Have the Planning & Environment Department breached Planning & Building Law? (PART 1)

THE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE, THE FACTS SAY THEY HAVE! EXPERTS SAY THEY HAVE ! , LAWYERS SAY THEY HAVE !

This is might look like a break from the norm for this Blog as we have never, as far as we can recall, published a posting concerning the Planning and Environment Department. However It looks to us that this particular case encompasses the broader subject of a politicised and corrupt "Justice" System here in Jersey. A  prosecution case which has been brought into the magistrate courts by the Planning & Environment Department against a local plumber which started some 16 months ago.

Team Voice has studied a wealth of evidence which does take some time to explain with understanding the motivation of why this prosecution has been instigated or is still going on, and after a lot of private investigation and scrutiny of law and facts from qualified Lawyers and external Building Control experts the impartial view and qualified opinion is “YES”, that’s yes, the Planning & Environment Dept. look to have committed an offence of the building law.

This Friday 13^th September at 10 am, within the magistrates court, there will be a another chapter in the 11th Court Hearing (since litigation begun in June 2012) of a particular Planning & Building prosecution of a local plumber  for not applying for permission to install an Oil Fired Boiler (even though it was impossible for him to apply for permission for works in private people’s homes (whom he had no novation with as he was not dealing with them ) whilst being  instructed by the PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT yes the Planning & Environment Department’s  multi million pound 100% Public funded Energy Efficiency Service to assist in replacing Oil Fired Boilers.

Team Voice have been studying this case for  a while and it’s taken some time for us to get a full understanding of the case as its “bizarre” to say the least, not just the words of Team Voice being “bizarre” but the words of a local Advocate. (Transcripts of court) -  So after 16 months of litigation, yes 16 months of litigation without a trial,  and after documented expert advice we have been shown, we are as sure as we can be that the prosecution against this member of the public can only be seen as malicious because of some very pertinent evidence which appears to show the department’s motivation of its “ abuse of the court”  is to fulfil a private agenda  to cover up serious failings within the department’s management of the Energy Efficiency Scheme -  including prima facie  evidence  of  libel, defamation,(or should that be "Data Protection" now?) misuse of public money, causing health issues to members of the public, incompetent officers, and the department being identified of the alleged breach of the planning & building law under the question of law and fact.

Team Voice cannot go into the full facts and evidence at this time as it’s too long for this part 1 post but we will be writing the full case details very soon within PART 2 including one of the most detailed evidential chronologies we have ever seen including documents, audio, emails , and written evidence.

Now, to try and help readers have an understanding of the titled question “Have the Planning & Environment Department breached Planning Law” it will take some time to understand the application of building bye-laws- and that can only be seen in the up-coming chronology or some individual research, or to take an interest in the case, as again it would be too much to write up on an introduction post. But in the evidence we have seen concerning the case over a long period of time we believe the Reg Skips case will be engulfed on such a large scale it's deeply shocking with how the department thought they were going to get away with it (although they probably will!) It just shows how incompetent and downright corrupt certain officers look to be within the Planning & Environment department and the wrongful delegation of powers from the AG and centeniers to that departments unqualified officers( more to come in part 2)

But what’s really important here is to highly stress to the public of how this case quite clearly encompass the issues that we at Team Voice and other concerned members of the public have been tirelessly stating with how the Judiciary, States departments, and local lawyers overlap within their working relationships which eventually equals to corruption and unlawful procedures within a court process.

When you look at the evidential chronology of this case, which we are eager to publish when we have planned its presentation in Part 2 , it shows such a stark example of when you have an apparent corrupted states department instigating malicious prosecutions to cover up their own failings and then, what looks to be, corrupt actions of private advocates being too closely entwined with the law offices department,who are acting on behalf of persons making what looks to be, vexatious or malicious complaints.

Team Voice urge members of the public to pop down to the Magistrates Court at 10 am tomorrow (Friday 13th Sept) to learn about the case because when you really get an understanding , it becomes quite obvious, that this has to be the mother of failures within the Department’s history, it makes the Reg Skips case look like a picnic in the park and  it has raised some important questions and concerns with some quite shocking evidence of how local advocates and the law offices conduct their daily relationships when working on cases especially with regards to Planning & Environment cases.

To conclude part 1 introduction, Team Voice will say at this stage is that the failings and upcoming scandal of the Energy Efficiency Scheme will go well beyond this current court case.  We would say it’s hard to believe and sounds unbelievable , but hey, it takes a lot to shock Team Voice and many discerning islanders now – especially when it comes to the States or its "Justice" system which appears to be, politicised and corrupt.

Stuart Syvret Super Injunction Part 2

In continuation of our PREVIOUS POSTING we bring readers/viewers part 2 of the exclusive interview with former Health Minister Stuart Syvret concerning the multi million pound, taxpayer funded, failed super-injunction against him.

Since we recorded the interview there has been even more nonsensical gibberish published in Jersey's ONLY "News"paper, the disgraced Jersey Evening Post, in which its readers are expected to make some sense of.

For example, in the judgement against the former Health Minister, we read;

"he has put the Representors to unnecessary expense and has failed to engage with the litigation and he has repeatedly breached the order. The consequence of this conduct has been that the Representors have been put to unnecessary expense."

Then we read in the "News"paper;

"The commissioners office was awarded its legal costs in the prosecution which was funded by the taxpayer."

So the "representors" incurred no cost at all which were awarded to the Data Commissioner's Office (the tax payer) so were the four individuals the "representors", was it the Data Protection Office, or somebody else or a mixture of all three?

Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins, is quoted, in the  Jersey Evening Post as saying "The Royal Court judgement is clear, and the office of data protection commissioner notes that all of the applicants have been successful in winning the relief that they were seeking."

One has to ask, if Ms Martins did say that (because it was in the JEP there's a good chance SHE DIDN'T) then what exactly were the "applicants" looking for? The offending articles, are apparently still up on the internet, and Mr. Syvret is going to be publishing more, indeed he has already!

Yet the JEP question none of it and expect its readers not to either!

Well we have questioned Mr. Syvret about the costs (interview below) and just who it was that was paying them and indeed who the "representors" are/were and as most have known for quite some time despite a multitude of un-answered questions in the island's parliament, that it isn't/wasn't the four individuals named on Mr. Syvret's Blog and the evidence does appear to look as if this court case was brought by "others" with an all together more sinister motive and agenda.

Speaking of un-answered questions in the island's parliament readers MUST listen to THIS which will demonstrate just what a sham this has been for quite some time and further demonstrates how long the disgraced Jersey Evening Post along with all local State Media has known about this Super Injunction.  

We also asked Mr. Syvret exactly what, in his opinion, this court case has achieved? It appears all it's achieved is to line the pockets of Lawyers and not much else as he has not, and will not, take down the offending articles from his Blog. According to Mr. Syvret another achievement of this (not so) secret court case is that it has made The Powers That Be look "even more ridiculous and oppressive than they did already." It has, according to Mr. Syvret, strengthened his case against the UK Justice Secretary/Privy Council as another achievement.

We hope readers/viewers will be a little more informed after watching the video interview than what they might have been from watching, listening to, the State Media.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE.

Stuart Syvret, Super-Injunction, and State Media.

After the latest desperate attack on Bloggers from Jersey's only (DISGRACED) "news"paper and as a result of the (not so) secret court case against former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, finally making it into the local mainstream media we have secured an exclusive interview with Mr. Syvret.

We have decided to publish the interview in two parts, the first part (below) concentrating on the truth behind the myths concerning Jersey's State Media, in that it is the local Blogs, who publish evidence and the State Media who either bury evidence or, as in the case of the Jersey Evening Post (JEP), claim they don't know of the evidence, despite reporting on it a year previously which is demonstrated by fellow Blogger, and Team Voice member Rico Sorda HERE.

Regular readers will not be surprised to learn that not one of Jersey's esteemed "accredited" "journalists" has contacted Mr. Syvret concerning this so-called Super-Injunction despite being aware of it for about 12 months. If this court case could have such huge ramifications for journalism, and free speech, then one HAS to ask WHY NOT?

Part 2 of this interview is an in-depth discussion of the (not so) secret court case or "Super-Injunction." We discuss, in that interview, what it has, or hasn't achieved, who's paying for the court case, who is the real winner of the case and much more. We hope to have it published in the next couple of days.

Senator Philip Bailhache Asks UK To Intervene?

It has been reported (in local State Media) that Senator Philip Bailhache is to ask the UK, including the Minister of Justice, Lord McNally to intervene after Jersey has been put on a "blacklist" by French President Francois Hollande for apparently being an uncooperative Tax Haven.




Philip Bailhache asking the UK to intervene? This is the same man (according to former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM) while Bailiff, along with his brother, William Bailhache, were looking into breaking ties with the UK altogether!




Regular readers will be aware that a document was leaked to the discredited, and disgraced, BBC which it subsequently BURIED. (Despite reporting on the prosecution case). The document was the interim defence case of the former Chief Police Officer and in it he wrote;

"where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda.   I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. I recall that some of the advice and contacts I provided were in an email I sent, probably in July 2007.   This and other experiences reinforced my understanding that there was a tide flowing against closer association with the U.K, and a strong local agenda to develop working models and solutions within the island."(END)




But beside the apparent hypocrisy of Senator Bailhache, one has to ask, just what mandate does the UK really have to interfere with Jersey affairs? According to Lord McNally, the UK really has no business in Jersey affairs as we are apparently a self governing jurisdiction and has refused, on many occasion, to get involved, with what looks to be Jersey's corrupt and politicised judicial system.

Senator Bailhache is not the first island politician to request the intervention of the UK. Deputies Trevor, and Shona, Pitman have also called on Lord McNally to fulfil, the apparent, "obligation" of the UK to ensure good governance, and the Rule Of Law, in the Crown Dependency of Jersey in a Press Release HERE. Lord McNally/UK has refused to get involved claiming it doesn't have the remit. 




With that in mind, what remit does the UK have, to intervene between France and Jersey? Will Senator Bailhache (unlike Deputies Pitman) find a sympathetic ear in Lord McNally and what could that entail? How CAN the UK intervene? Will Lord McNally see the apparent hypocrisy of Senator Bailhache? One minute he's looking into independence from the UK and the next minute asking it for help. If it doesn't intervene will Senator Bailhache use this as another excuse for Jersey to break ties with the UK and go independent?

How can Lord McNally turn a blind eye to this lot (below) and then take Senator Bailhache seriously?

Miranda, Greenwald, Goodman.

Before David Miranda was detained for nine hours at London's Heathrow Airport, there was me.

The news of Miranda's detainment came while I was cooking dinner in my kitchen, where I make my home in Vermont. It was early evening on a Sunday when, simultaneously, my mobile phone and email blew up. A longtime Wall Street source sent me a link to a New York Times story about Miranda's travails, along with the following message:

Reminded me of your experience. Seems these Brits are thugs dressed in borrowed garbs, speaking borrowed words.

Reading Miranda's account of his treatment - no explanation, no access to his own lawyer, no contact with the outside world, not even his family or his partner, investigative journalistGlenn Greenwald - I remembered the day I was detained, stripped of everything I owned, including all proof of my identity, and locked up in the basement of Heathrow while researching VIP child abuse in the British Isles.

Only, in my case, I was held for more than 12 hours.

Many times since the news breaking of Miranda's treatment, I have wondered, if the U.K. Border Agency could not hold Miranda longer than nine hours under Schedule 7 of the terror laws, what did that mean about its detaining me for over 12?

I am an American, a Tier-1 U. K. visa holder and former resident of Great Britain. I am also an investigative journalist and author with a spotless travel and legal record. In other words, if this could happen to me, this could happen to anyone.

During my 12 hours in captivity, I was not accused of committing any crime or breaking the rules of my visa. In fact, I was using the same visa I had used for almost a decade to do research in the U.K., including while writing stories for The Financial Times, Forbes andFortune.

My crime was researching a topic that the British authorities preferred I did not.

It was Sept. 11, 2011 - the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York. I was glad to be leaving the city, as it was on a high terror alert. I planned to stay in the U.K. for six days to see friends and colleagues before heading to Austria, where I'd accepted an invitation to speak at a bank conference alongside European bank governors and former U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chairman Sheila Bair.

That wasn't all I was doing, however. I had just finished a journalism fellowship at the University of Colorado at Boulder and had begun working on my second book. The focus of my research: a highly political and secretive island off the coast of France called Jersey - the British Crown's wealthiest tax shelter and favored habitué of rich and powerful child abusers. (And yes, a wealthy family on the island once owned the state of New Jersey.)

My detainment came without warning. I arrived early in the morning and headed into the passport check, as usual. A guard asked if I would answer a few questions. I agreed, thinking nothing of it. But no questions were ever asked. Instead, I was escorted to a windowless room in the basement of Heathrow and locked in. At no time was I told that I was being taken into custody or why.

My luggage and personal belongings were immediately impounded. I was marched to a processing center where I was photographed and fingerprinted like a common criminal - only, unlike a criminal, I was not allowed a lawyer or access to my consulate. I also was handed a slip of paper that I still have today, which stated:

You have been detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act or arrested under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to that Act.

What did this mean? I could not get anyone to tell me.

That was the beginning of perhaps the most harrowing 12-plus hours of my life. What people do not realize is that a nine-hour detainment - or a 12-hour one, in my case - would be borderline tolerable if you knew how long it would be taking in advance.

What the U.K. Border Agency proceeds to do is something else entirely. For every minute you spend imprisoned against your will, the U.K. authorities are actively prepping you for the worst: that you will be held indefinitely, that you may disappear off the face of the earth without recourse or redress. And that feels a lot more like torture.

I was placed in a dirt-stained room with a latrine and no bed. I was left there for many hours. The U.K. Border officers spent this time rummaging through my things in an apparent attempt to reverse-engineer a case against me. They had no interest in speaking with me; to the contrary, all they wanted to do was get at my luggage. I am afraid I was a bit of a disappointment. None of my book research notes were with me on that trip. All I had were clothes and books and shoes.

My requests for information were ignored. I asked if I was being arrested; no one would tell me. I asked many times to call a lawyer or my consulate. The guards laughed at me. I asked, 'What are my rights?' Their answer: 'You have no rights. You are on the U.K. border.' After about eight hours, two U.K. Border Agency officers finally grilled me - first one, then the other - about my work, my finances, my living arrangements, the people with whom I associated and where I was headed. I was not allowed counsel. I told them I would be in the U.K. for six days before traveling to Austria. I showed them my onward flight bookings, arranged by the organizer of the event. The officers looked straight at them and accused me of lying.

The interrogation process was designed to be demoralizing and hostile. I was effectively human garbage, to be threatened with further imprisonment if I did not cooperate. I greatly empathized with Miranda's account of being in fear for his life and his security. No effort is spared by the U.K. authorities in putting you through immense isolation and emotional trauma in the starkest of Orwellian terms beneath the Heathrow Airport.

Once the officers were done going through my things and berating me, I was summarily thrown out of the country and banned from re-entering the U.K. - as well as the island of Jersey - for the next two years. To this day, the U.K. Border Agency has never furnished me with a clear reason why.

After getting ousted from the country, I sent for my things in Jersey, where I kept a foreign visitor-approved office and a pied-à-terre. The parcels, shipped by UPS, arrived weeks late -chopped up and razor-bladed all. It was apparent the boxes had been searched many times by many hands. Inside one of them, I found a slip of paper, which I have kept, stating that the shipment contained an unidentified "contaminant." To this day, UPS cannot explain what this is about and claims its investigation, which is ongoing more than a year later, has been hobbled by multiple delays.

Next month marks the two-year anniversary of my ouster from Great Britain. Since my detainment, my U.K. visa status has been fully restored through the collective efforts of members of the press, including The Guardian and the BBC. A social media campaignbrought international attention to the plight of those suffering in Jersey and, through the herculean efforts of U.K. Member of Parliament John Hemming and Jersey politiciansTrevor and Shona Pitman, I traveled for the first time back to London and Jersey this summer to continue my work with a group of U.K. journalists. I also was able to meet MP Hemming for the first time to thank him.

While much has been put right, the U.K. Border Agency has continued to act as a sort of rogue political body, breaking its own rules; blocking an objective investigation into my treatment at the border; denying administrative review of my visa; and, bizarrely, claiming that the video footage of my detainment had been destroyed, then informing me it had not.

Repeated requests for a copy of the full footage, to which I am entitled under the U.K.'s Data Protection Act, have been willfully ignored.

This past July, a group of MPs, led by Hemming, issued a parliamentary motion insisting on the release of my CCTV footage, as well as "details of the original process resulting in [Goodman's] ban in 2011 and a full explanation of the delays in her being provided with a visa in 2013."

The U.K. Border Agency has not responded, so today, MP Hemming is launching aChange.org petition urging U.K. Immigration Minister Mark Harper and Home Secretary Theresa May to stop stonewalling the release the "missing" footage of my detainment.

Every signature on this petition, which can be found here, sends a strong message to the U.K. and countries around the world that there will be rigorous pushback wherever journalists are treated as criminals or used as political scratching posts while pursuing the truth. Indeed, the ability of citizens around the world to knowledgeably debate issues of the day depends on it.

Writing this article was difficult, as the aftermath of detainment causes serious and lasting side effects. I still adore Great Britain and the beautiful island of Jersey. I cannot help it; they are in my heart.

My visa has been restored. But when I see fellow journalists trying to do their jobs and being harassed and targeted - such as Miranda and Greenwald - it is obvious to me that our basic human rights and crucial press freedoms are in peril and we must stand together to ensure they are not taken away entirely.

 

Follow Leah McGrath Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/truth_eater

SOURCE.

Stuart Syvret Court Case(s) and Judicial/Political Corruption.

In December 2011 VFC INTERVIEWED former Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, on his release from prison after being convicted of Data Protection/contempt of court charges. The court case(s) have been described as "politicised and corrupt" and Mr. Syvret a "political prisoner." More about that particular court case can be viewed HERE.

On Mr. Syvret's release from prison, during the interview with VFC he said; "They're going to carry on bringing these kind of corrupt, oppressive, malicious prosecutions against me until they've succeeded in either intimidating me into silence or driving me out of Jersey permanently."

Regular readers will be aware that there is a hugely diverse number of people now coming forward claiming judicial corruption and that Jersey's so-called "justice" system is not fit for purpose. For a breakdown of some of these people claiming to have evidence of judicial/political corruption, which include former and sitting politicians, former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation, members of the public, national and international journalists and others please view THIS which might demonstrate that Mr. Syvret is no longer a lone voice with concerns of political and judicial corruption in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

Mr. Syvret is now, and has been, involved in a number of court cases (as he predicted in Dec 2011) where he, and others, believe the purpose of some cases is to intimidate him, and others, namely Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) into silence telling VFC in the interview below, among other things, that although being a litigant in person, it is not unusual for him to receive a five hundred page document and is expected to respond within thirty six hours. Displayed in this latest interview are the eighteen lever-arch folders that concern just one of his court cases and he claims to have many more "possibly hundreds" which would/could be extremely daunting/intimidating to any litigant in person.

Also discussed in this exclusive interview is the apparent dangerous precedents being set by the island's judges (the real power in Jersey) where Mr. Syvret claims investigative journalism and public interest disclosures are being made illegal by the Island's courts by interpreting the democratically approved legislation in a way it was never intended.

The so-called super-injunction and secret court case also get a mention.