Thursday, January 24, 2013

THE JERSEY JUDICIAL SYSTEM - THE BAILHACHE BROTHERS - THE REAL POWER IN TOWN - PART 2







SENATOR, PHILIP BAILHACHE, FORMER BAILIFF AND CHIEF JUDGE  - FEUDAL KING





DEPUTY BAILIFF, WILLIAM BAILHACHE - BROTHER OF THE FEUDAL KING PHILIP. ARE THESE TWO BEHIND THE BRINGING OF THE SUPER-INJUNCTION AGAINST STUART SYVRET? MY GUESS IS THAT THEY PROBABLY DO...


"CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT"


"THE JERSEY CHILD ABUSE COVER-UP"


"THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE" ( PHILIP & WILLIAM BAILHACHE)


THE OFFICE OF DATA PROTECTION -  "SUPER -INJUNCTION"


A Super-Injunction has been enforced against former Health Minister/Senator, Stuart Syvret. It has been led by the Jersey Data Protection Office under Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins. We first became aware of this Super-Injunction when UK Politician & Liberal Democrat John Hemming mentioned it under Parliamentary Privilege in the House of Commons. This is what he said:


"There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

A lay judge—known as a jurat—called John le Breton has been allowed to sit as a jurat, even though he was vice-principal of Victoria college when he wrote to the governors in support of Andrew Jervis-Dykes, who ended up getting a jail sentence. Mr le Breton was appointed to judge on a case even though he is a personal friend of a director of the defendant—this is a defamation case where the local politician, Trevor Pitman, has been taking legal action against the local newspaper. The end result in Jersey is that part of these events has been struck from the state’s version of Hansard, and the culture of cover-up continues. Jersey is an independent country, but the UK Government have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in Jersey. The UK is not doing its job properly."


I believe  the part of the Data Protection Law that is being used is Article 10 which is explained below by our Solicitor General, Howard Sharp QC. Where does Super-Injunction come into it? Why the secrecy? But it gets stranger as we will see. 


This is from the States of Jersey in December 2012


2.13 Deputy M. Tadier of H.M. Attorney General regarding the use of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog:

Will the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in this case, explain whether the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 can be used, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog?  If so, how this is done?
Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:
Article 10 of the Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice.  That notice can require the removal of personal data that is said to cause or is likely to cause substantial damage or stress to that individual or another.  The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request.  If there is compliance that of course is the end of the matter.  Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice.  The Royal Court will then decide the issue between the parties.
2.13.1 Deputy M. Tadier:
Will the Solicitor General confirm whether or not personal data necessarily needs to be defamatory when displayed on a blog, or even in any other type of media, for it to be requested to be taken down or can it simply consist of personal information?  For example, somebody being named purely factually such as saying that Deputy Tadier is a Deputy in St. Brelade.  Could I request for that information to be taken down or would that be ridiculous?
The Solicitor General:
There is a threshold test which I did refer to in my first answer but I repeat now.  The test is whether the data is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial stress to that individual.  That is the test.
2.13.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
The Solicitor General referred to an order, I think it was 21 days, when people would have to remove it from a website.  Is there anything that limits that in regard to someone waiting 21 days, taking something offensive down and then putting it back up?  That certainly used to happen on a website attacking people, certainly States Members.  The website is now defunct, I believe.  Is there any way to combat that?
The Solicitor General:
It seems to me that if a controller of data is served with a notice requiring that controller to take down certain data and after the 21-day period at any point they continue to publish that data, the person who issues the notice is then entitled to go to court to seek enforcement.
2.13.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Yes, the Solicitor General has been talking about the right of individuals to take someone to court for ignoring the notice.  Could he explain the powers of the Data Protection Commissioner and explain when she would step into the place of individuals in taking someone to court?
The Solicitor General:
I would not ordinarily expect the Data Commissioner to step into the shoes of a particular individual.  The individual would sue in their own name, so to speak.  It is right to say that the Commissioner can in certain cases provide assistance to the person who is suing.
2.13.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can the Solicitor General tell us in what way can he or she give assistance?  Is it financial assistance in paying for the court or is it just advice?
The Solicitor General:
The Data Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual in a case where (a) there is an issue of general public importance that arises and (b) that a matter has a reasonable prospect of success.  As I say, in those particular circumstances, the Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual.
2.13.5 Deputy M. Tadier:
Would the Solicitor General care to comment on the comparison with the U.K. where I understand that certainly historically and up until recently, the Information Officer - the equivalent of our Data Protection Officer in Jersey - has been very reluctant to get involved with cases to do with defamation, where people have been perhaps defamed and it has been for the courts to step in.  Also, will the Solicitor General comment on when this practice, if it has become common or used in Jersey, came into place, and what is the line between an ordinary civil libel case?
The Solicitor General:
I think it is helpful to look at what was the purpose of the Data Protection Law introduced by States Members.  The purpose of the law, as I see it, is that it was designed to protect individuals from the misuse of their private information.  In particular, where that misuse results in substantial stress or harm, the law sees fit to give that individual a remedy.  So I do not see it necessarily at all being whether or not something could also fall into a defamation case.  In my view, the better view is the issue whether or not the Data Commissioner is discharging his or her duties properly and promoting the function of the law, which is to require data controllers to manage data in a responsible manner.


Why not clear you're name in open court. Why all the secrecy when no one will know what the end result was? Why do all this under a Super-Injunction? Who brought these 4 individuals together? Who is covering their costs? Looking at the Data Protection budget there isn't any spare funds. So how are they funding this? Are we, as taxpayers allowed to know?

This is my hunch on what is going on here. The Law Office, under the control of William Bailhache, still has a Vendetta against Stuart Syvret. They have gathered these 4 individuals  together and have tried to clamp down on Stuart Syvret's freedom of speech. I'm not saying what is right or wrong  concerning the contents of Stuart Syvret's blog site but just the actions coming from Data Protection and the Jersey law Office. There is no way that Emma Martins could have taken this on without some protection from somewhere concerning her budget. If I have got this wrong then I would appreciate some input in the comments section.

They have never forgiven Stuart Syvret, Graham Power and Lenny Harper for blowing the lid off this toxic little Island and along the way exposing a legal club that has been raking in some serious money over the decades via 7 Bedford Row.

The Annual Budget for Jersey Data Protection in 2011 is

Net Income = £330,100 

Total Operating expenses £355,019


Go to Appendix 2

Having looked at their out-goings for 2011 its all accounted for. It is a small budget. So how are they financing a Super-Injunction or is it the Jersey Law Office that is bringing this.

Now we come to the States of Jersey. I have linked the Blog Posting of Deputy Trevor Pitman who has blogged on this:



I want outside viewers to have a good listen to the Audio below. What we have here is an elected member of parliament trying to get an answer regarding the cost to the Jersey Taxpayer of the Data Protection led Super-Injunction. 


Jersey's Chief Minister didn't want to answer this question so instead got his Assistant Minister, Senator, Paul Routier to answer it. Because he knew he was dropping the Senator in the Poo he gave him an exquisite new title 'Political Liaison' with the Data Protection Office.

This is what Deputy Pitman says about the below Audio encounter:

"My question being put - quite appropriately - to the Chief Minister, Senator Gorst who then refers it to his Assistant Minister, Senator Paul Routier. Because... the Senator has apparently now become official 'Political Liaison' with the Data Protection Office.

Unfortuantly it soon transpires that the said Political Liaison clearly knows less about the issues at hand than Lance Armstrong probably does bout drug free cycling. But never mind - we can't talk about it anyway because it is all 'sub judice'. Oh, okay...

Only problem here is that despite this assurance further questioning reveals that whilst quite happy to give me this answer the Senator has... never even seen the details of the relevant Court Order upon which he has just based this assurance.

And, as I and my colleagues are seeking information about where your hard-earned cash is going - NOT any details of what is happening in the actual case is the Senator really quite sure about this claim? After all, if my information is correct such an interpretation would likely be a world first. Certainly an island one.

Remember - this is OUR money. Not cash belonging to any of the individuals bringing the case. I'm not even asking how much has been spent by any of the four individuals specifically. Nor am I asking for information as precisely for what this taxpayers' money has been paid out for!

Never mind...

The Senator further assures us that everything IS being handled appropriately and within the law. Fair enough - but once again how does he actually know? Turns out he doesn't. He can't. He hasn't seen any documents at all so is passing all of this off as fact based simply on trust!

Further good news comes when we are also assured that the costs (did I mention this is being met from YOUR taxes?) are being monitored by the Data Protection Commissioner and it is all within that Office's set budget for the year.

Okay, so I'm sounding a bit pedantic now. But yet again - how can the Senator be sure?

In fairness the Data Protection Office's budget certainly is posted up on their website; and very well set out and seemingly detailed it appears. But this worrying little thing remains: the budget isn't actually that big. Only around £300,000 or so - give or take a few Regulatory Breach fines coming in (perhaps for an e-mail incident or something?) And nowhere does the outlay for the case in question appear to be outlined.

But let's move on...

According to my information the costs to the taxpayer in this case started to build up as far back as 2010. So given that this is in essence a case revolving around claimed 'defamation' a reasonable guess would surely appear to be that this has already racked up quite significant costs. (Don't ask me how I know - I just DO!)

So how come, we ask the Assistant Minister, that he cannot even tell us what the limit of the available financial support (taxpayers' money - did I mention that?) from the Data Protection Office is?

To cut a long story short - you guessed it: the Assistant Minister with specific responsibility for this doesn't know. In fact he has, he let's slip, actually based all of this nonsense upon the Hansard report of a previous question asked of the Chief Minister! And anyway...we can't talk about it because it's all 'sub judice'.

So what have we all learnt at the end of this latest farce within States 'Questions without answers'? 

Not a lot. Apart from the fact that if you are looking for a spy to drop behind enemy lines. Someone who won't crack under questioning; even torture. Then forget James Bond. Forget John Rambo.

The man you want is 000 Senator Paul Routier. He won't tell the enemy ANYTHING. He doesn't KNOW anything! In a strange and slightly perverse way it almost makes you proud…" End


You really have to listen to the Audio. Is it  'Sub Judice' to ask how much  Data Protection are spending? Why doesn't the Minister know anything?

Play Dumb seems to be the way forward.


IS IT BECAUSE IT'S THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE THAT ARE REALLY BRINGING THIS.


WHO IS THE PROSECUTION LAWYER.?


THE MILLION DOLLAR MAN? Advocate Baker???


Listen to Senator Routier. 

The Outside world!!!! You now know what we are up against.



Rico Sorda 

Investigative Journalist 

50 comments:

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the Audio of Deputy T. Pitman being Interviewed about Leah McGrath Goodman.

You & your readers can Listen HERE

TJW.

Anonymous said...

OMG It's the peoples money so tell us tell us cost so far and stop wittering like a soldier on the western front dogging bullets. Another one to the pile of reasons why we need change and NOW.
Phil

Ian Evans said...

And HERE is another of our cover up merchants :)

rico sorda said...

Leah McGrath Goodman said...

Thanks to all for the support and well wishes. There will be some prep work, but I do intend to use the visa soon, just to make sure it "works." (I am kidding, kind of.) Please keep in touch and keep on reading and sharing what you find -- even the most random information can lead to substantial findings. For those of you on the island who know people who saw something or heard something, I am particularly interested in talking to you. You can get in touch confidentially anytime through my blog at leahmcgrathgoodman.com

Anonymous said...

Follow the money Rico, if there's no trace of it in the data protection accounts it will be coming from the Law Office Department and will be pretty hefty because the likes of Stephen Baker don't come cheap. This is an assault on free speech no matter how it's dressed up and should be contested by all those who enjoy the freedom of the internet because this SECRET court case will be the beginning of the end for bloggers and free speech in Jersey.

Anonymous said...

Who in damnation brought those four individuals together to bring a super injunction against Syvret if not the Bailhache brothers?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The fact that this court case is in secret is going to attract more attention than any open court case ever could have.

As you have mentioned also, it might be that Stuart has a case to answer. It might be that he has published untruths but the irony of it is that nobody will ever know, you just couldn't make this stuff up!

To put a super-injunction on a friend/associate of John Hemming, who famously outed the Ryan Giggs super-injunction though has really got to take the biscuit in the stupidity stakes........Who comes up with these ideas?

Then to find out the taxpayer is footing the bill, which automatically, gives the public a right to know how their money is being spent and can declare an interest. This stuff is just bl--dy priceless!

rico sorda said...

Surely a libel case against Stuart Syvret would have been a lot better than a secret court case. Even if Stuart Syvret doesn't have a pot to pee in the 4 bringing this would be vindicated in public. What is the point of it all being secret?

This looks like a badly thought out Vendetta to me. Not by the 4 people bringing it but by the Law Office that put these 4 together. Why the secrecy. Like VFC says it bloody priceless.

rs

Ian Evans said...

They would never bring a civil case Rico, that would enable Stuart to subpoena witnesses to give evidence on his behalf, and that just wouldn't be acceptable, not "The Jersey Way" I'm afraid :)

Ian Evans said...

Deputy Trevor Pitman dealing with more cases of DOCTORED TRIAL TAPES.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

Thanks for the suggestions. Have taken them onboard

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

Ian Evans at 9:26 has the real answer. The use of a Super-Injunction under the guise of a Data Protection violation was the only way they could proceed against Stuart without allowing open court discussion of the very same evidenced facts they are trying to cover up with this S.I. Covering up is what they do, and what they must.

It probably goes without saying how quickly they would have authorized any amount necessary to prosecute Stuart on whatever grounds they could manufacture, but they probably did not count on ever having to account for the taxpayer money involved. That money seems to be a touchy area, from the fumbled non-answers. It was most striking to hear the non-answer to the question about funding for Stuart's legal defense. You can bet that is another known area of major vulnerability for Jersey - more noncompliance with ECHR.

You really need outsider opinion? You already seem to know exactly what is going on here; we agree it is every bit as bad as you suspect. It is an untenable situation for Jersey, no matter what happens in the short term, because of the Island's increasingly ridiculous and unsustainable pretense to employing some modern, democratic rule of law.

Obviously, Stuart Syvret rightly poked his nose into certain inconvenient facts and tried to force a measure of justice, accountability and democratic process on Jersey's oligarchy. That was, and still remains utterly unacceptable and unaffordable to them, because those in power would then become liable for their criminality.

There are few (or no) means they apparently will not use, e.g. corrupted courts, "ourchap reports," lies, bent and conflicted judges, gerrymandering, election re-districting, lies, journalist banning, "talking heads," lies, purchased MSM, fixer hacks, lies, golden handshakes, Masonic loyalties and distress signals, lies, illegal police chief suspensions, lies, deliberately destroyed forensic evidence, "lost" contracts for costly legal fees from safe busting at the police station, lies, demonization of fact-based independent online journalism, bent cops, illegal warrantless search and seizure, lies, bizarre prosecutions and even more bizarre non-prosecutions, and then all the secret "In-camera" B.S. one would expect if this involved nuclear weapon secrets in time of global war.

The lengths they have gone to in order to cover-up so much that is linked to institutionalized child abuse, makes it obvious there is something more, something very sinister and devastating which they will do anything to conceal or protect.

When Lenny Harper first downplayed the idea of any murder prosecutions stemming from Haut de la Garenne, I believed there might not have been a lot more horror left undiscovered there. It is the behavior of the oligarchy since then which has made Jersey look like a corrupt feudal kingdom bending any and all accepted laws in order to protect something the wider world would be duly outraged by.

I can only guess that whatever is being covered up is something more, something so horrifying and well hidden that it has not yet leaked out - something so ominous the evidence could not be permitted further scientific study, and had to be destroyed. Otherwise, I can make no sense at all of the suspicious political, civil, police and judicial anomalies that you unpaid independent journalists have so bravely documented.

Elle
(and two others)

Anonymous said...

Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

Article 10 of the Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice. That notice can require the removal of personal data that is said to cause or is likely to cause substantial damage or stress to that individual or another. The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request. If there is compliance that of course is the end of the matter. Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice. The Royal Court will then decide the issue between the parties......

Does that mean that the Royal Court thought a super-injunction was the best way forward? Is that the "CIVIL" action being refered to here? Mr Syvret says i'm not taking anything down from his site then we all go into secret lock down...

This is so very strange. Follow the money indeed...

Anonymous said...

"They have never forgiven Stuart Syvret, Graham Power and Lenny Harper for blowing the lid off this toxic little Island and along the way exposing a legal club that has been raking in some serious money"

100% BANG ON THE MONEY.

That is how these petty people work. Why couldn't the above mentioned just keep quiet and keep things the way they were... The Jersey Way..

Anonymous said...

Is it 'sub-judice' to talk about cost during a case? or hearings? The audio is pure Monty Python.

Anonymous said...

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.

In England and Wales,[citation needed] Ireland,[1] New Zealand,[2][3][4] Australia,[citation needed] India[citation needed], Pakistan,[citation needed] Canada,[5] Sri Lanka,[citation needed] and Israel[citation needed] it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.[citation needed]

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons

Why are they trying to hide costs? All that is being asked is the cost. That youtube audio should go global..

Anonymous said...

These questions have been lodged for the 29th Jan:

18. The Chief Minister will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier –

“Will the Chief Minister break down the expenditure of the Data Protection Commissioner for (a) legal advice and (b) prosecutions over the last five years, and explain how much money has been budgeted for legal advice and prosecutions during 2013?

Will he also explain whether the Data Protection Commissioner’s office is entitled to or has received any funds from the Court and Case Costs Fund and if so how much it has received?”





10. H.M. Attorney General will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier –

“In responding to my question as to how much taxpayers' money had been spent and/or allocated in support of the so-called 'super-injunction’ case being brought by four private individuals under the Data Protection Law, the Assistant Chief Minister stated that he could not answer as this was sub-judice. Will the Attorney General clarify -

1) that this does indeed apply to revelation of monies/costs even though they have nothing to do actual facts of the case;

2) provide the exact wording of this ruling;

3) outline when the Crown/Law Officers were engaged in support of the case?”

Anonymous said...

Something that is being overlooked here is the conflict of Data Protection Commissoner Emma Martins. Has she not herself been having a running battle with Stuat Syvret? Has she not given evidence in a court case against Mr Syvret? He has also called out her integrity on his blog. Would she not also benfit from having him silenced. Worth a thought on a cold day.

Anonymous said...

2.13.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can the Solicitor General tell us in what way can he or she give assistance? Is it financial assistance in paying for the court or is it just advice?

The Solicitor General:

The Data Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual in a case where (a) there is an issue of general public importance that arises and (b) that a matter has a reasonable prospect of success. As I say, in those particular circumstances, the Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual.

Very interesting. Lets see what answers Deputy Higgins gets next week.

Anonymous said...

Rico, just a little off subject but still related to the Law Office. There are some quotes below that sum of you're readers might be aware of.

The crown changing their case in the middle of a trial - Remember Stuart Syvret

The summing up of the Judge

Could Advocate Hanson be on it here.





The appeal of a disgraced former Jersey judge and three other men is into its 5th day at the Royal Court.

Ian Christmas, together with John Lewis, James Cameron and Russell Foot, were last year jailed for the parts they played in a property con in which islanders lost their life savings.

Today Advocate Timothy Hanson, representing Cameron, argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial.

He said the original offences of committing an oral or written misrepresentation must have caused those duped to have invested in the property scheme, whereas he claimed the Crown's case was that those misrepresentations could come after people had put their money in.

Advocate Hanson also criticised the way the original trial judge summed up the case.

At that point Sir John Nutting QC, the presiding judge in the appeal, said if he hadn't summed up in the way he did, "he'd be leaving a socking great lacuna in his directions, wouldn't he?"

The appeal was due to end today but will now continue on 25 and 26 February.

Christmas was jailed for 15 months, the other men for 4 and a half years each. All are appealing their convictions.

Anonymous said...

"When Lenny Harper first downplayed the idea of any murder prosecutions stemming from Haut de la Garenne, I believed there might not have been a lot more horror left undiscovered there. It is the behavior of the oligarchy since then which has made Jersey look like a corrupt feudal kingdom bending any and all accepted laws in order to protect something the wider world would be duly outraged by."


I agree Elle. This is the bit that I can't get my head around since it all started.

Child abuse happens all over the world. Of course, it's a disgrace.

But had the SOJ just come clean from the start, said sorry, paid compensation, had an enquiry and LEARNT from the whole process, the world at large would of had some respect for Jersey.

But as it is, they have spent millions upon millions of pounds, broken umpteen laws, lied to high heaven, cheated, covered up and god knows what else.

It just does not make sense. Unless, as you say, there is more to be discovered.

Ian Evans said...

"Article 10 of the Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice. That notice can require the removal of personal data that is said to cause or is likely to cause substantial damage or stress to that individual or another. The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request. If there is compliance that of course is the end of the matter. Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice. The Royal Court will then decide the issue between the parties."


OK, LET US LOOK AT ARTICLE 10.

1. "Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice"

1.a. ANYONE CAN ISSUE A NOTICE TO ANYONE ELSE ABOUT ANYTHING! SO WHAT? ALL YOU ARE DOING WITH A NOTICE IS TELLING ANOTHER PARTY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING HERE THAT YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO, THAT'S ALL.

2. "The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request."

2.a. IF A NOTICE IS NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE RECIPIENT WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME FRAME, THEN THE RECIPIENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE NOTICE, IGNORING THE NOTICE, IS IN FACT, ACQUIESCENCE 'TO' THE NOTICE.

3. "Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice."

3.a. TRUE, BUT WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU IS THAT A NOTICE CAN BE DISCHARGED BY SENDING BACK YOUR OWN NOTICE!!! ALL A NOTICE IS, IS AN OFFER, NOTHING MORE, IT HAS NO FORCE OR EFFECT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. ANY STATUTORY LAW CAN ONLY BE GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW WITH YOUR CONSENT, REVOKE THAT CONSENT AND IT IS AN OFFER THAT YOU HAVE SIMPLY DECLINED, WHAT CAN THEY DO? NOTHING....

AS THIS IS STATUTORY LAW THEY WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THE RECIPIENT AS "MR STUART SYVRET" AND AS WE KNOW, "MR" IS A LEGAL FICTION, IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. YOU CAN DISCHARGE A NOTICE BY WHAT IS KNOWN AS "A CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE" WHEREBY YOU ACCEPT EVERYTHING THEY ARE ALLUDING TO, BUT WITH YOUR OWN CONDITIONS ATTACHED. IF YOU DO THIS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE, AND WITHOUT A DISPUTE, THEY CANNOT TAKE YOU TO COURT, WHAT IS THERE TO BE ADJUDICATED ON?

I WOULD RESPOND TO THIS TYPE OF NOTICE WITH THE FOLLOWING....

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your notice, and here is my notice noticing your notice. I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am MR STUART SYVRET, and that I am obliged to provide you with any service, upon proof of claim of all of the following;

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a Mr and not a man.
2. Upon proof of claim that I am a Person and not a man.
3. Upon proof of claim that I have a lawful obligation to you.
4. Upon proof of claim that any of your demands apply to me.
5. Upon proof of claim that there is a law obliging me to provide you with any service.
6. Upon proof of claim that I have signed an international contract.
7. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the Armed Forces.
8. Upon proof of claim that my inalienable rights do not apply to this matter.

Furthermore, I reserve my rights not to be bound by any unrevealed contracts.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity.

stuart:syvret

Anonymous said...

Today Advocate Timothy Hanson, representing Cameron, argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial.

& they had 4 years to prepare for it!!

Anonymous said...

"The crown changing their case in the middle of a trial - Remember Stuart Syvret"

YES

Anonymous said...

Rico- another supurb blog post. I'm grateful for your hard work. You're an excellent journalist and put MSM local journalists to shame.

I hope you don't mind me drawing peoples attention to the 'Rule of Law Index' undertaken by the WJP. It seems a worthwhile toolkit to consider for Jersey. I like 1.3 - 1.6 best!
Hopefully some people may get interested enough and wish to play a part in the inevitable downfall of the Jersey establishment. Every little bit helps!

THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT RULE OF LAW INDEX
The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
> The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.
> The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
> The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, efficient, and fair.
> Justice is delivered by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
These four universal principles which comprise the WJP’s notion of the rule of law are further developed in the nine factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index.
FACTOR 1: Limited Government Powers
1.1 Government powers are defined in the fundamental law
1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary
1.4Government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review
1.5 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct
1.6 Government powers are subject to non-governmental checks
1.7 Transition of power is subject to the law
There are 8 more factors stuff like 'absence of corruption' and 'open government'. – Go to their website,

http://worldjusticeproject.org/

or read the report here-

http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/WJP_Index_Report_2012.pdf

Results are plotted and countries are measured and ranked accordingly. The UK generally trails near the bottom of the Western states.

I don’t believe Jersey would do very well on the Rule of Law index either. Do you?

If there is someone (or a group of people) in Jersey who thinks they can work impartially and is prepared to put a few hours in during the odd evening over the next couple of months, I’d be happy to provide drinks and a venue to get this work going. Contact details to follow if this seems to generate genuine interest.

Thank you Rico.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous,

It has long been understood by some Jersey Bloggers that the real problem in Jersey lies at the the door of the Jersey Law Office. More importantly at the the door of Attorney General. There are many people out there who believe they have faced a mis-carriage of justice. Where can they go - what can they do. Is Appeal only for the wealthy? The ones who can afford it?

I have been looking at the role of the Law Office and the dropping of so many Abuse Cases. This also includes the many cases of Stuart Syvret and no less the Super-Injunction that he fasces. The Jersey Bloggers are well aware of the normal folk of Jersey who have some horrific stories to relate regarding the Jersey Judiciary and its Royal and Magistrate Court. These entities have gone unchecked for far to long. A Feudal Regime that has been using Jersey and its court as nothing less than a selective cash cow.

The focus is now on the Law Office

The Snakes Head

Truth, Honesty and Integrity

A proper rule of law with transparent democracy is all that we want and will fight for.

I will always meet with people who share the same views.

Thank you for you're kind words

rs

Anonymous said...

The States sittings for the foreseeable future should be bombarded with questions in relation to The Local Law Office.

And to make sure that these important questions are not lost in the local emailing system....

These important questions should be hand delivered to The States Greffe. And the likes of Deputies Pitman, Higgins, & Tadier who will be hand delivering these important questions, should not leave that building without confirmation that these important questions have been safely delivered!?

Anonymous said...

THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT RULE OF LAW INDEX
The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
> The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.
> The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
> The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, efficient, and fair.
> Justice is delivered by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
These four universal principles which comprise the WJP’s notion of the rule of law are further developed in the nine factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index.

That pretty much sums up the kind of Rule of Law that Jersey does not have. The WJP should have fun ranking Jersey right there with the African despots who use Jersey to hide their national assets.

Ian Evans said...

What is really going on in our COURTS

Ian Evans said...


Anon @ 4.46pm

Your link about the "World Justice Project" is fascinating, and something that many people studying common law that I know, have never heard of. I wonder why that is?

It all sound wonderful doesn't it, in fact, to good to be true, and that's because it is to good to be true.


Our very first clue is given at the first universal principle.

1.> The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.

1.a. THEY ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTABLE UNDER LAW, AND LOOK AT THE BLOODY STATE THE WORLD IS IN? AND ALL BECAUSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER (of which I am in no doubt, the WJP is just another arm of).

2. > The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

2.a. THIS IS THE BIG ONE...."The security of Persons and property"....FOR ME, THAT IS ENOUGH TO PUT THIS ARTICLE TO BED FOREVER. THE MAGNA CARTA REFERS TO MEN (which is what we are) NOT PERSONS. PERSONS ARE BODY CORPORATES, LEGAL FICTIONS, AND THAT IS ALL THEY INTEND CATERING FOR.

3. > The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, efficient, and fair.

3.A. "The process by which laws are enacted". RIGHT THERE WE SEE THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT STATUTES, STATUTES ARE WHAT WE NEED TO GET RID OF, NOT BE GOVERNED BY. STATUTES ARE THE VEHICLE BY WHICH THE LARGE CORPORATIONS HAVE RUN OVER HUMANITY AND DRAGGED THEIR DISGUSTING LAWS OF THE SEA ONTO THE LAND.

4. > Justice is delivered by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

4.a. THIS IS PRICELESS, THEY ARE DESCRIBING THEMSELVES, THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY STINKING RICH, IN POWER, AND CONTROLLING THE MASSES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY....SERVING THE COMMUNITY. THEY ARE ALREADY ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS AND ALL THEY DO IS ROB US BLIND AND DIMINISH OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS ON A WEEKLY BASIS.

ANOTHER HUGE CLUE TO THIS NONSENSE IS WHAT THEY WRITE ABOUT THE FOUNDER OF THIS ORGANISATION.

"He is a past president of the American Bar Association (2007-08)" CHRIST!!!

That statement alone is enough to keep the sane of this world a million miles away from this guys delusions. The Bar Association & Law Society is a private corporation unconnected to government, these clowns are the ones who put all these laws into place to oppress us in the first instance.

When we read that he has much association with Bill Gates we put our head in our hands and weep. Bill Gates: Eugenicist Extraordinaire.

Just google "The atrocities of Bill Gates" the bastard is a mass murderer of children, as well as men.


Anonymous said...

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/01/lionel-curtis-cfr-new-world-order.html

Anonymous said...

Ian, The WJN is a pressure group-
it aspires to improve the lot of ordinary people. So please keep up and, at the very least, study their website first before being so aloof and critical. I know you have an axe to grind regarding the Jersey authorities and I really hope you get real justise one day. But please dont wreck my objective with your capital letters and cynicism. I'm not a Jersey 'victim of the system' but I'm keen to do my bit and I'm hoping to find similar people who are prepared to get together occassionally and work towards making a proper submission to the WJP regarding Jersey. Yes, I too expect to find Jersey ranked near Zimbabwee but it's useless talking about it, better to do something like this and submit it to WJN and then on to the UN, than rubbishing it before even looking at it. Encouragingly, in Nov. 2012 the UN declared a probe on the rule of law so it is (at last)an item on the international agenda and it's important that Jersey is not framed out- don't you think?

rico sorda said...

To Ian and Anonymous,

I don't want the comments section breaking out into a who is right and who is wrong. We all want the same thing. I appreciate all contributions but need to draw a line.

If this is the wrong stance then so be it.

You can email each other

Otherwise it turns into a "you said he said" and t this precise moment I can't handle that

Thank you

RS

All comments are greatly appreciated except for the ridiculous that I don't publish

Anonymous said...

I looked at the justice site and it seems ok to me but Ian is right about William Gates senior being on the list of honorary chairs. But also Anonoymus is right because anything done to chip away at the Snakes Head should be considered helpful no matter what- and Rico is right, we all want to acheive that same important goal.

Ian Evans said...

As this comment strain was about the most important issue ever to face the history of mankind, I have moved it to it's rightful place.

I did respond to your comment anon, but Rico elected not to publish it, and then terminate the discussion. The discussion continues HERE.

Ian Evans said...

Continuing the theme of the deplorable standard of ADVOCACY IN JERSEY

Anonymous said...


Hi Rico. What do your readers think?


I spent an interested evening discussing corrupt Jersey Law Offices and what passes for justice in Jersey. I was stumped when it came to........"how come Ian Christmas is in jail then?"

So I came back home and did some research, and guess what I found on Ex Senator Syvret blog in that infamous posting about nurse m? Now the super injunction and its timing makes perfect sense. Please read that post again.

I republish here below:

The purpose of the meeting will be to receive an oral brief from Mr. Faudemer who will be able to answer questions which you and others may have, followed by a general discussion to determine the way forward.


The meeting has been arranged for Thursday 20th May at 2.15 p.m. in the Conference Room at Police Headquarters and I look forward to seeing you.


Yours sincerely,


R. H. Le Breton
Chief Officer


c.c. Legal Adviser – Mr. Ian Christmas, Deputy Viscount – Mr. P. De Gruchy, Chief Executive Health Service – Mr. G Jennings, Deputy Chief Officer – Mr. R. Jones, Superintendent – T. Garrett, Director of Finance – Mr. M. Szpera.


REPORT


Submitted by: Detective Inspector B. Faudemer.


Date: 8th May, 1999.


Subject: Investigation of NURSE M.


Sir,


This report has been compiled into three separate areas, namely:


1.Evidence which gives rise to concern, relating to the activities of NURSE M.


2. The recommended for phase 1 of any investigation.


3. The suggested manpower requirements for conducting such an investigation.

Zoompad said...

I don't know how relevant this is to all this, but David Hanson was one of the people Lord Falconer passed my letters about the secret family courts using syndromes that had been invented by American paedophiles to answer. I was disgusted by the responses I recieved about that.

Zoompad said...

I just found this:

http://t.co/nkKvZRlW

Web Master said...

Rico,

The latest fake ones. Do you want me to pass them on?

Jane Care ,Alun Gower,Sue Young, Julie Hanning, James Le Gallais

Let me know via normal routes

Ian Evans said...

Cover-up TV put the HATE LEAH McGRATH GOODMAN CAMPAIGN into overdrive!!!

Anonymous said...

Maurice spoke well on the BBC Jersey Sara show at lunchtime today.
Does anyone else consider her a biased presenter in this particular programme? Starts at 04.00 mins. and goes on for an hour (less a few tracks like Leo Sayer)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p013grgl

Anonymous said...

I am interested in the connection between the prosecution of Ian Christmas and the Nurse M investigation. However, in a small enclave, some paths may cross many times over. Can anyone tie the prosecution of Christmas to this, or any other examples when Christmas may have run afoul of the oligarchy? It bears looking into further.

rico sorda said...

Im not going to comment on the disgraceful piece by BBC Jersey today or the work of the multiple troll. My web guru collates that information. Could come in handy when the super-injunction circus hits town again.

One should keep his power dry.

The Snakes-Head is where I'm heading

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, this quote was posted on Stuart's blog. It has relevance to the topic of your blog.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

Ian Evans said...

Web Master said...
Rico,

The latest fake ones. Do you want me to pass them on?

Jane Care ,Alun Gower,Sue Young, Julie Hanning, James Le Gallais

Let me know via normal routes


It gets even more hilarious if you look at the fictional characters that 'like button' his garbage, none of them have any data on their profiles either!!! The psycho has completely lost it!!!!!!!!!

Word Varification "1438TedMike" hahaha PMSL :)

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Shining a light on the Jersey LAW OFFICERS

Ian Evans said...

A survivors STORY

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the Audio of the Questions without Answers From the States Sitting today, you & your readers can listen HERE

Hope it helps,

TJW.

Ian Evans said...

SNAP!!! The true meaning of identical.