t need a platoon to fight a war that you started; all it took is one man. If you dislike someone, dislike them alone. Don’t recruit others to join your cause.
In this news article you stated and I quote, “I hope you understand that I was just trying to protect my family.”
No, we don’t understand. “Accepting responsibility for our actions is a sign of emotional maturity; it demonstrates self-awareness and a belief that we can change and learn to do better. On the other hand, people who don’t think they’ve done anything wrong, have no reason to change.”
As such, even though I’ve accepted your apology, we still don’t trust you. Hence the reason why in my victim impact statement I wrote and I quote, “I can’t put anything past the Adams family.”
With that being said;
Protecting your family from who?
Do I need to show the public the CCTV video of the assault so that their free to draw their own conclusions? Maybe
Was the dead-end 24 ft highway /easement fully obstructed? No.
Was our 8-year-old son (at the time) and I minding our own business? Yes.
Was my wife, our son, and I a threat? No.
Among other things, was I protecting my family from the continued misuse of the easement? Yes.
Do you have various accesses to get onto your residence without the need of bisecting ours directly through the middle? Yes.
Problem solved, go and use your 2.50 acres of land and stop bisecting through ours and all the problems will magically go away. You acknowledge that you’ve done it for a period of 3 months when I blocked the easement a couple of years ago.
Mike, the root of the problem is the easement and as long as you’re bisecting our land through the middle the problems will never go away. For the 27 years that you’ve lived there, you never had any problems because the area had been undeveloped as you didn’t have to bisect anyone’s resident. Now that we’re neighbors the problem is there. Whether it’s us or another family you would’ve had the same problems. It was inevitable, and you had 27 years to prepare as Crosby Collymore Ebanks and Mario Alberto Gomez have advised you numerous times that the vehicular right away was not meant for continuous use. You and your family and guests over the course of the years have been trespassing over their land against their will. Hence the reason why all three of us are suing the government.
Andrel Harris wrote it himself and I quote, “may have finally ended a four-year land-use dispute.”
Unfortunately, it will never end. As such, in an effort to prevent any further land disputes and incidence of violence, the following is suggested:
Pursuant to section 96 of the Registered Land Law, an order that the easement be wholly or partially extinguished or modified on the grounds that:
b. the continuing existing of the easement impedes the reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes without securing any practical benefits to other persons; or
c. the proposed discharge or modification will not injure the person entitled to the benefit of the easement.
We must agree on an alternative route (modification) and find ways to prevent any further incidents and reduce the impact of any future developing works in such a way that any interference with the easement is minimized.
Alternatively, if you do not agree, we will create another route (providing that the diversion remains on our land) and then block or otherwise obstruct the current easement. Once the easement is obstructed, you may divert along the new route to get to your residence.
We’re aware that the offer of or existence of an alternative route does not prevent the interference from being actionable in its own right, although it may affect the remedies available. However, and among other things, the easement has been misused and bisects our parcel directly through the middle. The indisputable evidence that will be presented to bolster our case in the Grand Court Civil will support such claims, and in bringing a claim for actionable interference you’ll need to show that there has been substantial interference with your rights, and that, as a result, your rights cannot be ‘substantially and practically exercised as conveniently as before the interference. Hence the reason why the proposed modification will not injure the person (being you) entitled to the benefit of the easement.
Mike, you should not forget that we have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of our land and the legitimate development of our land, and the performance of the easement should not interfere with our peace nor prevent us from exercising our right to develop our land (provided that the development caters for the easement).
If you want uninterrupted access, I suggest you take that option because you will soon not get it. If any other incident arises, you can’t say I didn’t tell you so.
If you feel you’re entitled to access a portion of our property that bisects our land to get to your residence, an action that we have objected to countless times, then you will cross where we want you not where you want. Otherwise, go and use your own land. A property owner cannot create an easement over its own land, but can over their adjoining parcels as you don’t need anyone’s permission or right to drive over your own land. An easement is defined as a “nonpossessory interest in the land of another that gives its owner the right to use the land of another or to prevent the property owner from using his land.”
Mike, you and your family own two adjoining parcels 4B 365 is heavily wooded & 4B 366 is cleared.
You and your family in the past have used 4B 366 to enter your residence at 4B 2 as well as going south of 4B 2. Instead of burdening four proprietor’s owners of their land in which three of the owners (4 B3, 4 B8 & 4 B9 primarily the entire owners of the road) inclusive of ourselves refuse to give you access, have your lawyer or yourself go to Lands and Survey and order an easement over your other adjoining parcels.
Extremely easy to do, an ORDER will be made for the registration of an EASEMENT burdening Registration Section, West Bay North West, Block 4B Parcel 365 or 366 or both in favor of the registered proprietors of Registration Section West Bay North West, Block 4B Parcel 2 which would be you.
Now, if you ever decided to sell either of the two adjoining parcels, an easement appurtenant is one that benefits the dominant estate and “runs with the land” and so generally transfers automatically when the dominant estate is transferred. … Conversely, an easement in gross benefits an individual or a legal entity, rather than a dominant estate.
What I’m trying to tell you is, if you sell or whoever inherits (4 B2) won’t have to ever fight for it because it’ll already be there.
At the end of the day, we need closure, and we need to do what is right to protect the well-being of our family. It is also within our proprietary rights as we have a right to enjoy the land that we own. If any of those suggestions can be rectified, both families would be in a better place. We are yearning for peace in our lives, and I’m sure you would appreciate the same.
Regardless justice must be served for the harm you and your sons have caused as that will never be erased.
Sincerely,
Wilson Mendoza
Geez. Take it to court and be done!
Plead guilty = not guilty
World class justice
Agreed. It seems that everyone on that street have bad tempers.
Come on courts…politicians seem to be qble do anything in cayman…remember seperation of powers…
Sad isn’t it? Have a non-politician do the same and they’d be spending time in Northward. Disgusting behaviour by Mr. Adams, his family and friend. And if you’re going to trespass, have some decency and drive with some care around this person’s property and his young kids. Cameras don’t lie. Initially I was in Mr. Adam’s corner, until I watched the videos…
It is so sad the government has taken so long to help on what is a legal right-of-way access, If they had stepped in from long time there would have been no conflict and no court case. They may aswell start gazetting every right-of-way from now if thats thier only way to solve the problem.
Unfortunately, this is a situation where land law is not properly understood.
Bottom up reasoning points in one direction, top down reasoning points another.
I know what I think. I wish Uncle Mike the best.
What? You can now commit common assault and no longer be convicted for anything even while claiming guilt.
Really think there is no hope for this place.
Depressed in West Bay.
i guess as long as you are not a caymanian you can block an access you want
CNS – this news article appears slightly vague. The Magistrate without proceeding to conviction made a one-year probation order under section 35(1)(b) of the Alternative Sentencing Law and attached some conditions. Anger management course, keep the peace, and be on good behavior. All three are liable to be convicted if these conditions are not adhered to.
It is alarming that a family can arrive in Cayman and choose to ignore registered rights of way, and continue to ignore the law which entitles the Adams family to access their home.
Surely correcting this should be a priority for the authorities responsible for upholding the law. . NRA..?
And that excuses common assault? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Nots as if Mike hasn’t been in court in regards to his anger management before; now he’s dragged his sons there too.