Sunday, November 14, 2010

Sworn Affidavit Chief Minister? No thanks this is Jersey


















So before Deputy Bob Hill's P166/2010 proposition I thought I would  look at another example of our Chief Minister protecting the Chief Executive Teflon Bill. What is happening really is quite staggering and, not only that, but it's right in front of everyones faces. In some ways we are truly lawless over here.  There is no one who can hold the executive to account; not our politicians that's for sure. 


The weakness in the States Chamber is a real factor in this. We have some states members who are quite happy sitting at the foot of the COM table looking for scraps.  They vote on propositions that they have no idea about.  They never ask questions nor do they submit questions.  They just vote with Team Ozouf.


Back to our Chief Minister 


What's the crack with this chap? I know he has been likened to "Comical Alie" the Iraqi clown but I think we have gone well beyond that with our Chief Minister. Why can't the Chief Minister and even the Home Affairs Minister do the right thing? Why, with so much information in the public domain, can't they do the right thing. Everything must fall away, 'common sense',  'integrity', 'truth', 'justice' and much more in the total protection of Jersey's reputation. 


The Blog Posting that will be up tomorrow by VFC will again demonstrate the crazy world of Terry Le Sueur. I think one question that must be asked of him is: "Does he actually believe what he is saying?"  My guess would be NO.  The reason I come to that conclusion is after researching and reading so much hard evidence in the public domain, we know he surely can't believe the rubbish he is peddling in the states. 


4 ACPO REPORTS


3 Suspension Reviews


3 Sworn Affidavits - Graham Power, Lenny Harper & Stuart Syvret 


1 Napier Report 


1 Judicial Review + Skeleton Argument  


1 Wiltshire Disciplinary Shambles


1 P30 Home Affairs Scrutiny Transcripts


50 + Questions without answers from the states 


And much more on the way.


Yet our Chief Minister is trying to brush it all away.


If I could have one wish this Christmas it would be for the Local Media, and I don't care which outlet it is, to hire an Investigative Journalist, just one would be a start.


So, to the question . This is from the 3rd of February 2010 and is a truly classic TLS moment. When you think of the ridicule heaped on Lenny Harper the suspension of Graham Power, the political oppression of Stuart Syvret the sacking of Simon Bellwood, but look what happens when the issues concern Chief Executive Ogley 




1.15   DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE 

STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:


Question


In the light of the serious and detailed allegations against the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers outlined in the sworn affidavit, signed by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, recently released into the public domain by the Deputy of St. Martin, will the Chief Minister clarify why he has not, as a ‘neutral act’, suspended the Chief Executive until the allegations of engaging in political activity wholly outside of his remit can be fully investigated?

Answer

I have not suspended the Chief Executive because he has denied categorically the allegations of the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.  Further, an internal investigation carried out in November 2008, when the suspended Chief Officer first made this allegation, demonstrated that the weight of evidence suggests that his recollection of what happened at the meeting in July 2007 is not accurate.

I should also add that before the allegations were made public, I had already undertaken to commission an independent investigation into all aspects of the suspension process, given the known concerns of some States Members.


So, Graham Power states what happened in a Sworn Affidavit. 


Our Chief Minister asks the Chief Executive.  He says "no".  They then hold an internal investigation LOL has no one yet realised why we are heading into such a dark period.  There are zero checks and balances.  Look what has  happened to The Abuse Survivors, Harper , Power, Syvret, & Bellwood some would say its double standards 


Now this is from Graham Power's Sworn Affidavit.  I believe the above question relates to the meeting below.  


Note book entry made of 25- th July, 2007

Some additional words have been inserted in italics to assist with clarity

16.00 I am at HQ having just returned from a meeting of the CMB

(Corporate Management Board.) During the meeting Bill Ogley (BO} said that he would wish for some of us to remain afterwards to discuss the comments of the Health Minister Senator Syvret in relation to Child Protection issues. He told the full meeting that it was possible that the COM (Council of Ministers) would pass a notice of "no confidence" tomorrow and ask this to be confirmed by a full meeting of the States especially convened for that purpose - This would result in Senator Syvret having to leave office. It was also mentioned that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was meeting that afternoon and I was asked if we would be represented. I got the impression that those present saw that meeting as particularly significant and felt that "something was going on" which others knew  about but I did not. I said that I did not know about the meeting (I would not usually know) and that I assumed Insp. Fossey — (Detective Inspector Alison Fossey) who BO knows and we both referred to as "Alison" would be representing the force. After the meeting myself TMcK (Tom McKeon, Chief Officer, Education, Sport and Culture,) andMP (Mike Pollard, Chief Officer,^of Health & Social Services,) and Ian C (Ian Crich, Director, States HR Department,) remained behind. I was handed a copy of a report to Ministers and associated papers which I have stamped and initialled. The discussion was led by BO who disclosed that the C.P.C. would this afternoon be discussing a vote of no confidence in the Minister. MP and TMcK did not seem surprised at this. MP seemed to be fully signed up to this course of action. Attempts were made by BO to draw me into this. I was, told that my people were "part of the islands arrangements and I should show collective support by opposing the criticisms of the Minister. I was taken aback by this but responded in two ways. Firstly I said that leaving aside issues of style and manner the questions raised by the Minister were valid. Particularly in respect of the time it had taken for the abuse of a boy in a recent case to come to notice of the police and the apparent failure of Child Protection to give it priority. I said that the Critical Case Review (SCR?) was a poor effort which missed the hard questions and I was not surprised that the Minister was not impressed. I conceded that all of the questions might have answers, I just thought that they were good questions and ones which a Minister could validly ask. There was also some discussion of the Victoria College and Holland cases which was not central to the issue. BO and others were persistent and I was left with the clear in my impression (sic) that they were attempting to draw me, in rny capacity as the Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from office. Having concluded this I then moved on to my second point which was that even if I agreed with everything they said I would still have nothing to do with it. They were engaging in what I saw as political activity and it was entirely inappropriate that I should be involved one way or the other. The fact that "I will have nothing to do with this" was made clearly. At this BO said "in that case goodbye" or something very similar. I picked up my papers. There was no bad feeling or bad words, we just disagreed. As soon as I was outside I rang SDV (Superintendent Shaw Du Val, Head of Operations) and alerted him to the possible problem at the C.P.C. AF rang me not long afterwards and told me that she had abstained. I told her to put this beyond all doubt by a follow - up email to the Chair. I made this notebook entry then walked over to Ops for it to be timed in the relevant machine


Now what concerns me here is we have an independent witness as to what's going on, Detective Inspector Allison Fossey. Has she never been asked  about what happened at her meeting, I mean, you would think that would be a good idea?. This was all about the removal of the then Heath Minister Stuart Syvret.  Again we have a Chief of Police giving a Sworn Affidavit which contains so much information, that I wish Andrew Lewis would take a leaf out of his book and also do one.


You can read that debate by going into the States of Jersey Greffe and looking up the 11th September 2007 debate.


I have pulled this question out because it shows you just what is going on here. People say the real Chief Minister is Philip Ozouf.  That might be so but the man with all the power is Chief Executive Bill Ogley.


A former Chief of Police makes a Sworn Affidavit and our Minister says  "So what, not in Jersey" 


This is a bit of information about a Sworn Affidavit. You can see why none of the others have made one,  you are required to tell the truth.



A sworn affidavit is a written statement made by a person who is under oath to tell the truth about the facts and information contained in the statement. Additionally, the person signing the affidavit, called the affiant, attests to his or her identity. Usually, the affidavit must be witnessed and signed by a person who is legally authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary public. The notary is generally required to place a notary seal on the statement.

When a person signs a sworn affidavit, he or she is promising that anything contained in the statement is accurate and true. Effectively, it is the same thing as orally presenting testimony in court. If a person lies about the information contained in the statement, he or she could be prosecuted for the crime of perjury, which is lying under oath. If convicted, the person may be ordered to pay significant fines or may even be sentenced to time in jail.

A sworn affidavit is most commonly used in a court case for the purpose of providing evidence about facts pertaining to the case. It may also be used to validate documentary evidence, such as an official record. In some circumstances, a sworn affidavit is entered into evidence at a court trial in lieu of the affiant’s sworn testimony. This is typically done when the affiant is unavailable to come to court for some reason or when needed in order to save time. When an attorney files a motion or pleading on behalf of his or her client, the attorney may also submit affidavits for the purpose of establishing facts and lending credibility to the legal arguments made in the filing.

A person may sign a sworn affidavit for events that occur outside of a court. For instance, the seller of a piece of real estate is generally required to submit an affidavit of title to the prospective homebuyer. The affidavit usually states the seller’s marital status and certifies that there is no defect in the title. In addition, the affidavit may indicate that the seller is currently in possession or the property


What our Chief Minister must now be asked to do is show the evidence that backs up his assertions that all was justified. Saying "I Believe" and "to the best of my knowledge" is not cutting it when it goes against all the evidence now in the public domain. 

What is happening with the Child Abuse Cover-up and the subsequent suspension of Graham Power should worry everyone on this Island as these are the people that have taken Jersey to where it is, same management same shambles yet most people didn't care because the good times were rolling, these type of issues where of no consequence. But like I have said before the good times have left the building ( for now?) and there are some hard times coming up. 

Are these Clowns leading us down the Garden Path

I will leave you with the Keyboard Cat, take it away.



Rico Sorda




14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Holy penguin disguise batman this man is a joke!

I watched him recently giving a speech at a conference on mental health, he DOES NOT CARE!

Ian Evans said...

This is a bit of information about a Sworn Affidavit. You can see why none of the others have made one, you are required to (tell the truth).

You just hit the nail square on the head Rico mate! It is absolutely astonishing how many of our politicians are living in total utter denial of justice, and the truth.

And speaking of TRUTH ?

Anonymous said...

The Keyborad cat for Chief Minister

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we need a campaign to inform American finance institutions of how Jersey is run.

rico sorda said...

"A sworn affidavit is most commonly used in a court case for the purpose of providing evidence about facts pertaining to the case. It may also be used to validate documentary evidence, such as an official record."

Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why a Sworn Affidavit means nothing to our Chief Minister?

Tomorrow on the VFC Blog the Chief Minister goes beyond "Joke"

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Not only does Terry Le Sueur ignore the sworn affidavit of our most Senior Police Officer but get this! He thinks he should apologise as well!!

GeeGee said...

Rico - I actually think our CM does believe what he is saying. I think he has conditioned his mind (or BO has) to such an extent that he is unable to see or say anything truthful or positive.

Around this time of year a lot of children will be believing in Father Christmas. They will not know any different until they are told otherwise, but by the same token we cannot prove he does exist.

Perhaps someone should actually point out to Terry that he can believe what he likes, but that doesn't mean we all have to follow suit, so therefore is he able to produce the PROOF.

Anonymous said...

I assume that TLS holds the view that in July 2007, the Chief Police Officer would wilfully fabricate notes of a meeting, then later perjure himself in an affidavit. Why?

Whereas TLS would take the word of someone who was the main party to a possible conspiracy, someone who later was instrumental in getting the Chief Minister suspended and disposed of evidence (shredded notes) before a judicial review.

the Truth said...

Rico

You and Team Voice are leading the way on these issues. For obvious reasons Stuart Syvret has other things on his mind. No doubt he will be fined this week for breaking the data protection law.

I will be listening in tomorrow. What time does it all start, is it still on 1026mw

rico sorda said...

This is from the 2nd of November

2.4 The Deputy of St. Mary of the Chief Minister regarding the reliance on the content of the Napier Report:

The Napier Report at paragraph 67 records that the Solicitor General advised the Director of Human Resources and I quote: “I would urge that particular caution be exercised to check that there are no provisos or caveats to any of the conclusions reached upon which reliance is to be placed.” Would the Chief Minister inform Members why this advice was not followed and when he considers it is acceptable to ignore repeated legal advice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

This passage refers to a statement that the former Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive did not have access to the interim report of the Metropolitan Police and if they had, they would have seen that it was written in heavily qualified terms. In fact, when deciding to suspend the then Chief Officer of Police, the Minister for Home Affairs at that time had access to other information, for example, as referred to in the Napier Report, paragraph 89, from the meetings of the Gold Group, which indicated that serious mistakes had been made, as well as the information in a letter from the Deputy Chief of Police, which referred to the report of the Metropolitan Police. The Minister for Home Affairs had to decide what action to take in relation to the Chief Officer of Police given that in the light of the press briefing on 12th November 2008, the authority and judgment of the Chief Officer of Police, and by extension, that of the States of Jersey Police, would be called into question. The Minister for Home Affairs therefore had to balance the legal advice, which was given with other considerations, including a requirement to maintain public confidence in the States of Jersey Police. Legal advice was not ignored. It was carefully considered and weighed in the balance with other information available to the Minister.

2.4.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The letter of the Deputy Chief of Police to the Chief Executive on 10th November stated that: “The interim findings of the review by the Metropolitan Police fully support my previous comments” and that is in Napier paragraph 104. Napier says: “That report was in heavily qualified terms” (paragraph 69) and he also says: “The report expressly states that any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.” Yet that was the report relied on, firstly, by the Acting Deputy Chief of Police at the time and, further, should have been mentioned or known about by the various people involved. It seems to me, and I would ask the Chief Minister to comment why it is that those reservations, those severe, completely qualifying reservations, which Napier refers to as “heavily qualified terms”, why these were not taken into account in the suspension process.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I thought I had already made it clear in my original answer that a number of factors were taken into in deciding whether or not to suspend. It was that balance which was struck by the Minister for Home Affairs on justifiable grounds which led to the suspension, of which the letter in question was only one factor.

2.4.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

May I ask a further supplementary? Were those other matters outside the letter from the former Deputy Chief of Police… whatever? Were those other matters formally mentioned in any of the suspension letters to the former Chief of Police as they should have been?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The question was about whether the decision to suspend was a valid decision, and I repeat that it was a valid decision for the reasons I have quoted.

rico sorda said...

2.4.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Does the Chief Minister feel that the former Minister for Home Affairs misled the House when he stated the reason he took the action of suspension was based on the letter from the Acting Chief Officer of Police and the Metropolitan Police Report and those alone?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not recall the words of the previous Minister for Home Affairs but I am sure that he had no intention to mislead the House.

2.4.4 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

Given that the Chief Minister is very selective with certain parts of the Metropolitan Police Interim Report, will he request the Minister for Home Affairs to make the Metropolitan Police Report and Interim Report available to all States Members even under confidentiality clauses?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can certainly make the request to the Minister but I have no expectation it would be delivered. [Laughter]

2.4.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the Chief Minister accept that on paragraph 107 of the report, it says that too much reliance was placed on information coming from one source and that, irrespective of what the justification in hindsight may have been, Napier also said that the basis on which Mr. Power was suspended on 12th November 2008 was, in his view, inadequate. If the Chief Minister accepts that, what action will he be taking?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I think we are going over old ground here. I have already indicated that Mr. Napier produced his findings, which I have taken into account, and formed my own conclusions as a result of his comments.

2.4.6 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Chief Minister says that the legal advice was not ignored. It was simply balanced. Will the Chief Minister agree with me that it is not so much a matter of ignoring legal advice but not sharing it with States Members? Will he confirm that the reservations by the Crown Officers were not shared with States Members at any stage during the statement by the former Minister for Home Affairs, nor were they shared with this Assembly during the in camera debate when I attempted to get this matter resolved at an early stage. What is his view on the fact that the former Chief Minister replied to an email from me saying that the legal basis of the suspension was absolutely assured?

[10:15]

rico sorda said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I suspect we are straying from the question but certainly the decision to suspend was a decision for the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs alone. It was not a question of sharing it with other States Members or any other parties. It is the responsibility for the Minister, a very onerous responsibility, which that Minister discharged to the best of his abilities in accordance with all the information available to him.

2.4.7 The Connétable of St. Helier:

Can I ask a supplementary, please? Does the Chief Minister not feel that it is incumbent on any Minister to share legal advice with this Assembly when an important matter is being debated?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

That would depend entirely on the circumstances of the situation.

2.4.8 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am finding it curious that the Chief Minister is suddenly switching from the justification in the letter from the former Deputy Chief of Police and relying on the Interim Report and suddenly there is all this new information that was relied on in the suspension. I would just like to quote from the Napier Report, paragraph 107, to the Chief Minister and ask for his comment: “The letter from Mr. Ogley to Mr. Lewis dated 11th November 2008 informing him of Mr. Warcup’s letter does not make clear that the report received by Mr. Warcup from the Metropolitan Police was only an interim one and that its author had heavily qualified its contents. While there was additional material coming in from Mr. Gradwell and from the reports of the Gold Group that was indicative of failings on the part of Mr. Power, no effort was made to collate this in a systemised way or to make reference to this material in the documentation provided to Mr. Power at the time he was suspended.” So the “get out”, the alibi of the Chief Minister, was not used at the time. Could the Chief Minister comment on that?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

With difficulty, since I was not involved at the time, but certainly I accept the comments of Mr. Napier that no effort appeared to have been to collate that systematically. Nonetheless, the information was there, the information was used and relied upon by the Minister for Home Affairs, and a decision was made on valid grounds.

rico sorda said...

89. Napier Report

89.My own view, having considered the available evidence and interviewed the main protagonists in the affair, is that there were, in the period leading up to the decision to impose suspensionon 12 November, serious doubts as to Mr Power’s professional competence on the part of Mr Ogley and Mr Lewis, based on a belief that he had not properly managed the historic abuse enquiry and had, in particular, failed to exercise proper control over DCO Harper. These doubts were not without foundation. Both Mr Ogley and Mr Lewis were in possession of information emanating not only from Mr Warcup but also from the meetings of the Gold Group which indicated that serious mistakes had been made. There were indications that Mr Power had not done his job well. But that is as far as it goes. There was no conspiracy to act against Mr Powerbecause he was seen as a threat to the political status quo and to the vested interestsof people of influence within Jersey. Neither is there any evidence that Mr Ogley or Mr Walker sought to exercise improper influence on Mr Lewis who, as the new Minister, alone had the power to order suspension and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings. Mr Lewis himself, in my opinion, took his responsibilities seriously, and did his best to explore alternatives to suspension in the run-up to the meeting of 12 November.

rico sorda said...

This question will be answered tomorrow


22. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Given that the Napier Report states (paragraph 32) “Reports from that group (the Gold Group, on which the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers had his own representative) tended to indicate that there had been serious failings in the investigation carried out under the direction of (the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police)”, can the Chief Minister inform members who that representative was and further provide members with any evidence of the reports mentioned in this paragraph?”

So who was on this Gold Group?

Warcup starts in August 2008

Graham Power asks David Warcup to set up a Gold Group because by that stage there was more clarity about who were suspects

By early September 2008 Bill Ogley is making enquiries about suspending the Chief of Police

Graham Power gets suspended on the 12th November

The reasons for suspension is because of concerns raised by David Warcup. These were expressed to Bill Ogley in a letter backed up by the Met Interim Report.

Now that they realise the Met Report was a mistake, all they had was the Warcup letter. The only thing ILM had was the Warcup letter, the more you go on the more you head into Monty Python.

A complete and utter mess

Honesty, Truth & Integrity has seriously left the Jersey Building