Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Stuart Syvret Demands "Lawful" Court.

It would appear that the State Funded so-called Superinjunction case against former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, continues to rumble on.

VFC, and a number of local Blogs, (Jersey's only independent media) has reported extensively on this case and even the State Media, in recent weeks, has had to report something about it. Today, once more, we bring our readers/viewers another exclusive.

We are told that Mr. Syvret was scheduled to appear in front of the Royal Court again today in relation to matters concerning the "superinjunction."

He tells us he has only just become aware of this himself after discovering an amount of paperwork/court documents dumped outside his flat door. Exactly what the documents say is still a little unclear as it would appear that Mr. Syvret hasn't, as yet read them, or at least in there entirety, but he does tell us that unless he is granted a "lawful" court hearing he will not be taking part in further actions against him or complying with them and he did not turn up for court today.

No doubt more will unfold, in the coming days/weeks/months but in the meantime we offer this exclusive interview where Mr. Syvret explains the situation from his perspective.

For recent previous postings from VFC on this case please look HERE HERE and HERE.




34 comments:

  1. Lawful (de jure) Courts in Jersey, now there's a novelty. Lets face it, there is no such known entity in Jersey as the Jersey court system is a de facto (illegitimate) stinking rancid festering corrupt despotic mixture of Star Chambers, commercial tribunals and private Bar Guild revenue generating business meetings. Stuart's grief and pain is bad enough, up next on Monday for "The Jersey Treatment" is CURTIS WARREN

    ReplyDelete
  2. Link

    Link provided for your readers who may want to know more of the case you discuss at 11:50 where HG has published an open letter in responce to remarks made by some of Dean's supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Stuart. HG

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry, but how is this a surprise ? Stuart was told to do something by the court which he has made a public spectacle of not doing. He seems to think that he is above our laws. He needs to grow up and start behaving like a decent member of society, not pursuing vexatious and spurious legal cases whilst sponging off of taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you didn’t watch the interview, or if you did, you are more concerned with the messenger than the message?

      It is claimed that Jersey’s judicial system is wholly conflicted, politicised, corrupt and doesn’t meet modern standards of a 21st century jurisdiction. If this is the case (and there are a growing number of people who BELIEVE IT IS ) then shouldn’t it be challenged?

      Stuart has said he will comply with a “lawful”, non-conflicted, court and as is his “lawful” right he is contesting the validity of the current apparatus.

      Delete
    2. I agree with ANON as 8.58 am.
      I am fed up of the nonsense this embarrassment continues to spout.
      He has mocked the courts, the people who have pursued him and made any childish excuse to evade their claims against him.
      He is not above the law and its time the law taught him a lesson in life which I am sure it will.

      Delete
    3. PJ.

      Perhaps you would do well to look at the message and not the messenger. You do your argument no favours with personal attacks while avoiding the issues raised in the interview.

      If you want further comments published, then please keep away from personal insults and address the issues.

      Delete
  5. So you believe that a defendant, who was aware of existing legislation pertaining to his behaviour, should get to chose the whether that legislation has any authority over him ? Stuart can believe whatever he choses, but he was aware he was breaking the law, and should have the courage to face up to the consequences, not cry foul and claim he is exempt from legislation that the rest of the island is subject to. Has he taken down the offending information from his site ? No he hasn't, so he deserves all he gets I'm afraid.

    What a waste of everybody's time and taxpayers money

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The “existing legislation” that you talk of is addressed HERE and hope this helps your understanding of Stuart’s argument a little better.

      Delete
  6. A reader at 11:55 says, "So you believe that a defendant, who was aware of existing legislation pertaining to his behaviour, should get to chose the whether that legislation has any authority over him?"

    I was aware of the existing legislation - the Data Protection Law - because I was a part of the legislature which passed it. I believed then - and believe now - that the law as passed by the legislature applies to me.

    Unfortunately - Jersey's public authorities - and the Jersey courts - decided - unlawfully - that they didn't like those parts of the Data Protection Law which meant their various corrupt failures could be exposed - so they chose to ignore those parts - for example, public interest disclosure - and exemptions for journalism - and exemptions for the detection and prevention of crime - and instead acted as though that law had no authority over them.

    The conduct of Jersey's authorities in ignoring inconvenient parts of laws - and actually overtly breaking the law - does not stop with the Data Protection Law.

    For example - it is against the law to have conflicted judges involved in cases. A judge who has any kind of interest in a particular case - for example being involved in the background matters themselves - or knowing parties to the case - can not lawfully be involved in such a case.

    But yet the Jersey court system has chosen to ignore those laws. For example - in the cases of:-

    Bridget Shaw;

    Richard Tucker;

    William Bailhache;

    Christopher Pitchers;

    Julian Clyde-Smith;

    Charles Gray;

    Michael Birt;

    And others.

    Then when we examine the conduct of the purported "courts" under these conflicted "judges" - we rapidly discover even more laws being broken or ignored. For example, the rules of evidence, and the laws of a fair trial. It is not lawful - for example - for a system to decided to prosecute someone - but when that defendant's legal defence annihilates the prosecution case - humiliates the system - and makes the case blow-up in their faces - to simple carry on the prosecution - whilst suddenly deeming the entire defence case "no longer admissible" - after three months.

    That is unlawful.

    It is against the law for prosecution lawyers to tell unambiguous - straightforward - lies in court. But that is what Jersey's authorities did.

    It is against the law to seek to pervert the course of justice, by interceding in an investigation being conducted by an external public authority - yet that is what Jersey's authorities did.

    It is illegal to seek to pervert the course of justice for the judicial authorities to conceal from the defendant the existence of a vital key witness - but that is what Jersey's judicial authorities did.

    It is not me who has ignored laws - and acted as though they didn't exist.

    As the evidence shows, it is Jersey's public authorities.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  7. This story is in the filthy rag today but I don't know what it has written because I don't buy it. Could the full story from the rag be put up on the net so for those of us who don't by it can read it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully Big Ian will have it up later. Good to see the State Media feeding off of another Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) exclusive.

      Delete
  8. It just says that if he does not do what he is told he will be going to prison.
    No doubt, followed by Ian, Neil and Rico because people are making a number of data protection complaints against all 4 of you.
    Still you can die by the sword I guess!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn’t agree with you more PJ. This secret taxpayer funded court case/super-injunction was, IMO, only set up in order to shut down local Blogs (Jersey’s only independent media)

      Now the Establishment has the JUDGE MADE LAW it was looking for (thanks to the four proxies) anybody who criticises the government/paedophiles/"justice" system can now be silenced.

      Delete
  9. The gist of the article. ''Commissioner Julian Clyde smith, the judge, suggested that Advocate Fraser Robertson, who represented the four, should write to Google, the internet company which hosts the site on which Mr Syvret's blog is published, enclosing a copy of the judgement and asking them to take down the offending material. Mr Clyde-Smith, who was sitting with Jurats kerley and Blampied, said that he understood Google would do so to comply with a legitimate court order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Google would have to recognise it as a "legitimate" court order?

      Delete
    2. Good luck to anybody trying to convince Google this was a legitimate court ruling!

      Delete
  10. How were the claims made on Mr Syvret's blog found to be unwarranted if claims made are in the public interest?

    ReplyDelete
  11. ''Legitimate court order'' :) Stuart should inform google of Judge-made-law

    ReplyDelete
  12. VFC,
    What a story. The photo (above) is perfect for illustrating this insane prosecution -just a bunch of late hour court papers shoved under a door in the desperate hope of making their attempt at free speech suppression look like something lawful. It doesn't.
    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  13. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/faq/#non_compliance_reasons

    From time to time, we receive falsified court orders. We do examine the legitimacy of the documents that we receive, and if we determine that a court order is false, we will not comply with it. Here are some examples of fake court orders that we have received:
    •We received a fake Canadian court order that demanded the removal of search results that link to three pages of the site forums.somethingawful.com. The fake order claimed that the site contained defamatory statements, but did not cite the law that was supposedly broken.
    •We received a fake American court order that demanded the removal of a blog because it supposedly violated the copyrights of an individual by using her name in various blog posts.
    •We received four fake Indian court orders [1, 2, 3, 4] that demanded the removal of blog posts and
    entire blogs for alleged defamation. The orders threatened to punish Google for failure to comply.
    •We received four fake Peruvian court orders [1, 2, 3, 4] that demanded the removal of blog posts and entire blogs for alleged defamation. Two of the orders claimed to be issued from New York while another gave an 8-day compliance deadline.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'If I get so much as arrested again by this corrupt judiciary - the facts about rapist go public.'

    So Stuart supposedly has evidence ('facts' as he calls them) of somebody being a rapist which he appears to have suppressed until he can use the information for his own ends as some sort of revenge play. Surely, given your avowed wish to provide a voice for victims of crime, even you cannot attempt to defend this lunacy ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you wish to selectively quote Stuart Syvret please do so in context.

    He has, as far as I’m aware, gone through the correct channels in order to bring the, “immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure” to justice, as have others, according to Stuart, including the States of Jersey Police under the leadership of former (illegally suspended) Police Chief Graham Power QPM.

    Extract from Stuart Syvret’s Blog.


    “What is far less well known is that there were other corrupt motivations for the illegal suspension of the Police Chief.

    One reason – in particular – was the most pressing – over all others.

    It is this:

    The Police were a matter of weeks, perhaps a couple of months away – from submitting to Attorney General William Bailhache rape charges against an immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure.

    Had the file gone in – and the man been charged – he would have brought them all down with him.

    The rape investigation had to be sabotaged. Hence the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

    The rapist was legally represented.

    He was represented by The Ogier Group – and Julian Clyde-Smith.

    After the illegal suspension of Graham Power, the Police Chief attempted to judicially review the plainly unlawful actions against him.

    When his case came to court – it was heard and thrown-out by Julian Clyde-Smith.

    Julian Clyde-Smith did not declare the conflict of interests – that he was involved in representing the rapist.

    So – the Police Chief who had been illegally suspended – mainly so as to protect a rapist from being charged with the crimes – finds himself before a court – presided over by a part-time judge – who is involved in legally representing the same rapist the police Chief had been unlawfully suspended so as to protect.”(END)

    One would suggest that it is others who have questions to answer not least Julian Clyde Smith.

    An educated guess would tell me that as soon as Stuart publishes the alleged rapist’s (“immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure”) name he would be arrested and subject to another taxpayer funded secret court case and more than likely imprisoned.

    It looks as though what he is saying is that he might as well be hung as a sheep for a lamb.

    If as Stuart has stated (quoted above) is correct then what are your thoughts on Julian Clyde Smith’s apparent conflict of interests and behavior/actions/inactions?

    Or is your motivation just to bash Stuart Syvret?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Today's genuine news : Last living NEANDERTHALS discovered... in Jersey

    - sound's about right, and they're called 'Lawyers' :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'The Police were a matter of weeks, perhaps a couple of months away – from submitting to Attorney General William Bailhache rape charges against an immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure.' - Hearsay

    'Had the file gone in – and the man been charged – he would have brought them all down with him.' - Supposition


    'The rape investigation had to be sabotaged. Hence the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.' Supposition

    'After the illegal suspension of Graham Power, the Police Chief attempted to judicially review the plainly unlawful actions against him.' - 'When his case came to court – it was heard and thrown-out by Julian Clyde-Smith.' - Attempt to link supposition of Graham Power's suspension with case of supposed rapist being heard by JCS. No link other than your own supposition, so no conflict of interest.

    'So – the Police Chief who had been illegally suspended – mainly so as to protect a rapist from being charged with the crimes' - Sorry, I thought that this was 'one of the other' reasons for the police chief's suspension, not the main reason. I thought the primary reason, as you and others have repeatedly told everyone over recent years, was to sabotage the HDLG investigation ? Again, desperate supposition, and I suspect an attempt at rewriting history, in trying to link police chief's suspension to other factors.

    'An educated guess would tell me that as soon as Stuart publishes the alleged rapist’s (“immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure”) name he would be arrested and subject to another taxpayer funded secret court case and more than likely imprisoned.' - Supposition again. And yes, if Stuart publishes an accusation that a man who is innocent in the eyes of the law is a rapist, I would expect him to be punished.

    As you will see, all of Stuart's 'facts' are actually just based upon various suppositions, together with wilful attempts to link one matter (GP's suspension) and a case where a man was accused (and cleared) of rape.

    All pretty desperate as usual. And bashing Stuart as a motivation ? No, just a tax payer who is sick of him wasting the island's resources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part one.

      Thank you for your “opinion” almost totally void of any evidence and little more than supposition/hearsay on your behalf.

      REPLY = my answer.

      'The Police were a matter of weeks, perhaps a couple of months away – from submitting to Attorney General William Bailhache rape charges against an immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure.' – Hearsay

      REPLY – Where is your “evidence” to substantiate this is “hearsay?” (Supposition/hearsay on your behalf)

      'Had the file gone in – and the man been charged – he would have brought them all down with him.' – Supposition

      REPLY - Where is your “evidence” to substantiate this is “supposition?” (Supposition/hearsay on your behalf)


      'The rape investigation had to be sabotaged. Hence the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.' Supposition

      REPLY - Where is your “evidence” to substantiate this is “supposition?” (Supposition/hearsay on your behalf)

      'After the illegal suspension of Graham Power, the Police Chief attempted to judicially review the plainly unlawful actions against him.' - 'When his case came to court – it was heard and thrown-out by Julian Clyde-Smith.' - Attempt to link supposition of Graham Power's suspension with case of supposed rapist being heard by JCS. No link other than your own supposition, so no conflict of interest.

      REPLY – The supposed rapist’s case wasn’t “heard” by JCS, according to SS he was his defense lawyer! If this is the case then there is a huge conflict of interest. Once more your “opinion” is based on your own supposition with disregard to the “evidence.”

      'So – the Police Chief who had been illegally suspended – mainly so as to protect a rapist from being charged with the crimes' - Sorry, I thought that this was 'one of the other' reasons for the police chief's suspension, not the main reason. I thought the primary reason, as you and others have repeatedly told everyone over recent years, was to sabotage the HDLG investigation ? Again, desperate supposition, and I suspect an attempt at rewriting history, in trying to link police chief's suspension to other factors.

      REPLY – This just appears to be a desperate attempt at semantics on your behalf. Because there are those that believe the “primary” reason for illegally suspending the Chief Police Officer was to sabotage the Child Abuse Investigation, are you trying to imply that I have claimed this is the ONLY reason? If so please substantiate your supposition with “evidence” (link) as to where I have said that.


      Delete
    2. Part two.


      'An educated guess would tell me that as soon as Stuart publishes the alleged rapist’s (“immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure”) name he would be arrested and subject to another taxpayer funded secret court case and more than likely imprisoned.' - Supposition again. And yes, if Stuart publishes an accusation that a man who is innocent in the eyes of the law is a rapist, I would expect him to be punished.

      REPLY – The sentence started with; 'An educated guess” which if we’re playing with semantics if you want to call an educated guess supposition then feel free, but the “fact” is I called it an educated guess and didn’t attempt to dress it up any other way. How is the man innocent in the eyes of the Law? He hasn’t faced the Law. Just because he hasn’t been charged with a crime doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed one….. or more!

      As you will see, all of Stuart's 'facts' are actually just based upon various suppositions, together with wilful attempts to link one matter (GP's suspension) and a case where a man was accused (and cleared) of rape.

      REPLY – As you can see you haven’t presented any “facts” and are guilty of the very same “crime” you accuse Stuart Syvret of. Furthermore the man (alleged rapist) hasn’t been “cleared” of anything. To have been “cleared” one would suggest the evidence would need to be tested in a non-politicised/conflicted/corrupt court. So your statement of him being cleared isn’t just supposition this time it’s factually incorrect.

      All pretty desperate as usual. And bashing Stuart as a motivation ? No, just a tax payer who is sick of him wasting the island's resources.

      REPLY – You just couldn’t help yourself could you? #SyvretBashing.

      Delete
    3. 'How is the man innocent in the eyes of the Law? He hasn’t faced the Law. Just because he hasn’t been charged with a crime doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed one….. or more!'

      This pretty much sums up yours and Stuart's position perfectly. He hasn't been charged with anything, yet that doesn't make him innocent in the eyes of the law ?

      What's the point of asking any sensible questions, or pointing out flaws in Stuart's 'facts' when your position is that Stuart's accusations must be true because I can't prove that they're not. This isn't about me as I'm not the one going to court or publishing threats to reveal the names of rapists, or the one subject to court orders to remove comments from a blog. I am the one however who knows the difference between admissible facts, hearsay and supposition. And you either can't, or worse, won't.

      The fact that you feel it is appropriate to add childish hashtags to your comments when we are talking about such grave matters as false accusations of rape pretty much says it all doesn't it ?

      Delete
    4. 'How is the man innocent in the eyes of the Law? He hasn’t faced the Law. Just because he hasn’t been charged with a crime doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed one….. or more!'

      “This pretty much sums up yours and Stuart's position perfectly. He hasn't been charged with anything, yet that doesn't make him innocent in the eyes of the law ?”

      REPLY – Going by your ethos are you saying that Jimmy Savile is innocent, bearing in mind he was never charged with any offence although papers had been submitted to the CPS? Cyril Smith?

      “What's the point of asking any sensible questions, or pointing out flaws in Stuart's 'facts' when your position is that Stuart's accusations must be true because I can't prove that they're not.”

      There you go with your selective quoting again. If you wish to quote me please do so accurately. I said “If this is the case” and have not stated that what SS has written is “fact” I have quoted him. I was playing devil’s advocate and demonstrated that everything you were saying was nothing more than what you were accusing SS of (supposition/hearsay)

      “I am the one however who knows the difference between admissible facts, hearsay and supposition. And you either can't, or worse, won't.”

      REPLY – Clearly you don’t though do you?

      “The fact that you feel it is appropriate to add childish hashtags to your comments when we are talking about such grave matters as false accusations of rape pretty much says it all doesn't it ?”

      There you go again with your supposition. How do you know the accusations of rape are “false?”
      The fact that I am asking questions suggests that I do see this a grave matter. The fact that you are unwilling to question the establishment makes me question your motives. Especially in light of the fact that you have already decided the accusations of rape are “false” Could you provide some evidence of this, bearing in mind I have never said they are not false?

      Don’t forget to send the link where I have said the ONLY reason the former Police Chief was suspended was to sabotage the HDLG Investigation!

      Delete
    5. I can confirm that following the opening of the Haute de la Garenne Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) serious allegations of historic sexual assault were made against “immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure."

      It is understood that a police file was submitted to the Law Offices Department who decided there was insufficient evidence for prosecution.

      Delete
  18. Just to clarify your statement at 9:28, does that mean "an immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure," or should that be "immensely powerful Jersey establishment figures," in plural?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that particular case it is singular however we must not forget there are potentially 118 Child Abuse suspects still at large on the Island who were not charged during "Operation Rectangle" after the departure of former DCO Lenny Harper and CPO Graham Power QPM. A staggering 93% of the suspects were never charged.

      Delete
    2. If 93% were never charged, there have been many sleepless nights worrying about a knock on the door, eh? Yet Syvret has been the only one who suffered that kind of raid.

      Delete
  19. Online 10 minutes ago :

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/346148/Royal-cover-up-Police-censor-Jimmy-Savile-interview-transcript
    Royal cover up: Police censor Jimmy Savile interview transcript

    PAEDOPHILE [& regular visitor to Jersey, along with .....] Jimmy Savile named the royal family in his bombshell interview with police but any mention of them was removed from the released transcripts.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.