In making this argument, though, BTL’s chairman, Keith Arnold, seemingly crossed the line in his affidavit for BTL when he deposed three paragraphs that Justice John Muria ruled were scandalous against attorney Lois Young, a senior member of the Bar.

Arnold accused Young of influencing her client to “single out” Boyce simply because he is white. He goes on to accuse Young of being politically motivated, and refers to her activities with the Association of Concerned Belizeans, and quoted statements she made to the KREM WUB Morning Vibes regarding Belize Natural Energy and a proposal for the Government to sell its oil holdings.

Young took serious issue with Arnold’s affidavit, and said that not only were the comments scandalous, but they have absolutely no relevance to the case and attacked her in her personal capacity by suggesting that she has improper motivation in fighting the case.

She asked the judge to have paragraphs 10 to 13, and particularly those scandalous statements, struck out of Arnold’s affidavit.

BTL’s attorney, Andrew Marshalleck of the Barrow and Co. law firm, tried to persuade the judge that the statements were not scandalous and irrelevant, but that they are an attempt to explain why Boyce had been “singled out” in Perriott’s contempt application.

The judge agreed with Young, but noted that paragraph 10, which argues that Boyce is not the ultimate decision maker, should remain in the affidavit, but three paragraphs which speak personally about Young had to be struck out.

BTL’s central argument is that it was a board decision – and not a decision taken by Dean Boyce – to send Christine Perriott on special leave, rather than allowing her to return to BTL’s premises to work – this after a court ruling on April 5, saying that Perriott should be reinstated as Grade VI Internet Technician with full benefits, retroactive from the date of her termination.

Today attorney Lois Young told the court that BTL has put its own spin on the court order, and had varied it to say not that Perriott would be reinstated and allowed to return to work, but that she would be placed on special paid leave. She said that no one really knows what this “special paid leave” is, since her client has explained that it cannot be found in the collective bargaining agreement with the union – Belize Communication Workers Union, nor can it be found in BTL’s employee manual.

Young’s central argument is that her client was not reinstated, in the true sense of the word, since the status quo before her termination has not been restored. She went on to tell the court that not only has Perriott been disallowed from returning to her job, but she has also been barred from entering BTL’s premises. On Thursday, the day before the court session, Perriott was removed from BTL’s premises even though she went there on personal business, she added.

The contempt case laid out against Boyce is particularly interesting, because two court marshals have filed affidavits saying that Boyce outrightly refused to accept the court order that stipulated the court’s ruling, which includes a penal notice of the consequences he could face for not complying. That court order informed him that if the reinstatement order was not complied with, that his assets could be frozen or he could be sent to jail.

Marshal Arman Lennan tells the court in his sworn affidavit that on April 19, 2007 – the day after he tried to serve the order on Boyce at BTL’s headquarters, to no avail – he went to Boyce’s home in Bella Vista, as early as 7:00 a.m. Boyce came out the house, but when Lennan said that he had something for Boyce from the court, Boyce replied that he did not want it, and returned inside. The marshal said in his affidavit that at this point he dropped the paper inside Boyce’s yard, on the cemented driveway, and then left.

Boyce rebuts the marshal’s claims, saying that when he came out of his house he did not see anyone, and he was never served with the order. He said that he later found the court paper under a bush in his yard.

It’s not just Boyce’s word against Lennan’s, however, since another marshal, George Lightfoot, also swore an affidavit attesting that he was with Lennan that morning he went to Boyce’s house, and he corroborated his colleague’s statements that Boyce did refuse to take the paper from Lennan.

Attorney Young told the court that BTL surely knew about the court’s order soon after it was made, because just over an hour after the court made the ruling the company issued an employee bulletin in which it referred to it, and even quoted some parts verbatim.

She argues that a court order must be obeyed by all citizens until it is set aside by an appeal, and it is not open to citizens to determine which orders are lawful and which are not – they are bound to obey all.

For its part, BTL is going for an appeal of the very order Justice Muria made on April 5 calling for Christine Perriott’s temporary reinstatement at BTL until a further order of the court.

That application, seeking the judge’s permission for an appeal, was set for Friday morning, but the judge decided that the contempt application against Boyce, which had been set for the afternoon, should be dispensed with first.