Tuesday, March 20, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 11- TIMELINE 'THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE'




































OPERATION END GAME -11- THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE




WE KEEP  ON ASKING THE QUESTIONS




THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE



BAILIFF IN 2008/2009 - Sir Philip Bailhache


DEPUTY BAILIFF 2008/2009 - Michael Birt


ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008/2009  - William Bailhache


SOLICITOR GENERAL 2008/2009 - Tim Le Cocq




Just a very quick posting. 



Below I reproduce the email correspondence I have had with the Jersey Law Office.



They are very self explanatory. 



Here is an extract 


"The former Chief of Police Graham Power was suspended 3 times between November 12th 2008 and the 31st July 2009 - this, in itself, must be worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. Has a Chief of Police ever been suspended so many times? and, in such a short space of time? Graham Power then waits 11/2 years for the Home Affairs Minister who drops all disciplinary action. The Minister  then character assassinates Mr Power with the help of the local media."




I want to keep my readers up to speed with exactly what's happening. I have been trying to find out exactly what happened with the David Warcup safe cracking episode. 



This all ties into 'OPERATION BLAST'



These issues must be looked at before we move forward. 



The Jersey Law Office is the real Power in Jersey.



Nothing happens without the nod from the Jersey Law Office




rom: rico sorda
Sent: 16 March 2012 13:46
To: Tim Allen
Cc: Ian Le Marquand; Alan Breckon; Anne Pryke; Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator); ben queree; Gerard Baudains; James Baker; Rod Bryans; cswiseman; Deidre Mezbourian; dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com; JEP Editorial; Edward Noel; Francis Le Gresley; Geoffrey Southern; jon gripton; Bob Hill; Roy Le Herissier; Ian Gorst; John Refault; Jacqueline Hilton; John Le Fondre; John Le Sueur Gallichan; Jeremy Macon; James Reed; Kristina Moore; Kevin Lewis; Michel Le Troquer (Connetable POSMN); Judith Martin; Michael J. Paddock; Montfort Tadier; news@channeltv.co.uk; Patrick Ryan; Philip Ozouf; Philip Rondel; Paul Routier; Susie Pinel; Shona Pitman; Steve Luce; Simon Crowcroft; Tracey Vallois; Trevor Pitman
Subject: Attorney General Most Urgent

 

 

Dear Attorney General,

 

During my research into the illegal suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power some alarming develoments have occured. Former Chief of Police Graham power wanted access to his secure safe through his  represenative. ACO David Warcup wasn't happy about this 


December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office.  Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate  representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.

 

 

December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.

 

January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable  Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The letter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.

 

 

January 22nd 2009 -  Acting Chief of Police opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne  of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham.  Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office.  This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was  Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors"  of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?

 

An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret.

 

 I have  also reproduced part of a letter from former Head of HR Ian Critch to Graham Power dated 22nd December 2008. What jumps out at me is that David Warcup was getting legal advice.

 

 I will quote Mr Critch;

 

"Mr Warcup has though spoken with me and he has concerns about the process for access previously discussed with you. His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advise therefore that he is taking further advice on this matter and he will revert to me as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you wish to simply supply the code then we would be grateful"

 

 

1.What  legal advice did David warcup receive that resulted in him breaking into Graham Powers secure Safe when Graham Power was suspended under a neutral act and could be returning to work very shortly.

 

2. What legal advice did David Warcup receive that resulted in a locksmith being able to attend and open Mr Powers secure safe and not a lawyer or Constable? On the 9th January 2009 Ian Critch writes to Graham Power saying there are problems which Mr Power replies to on the 12th January 2009 and states;

 


"The searching of the locked cabinet in my office in order to establish whether it contains a copy of my terms and conditions is a ten minute task which has now been subject of correspondence for over a month.   Throughout all of this time I have asked only that a person representing my interests be present when this was done.   This was to ensure fairness, vouch for the authenticity of anything which was found, or confirm that nothing was found, and to recover on my behalf a document to which I was entitled.   We appeared to agree that this person would be Advocate Lakeman, and he was therefore provided with a sealed envelope containing the information necessary for this agreement to move forward.   Since that apparently fair and acceptable arrangement was agreed, objections have been made through you, the latest being in your letter dated 9th January 2009 in which you state that it is not possible for him to be present because the cabinet contains “very confidential information” which it would be inappropriate for Advocate Lakeman “or anyone else outside of the service” to have sight of.   As you are aware, it was never the intention that my representative would take an interest in any matters other than the task for which they were appointed, namely attempting to recover a true copy of my terms and conditions on my behalf.   Given that the copy which should be held in your department is inexplicably missing, my concerns on this issue are natural and understandable.   You state that you offer your personal assurance that any personal items contained in the cabinet will be delivered to me, but do not say how this will be achieved, given that you also appear to be in the category of persons who will not be allowed to be present or view the contents

 

 

 

3. Why does David Warcup then lie under Oath to Wiltshire where he states and I quote;

 

 

"In view of the fact that I did not have access to the safe combination contact was made with Mr Power to obtain the combination. Following an exchange of messages between Mr Power's appointed contact and the force, I established that Mr Power refused to disclose the combination of the safe as a result of which I arranged for a locksmith to attend."

 

"At 14"30 hrs onn 22nd January 2009 I was present along with Detective Superintendent Bonnie (Wiltshire..rs) and Inspector Burmingham when the safe was opened. A check was made of the contents and a schedule prepared of the items contained therein"

 

"The following documents were removed from the safe were later copied and forwarded to Detective Superintendent Bonnie."

 

"In the safe I also found a sealed white envelope marked as follows 'S Syvret' which was date stamped 10th April 2007. When opened the envelope was found to contain an audio tape. A transcript of the audio tape was subsequently made and is contained on 41 pages. A copy of the transcript has been forwarded to Superintendent Bonnie" End

 

 

This needs explaining. It all comes down to what legal advice David Warcup was getting. did the Law Office give David warcup the green light to break into Graham poers secure safe/cabinet yes or no.    Or, did david warcup decide to break into Graham Powers off his own back? I don't think so.

 

 

He was receiving advice from the Law office. this would have been fromm the SG of the time Tim le Cocq or the Attorney General William Bailhache.

 

 

Did one of the above advice David warcup to go ahead and break into Graham powers secure Safe /Cabinet whilest he was suspended as a neutral act? If not then what did David Warcup think he was doing - there are excellent fishing locations around Jersey apart from Graham Powers secure safe.

 

 

Look Forward to your prompt reply

 

Kind Regards

 

Rico Sorda

 

 

 

Chief Ministers Department 

States Human Resources 

Cyril Le Marquand House 

 

 

 

22nd December 2008

 

 

 

Dear Mr Power

 

I refer to your letters of the 5th(received on the 9th), 11th and 17th December 2008.

 

With regard to access to the secure cabinet,I understand that arrangements were being put in place for this to be done as soon as possible (I am aware that Advocate Lakeman's office have contacted Phil Wells and he has contacted Mr Warcup). Mr Warcup has though spoken with me and he has concerns about the process for access previously discussed with you. His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advise therefore that he is taking further advice on this matter and he will revert to me as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you wish to simply supply the code then we would be grateful.

 

In your letter of  the 5th of December you informed me for the first time that you recall that changes to your benefit were made to the 2005 Terms and Conditions documented previously sent to you. As stated previously, the only version of this document on file is the unsigned copy sent to you by Steve Austin Vautier. I attach, for the sake of completeness, the following documents, which are the only copies which I have on file.




http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Citizen Investigator



From: Tim Allen

Subject: RE: Attorney General Most Urgent

To: "rico sorda" 

Date: Monday, 19 March, 2012, 16:38


Dear Mr Sorda,

 

The Attorney General has asked me to respond to your email.

 

It would not be appropriate for this office to enter into correspondence with a member of the public about a matter in which they have no direct interest.

 

We do not propose to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the contents of your email in any way. However, as a matter of general application, and for your future guidance, what advice may or may not have been given by this department to any person on any matter and whether or not any advice has been given at all is a matter that remains confidential and any advice which had been given would be covered by legal professional privilege.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Tim Allen

 


From: rico sorda 

Subject: RE: Attorney General Most Urgent

To: "Tim Allen"

Date: Monday, 19 March, 2012, 21:22


Dear Mr Allen,


I thank the Attorney General for his reply.


As you can imagine,the issues raised, are of grave importance. 


The former Chief of Police Graham Power was suspended 3 times between November 12th 2008 and the 31st July 2009 - this, in itself, must be worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. Has a Chief of Police ever been suspended so many times? and, in such a short space of time? Graham Power then waits 11/2 years for the Home Affairs Minister who drops all disciplinary action. The Minister  then character assassinates Mr Power with the help of the local media.


This all happens in the middle of a live investigation into decades of Child Abuse in the Jersey Care Homes. 


Now, it absolutely does concern me. The actions of David Warcup concern me. The fact that David Warcup broke into the secure cabinet/safe with the help of a locksmith without allowing Graham Power to have representation is of grave concern. Graham Power was suspended under a neutral act and should have been returning to work on March 5th 2009 - until, that is, Senator Le Marquand lost all sense of natural justice.


Acting Chief of Police Warcup was getting advice about the safe situation. By natural deduction, I would say that advice was coming from the Jersey Law Office. 


Mr Warcup broke into Graham Powers secure safe/cabinet. He then lied to Wiltshire, under Oath, about his actions.


If the Jersey Law Office gave the green light for this then it raises very serious questions


If the Jersey Law Office didn't sanction this then one has to ask what was David Warcup thinking. His actions are extraordinary. Why the lies?


This is about people being accountable for their  actions or explanations for them.



It concerns me greatly 


Kind Regards



Rico Sorda


http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/


Citizen Investigator




A new posting will be up in the next couple of days. Then it will be none stop right up till the Committee of Enquiry. There is so much concerning Blast


Thank you for the Support


Rico Sorda


Team Voice 


Investigative  Journalist

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

The law officers is where it's all at keep on going in that direction Rico and keep up the good work. Warcup might be made the scapegoat but nothing happens without the say so of the AG and cohorts.

Anonymous said...

Rico.

The Law Office's reply says that because you have no direct interest in this case, they (The Law Office) have no reason to reply to you.

Therefore resend all of the above with your name changed to Graham Power's.

With Graham's permission ofcourse....

Then they have no excuses to reply?!

Anonymous said...

Rico

It was inevitable that the Law officers would respond in this way.

Even if Graham Power himself were to ask the same questions, the response would be the same I'm afraid.

I'm certainly not going to form any judgements about the role of the Law Officers in this affair, even though the ordinary man in the street would be justified in thinking that something is very wrong here. The Law Officers, as legal advisers to States Departments, will not give up any information that could compromise the position of the people they have advised.

My guess is that the only way that anything could be obtained is by GP taking legal action against someone - perhaps Warcup - and hope that relevant information can be claimed through the discovery process.

This is a truly frustrating position. My personal inclination is to believe GP's version of events. Apart from now having gained a deep distrust of Warcup's actions and motives, the "official" line - especially in relation to the claim that GP never had a revised signed contract - is just too incredible to believe.

I wonder how GP feels today, having had the opportunity to read the CAG report into the Ogley payment. Perhaps there is some truth in the claim that Ogley was treated unfairly by Ozouf. BUT, there is little doubt that GP was treated a good deal more unfairly by Ogley, Lewis, Walker, Le Sueur, Le Marquand, Warcup, Wiltshire etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

Outstandingly SUPERB Rico, Extremely Well Done.

I like the part where the Law Officer states " is a matter that remains confidential and any advice which had been given would be covered by legal professional privilege."

After listening to the Pie & Mash recording with Brian Gerrish on You Tube about the Hollie Greig case, I have come to the conclusion that 'Legal Professional Privilege' actually means 'Loyally Protecting Paedophiles', especially those in high office, and could well be the reason Graham had to be gotten rid of, he was getting too close to the truth, along with Lenny.

Anonymous said...

If the Law officers are working with government to remove a police chief during an ongoing child abuse investigation surely this involves all citizens?

Anonymous said...

The Former Chief Executive – Compromise Agreement Report of the comptroller and Auditor General March 2012

Performance
29. The Chief Minister was advised that there were a number of issues which could raise questions about the performance of the former Chief Executive. These for example, included concerns over the handling of the suspension of the former Chief of Police and suggestions of poor morale and dissatisfaction of senior levels in the States.

Rico, this is just incredible. How many questions did Terry Le Suer fend off about the Chief Executive and Napier regarding the suspension of Graham Power. They are all in tis up to their necks and yet Ilm sits there all alone.

Is the island of Jersey fit to govern itself?

Looking at what has happened

NO

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A predictable - yet interesting - response from the Attorney General's Department.

And a few interesting comments as well.

I'll try and do a fresh blog-posting sometime soon, in which I will address that very issue.

These people really do think we're all idiots.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rico for remaining tenacious in the face of such incredible arrogance from the Law Office.

More and more people are waking up to what has been happening all along in this saga.

And it is all pointing in the direction of the Law Office.

Those who advised such actions are responsible and culpable. Warcup was an expendable puppet, just like Gradwell, Lewis, Ogley,and Le Marquand.

In those famous words attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Hopefully there will soon be questions being raised about this matter in the UK.

How much longer can this level of corruption be allowed to continue without Crown intervention?

Anonymous said...

You just don't give up do you fair play rico. Look forward to the blast stuff as you never seem to disappoint.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the audio from today's Version of Questions without Answers.
You & your reader's can have a listen HERE

TJW.

Anonymous said...

"any advice which had been given would be covered by legal professional privilege".

That's the same legal priviledge that was used as a defence by Terry Le Sueur's law officer representative at Graham Power's employment board hearing when GP tried to gain access to the dates his suspension letters where drafted. It did not wash then and it does not wash now.

Like Stuart Syvret said, they are taking us for idiots. Keep going Rico Sorda, they can hide behind legal speak but actually they cannot hide.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the abuse survivors would like to respond to the Law Offices, or submit their own questions about this. The UK lawyers representing the abuse survivors should also have a clear vested interest in what you have uncovered, especially since it can be shown the abuse investigation was intentionally thwarted by these same coverup artists and the Law Offices.

Anonymous said...

Rico

We sent a number of emails to BBC regarding your uncovered evidence, but this is the first reply, other than auto-response any of us have received, and we are posting it below, in quotes, with our own original email following at the end. - Those Denver Gals

"Thanks for your e-mail regarding BBC Jersey.
The historic child abuse investigation in Jersey continues to throw up lines which BBC Jersey investigate and report on where they see fit. Indeed last Monday they broadcast a live interview with the former investigating officer Lenny Harper. You can also find a multitude of recent articles relating to this story on the BBC Jersey area of the BBC News website, such as:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-16767461
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-16423592
I trust this explains the BBC’s view on this subject. Nevertheless, please be assured that we have forwarded your concerns to BBC Jersey for their noting.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Yours Sincerely
Andrew Martin
Complaints Advisor
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"

"NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform at the BBC Complaints website http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints quoting any case number we provided."

------Original Message------

Feedback Summary - Fact dispute re: The biggest story to effect Jersey

Feedback Description - Jersey's Haut de la Garenne institutional child abuse story was global news in 2007/2008, until Jersey discredited the entire abuse investigation based on criticism claimed to have come from a report by Metropolitan Police. Recent public disclosures of corruption of that investigation implicate Jersey's former Chief Executive Bill Ogly and former Chief Minister Frank Walker in secretly and illegally hiring Matt Tapp, a media consultant for UK based PR firm "Talking Heads," to halt and re-spin the entire abuse investigation, Tapp's work was falsely attributed to the Metropolitan Police. Now evidence from the Metropolitan Police, Jersey's former Chief of Police Graham Power, and former DI Lenny Harper released online shows the Jersey government committed a series of illegal acts to cover-up of the findings of the abuse inquiry itself. BBC's lack of coverage has now become a major topic in the curriculum of some American high school and college classrooms, as per Jersey blogs and forums. Due to this research CNN has removed inaccurate story about child's scull being an alleged coconut but BBC Jersey has failed to even respond. The Guardian is now exploring BBC Jersey bias re: child abuse inquiry. Why is Jersey BBC's not interested? Many documents have been provided to BBC Jersey which are considered "highly relevant" to other, outside, media outlets. We in USA would also like to know if there is a "D Notice" of some sort on the most important story in Jersey's recent history.

rico sorda said...

"Perhaps the abuse survivors would like to respond to the Law Offices, or submit their own questions about this. The UK lawyers representing the abuse survivors should also have a clear vested interest in what you have uncovered, especially since it can be shown the abuse investigation was intentionally thwarted by these same coverup artists and the Law Offices."

And they gave Frank Walker and Terry Le Suer OBE's

Lets not forget this. The actions of Frank Walker and his gang are evil and despicable. Yes, just like the old German camp guards "we were only following orders" but they did it.

Their actions are just shocking.

Evil bl**dy Bas Tards

Anonymous said...

Remember this is the same Law Officers' Department who gave advice to the police in the Warren case.

Matthew Jowitt, on behalf of the AG was asked whether it would be ok to illegally bug a vehicle in France. His response was...

"I would do it, but don't tell anyone I said that"

There may be a pattern forming with Graham Powers safe.

Anonymous said...

Frank Walker, resently interviewed on BBC Radio Jersey, when asked of his lows as Chief Minister said 1/ The HDLG fiasco
2/ Falling out with Senator Syvret.

He was probably on BBC Radio Jersey to promote his (maybe) soon to be on The Electoral Commission?

Anonymous said...

Rico,you have my respect,well done

Anonymous said...

Rico,very well done,you Stuart and Trevor should start your own local newspaper,could you answer a question,there is mention of Adv Lakeman, was he the gentleman that sadly died? would he or his office have had any information by way of paper work which could help you?

Anonymous said...

Only one voice expressed disapproval.

In agreeing to the delegation of authority, Deputy De Sousa insisted that the Minutes
record her disapproval of the decision of the Human Resources Sub-Committee 2005
to sanction a mutual termination clause that, in financial terms, was
disproportionately beneficial to the Chief Executive.
The Board noted that the Chief Minister would continue to receive advice from the
senior legal advisor and the Human Resources Department for the duration of the
above negotiations.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you realise the importance of your work Mr Sorda. You have blown the child abuse cover up wide open. Mr Warcup along with his sidekick Gradwell have been fully exposed. The likes of Walker and his cronies are a disgrace. They have no compassion for the Abused.

The only problem you have Mr Sorda is that the people who can affect change probably cannot grasp the magnitude of your work.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Rico,very well done,you Stuart and Trevor should start your own local newspaper,could you answer a question,there is mention of Adv Lakeman, was he the gentleman that sadly died? would he or his office have had any information by way of paper work which could help you?"

Be aware of the role Lakeman played in this whole saga.

He was not what he seemed.

Not one of the good guys.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

2/11/2010
http://bit.ly/GJA6FA



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]

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?


Is Mr. Crowcroft saying he had email from former Chief Minister F Walker saying the legal basis for the suspension was assured.?

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Obviously you have sparked interest and stimulated the publics imagination and they are now offering excellent relevant information like this post you published.

In agreeing to the delegation of authority, Deputy De Sousa insisted that the Minutes
record her disapproval of the decision of the Human Resources Sub-Committee 2005
to sanction a mutual termination clause that, in financial terms, was
disproportionately beneficial to the Chief Executive.

The Board noted that the Chief Minister would continue to receive advice from the
senior legal advisor and the Human Resources Department for the duration of the
above negotiations
-

What this clever post tells us is that a) The chief executive got an excellent and In deputy De Sousa opinion an onerous deal. b) that the chief minister wanted the deal for Bill Ogley but was watching his back in the case of future fallout c) the extremely well paid senior legal advisor and human resources, now who is head of the civil service ah yes their boss that has just re- written his contract and they have rubber stamped it.

The chief minister had a major roll to play of course as a representative of the people who voted him into office, and to spend their hard earned tax pound wisely

Not in this case if ever. Open minded people may take the view that self interest has never been so septic and sick in Jersey's administration.

Anonymous

Anonymous said...

"Be aware of the role Lakeman played in this whole saga.

He was not what he seemed.

Not one of the good guys.

Stuart"

Nor it would seem is Constable Simon Crowcroft. Why won't he answer a simple question??

Anonymous said...

Rico

Is there a difference between legal privelege or parliamentary privelege and would this apply to an individual or the office as a whole?

Anonymous said...

From an Island that is run hand in hand by the legal and accountancy professions for their own mutually beneficial existence, is it just not obvious to all that the discreditation of the investigators into the child abuse saga and its associated spending (aka meal in London) 'uproar' has been used with their full connivance?

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

The ones who remained silent and stamped their feet these past years should feel shame but they won't.

Its a disease that has spread over the decades. The toxins are so wide spread now that it is in fact slowly killing the host.

The deadbeats will be finished once the leader is gone.

Jersey needs a major operation.

Pray for the Children because these lunatics are no better than what went before.

Anonymous said...

"Jersey needs a major operation."

But they insist on performing that operation on themselves, so they will never get to the disease.

rico sorda said...

Hi Denver Gals,

Great work, it all helps.

I find it hard trying to find the time to answer comments as any free time is taken up on research. Interesting about the Crowcroft email with Walker.

At the end of the day the actions of Frank walker and Bill Ogley are no better than that of the Abusers.

Then we have Franks plaything the JEP who went hell bent on destroying the Abuse Investigation.


These people are sick. They are absolutely sick.

rs

rico sorda said...

The reason I believe Stuart raised a question mark over Advocate Lakeman is that he represented the Mcguires during the shambolic Blanche Pierre episode. I might be wrong but I'm sure thats it..

rs

Anonymous said...

Press on Rico! The Law Officer's Department is the nidus of this infection. Across so many sectors of Jersey life their flawed, grossly disproportionate & hitherto unchallenged influence has ruined the lives of countless citizens. WE fund their unelected ways, they are sworn to protect all souls equally, they DO NOT. They WILL NOT silence us.

rico sorda said...

Im working really hard on my next postings. They take us all the way from the SOP to the Law Office then to the Jersey Harbour and back again.

Nothing surprises me anymore

rs

rico sorda said...

I forgot to add that on Sunday we start on Operation Blast

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

You say:

"The reason I believe Stuart raised a question mark over Advocate Lakeman is that he represented the Mcguires during the shambolic Blanche Pierre episode. I might be wrong but I'm sure thats it.."

That is most certainly one of the reasons why the role of Lakeman is not to be trusted.

However - in the context of these recent revelations, it was not that particular issue I had in mind.

Here is an exclusive for you:

Certain officers in the SOJP - especially after the illegal suspension against Graham Power - were illegally leaking information - about the covert police investigations against me - to Lakeman.

One of the officers in particular - pro-actively worked with, and leaked information to, Chris Lakeman - as a part of a calculated plan to drive a wedge between me and my former partner.

Lakeman was given inside information - and within minutes of the illegal raid - had made a formal approach to relatives of my ex - offering to initiate "legal proceedings" to have me thrown out of the house.

How is that - for naked - and fascistic - police corruption.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

"The former Chief of Police Graham Power was suspended 3 times between November 12th 2008 and the 31st July 2009 - this, in itself, must be worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. Has a Chief of Police ever been suspended so many times? and, in such a short space of time? Graham Power then waits 11/2 years for the Home Affairs Minister who drops all disciplinary action. The Minister then character assassinates Mr Power with the help of the local media."

You raise a very valid point. They actually suspended Mr Power 3 times???? That is verging on the ridiculous. What were his crimes? 3 times.

Mon Dieu

Anonymous said...

April 6th 2009 - Stuart Syvret has his home raided by the Police and is arrested for alleged offences under the Data Protection Law. One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper. They were looking for their smoking gun - their end game - the well was dry.

Anonymous said...

Within minutes! Why was Lakeman involved at all?


Lakeman was given inside information - and within minutes of the illegal raid - had made a formal approach to relatives of my ex - offering to initiate "legal proceedings" to have me thrown out of the house.

Zoompad said...

Oh my goodness! I get it now!

I didn't understand why Stuart had his home trashed until now, thanks Rico!

Anonymous said...

November 12th 2008 - Graham Power Suspended


December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office. Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.


December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.

January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The latter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.


January 22nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office. This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors" of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?

An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

February 13th 2009 - Graham Power has his first Suspension Review Meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand. Senator Le Marquand informs Graham Power and his representative T. Brain that he, as Home Affairs Minister:

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do



February 18th 2009 - Graham Power attends Royal Court and seeks judicial Review into his suspension. Solicitor General advices an adjournment because the Minister for Home Affairs is conducting a Suspension Review


March 5th 2009 - Graham Power has second suspension meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - The Minister decides to keep Graham Power suspended. What readers must take note of here is the exchange between Graham Powers representative Constable T . Brain and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand about the amount of time Wiltshire is taking. It now appears that Wiltshire wouldn't be completed until June 2009 - remember this when going down the timescale.

Anonymous said...

April 6th 2009 - Stuart Syvret has his home raided by the Police and is arrested for alleged offences under the Data Protection Law. One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper. They were looking for their smoking gun - their end game - the well was dry.



April 30th 2009 - Solicitor General writes to the Home Affairs Minister and informs him of general details of Operation Blast . The Home Affairs Minister then writes to Acting Chief of Police David Warcup asking for details concerning Operation Blast



On Sunday Rico will be having a Blast. Bring it on can't wait.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

DEMOCRACY TERRORISTS

Anonymous said...

I can not see the attorney General allowing Wiltshire to have access to secret files on politicians.

I am more inclined to believe Wiltshire reported in principle on the holding of highly sensitive documents on government ministers by the States of Jersey police.

Anonymous said...

Am I reading this right? You expect the law officers department to answer your questions and release papers when you are not even a party to this issue or a qualified lawyer? Don't you think your taking the mick?

rico sorda said...

Lets hope they read my blog next week. Im not asking them to release any papers I'm just asking them what advice they gave to an acting chief of police in connection with safe cracking. Lucky that Dave didn't get arrested.

rs

Anonymous said...

''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?'' Quite clear he had legal basis for suspension then.

Mr Crowcroft states the above and Mr. Le Sueur dodges the question.

rico sorda said...

They new the suspension was a complete and utter sham.

It gets worse believe me.

We start on sunday

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Have you spoken resently to Graham Power? Or has he approached you and expressed his feelings about the safe breaking and his missing two signed contracts?

Because realistically he must be fumming!?

Anonymous said...

Am I reading this right? You expect the law officers department to answer your questions and release papers when you are not even a party to this issue or a qualified lawyer? Don't you think your taking the mick?

Taling the ~Mick?? As a citizen of Jersey Rico has a RIGHT to know just the PUBLIC SERVICE POLICE FORCE has been up to and Lawyers have to obay the Law and if there is indications that the Lawyers or the police have been breaking the LAW then Rico is right to ask, no DEMAND answers

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:20 "Have you spoken resently to Graham Power? Or has he approached you and expressed his feelings about the safe breaking and his missing two signed contracts?"

My thoughts all along have been that Graham Power was in the best position to bring full disclosure of this scandal to the public, either through court proceedings, a book or both. He has the right, the reason, and resourcefulness. He should be angry, indeed. I have faith he will do something very ground breaking happen in his own time.

Anonymous said...

That is almost hilarious, to think the citizens of Jersey have no right to answers from the Law Offices, questions which everyone should be lined up demanding answers to. If anything, it sounds like the commenter indulges in rather wishful thinking harkening back to some centuries ago, by suggesting Rico should not have that information. But then some in Jersey still cling to their love of murky Feudalism. The strange thing is how those who fear democracy most are sometimes fanatical about pretending Jersey IS a functioning democracy. Anyone else notice that?

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not, people have rights to confidentiality under Data Protection Law in cases such as this, so rather than making out you have rights think about theirs. You will have to get written authority and an indemnity from all parties involved including David Warcup before the Law Officers Department can even consider responding because you are simply not a party to any of this.

Anonymous said...

The comment about data protection is total cobblers. Just how is releasing details of legal advice given by one public body (the law officers) to another public body (the police) about an inanimate object (a cabinet) anything to do with data protection?

Perhaps you are a little confused and what you actually meant was to ask whether the passing-on of a transcript of a private conversation to a third party without the consent of the other parties was a breach of data protection law.

Or perhaps you really meant to ask whether the transcript was police evidence in a criminal investigation, in which case was it illegally disclosed to a politician?

Or perhaps you meant to ask why Ian "corporation sole" Le Marquand, the master of logical contortion, Mr See-No-Evil-when-it-suits, the man who can't read documents critical to matter he is considering in case they pollute his mind, suddenly forgot about the chinese wall between him and operational matters.

Yes, that must be what you actually meant to say, rather than making a dumb comment about data protection.

Zoompad said...

"rather than making out you have rights think about theirs"

The people who were locked up in Pindown cells appear to have lost all their rights the day they were put into what can only truthfully be described as childrens prisons. The newspapers were given permission to make up wicked slander about us, to make out that we deserved to be ill treated, as we "were no angels". Which is a bit strange seeing as to how some of us were only in the "care" of local authorities because we were trying to run away from being abused.

People who cover up child abuse and possibly murder ought to be arrested, but instead they are being protected by the law courts.

Anonymous said...

"Mr Warcup has though spoken with me and he has concerns about the process for access previously discussed with you. His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received.

would Mr Warcup open the cabinet without receiving legal advice.

The above shows he was in dialogue with legal advisors.

Anonymous said...

Could you please clarify the status of this "safe" which was allegedly unlawfully opened?

If the actual safe was Graham Power's personal property, left at Police HQ because he wasn't allowed to retrieve it after his sudden first suspension, it is absolutely right to condemn the action of opening it without his permission.

If, however, it is the property of the SOJP, set aside for the exclusive use of the Chief Officer of the time as part of his role, it's a different matter. As Acting Chief Officer Warcup had every right to the full use of everything which goes with the post - including use of the secure cabinet. His only responsibility would be to ensure that any personal property of Mr. Power's inside it was returned to its rightful owner after the cabinet was opened.

If the latter is the case, the Law Officers would (correctly) have advised that Warcup was perfectly within his rights as Acting Chief Officer and would be acting within the law to open the cabinet, preferably with Graham Power's co-operation, but, in the event that Mr Power failed to disclose the code, by such means as were necessary.

It's clear from your excellently-documented account that there was an ongoing delay in Mr. Power disclosing the code.

Since no-one, except Mr. Power knew exactly what the cabinet contained, perhaps Warcup was correct in presumably insisting that only serving police officers (not lawyers) be present when the cabinet was opened. (The specific mention in the correspondence that Simon Crowcroft is an ex-officio police officer points to that being Warcup's problem with the initial proposal involving a lawyer with a sealed envelope.)

Warcup didn't know what was in the cabinet and, as Acting Chief Officer, had a responsibility and a right to know what it contained.

Since it was a secure cabinet, it's reasonable to assume that it contained sensitive SOJP-related material, of which the Chief Officer, substantive, or Acting, would have need.

So, simply, if the secure cabinet "went with the job" it can't be a question of "safe-cracking" or any other kind of wrong-doing.

Anonymous said...

Whos confidentiality is being protected? The law offices, Mr Warcup and Mr. Powers.

Ricos has a right to query this due to the public interest in the circumstances surrounding the query he made.

Anonymous said...

It must of been known Mr Power would not be coming back to his job for Mr. Warcup to take it on himself to open the cabinet of a colleague.

Anonymous said...

Is Mr Warcup the acting chief officer lined up, by Mr Le Marquand (politician) to an extreme of the politian threatening resignation himself if job was not given to his chosen one.

Is Mr Warcup the Acting chief officer the same one whos letter led to the suspension of the Chief officers cabinet that was being opened at a time the suspension had not been defended?

Anonymous said...

Quote: "It must of been known Mr Power would not be coming back to his job for Mr. Warcup to take it on himself to open the cabinet of a colleague."

I'm afraid you've missed the point. The cabinet didn't belong to Mr. Power, or any other "colleague" - it was for the use of whoever held the position of Chief Officer.

With Mr. Power suspended, so, legally, temporarily no longer in the position of Chief Officer, and with Warcup as Acting Chief Officer - i.e. in that position, albeit temporarily-, the cabinet and its contents (apart from any of Mr. Power's personal property in it)devolved to the care and responsibility of Warcup. It and its contents became part of his job.

Since it's difficult to imagine anything unimportant being kept in a locked secure cabinet which only the person who is Chief Officer can open, to fully fulfil the role of Chief Officer, Warcup had to open the cabinet. Only important, sensitive material would be kept in it, hence Warcup's reluctance to have anyone other than police officers there when it was opened.

But, whatever, the Chief Officer, Acting, or otherwise, needed access to the cabinet.

Presumably, when he left, Warcup handed the code to that same cabinet to the present Chief Officer, who will pass it on to his successor etc etc.

And if, for some reason the current Chief Officer were unable to fulfil his duties for any length of time, he would pass on the code to whoever became Acting Chief Officer for the duration of his absence. When he came back, presumably he would resume responsibility for the cabinet and change the code.

It's not like opening someone's personal locker. It's about the person who is Chief Officer, Acting, or otherwise, having full access to everything connected with the job.

Anonymous said...

The issue regarding ownership of the safe, or rights to its contents, is not as important as the fact that Mr Power had solid reasons to distrust Warcup, the Law Offices, and the Jersey system. It appears that Mr Power's documented requests were simply to establish and protect the accurate logging and chain of possession of exactly what was found and removed from the safe. Now, no one could argue he didn't have plenty of reasons.

In the context of demonstrable lies now on public record about Mr Power's unwillingness to hand over the code, and in context of - well ✴everything✴
really - Mr Power was obviously struggling to establish sometransparency in Jersey's world of deceit and planned defamation. Mr Power did not request to retainownership or possession of police property.

The very fact that Mr Power already had little faith that the proper procedures would be followed by those opening the safe, bears some consideration here.

Perhaps Mr Power knew that under Warcup's administration, the police would lose concrete bathtubs, bones, teeth, documents, and even Mr Power's employment contract. Remember, at one time ILM could not even gain access to the safe containing the infamous fake Met Report, when requested to do so, even though Mr Power's suspension was said to be based on that report.

The Law Offices' and Warcup's antagonistic interest in this particular safe, their demonstrated level of dishonesty and their unwillingness to provide some mutually agreed upon witness, must have concerned Mr Power greatly.

D

Anonymous said...

From the documented evidence we have seen so far, Graham Power did not demand that the safe remain unopened. He only requested that a trusted witness be present at the time, and an honest process to be followed. Even this was apparently too much to expect.

rico sorda said...

Mr Power realised on the 12th November just what was going on.

"The issue regarding ownership of the safe, or rights to its contents, is not as important as the fact that Mr Power had solid reasons to distrust Warcup, the Law Offices, and the Jersey"

The Integrity of David Warcup has never really been called into question but when you step back and now look at the facts he damning.

And like I said

It gets worse

rs

Anonymous said...

We should not be surprised that Warcup, ILM and the Law Offices sought technical justification, wherever possible, for any of their dirty doings. They could hope to justify opening the safe without having a witness trusted by Mr Power simply by claiming that Power was not prompt enough in providing the code. This was expressed by the articulate commenter who states, "It's clear from your excellently-documented account that there was an ongoing delay in Mr. Power disclosing the code."

This is, however, a red herring argument, albeit well crafted on the surface.

The problem I see when viewing the evidence on any level, and then the larger picture forming here, is that everything possible to defame and disparage Graham Power was being done. He had abundant reasons to distrust the very opening of the safe and the proper safeguarding of its contents, did he not?

No mere technical ownership of the safe can account for the fact that a sham document had already been used to suspend him, one arranged and provided by the man who wanted his job and was demonstrably dishonest, and then unwilling to have ANY witness proposed by Mr Power or his council, present.

Need we go into all of Warcup's failings here, in order to show why Graham Power had every reason to ask that a credible witness be on hand? I still can't find any evidence Graham Power was otherwise opposed to the safe being opened.

D

Anonymous said...

Rico have you had a response from Crowcoft yet by e-mail?

Zoompad said...

"Anonymous said...
Could you please clarify the status of this "safe" which was allegedly unlawfully opened? ...11:32 am"

I can't help wondering who this anonymous person is. It's obviously someone well versed in the law, because of the way he is phrasing his remarks.

It makes me feel quite uncomfortable reading some of the anonymous comments on this blog post. It makes me feel like a mouse being pawed by a big cat.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report into golden handshakes makes interesting reading. In the last five years, three Chief Officers have left with a pay-off.

Chris Swinson provides a very useful anonymised table. See http://www.auditorgeneral-jersey.org/pdf/GOLDEN%20HANDSHAKES_REPORT_ONE%20.pdf

Perhaps it is time for readers to play a game of "Spot the Chief Officer". We know one of them is Mike Pollard, because Senator Gorst has announced that already. Interestingly, one of the "Chief Officers" is described as follows:

"Employee coming to the end of a fixed term contract decided not to accept a permanent appointment partly because of concern over the extent of ministerial pressure. Presented a problem to preserve management leadership and stability of the department. Agreement reached for a continuation of the existing term contract (against the initial preference of the employee) to permit continued leadership while a successor was recruited. Termination payment at the end of the period of the extension equal to one year’s salary"

According to the JEP at http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2010/07/20/acting-police-chief-says-hes-leaving :

"Acting Chief of Police David Warcup has said he does not want to be police chief and has blamed ‘malicious’ politicians for his decision.

Mr Warcup, who released a statement yesterday saying that he would not be putting himself forward for the role following the controversial retirement of Graham Power, said that his main reasons for leaving the force were the ‘political hostility which has been directed towards me, the attacks on my personal integrity and the resultant delays in securing my appointment’."

Also , at http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2010/08/24/130000-a-year-police-chiefs-job-is-advertised/

"The search for a new police chief has started with the £130,000-a-year post being advertised in national police magazines.

The post has become vacant because acting police chief David Warcup decided not to accept the job on a permanent basis."

So, the question is: Did Mr Warcup not only decide NOT to go for the job on a permanent basis, but did he also get a pay off equal to 1 year's salary? I may be mixing up my chief officers who get paid off (there are, after all, so many of them!) but the question has to be asked.

Remember, Ian Le Marquand said he would resign over this http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2010/03/31/ill-resign-over-police-chief-appointment.

"HOME Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand will resign if States Members do not back David Warcup as the next police chief.

The Senator warned yesterday that if acting chief officer Mr Warcup was not appointed by the States, he would accept that the House had no confidence in his ministry and would quit. He was speaking after a hearing with the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny panel yesterday."

rico sorda said...

I haven't heard anything from Simon Crowcroft.

As for David Warcup. I believe, and I'm not 100% sure on this, that he had to complete 2 years service before securing his pension entitlement.

He joined the states in August 2008



It's been announced Jersey's acting Police Chief doesn't want to take on the role permanently due to attacks on his character.

David Warcup was appointed Deputy Chief Officer in April 2008, with the intention that he would become Chief Officer when the current Chief retired.

Although a panel reviewing Mr Warcup's performance recommended he should be offered the job permanently, he doesn't want it and will leave the force at Christmas.

In a statement, David Warcup says his main reasons for leaving are "political hostility", "attacks on [his] personal integrity" and subsequent delays in sorting out his appointment.

He believes there's been a politically-motivated interference in his appointment, despite a report by Wiltshire Police vindicating his stance on the conduct of the Historic Abuse Inquiry.

Mr Warcup says his ability to undertake the role of Chief Officer has been "undermined to the point where it would be untenable."

Statement of Jersey's Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - 19/07/10

"Sir I rise to inform the States that the Acting Chief of Police, David Warcup has informed me that he is no longer willing to be considered for the post of Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and that as a result he will be leaving the force on 31st December 2010.

Tom Gruchy said...

Once upon a time it was possible to buy a very useful extract from Police Code C explaining many aspects of a persons rights under police detention etc. It was 50p and available from the Greffe bookshop when that office had an interest in publishing information.
I asked the police to stock it at Police HQ but they declined on the grounds that they had nowhere "safe" to put the money.

About this time a few thousand £s of seized money went missing at Police HQ and nobody was ever apprehended - so perhaps Graham Power was well advised to lock even his sandwiches away?

Sadly the Code C guide went out of print and has never been revised - in spite of my repeated requests. I stop the current Chief Officer when he is trolling in the streets of St Helier (has anybody seen him patrolling the lanes of St Mary or other leafy parishes on foot?) and remind him. He (and ILM) says he has delegated the matter but I expect the message is locked away somewhere secure...

Anonymous said...

It's all over

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Could you please clarify the status of this "safe" which was allegedly unlawfully opened....

So, simply, if the secure cabinet "went with the job" it can't be a question of "safe-cracking" or any other kind of wrong-doing."


An interesting point, but you've completely overlooked the equally important matter about the explanation given by Warcup for opening the safe in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"It makes me feel quite uncomfortable reading some of the anonymous comments on this blog post. It makes me feel like a mouse being pawed by a big cat."

I see it as a sign of the elephant beginning to quake, but trying to hide it, having taken a first glimpse at the mouse.