Wednesday, March 14, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 9- OPERATION BLAST - WHAT'S IN THE SAFE DAVE?


Former Chief of Police Graham Power













OPERATION END GAME 9 - I NOW GIVE YOU ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY BUSTED OPEN THE FORMER CHIEF OF CHIEF OF POLICE'S SAFE



AND I HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED ON 'OPERATION BLAST' YET



During my research I contacted the former Chief of Police Graham Power and asked him what they could have possibly been looking for.



On the 21st January 2009 the States held an in camera debate about wether to adopt a proposition brought forward by St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft to force a full independent inquiry into the handling of the original suspension of Graham Power. This was rejected 29-21. Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand a former - Magistrate and Lawyer - said that he would conduct his own review having taken over the responsibility for the Police since the suspension was made.




These Reviews happened on the 13th February and 5th March 2009



On the 22nd January 2009 - David Warcup - with the help of a locksmith- forced open Graham Powers secure cabinet. Still hard to believe but it did happen.



This is what he told Wiltshire under oath;


He States;


"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



As we go down the timeline we will now look at the evidence that led to this disgraceful act. Does his evidence to Wiltshire stack up?



Apart from David Warcup and gang being on a fishing trip former Chief of Police Graham Power offers us this - and he states


"When first appointed I was issued with a "Contract of Enployment." from time to time these were revised to catch up with changes such as the employment law. When mine came up for revision there was legal advice which drew attention to the fact that I was not an "employee" under the law but an office holder, so I could not enter into a "contract" but could agree to a "statement of terms and conditions" which basically would be the same document but not called a "contract." I then entered into negotiations regarding any changes which would be required. Part 8 of the document deals with "Professional Indemnity." This said that, if I got sued as part of my work, the States of Jersey would meet the cost. I drafted an amendment to this which added that if I was the subject of any complaint or allegation which required legal advice or representation then that cost would also be met. The amendment was agreed and I agreed to stay on after my retirement on the strength of the new terms and conditions. I also cancelled my legal insurance with my Staff Association. I recall that the new terms and conditions were signed by a representative of the Chief Ministers department and myself. I kept my copy in the safe. After I was suspended I asked the Chief Minister's Department for a copy of my contract. They could only produce an earlier draft but not a signed version. I asked for the copy from my safe and they said that it was not there. Warcup's statement, although precise in some respects, is uncharacteristically vague on this point. He talks of finding "assorted documents and emails regarding continuity."


"I have on file extensive correspondence between Tim Brain, the Minister and others regarding the fact that no signed contract has been produced. We were apparently being asked to beleive that it had either been lost (both copies) or that I have my contract extended without any signed agreement on terms and conditions. I was not provided with legal representation."



Let us now go through the timeline with the relevant pieces of evidence.



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 Police's 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.



Here is the letter from the States of Jersey HR - Mr Ian Critch



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.


- Original Contract of employment date 3rd August 2000, signed by you


- Re-issued contract of employment dated 25th July 2005 signed by me on 28th July 2005(this was rejected by you as you pointed out at the time that you were not an "employee" as such an "office holder")


- Re-issued statement of terms and conditions dated 25th August 2005, unsigned by either of us.


To repeat, these are the only copies on your personal file. If, as you believe, there is another version of any of these letters in your secure cabinet then once this has been extracted I have asked for a copy of this to be taken for our records.


In relation to other issues you raise in your letters , ther terms of reference for the disciplinary investigation are as provided to you by letter from Bill Ogley dated 2nd December. The comment made by letter to you of the 4th December refers to the opportunity under the Disciplinary code for you to raise such issues at any hearing before the Minister.


In relation to your request for details of when the 3 letters dated the 12th November were created. I have previously written to you on 28th November informing you that in my view you are not entitled to this information. I have not received from you any explanation of the basis upon which you claim to be entitled to this information. Please provide such an explanation if you wish me to consider your request.


You Indicate that Dr Brain will be writting to the Minister but as yet we have not yet heard from him. I am still considering the other issues you raise in your correspondence



Ian Critch

Director of Human Resources




This is what jumps out at me straight away:


"His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advice 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."


So, did the advice from the Law Office say don't worry about what Graham Power says Dave just bust open that safe? We might have to give Graham Power legal representation if you don't? David Warcup didn't seem to think that disclosing transcripts from an audio tape kept in Graham Powers secure safe to the Home Affairs Minister was a problem. You just cant make this up.





24th December 2008 - Graham Power writes a reply to Ian Critch head of HR at the Chief Ministers Department:


Mr Ian Crich,

Chief Ministers Department,


Dear Mr Crich,

ACCESS TO THE CHIEF OFFICERS SECURE CABINET.

Thank you for your letter dated 22nd December 2008 and enclosures. You refer to my letters of 5th, 11th and 17th December 2008. For the avoidance of doubt my letters of 5th and 11th were addressed to the Minister and replies are awaited. In this context I am puzzled by the penultimate paragraph of the first page of your letter and wonder if there has been some misunderstanding. During all correspondence I have attempted to avoid exchanges which relate to any discipline enquiry or possible hearing, preferring to reserve my position on those matters. I have however been actively engaged in preparing a judicial review application in relation to my suspension, and as I think I have made clear, my requests for information have been in connection with that process and not with any investigation or any hearing. I do however accept that it is hard in practice to separate the two but nevertheless it is a distinction I am seeking to preserve.

So far as my letter of 17th is concerned it remains my position that a true copy of my terms and conditions of service signed and agreed by me should be provided to me by the States and I note that this has not happened. It may be that a copy has been retained by me in my secure cabinet and I would wish to recover this. I have asked that this be done under circumstances which allow for no doubt as to the integrity of this process, and I have suggested how this might be achieved.

You suggest in your letter that there have been further developments and that these might affect how this matter is addressed. I do not have sufficient information to make any substantial comment on this. All that said you can take it as given that I would not wish to prevent the proper process of justice or the discharge of police duties in any way whatsoever.

I suggest that when you have any further information which would enable this matter to be taken forward in a fair and proportionate way you contact me again and I will do all that I can to assist.

Meanwhile I look forward to hearing from you.


Yours sincerely,





9th January 2009 - The States of Jersey HR department write to Graham Power on the 9th January 2008. This relates to the issues about David Warcup not being happy about Graham Power having a representative at the grand opening of his secure safe. This is because the safe contains “very confidential information” which it would be inappropriate for Advocate Lakeman “or anyone else outside of the service” to have sight of. "


David Warcup didn't seem to think that disclosing transcripts from an audio tape kept in Graham Powers secure safe to the Home Affairs Minister was a problem. You just cant make this up. Just what is going on here. Advocate Lakeman wasn't there to read every document in the safe he was there to log the contents. This is now going beyond the ridiculous.





January 12th 2009 - Graham Power writes to Ian Critch at the Chief Ministers Department and delivers it by hand.


This is his letter:



GRAHAM POWER

QPM MA (Oxon)


Urgent by hand.

Mr Ian Crich,

Chief Ministers Department.


Dear Mr Crich,

YOUR LETTER DATED 9TH JANUARY 2009 RELATING TO THE CHIEF OFFICERS SECURE CABINET AND OTHER ISSUES.


I have received your letter of the above date, and note that it has been copied to Dr Brain. In view of what I consider to be an unreasonably tight deadline I am sending this interim reply pending any further advice he may offer.


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.


Whatever occurs, it is my expectation that a full inventory of anything removed from the cabinet, along with the justification for its removal, be kept by those involved and preserved for my inspection on my return to duty.


All that said, I await the advice of Dr Brain who may be able to suggest a solution which is acceptable to all sides.


I now turn to other matters in your letter. I note that at item 3 you reply to my observations regarding the disciplinary code and that your response appears to have been composed with the benefit of legal advice. I am of course required to reply without legal advice. Nevertheless, I consider that your reply avoids some of the key issues, and can confirm that your interpretation of the position does not accord with mine. However, unless you see the need to do so, I do not intend to continue correspondence on the subject at this time. I raised the issue with the Minister only because it is my intention that it should at a future stage, be considered by a court of law, and it was appropriate that I gave due notice of my position and offered a chance to respond. Now that has been done the matter can rest for the time being.

At item 2 you refer to my letter of 11th December 2008, which contained eleven separate requests for information. I note your decision to act contrary to the Code of Practice in responding to these requests. In these circumstances, I have commenced the procedure under part IV of the code and have, as an initial step, written to the Chief Minister prior to registering a formal complaint under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 as amended.

I do not think that there are other matters which I need to address with you at this time.


Yours sincerely



Graham Power.

Cc Dr T Brain.



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. Graham Power and his representatives hit nothing but brick walls.



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. " End



When we look back at the actions of the former Chief Minister Frank Walker, Chief Executive Bill Ogley, former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis the whole Matt Tapp issue - Met Interim Report - All the suspensions of Graham Power - the 1.5 million ponds on Wiltshire - Mick Gradwell leaking to David Rose etc etc one just cant but wonder at just how totally out of control this lot really were and in the case of present Home Affairs Minister Ian Le marquand ARE.



I Haven't even got on to 'OPERATION BLAST' yet, I can assure you it gets even worse. Some will say surely not but alas it's true.



I have asked the former Senator Stuart Syvret for a response on finding a tape conversation he had with Graham Power had been obtained from Mr Powers secure Safe. This tape conversation along with others were transcribed and handed to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.


Remember in 2007 Stuart Syvret as then Health Minister was removed from office when telling the States of Jersey we had serious Child Protection issues.



Jersey Bloggers doing the Investigative work. Work they never thought would happen. The Internet gave us the power to fight back.


I would just like to thank everyone for their kind words. It really does keep me going as you will understand it's not easy doing this type of work in Jersey.



No Stopping



Rico Sorda



Team Voice




Statement by Stuart Syvret Concerning the Conduct of the Office of Attorney General in Jersey.


It has come to my attention that the recordings of conversations I had with the then Police Chief, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, were unlawfully seized, transcribed, and passed on to other politicians under the orders of the Attorney General.

This was an illegal act.

The circumstances of the way in which the cassette was obtained from within a locked safe, and how its content was passed to third-parties such as other politicians, was theft.

This was a Watergate-type criminal assault against functioning democracy - and a criminal assault against the impartiality of the police.

It is necessary that members of the public understand the profound gravity of these events, and the implications for democracy and the rule of law in Jersey.

There are now so many shocking facts in the public domain – and so many stark observations that could be made – that it seems necessary to offer decent people a simple method – a yardstick – by which they can get the measure of, and understand, the true nature of what has taken place.


Consider the matter of the prosecution conducted against me.


After the illegal suspension of Mr. Power, there was an illegal massed police raid, arrest and search without a search-warrant, carried out against me in April 2009. During that raid my computer and various paper documents were seized; information and data concerning the private affairs of thousands of my constituents was, essentially, stolen. In order to then confer some “justification” upon this act of political repression, I was later charged with supposedly breaking the Data Protection Law. Throughout the entire proceedings against me, it was repeatedly asserted by the Attorney General and his prosecuting lawyer, that there had been no form of earlier, broader investigation against me – no form of covert surveillance – and, specifically, that there had been no involvement in the police activity by the Attorney General or any politicians.


During the malicious, politicised prosecution against me, I repeatedly asked for disclosure of all and any evidence of any communications between Warcup, the Attorney General, or the Home Affairs Minister.


Specifically – I repeatedly argued that what was being undertaken against me was an abuse-of-process; that the supposed “official reason” for the raid was just a “front”, a fig-leaf – and the charges just an attempt to confer some “credibility” upon what had been nothing more than an act of anti-democratic police-state political repression, in which the ruling regime wanted to seize the information of their opponents, and to intimidate them. I argued that there was evidence to disclose that would, in fact, show that the raid had merely been the latest and most brazen episode, in what had been months of covert, politicised policing directed against me, that had taken place since the illegal suspension of Graham Power.


In response, the Office of Attorney General repeatedly asserted that no such collusive actions against me had taken place – and that there was, therefore, nothing to disclose.


We now know that for at least more than two months before the massed, illegal police-raid in April, material concerning me was being seized and accumulated by Warcup under the directions of the Attorney General - and disclosed to establishment politicians.

But yet, such facts were repeatedly denied – in court – during criminal proceedings - by Jersey’s Attorney General.


The Office of Attorney General – in the name of the Crown – repeatedly claimed in court that the sole reason for the massed-raid, arrest, charging and prosecution against me – was the publication by me of a single item of data on the 19th March 2009. (An item that was, in any event, clearly disclosable by all UK public-interest disclosure precedent.) The Attorney General insisted that there had been no police activity against me – no ‘investigation’ - no political involvement - and no involvement of the Attorney General – prior to that 19th March date.

They were illegally seizing my private communications, transcribing them – and passing them to politicians - at least two months before then.


The Crown office of Attorney General in Jersey is wholly corrupted; it is a criminal enterprise.

It is now apparent that Jersey’s public authorities – and the senior individuals controlling those authorities – had a variety of motives for taking unlawful, repressive action against the Police Chief, and for taking unlawful, repressive action against me. That is – motivations beyond the immediately obvious of sabotaging the child abuse investigations and concealing the 1999 cover-up concerning the rogue nurse.


As extraordinary – evidenced – and criminal as the exposed motivations of the Jersey regime have been – there are yet further matters that will be made public in the coming weeks. Matters of the utmost gravity. But there is one conclusion that is already plain – and clear to any thinking person who has read, and thought about, the mass of evidence published by Jersey’s independent journalists. That conclusion is this: as various and as corrupt as were the motives for the illegal actions of the Jersey authorities – they had a powerful central objective.

That overarching motivation was actually to neutralise and eliminate Graham Power and me.

We were the targets. We were the targets – because of what we represented.

Honesty, integrity in our respective roles - and uncorruptible, indomitable courage.

Mr. Power as a Chief of Police – and I as a Senator – in terms of both our individual standards – and by the examples we set - represented a serious “threat” to the corrupt, self-interests of Jersey’s traditional establishment, and the ‘culture of concealment’ by which that corruption is traditional hidden. Mr. Power and I, each in our own way, represent a strong belief in the proper rule of law – a deep, innate opposition to corruption – and a belief that the law should protect the weak from the powerful – which must include, when necessary, protecting ordinary people from government departments. We both had to be “neutralised”.And we each had to be “made an example of” – lest others follow our lead. But even so – the extraordinary attacks and illegal oppressions that have been directed at Mr Power and I, have not occurred because there is something remarkable about us as individuals – but rather because there is something wholly wretched, decadent and tragically stagnant about Jersey’s entrenched establishment.


What other judgment can one bring to bear upon it, when it has brought totalitarian, police-state, illegal political repression – to the British Isles - in the 21st century?



Stuart Syvret


14th March 2012.




47 comments:

rico sorda 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"

They are all getting legal advice

Do you see the picture forming?

I will be transferring some comments from my last posting as they need looking at

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

we need to 'understand' the basics of law

the law deals with what's real and with what's fictional

the real (people) are in common law jurisdiction

fictions - (corporations, government etc.) are in administrative jurisdiction which also includes commercial law, admiralty law,enactments etc.

real people can never be corporation soles or corporate individuals if you prefer, simply because we are real

titles (fictional names)eg. mr., mrs., home affairs minister, chief minister, director,resident,individual,driver,sir,the public,taxpayer etc. are all corporate appellations

real people can never be corporate
bodies we can only act as surety or as representatives for these fictions by contract or consent

the corporation known as the states of jersey is a corporate sole, a legal fiction, a dead thing,a corporate individual,de facto, a person, call it what you want but it is not a real thing(occuring in nature)

how can a fiction have any legitimate authority over us, absent our consent,

it cannot

cyril

Anonymous said...

Just to add,

all officers of the states of jersey are corporate soles ie;part of the SoJ corporation sole

which begs the obvious question; how can the deputy/ chief of the states of jersey police review former chief of polices' work

both being a corporation sole and all that

that old mexican curse holds true!

cyril

March 14, 2012 7:37 PM


Anonymous said...
A question for Cyril

Re ``which begs the obvious question; how can the deputy/ chief of the states of jersey police review former chief of polices' work both being a corporation sole and all that''

Cyril, if that ``old mexican curse holds true'', may I ask, how does a Court of Law and it's judgements figure in all of this?

For surely, it is as fictional as the the fictional corperation/body that incorporated it??

Or have I missed the point?

Anonymous said...

Truly stunning revelations!

Thank you Rico, Stuart, and Graham for having the courage, integrity and tenacity to ensure that these matters are coming to light for all to see and witness.

The solid objective facts are speaking for themselves.

There is now no hiding place for those who acted so corruptly, nor for those who colluded with them.

Many will be shocked by these ongoing revelations. Hopefully it is only a matter of time before the national media pick this up and further pressure is brought to bear.

There has to be a massive overhaul of what parades itself as democracy in Jersey. The present archaic and flawed system is blatantly corrupt and corrupting.

Anonymous said...

absolutely correct anon,

courts of law are corporate in nature as opposed to courts of justice which are not (queens bench) in uk.
SoJ inc do not allow courts of justice here, they are a corporate sole/person/individual,they are not obliged to provide people with courts of justice so long as they can trick us into accepting their courts

de facto or de jure

men and women can only appear in a court of law as surity (by contract) or consent, usually tacitly through misunderstanding on our part, not that it makes it less sneaky ,the process is dishonest and relies on deception.

I decline their judgments

cyril

Zoompad said...

"They are all getting legal advice"

Who is paying for that then? Not the taxpayers, I hope, because if it is, that will mean more money going down the plughole. The cover up has cost way more than the investigation plus compensation would have.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

After years of their arrogantly blithe dismissal of Stuart Syvret, Graham Power, Lenny Harper, abuse survivors, honest witnesses, and all of you courageous Jersey bloggers and supporters of transparent justice, your hard adherence to the evidence is paying off.

You've left them in the dust, Baby! They have no logical response because, as Stuart explains, they just didn't get that you all were not motivated by greed and selfishness, and they could not anticipate what power your voices would have through the internet.

This is the best post yet for showing someone new to the Jersey Way. Solid facts and very nice commentary, below, from Stuart.

You rock.

The Denver Gals.

Anonymous said...

Incredible quite simply incredible. You have stepped forwarded and achieved new levels of greatness.

Anonymous said...

Rico,thank you for your hard work and persistence,this information is just incredible.Graham Power was stitched up.They could not wait to get into his safe,was it just to destroy a contract that would provide the right to legal advice,and that scared the hell out of them and/or find something incriminating against him or Syvret or yet again was there information about senior figures in Jersey that needed to be suppressed.
one thing is clear there was no intention of letting Graham Power back in office no matter what.
a case of noble cause corruption not to forget constructive dismissal.
I am so ashamed of what this island has done to him.

Anonymous said...

So far as my letter of 17th is concerned it remains my position that a true copy of my terms and conditions of service signed and agreed by me should be provided to me by the States and I note that this has not happened. It may be that a copy has been retained by me in my secure cabinet and I would wish to recover this.

This is an extract from a letter by Mr.Power to Mr. Critch.
Note that Mr Power writes that he is NOT certain that a copy of his contract is in the safe.
Were his doubts confirmed?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"One thing is clear there was no intention of letting Graham Power back in office no matter what.
A case of noble cause corruption not to forget constructive dismissal.
I am so ashamed of what this island has done to him."

No - let's be clear about the use of that term "noble cause corruption".

Noble cause corruption is the expression that would be used when someone - such as a police officer - fabricates evidence in order to help convict someone they "know" to be "guilty" of some "crime".

There was nothing "noble" - whatsoever - in any way, shape or form - in the Jersey oligarchy attempts to fit-up Graham Power.

On the contrary - it was simply 'corrupt cause corruption'.

Sheer, overt, criminality - designed to sabotage good, objective policing - so that the Jersey mafia and its vassals could carry on being protected in their corruption.

And just how extraordinary is this?

Not only is it now proven that the Jersey Attorney General lied - repeatedly - during the court proceedings against me, concerning the real purpose of the raid and prosecution - it's now also clear that the Jersey establishment wished to seize and withhold Mr. Power's updated contract - so as to prevent him from being given legal representation.

I wonder just how much more evidence the average person in jersey could need - before now waking up to the fact Jersey is run by a criminal syndicate?

A criminal syndicate that has succeeded in capturing - and cloaking itself - in the trappings of the Crown.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Why are they so intent on destroying the investigation?
Who are they protecting?
Is it a member of their family?
Is it someone in high office?
Is it the paedophile ring of the 60's known collectively as the Jersey Beast? (Was Paisnel the only one caught?)

Anonymous said...

"I Haven't even got on to 'OPERATION BLAST' yet, I can assure you it gets even worse. Some will say surely not but alas it's true"

Just how bad does this get? I would say that it is way past critical already....

Zoompad said...

"A criminal syndicate that has succeeded in capturing - and cloaking itself - in the trappings of the Crown. "

YES! And there is more to come, because this does indeed go all the way to London.

I don't believe the worst has been told yet, bad as it is.

Anonymous said...

I'm puzzled.

Not trolling - but if Jersey is in it up to their filthy necks with the UK, how come we're fighting them in the courts for our LVCR industry?

Anonymous said...

Not trolling - but if Jersey is in it up to their filthy necks with the UK, how come we're fighting them in the courts for our LVCR industry?

They are just going through the motions. They can't be seen to be doing nothing when there are jobs on the line.

When the minister and warcup say they are getting legal advise who are exactly are they?

Anonymous said...

A reader says:

"July 10th 2009 - David Warcup again writes to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. He now supplies the Home Affairs Minister with a full transcript of the audio recording that was left in Graham Powers secure cabinet for the Home Affairs Ministers information and consideration.

What!!!!

Can you back this up?

What does Syvret make of this?"

What do I make of it?

Well, given I had made repeated formal request for disclosure of any such actions and evidence - in respect of my defence, for example, the abuse-of-process application - and was repeatedly told that no such actions had occurred, and thus no such evidence existed - I make of it yet more mind-boggling evidence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and of perjury, and of misconduct in a public office.

That's quite in addition to the implications of such a transcript having been seized without due process - without the presence of impartial observers - and it having been handed to a politician, a member of the cabinet, who I was in opposition to.

This is is a stark attack upon, and termination of, functioning democracy.

It's worse than Watergate.

At least in that crime against democracy the burglars were actually burglars.

Here, the Jersey oligarhcy has actually hijacked - and used - the actual police force for their corrupt purposes.

I've written to the Jersey Attorney General asking that he confirm or deny the account of the general chain of events provided in the posting.

Specifically - I have asked him to confirm or deny that a transcript of the conversation between me and the Police Chief was furnished by Warcup to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

I have also asked him why the Office of Attorney General repeatedly lied throughout the proceedings against me, by claiming that no such evidence existed?

You see, this is an examples of how nakedly corrupt Jersey's public authorities are - including the island's judiciary.

If we had a non-corrupted judicial function - I would bring an application before court in 48 hours - seeking that the convictions against me be quashed - on such grounds as abuse-of-process, fraudulent concealment of evidence, malicious prosecution, denial of article 6 rights, perjury and malfeasance in a public office.

But we all know - from past experiences - the judges in Jersey are either these people themselves - or very good friends of them - and hand-picked by them - and actually appointed by them - and payed very handsomely by them - out of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund.

Which is why things happen like my entire defence case suddenly getting deemed "inadmissible" - by a directly conflicted judge - after three months work - just as soon as the prosecution realise they have no answer to it.

And the prosecution lawyer - accidentally confessing in court to having repeatedly lied throughout the proceedings - but the appellate judge skating over that, and just pretending the confession hadn't happened.

The same appellate judge who eventually confessed to having had dinner with Michael Birt and William Bailhache.

Jersey is an overtly lawless enclave - a gangster jurisdiction under the control of these people.

Innocent people get abusively oppressed by the police, prosecution system and courts - and real, appalling criminals are proactively protected by that self-same apparatus.

These people are out of all control - and the writ of law does not run.

It is no exaggeration to say I fear for my life.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

Am i right in thinking the acting chief officer was providing information (leaks) to the government, at a time when the government had nothing to support their suspension of Mr. Power?

rico sorda said...

Lets get straight to the point here.ACO David Warcup is involved in this right up to his peaked cap. They went off his opinions to suspend Graham Power. ILM wouldn't listen to anybody else's opinion but Warcups.

I have been intrigued about Warcup integrity. you can see the way it has gone over these past blog postings but this is only the beginning wait till we get onto Blast.

The man compromised himself and oce you do that with this lot you are finished.

rs

rico sorda said...

Lets get straight to the point here.ACO David Warcup is involved in this right up to his peaked cap. They went off his opinions to suspend Graham Power. ILM wouldn't listen to anybody else's opinion but Warcups.

I have been intrigued about Warcup integrity. you can see the way it has gone over these past blog postings but this is only the beginning wait till we get onto Blast.

The man compromised himself and oce you do that with this lot you are finished.

rs

Damocles said...

Re: noble cause corruption

If the law officers, Bailiff, ex chief Ministers etc regard Jersey as an abstract entity - almost like an actual person, but one bigger and more important than anyone or anything else, which it is their highest moral duty to protect and defend, then everything becomes clear - everything they have done and are doing is explicable.


What they are doing is this. They believe that Jersey is the most important thing and anyone that is a part of Jersey recognise that and defend it against all attacks, both from without and within.

As they regard themselves as being part of a larger entity, and that they are the great and good leaders and definers of (their definition of) "legitimate" activities of all the smaller parts of that entity, they end up with as ever case of noble cause corruption.

When something rotten crops up like HDLG, and the associated cover up activities, their attitude is not that they must clear it all up in full view because Jersey is a fantastic place where nothing really bad ever happens, but rather that their best strategy is to minimise damage to the larger Jersey entity by spinning the truth and, if necessary, traducing the simple souls who simply want it all honestly cleared up.

To them, it doesn't matter too much if a few people get their reputations wrongly and dishonestly shredded as long as the bigger entity of Jersey doesn't get stain on its character.

Anonymous said...

You can say that again Rico!

Anonymous said...

Stuart needs to compare the transcript of the tape that was removed from the cabinet and forwarded to Wiltshire against the actual tape, if it still exists or will this piece of evidence disappear?

Anonymous said...

"I then entered into negotiations regarding any changes which would be required. Part 8 of the document deals with "Professional Indemnity." This said that, if I got sued as part of my work, the States of Jersey would meet the cost. I drafted an amendment to this which added that if I was the subject of any complaint or allegation which required legal advice or representation then that cost would also be met. The amendment was agreed and I agreed to stay on after my retirement on the strength of the new terms and conditions."

Rico

Can you find out who Graham Power signed this amendment off with. It couldn't have been MR Critch as he seems to know nothing about it.

rico sorda said...

States of Jersey March 20th Oral Question.

7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –

“Would H.M. Attorney General confirm that when a Minister has made a discretionary decision, and it then emerges that the decision was unlawful or was procedurally unfair, the Minister‟s successor is able to re-consider the decision in question?

This question coincides with the Home Affairs Minister saying that he could not review the previous Home Affairs Minister decision as he is the Corporate Sole.

Having asked States Members and the Law Office for a reply on this and getting nowhere a question has been lodged by Deputy Tadier.


This is from Graham Powers Suspension Review 1 - February 13 2009
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

rico sorda said...

This is what Graham Powers representative says during suspension review 2. They are trying to get ILM understand what the Corporate Sole is

Dr. T. Brain:
It will become obvious in a moment why I find that staggering. That, I think, re-emphasises the point that I have just made. That with every day that passes it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through absolutely no fault of his own; certainly not the length of time this inquiry is taking. While the longer the delay the greater the disruption to the command of the force, the uncertainties of the staff, and if there is an issue of public confidence that has been created it has been generated entirely by the suspension process. I re-emphasise I am talking about the suspension process here. I am not talking about the facts of the case that may or may not come to a tribunal at some point. If Wiltshire do not anticipate finishing this before June I suspect we will not be hearing it before perhaps Christmas next year, by which tie Graham would have been suspended for over a year. I cannot believe that the States of Jersey wish this to be an outcome of this process. I appreciate from the very helpful disposition that you gave last time and further information I received from Mr. Pinel that you are a corporation sole and that gives you a clear range of obligations and authorities but I do not think it requires you to be bound by a manifestly bad decision made by any predecessor in your office, so I think you have a clear run at being able to make a good decision on the basis of the information that you have before you now.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Brain said to ILM, "I appreciate from the very helpful disposition that you gave last time and further information I received from Mr. Pinel that you are a corporation sole and that gives you a clear range of obligations and authorities but I do not think it requires you to be bound by a manifestly bad decision made by any predecessor in your office, so I think you have a clear run at being able to make a good decision on the basis of the information that you have before you now."

Yes, you would think a manifestly bad decision made by a predecessor could be undone based on new evidence.

If the Law Offices believe otherwise, they have provided Stuart with an excellent example to use when proving Jersey cannot administer itself under principles of sanity, let alone democracy.

Anonymous said...

One point that has to be made.

When Graham Power signed his new contract, why didnt he take his copy home and put it in his home/bank safe?

Admittedly there is no way that he could have predicted what would happen regarding his allegal suspension, but he should have known or been wise to the SOJ HR loosing/destroying their copy in a crisis.

OK he never could have predicted that they (the Law Office and the Jersey and UK Police) would have dared to break into his priveleged Chief of Jersey Police personal safe....

But now this signing of a new contract, which would have destroyed the SOJ, now has to be proven!?

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Just some points if you don't mind.

I wonder if I am the only one who has noticed that the evidence about these events appears to indicate that the Acting Chief Officer of the States Police did not regard the Connetable of St Helier as a "police officer" who could be present when the cabinet was opened. Nor does he seem to have regarded him as a fit and proper person to oversee a policing activity in his own Parish. Normally, when this sort of thing happens, the stalwarts of the Honorary system respond with a tirade which forcibly reminds us all of their ancient rights and responsibilities and their alleged primacy over their mercenary colleagues in the States Police. On this occasion they appear to have been uncharacteristically silent. Perhaps it is just a matter of time and that before today is out the Comite de Connetable will be making a posting in relation to the matter. We can wait but we should not hold our breath.

Anonymous said...

I have a hard time believing they would not have raided his private home and safe if they felt they wanted to.

rico sorda said...

I asked Graham Power about the question below. I have published his response below.



Rico

Can you find out who Graham Power signed this amendment off with. It couldn't have been MR Critch as he seems to know nothing about it.




Ian Crich was dealing with the adminstration of the signing of the new contract and in his letter he describes some of the previous stages. When the final draft was agreed it would have been signed off by either Ian Crich or the Chief Executive. My recollection is that it was singed off by Crich but I am not completely sure. At that time Crich was dealing with hundreds if not thousands of contracts which were being renewed in consequence of the new empoyment law. He could not be expected to remember the details of them all. Shortly after he wrote his letter he left his job and left the island. I do not know where he went or where he is now.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

It may interest you and your readers to know that I am revising my legal applications in accordance with the work you have done and the facts you have exposed.

I had planned to issue the Letters Before Claim today, but your investigative journalism has given rise to some additions.

This going to be interesting.

Stuart

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Graham Power said.

" Shortly after he (Ian Critch) wrote his letter he left his job and left the island. I do not know where he went or where he is now."

He's sat in the "pension club" with Ogley, Pollard, Warcup, Gradwell, McKeon and the rest of them watching, and laughing at the inevitable demise of Ian Le Marquand and co.

Zoompad said...

Ian Crich has come to my neck of the woods, he now works for the NHS in Coventry and Warwickshire.

Ian Crich

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Is this, from Ian Critch, a blatant misrepresentation of the spirit of the access to information code when he writes to Graham Power QPM (from your main posting)?

“In relation to your request for details of when the 3 letters dated the 12th November were created. I have previously written to you on 28th November informing you that in my view you are not entitled to this information. I have not received from you any explanation of the basis upon which you claim to be entitled to this information. Please provide such an explanation if you wish me to consider your request.”(END)

Because then we have this, previously published by Mr. Power QPM.




“In particular the ruling of the Board on the Presumption of Openness, required by the Code, and its consequential impact on the burden of proof, may be particularly significant in respect of future media and public requests for information made to government bodies. This is referred to in various parts of the document and in particular paragraph 6.1 which states “it is clearly incumbent on the Chief Minister to justify why he is refusing to disclose the information that Mr Power is seeking and it is not for Mr Power to justify why he has requested it.”

More HERE

Anonymous said...

Looks like Jersey's 'friends at Whitehall' don't care about our fulfillment industry!

3 or 4 thousand people out of work - looks like Stuart's dire predictions a few years ago when he started his blog are coming true.

Zoompad said...

RICO HOPE YOU DONT MIND ME TRYING TO HELP THIS PERSON, HE WILL PROBABLY BE ABLE TO READ A REPLY HERE:

stuart,
I am still having probs with this new comment display format. I am not able to view any comments over the first 200 There is no box to say view newest comments in the range 200-400.
Is it me or do others have the same problem!
there's no point in posting a reply cos I won,t be able to read it!!

THERE SHOULD BE SOME CLICKABLE WORDS RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM, OLDER AND OLDEST. OF YOU ARE STILL HAVING TROUBLE GETTING ON COME OVER TO MY ZOOMPADS BLOG AND I'LL TRY TO HELP.

Anonymous said...

“Ian Crich was dealing with the adminstration of the signing of the new contract and in his letter he describes some of the previous stages. When the final draft was agreed it would have been signed off by either Ian Crich or the Chief Executive. My recollection is that it was singed off by Crich but I am not completely sure. At that time Crich was dealing with hundreds if not thousands of contracts which were being renewed in consequence of the new empoyment law. He could not be expected to remember the details of them all. Shortly after he wrote his letter he left his job and left the island. I do not know where he went or where he is now.”

So, it appears that in 2005 it was not just the Chief of Police and Bill Ogleys’ employment contracts being renewed but in fact all States Employee contracts, hundreds if not thousands being updated to comply with the new employment laws introduced by the States of Jersey. I find it hard to believe that even one contract would be left unsigned let alone the Chief of Police contract. The States of Jersey have to enforce their own laws with non-States employees so have to show that they are completely compliant with their own laws in order to enforce those same laws in the private sector. Mr Crich stated in his letter to Graham Power in 2009 that the second contract for Graham Power had been reissued on 25th August 2005 but was never signed. Absolute tosh, are they saying that a contract of some four years old was never signed by not only those in charge of enforcing the new employment law, but do you honestly think that the Chief of Police would not chase up the signing of his own contract!!

Zoompad said...

Maybe it would be a good idea to get in touch with Ian Crich and ask him, we know where he is now.

Anonymous said...

Mr Crich was never incharge of States of Jersey Human Resources.

The Jersey Law Office is.

Warcup was never incharge of States of Jersey Police.

The Jersey Law Office is.

But not for much longer!?

Anonymous said...

Simon Crowcroft is not posting polite comments on his blog asking him to respond to this explosive story. He seems determined to stick to the most trivial topics he can find. Have you asked him to respond or to verify the original request to be present during the opening of the safe?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon, I asked the constable to comment on the issues of my blog postings as of yet no reply. I have not bothered posting the bog posting contained in the email

:

From: rico sorda
Subject: Hi SIMON
To: s.crowcroft@gov.je
Date: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012, 16:34

Would you like to confirm what you know about this please. And can I post your reply. As you can imagine what im finding is shocking. The actions of the Home Affairs Minister ILM even more so.

Kind Regards

Rico

Anonymous said...

Re: Simon Crowcroft.

I have twice tried to publish a couple of reasonable questions without success,

The latest attempt reads:

"Constable Crowcroft,

I recently submitted a reasonable comment which, to my regret you have not posted. (If is is simply a matter of you not updating your blog recently, my apologies).

As I am a believer in democracy for Jersey, I hope you will allow some free speech here.

I repeat my questions:

Will you please give us your thoughts on the latest shocking revelations and implications of Rico Sorda's blog.

In particular, the part where you are mentioned.

Are you, or any of the other right minded politicians, going to follow these up on behalf of the decent people of Jersey?

Is anyone confident of obtaining full & honest answers to the questions these allegations pose?

If not, please have your questions worded very carefully to let their non-answers speak volumes.

The wider public must be made fully aware of what is going on.

Please help by responding soon.

Although he has not yet responded, I posted the same comments on Deputy Tadier's blog, these have appeared with no censorship.

I do hope you are not trying to hide something!

Thanks"

We'll see

Anonymous said...

24th December Graham Power ststed in his letter to critch...

"So far as my letter of 17th is concerned it remains my position that a true copy of my terms and conditions of service signed and agreed by me should be provided to me by the States and I note that this has not happened. It may be that a copy has been retained by me in my secure cabinet and I would wish to recover this. I have asked that this be done under circumstances which allow for no doubt as to the integrity of this process, and I have suggested how this might be achieved"

The one in his file at Cyril le Marquand house goes missing that just leaves one to go.

The Safe

Mr Power gave the game away because he simply didn't know just how bad these crooks were.

This is getting very bad

Next Posting???????????????

rico sorda said...

The new posting could be up tonight or tomorrow morning. Im just finishing some parts on. Mr Power also gets a chance to have a say.

rs

Anonymous said...

Of course Graham Power may have a copy of the original or the original and that the mention of the safe was a way to establish how far Warcup would go!!

Anonymous said...

Rico

For your records, I am the anonymous at 8:37 PM yesterday, who tried to post a comment on Simon Crowcroft's blog. The anonymous with a similar complaint at 9:26 AM today is someone else. That means there are at least a few different people requesting answers or a statement regarding your new evidence. Simon Crowcroft can't expect to hide from this by devoting himself exclusively to trivial topics.

B