Search This Blog

Monday, 31 December 2012

"How To Steal A Farm - The Jersey Way - Part 3 - What Are We Paying Chief Officer Mike Bowron For?"

"Yet Another Complaint Of Severe Criminality Goes Completely Ignored"

Must be great getting paid for nothing, hey Mike?

Angela Amy wrote a letter of complaint to the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on the 7th of November 2012. Accompanying this letter of complaint was a letter Angela wrote to King Birt on the 26th of October 2012, explaining the corruption that had taken place amongst the seemingly endless list of halfwits and thieves within the Jersey legal system, if you could possibly call it a legal system!

To date, Angela's letter has been completely ignored by the States of Jersey Police. Angela also wrote a letter asking for a full Judicial Review of her case, which has also been completely ignored whilst the Viscounts department moves swiftly to steal her farm from her!!!

I rang Angela this afternoon to see how she was, and of course, to wish her a happy new year. What greeted me on the other end of the phone was a mere sliver of the woman myself and Cyril had met over a year ago after she had contacted us to see if we could help.

Angela was extremely tearful and stated that she wished she was dead!!!

Angela's story can be read in full at the links below

PART 1

PART 2


That is how Jersey's corrupt scum get people, someone has taken a shine to her farm and will stop at nothing to get it. Well, they are going to get a shock as we are not having it anymore. And I warn you bastards now, anything happens to that lady and I will come after you all for Corporate Manslaughter!!!


Below are the pointless letters Angela wrote to Bowron and Birt.



















And please sign the petition below to help rid the Isle of Jersey of these disgusting crooks.








32 comments:

  1. I have read through the chronology your article links to. It is clearly a complex case involving a lot of different people who appear, themselves, to have instructed lawyers in Jersey. Could I ask you to post somewhere, links to all of the (public), published judgments concerning this lady's affairs and the situation complained of?

    I notice, also, that Ms Amy appears to have adopted the Freeman-on-the-Land style name (Angela: Amy). It would be helpful to know whether and, if so, when Freeman-style arguments might have been presented by Ms Amy either with help or without.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon, thank you for your interest, I am not able to post anything without the permission of Angela, I am in the phone book if you can offer any solid advice or assistance :)

      Delete
    2. Understood. Only assistance I can give is to identify, on what is available to me in the public domain, anything that may assist Ms Amy and the children. I reference the children in this instance because, on what I have read so far, the dispute appears to have been convenient to the lawyers to perpetuate.

      Delete
  2. In the matter of the Amy Tutelles [2011] JCA 144 gives a good overview of the circumstances. I shall read it through carefully. The ownership structure of the farm is interesting: two usufruits and a reversionary interest coupled with a dispute against the will founded upon a change of will (allegedly stemming from the ouster proceedings).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In essence, the lawyers appear to have racked up massive massive fee claims against several partial interests in the property; and racked up massive bills against the children over claims of about £90k.

      Delete
    2. At the end of the day, Angela was told by lawyers that she was entitled to the payments given to her to feed and clothe her children, if this was wrong, then they, the lawyers, deceived her. the Amy brats employed the lawyers, therefore, they are due the bills, not poor Angela who has done nothing wrong....

      Delete
    3. This is nothing but a scam to rob Angela of her home, if the Amy brats get the property, the foul stench of lawyers will have it off them within the year, they are too thick to realise that....

      Delete
    4. The lawyers fee's are around 1.5 Million now!!!

      Delete
    5. Most of the judgments to which this appeal relates appear to have been summary judgments. Summary judgments are, by their nature, determined without much of a hearing. Here, you have three lawyers (Kelleher, Fogarty and another - BakerPlatt, appointed by the Viscount - representing each child) and Sinel representing Ms Amy. The action against Ms Amy appears to be summed up in terms of "breach of trust" (although the advice from the lawyers Benest etc suggests that it may not have been intentional). Grant Thornton were appointed (at what cost?) to undertake a forensic accounting exercise. Without gross overcharging I fail to see how the costs can be approaching anything near £1.5m. Indeed, the court awarded costs against Sinel himself in at least one of the hearings which is basically the court disapproving Sinel's conduct.

      Sinel, by the way, was one of the lawyers that participated in the case Re Esteem Settlement in which the Court of Appeal criticized the Royal Court for entertaining "interlocutory games" of sorts. I don't think that case is readily available online ...

      Unless Ms Amy's own property is worth in excess of the childrens' costs, the children stand to receive precisely nothing: as any monies they receive will go straight to the lawyers unless they themselves have already discharged their bills which, in any event, appear to eclipse the childrens' claims making the whole exercise pretty pointless.

      The problem appears to be this: Ms Amy and her children appear to be involved in form of Mexican stand-off. Most of the information relating to the case (and any lawyerly misconduct) is going to be covered by privilege (either litigation or legal professional privilege) which effectively masks both the childrens' and their lawyers' intentions.

      There are, in my view, a couple of possible avenues: it just depends on the outlook of the children and certain facts. For example, the children appear to have been very close to turning 18 at the time proceedings commenced. Are the retainers with the lawyers valid contracts, or are they vitiated in some way?

      Also, the ownership structure of the properties. It's not entirely clear what properties are subject to the caveat but parts of the farm are partial interests that, on their own, are relatively devoid of value. For example, the reversion appears to follow not one but two life interests.

      What, I think, the children need to examine (possibly with new lawyers - possibly in the UK) is whether it is really in their interests for Ms Amy to be declared en desastre. Without examining the case precisely, I cannot say, but a key point of analysis is the flow of monies from Ms Amy to the children as they themselves may become the target of subsequent desastre proceedings and in those circumstances, one has to examine how the usufructory interests and reversionary interests are likely to operate in a desastre situation (in particular, whether the benefit of them vests in the Viscount on declaration en desastre) in which case a succession of desastre proceedings may leave the Farm unencumbered and saleable with an apportionment of value between Ms Amy and each of the children.

      An alternate approach may involve remise de biens which, if it involved both Ms Amy and the children might be an approach to resolving the whole situation, effectively, asking the jurats to assist in resolving all the different claims to the assets (this would include rights of action against the lawyers etc; as they would be duty bound to examine the validity of each claim). I hope this is of some limited assistance.

      Delete
    6. Thank you anon, I got most of it, I am sure Le Squirrel will grab the rest :)

      Delete
    7. One point though, the brats were around ten or eleven years old when this process started back in the late 90's

      Delete
    8. Also, Advocate Kelleher siphoned off all the money in Angela's and her husbands account around that time, leaving Angela with nothing to bring the brats up on.

      Even the newly appointed Accountant did a runner at the first available opportunity, he must have seen what was going down!!!

      Delete
    9. It appears, on the documents, that the alleged perjury would have taken place when the children were young (8, 9 or 10) and the family circumstances were relatively poor. Ms Amy acted to protect her children and ought to be proud of herself for doing so.

      From what I can see, the Kelleher representation for the books and records may or may not have been reasonable: it all depends on what went on beforehand but I do find it odd that representations were made for the books and records rather than simply a representation for change of tutrice as he threatened in September 2004.

      One would have to have a look at the precise terms of the tutelle to decide what duties Dr Kelleher had at the time and whether he discharged those duties correctly. If he felt that monies were being drawn inappropriately then it was probably his duty to report it to the Royal Court immediately. To the extent that fees were drawn in the last 10 years I suspect that they could be recoverable if they were in fact unreasonable or extortionate this would require a degree of forensic accounting and costs analysis.

      The problem is that the cost of litigating any cause of action is both substantial and risky. That's what Jersey's legal system preys on.

      Delete
    10. Preys upon indeed, it's a crying shame that people don't realise that they don't need a lawyer to tell the truth :)

      Delete
    11. The only thing they need a lawyer for is to navigate the law. It can be incredibly complex; cases can turn on fine distinctions.

      Delete
    12. Common Law is so disgustingly simple that all it requires is the truth!!! Now who , who is not guilty, is afraid of that?

      Delete
    13. I think customary law is closer to the bare assessment of facts that you speak of. The common law, by which I mean the system of binding precedent is more complex because litigants may have to apply to court even though precendent is against them simply to reach the higher courts. The common law, with its binding precedent facilitates certainty whereas the customary law is more flexible and, consequently, uncertain.

      But, fundamentally, on a given set of facts the common law or customary law ought to have some link with "common sense" such that, in an ideal world, all litigants would turn up to court (1) with common sense; (2) to tell the truth and nothing but the truth; and (3) with a preparedness to right any wrong they may have committed.

      Delete
    14. Yes, in fact you did. But, the complexities inherent in the law (and a lawyer's job) relates to management of the "legal policy of the land" if you will: how society ought to treat different fact situations. Deciding legal policy in one fact situation involves looking at how the last judge exercised his judgment in similar or analogous situations (simply because this judge doesn't actually know the law). And it's the construction of those arguments that determine whether a lawyer is going to be successful.

      Delete
    15. :)

      Goodnight my friend, I'm going home...

      Delete
  3. Paragraph 91: "Mr Sinel made a stringent criticism of the Commissioner’s postscript to his judgment in which the Commissioner said “this case calls out for mediation and compromise.” I entirely reject Mr Sinel’s submission that the Commissioner in those observations or his subsequent remarks, specifically said to be obiter, was acting in any way unjudicially or expressing any unjustified views as to the character or Mrs Amy or indeed of the children. He was merely stating a common sense view shared, I am aware, by my colleagues on this Court, that this unhappy family dispute would be better resolved by settlement than by litigation, whose continuation could only certainly benefit the lawyers involved."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the matter of the Amy Tutelles [2011] JRC 044A

      Paragraph 59: "I suggested at paragraph 51 above that this case cried out for mediation and compromise. The following remarks are entirely obiter and gratuitous but they are offered in case the parties should seek to settle their substantial outstanding differences. Those differences relate to the past, i.e. the administration of the tutelles and the future, i.e. how Mrs Amy’s rights to dower, should she pursue them, can be fairly compromised."

      Paragraph 60: "So far as the past is concerned, Anastasia and Marianna have outstanding claims under their Orders of Justice under various heads. They may have merit. On the other hand, Mrs Amy asserts a claim for other monies expended for the benefit of the children. That may have merit. From a moral perspective, although her claim for dower cannot ante–date the day upon which the application was made, it might be said that she has a moral claim for the share to which she would have been entitled had the application been made at the proper time. Viewed from a pragmatic perspective, it seems to me that a settlement somewhere between the amounts of the summary judgments and the amounts assessed in the GT report as being due would not be unfair.".

      The cost of the report by Grant Thornton, by the way, was about £30,000 to bring 10 years of accounts up to date. This is £3,000 per year which, at current accountancy rates of £200-300 per hour might only reflect, say, a day or two's forensic examination per year. It would be helpful to know how long this report was.

      Now, on reading the above case, I am unable to form an opinion on the characters of Ms Amy, Mr Barnett and the children (the judgment appears to be critical of Ms Amy) but it is apparent that the case has been driven by the letter of the law in circumstances where the extent of the tutrices obligations under the tutelle may have been unclear and where genuine efforts to avoid dissipating monies paid to professionals at arms lengths may have been made but have potentially compromised the tutrice's overall position (although the Court of Appeal appears to suggest that the legitimacy of the payments to Mr Barnett were, at least, arguable by Ms Amy: see paragraphs 67-74 of the Court of Appeal judgment at or near comment #1).

      I regret however, that, I simply do not see how, collectively, fees in the case have reached £1.5m.

      Delete
    2. Ian, have you got any more news on this case? I notice that the Viscount has commenced proceedings in the Royal Court against Mr Barnett presumably to recover some part of the amounts due under the award of damages or the costs order.

      Delete
    3. Angela has applied for a judicial review of the whole case, I have not heard from her since.

      Delete
    4. Thanks, Ian.

      Delete
  4. usufruits??? think you didn't spell that quite right!!! LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Usufruit and usufruct are the same thing.

      Delete