This is Alki David.
Reporting, not commentary.
January 16, 2026 — No verdict. A jurisdictional moment. Antigua & Barbuda.
In open court, Mr Justice Rene Williams raised jurisdiction himself—direct, on the record—asking whether the Court holds power over proceedings spanning England, California, and Antigua and Barbuda.
Alki David – reporting on today’s events – Jurisdiction is power.
With counsel present, the Attorney General appearing as amicus, 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. The observation was procedural. No remedies were ordered. No determinations were made.
His Lordship also personally identified Howard Kennedy’s January 7 letter and stated, in open court, that it constituted contempt of court.
No findings were issued. No outcome declared.
Ajay Fournillier: Courtroom Incident, Correspondence, and Regulatory Context
Ajay Fournillier, an associate at Howard Kennedy LLP, who works alongside Rebecca Hume, partner at the firm, and Mark Stephens, 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.
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 as to intent, conduct, or liability arising from that incident.
Separately, Ajay Fournillier is the named author and signatory of a formal letter dated 7 January 2026, addressed directly to The Honourable Mr Justice Rene Williams. The letter was submitted without prejudice to jurisdiction and sets out Howard Kennedy LLP’s 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 “to assist the court in advance,” while expressly disclaiming submission to jurisdiction.
Mark Stephens – Enforcement interest was heightened in light of Mr David’s publicly documented association with Julian Assange and repeated disputes concerning attempts to appropriate or interfere with Hologram USA technology, 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.
In parallel, Howard Kennedy LLP and named individuals associated with the firm are subject to ongoing regulatory and law-enforcement scrutiny, including matters involving the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the UK National Crime Agency (NCA). No determinations or adverse findings have been made, and any such inquiries remain separate from the Antigua proceedings.
The court noted the existence of the correspondence and surrounding events without determining the merits of the objections raised. Jurisdictional and procedural issues remain live and subject to judicial ruling.
A written ruling is due the first week of February. Until then, no conclusions.
Parallels noted (procedural context only):
- England: KB-2025-001991 (David v Khan & Howard Kennedy).
- California: Case No. 20STCV3749 (appeal), where serious due process questions were raised but not decided.
Context flagged: allegations of coordinated “lawfare,” including public statements by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda regarding foreign actors. Background only. No findings.
The Court underscored judicial comity—any ruling will avoid improper interference with other courts.
Record stands:
- Jurisdiction is live.
- Due process is live.
- Defaults were noted on the record.
- Contempt was stated on the record.
- Parallel courts are on notice via procedure.
This is transparency.
Not advocacy. Not pressure.
When the ruling drops, it speaks alone.
Alki David — reporting.
All rights reserved.
