Update Monday: I have added further evidence on the actions of a) the police officer who colluded with Gerard Batten MEP and threatened journalists, and on DC Galvin’s actions against Ms. Badzak and his statements to her lawyers in advance of her criminal trial. I can only suggest readers search for the word “Update”. It seems necessary to evidence at the point where it is referenced, rather than adding it separately.
This blog is a story of how two Met Police Officers conspired and colluded against a private citizen on behalf of a politician, Gerard Batten MEP, falsely arresting her, falsely testifying against her, and framing her for a crime she did not commit.
It is a story of how they were assisted by another policeman who directly colluded with Mr. Batten to smear Jasna Badzak before her trial to journalists, and threaten them if they wrote negative stories on Batten; a fourth policeman corruptly claiming that they did not exist; and a fifth policeman who, I believe, falsely claimed that Officer 4 was uncontactable and could not be asked why he had lied about the existence of these first two officers.
Complaints of police corruption should, of course, normally be addressed through the proper police channels.
But I have hard evidence before me that complaints, repeatedly made through those proper channels, were corruptly dealt with (see the Met Officer in the Directorate of Professional Services lying about the policemen that were the subjects of so many complaints by saying they did not exist, so he would not take the complaint further). I have seen hard evidence that the IPCC referred the corruption case back to the same corrupt force that had lied to, forged evidence on, and threatened journalists over Ms. Badzak.
When the IPCC and the Met’s own DPS are refusing to investigate or actively lying (as I have proven the latter were), the only recourse to justice is the sunlight of public exposure. I put my faith in the public, and once I have blogged with redaction all the evidence I have, only then will I take it to the Met who conspired, and the IPCC who failed to investigate them – despite the clear evidence I put before you all, right now, in the open.
Jasna Badzak is a former member of UKIP.
She has a conviction for fraud (of a month’s salary and travel expenses) for the MEP for whom she used to work, Gerard Batten. She protests her innocence. She had no prior criminal record, had a high-level security clearance and was of good character as determined in court.
So far, so clear.
Jasna Badzak is also, now, a cardiac patient.
She had her first cardiac arrest at the age of 39, due to stress from being pursued by corrupt officers of the Metropolitan Police force intervening improperly on behalf of an elected politician. She had no prior history of heart trouble of stress. She is now 41 years old and still a cardiac patient; the campaign by certain officers of the Met Police against her continues. I believe and hope that when charges of perverting the course of justice are eventually brought, that the CPS will add to them charges of Actual Bodily Harm – the police officers who did this to Jasna were well aware of her cardiac condition.
Mr. Lee Jasper has written a blog about Ms. Badzak’s various accusations against Batten and UKIP and how the police dealt with them. While I certainly cannot endorse all it contains (simply because I have no knowledge of various matters) Jasper is clear that he describes allegations, rather than facts. I read the blog carefully. It is more about alleged corruption in the Met than it is about Mr. Batten, whom it mentions in passing. Nowhere does the blog make threats towards Mr. Batten. Nowhere does it use racial or religious slurs against him. It is not in the league of actual online harassment against a politician such as that leveled against Stella Creasy MP or Luciana Berger MP.
I have obtained evidence of threats made by specific Metropolitan Police officers against other journalists – for clarity, not myself, Michael Crick, nor Lee Jasper (qua blogger), but two other separate journalists.
As I believe that a great abuse of power is being committed here, and that there is evidence of deeply troubling and improper collusion between some officers of the Metropolitan Police Force and politicians to act against a private citizen, I shall be submitting the evidence I hold to the following people and bodies:
The Home Affairs Select Committee
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe
and the Electoral Commission.
However, as the emails I have obtained appear to involve improper actions by police officers, there must be transparency. Complaining to police officers about police officers does not always, alas, produce the results one would wish.
Here is the exact content of the email sent to a journalist, by a Met Police officer. I am leaving out everything that could identify the parties involved. The email was sent to a journalist at a national publication.
It has been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police, that in recent days journalist [sic] from [publication - redacted] and [publication - redacted] have been provided material by an unknown source about the political affairs of Mr. Gerard Batten MEP. An ex-employee of Mr. Batten’s has recently been charged with numerous dishonesty offences [sic] and is currently awaiting trial at Southwark Crwon Court [sic]. Part of the bail conditions for this ex-employee is not to contact directly or indirectly Mr. Batten. This condition is in place to prevent any further publication of articles which the Courts have deemed to be untruthful and concerning to Mr. Batten.
Any articles published which are linked to the subject may result in further arrests being made. I request that while these ongoing Court proceedings are underway that you thoroughly check the sources of the information, prior to contacting either Mr. Batten or going to press.
[signature of the officer. The officer lists themselves as being a "Financial Investigator"]
The journalist replies:
I spoke to Gerard Batten about his alleged links to far-right groups such as the English Defence League.
I fail to see how this is relevant to a serving Met officer investigating financial crime. Why have you chosen to intervene in this matter on Batten’s behalf, copying him into our exchange on his private email address?
Most people would interpret it as an attempt to warn me off writing about Batten. This, I believe, is a potential abuse of office.
I’d be grateful if you could respond to the following questions by 7pm tonight:
Who asked you to contact me? Was it Batten or somebody else in your unit/team who knows Batten?
What is your relationship to Batten?
Are you a member or supporter of UKIP?
Are you a member or supporter of [redacted] or any other [redacted] organisation?
Many thanks for your time and attention.
The reporter also emailed Mr. Batten.
….but I wanted to know why you asked [name of officer] at the Met Police to get in touch with me about something to do with a fraud case when I spoke to you [redacted] about something completely different, i.e. your relationship with Alan Lake and the EDL?
You’ll be familiar with this exchange as [name of officer] copied you in and stated my recent contact with you had been “brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police” – clearly by you or someone in your office – and then went on to allege that I had been “provided material by an unknown source” without any proof of this. [name of officer] – a financial investigator – said it was all to do with your “political affairs”. So what’s it got to do with him? He even suggested I could be arrested if I published an article about you.
I’d be grateful for your explanation as I have some concerns about such an intervention by the police on behalf of a politician.
Now, not only did the police officer above copy in Gerard Batten MEP, on his private email address, to that officer’s threats to this journalist – but Gerard Batten MEP was also in direct contact with the same officer. This again is a typed out email from Mr. Batten to the officer threatening the journalist
Dear [Diminutive, familiar form of the first name of the officer, whose email to the journalist had used their formal first name],
Very sorry to bother you with this. Please see the exchange of messages below. I have only just been able to get into my office to email you, I didn’t have your email address to hand.
I got a text message from [name of journalist being threatened by the police officer] at about 9pm last night. I told him to email me any questions.
In my view he is just trying to draw me out, but we will find out tomorrow.
Gerard Batten MEP then forwards on to the police officer the email of reply he sent to the journalist’s questions about his collusion with the police officer. As you will see, Mr. Batten refuses to answer the journalist’s questions about whether he, Batten, asked the officer to intervene with this journalist, threatening him on Batten’s behalf.
Dear [name of journalist],
I sent you an email last Friday with my comments. I have nothing further to add. If you have any questions regarding Mr.] [surname of officer]‘s email, I can only suggest that you address them to him.
You will note that an officer unconnected to the appropriate department appears to be taking unwarranted actions against Ms. Badzak, and in favour of Mr. Batten. The first officer, the one whose emails I posted above, is a Financial Investigator writing about “the political affairs of Mr. Gerard Batten MEP”.
UPDATE: I have now been able to establish that the evidence against Jasna Badzak was so wafer-thin that she was re-bailed THIRTEEN TIMES before being charged. I have further established that the charging officer was THE VERY SAME OFFICER who had smeared her to the press before her trial, when she enjoyed the presumption of innocence, and colluded directly with Gerard Batten MEP – both this officer to Batten, and Batten to this officer – in threatening journalists and smearing Ms. Badzak to those same journalists. Below is the charging sheet. I have cut it off before the name of the charging officer can be read. It is the same officer. The top of the charge sheet is also missing as it gives Badzak’s address
Lee Jasper’s blog is an extraordinary read. It is important to say that I have no idea what in it is truthful or not truthful, but there is one thing in his blog I do want to verify from evidence that I have in my own possession. Here I am quoting sections of his blog on the existence or otherwise (!) of two Metropolitan Police Officers. (I cannot verify that what he reports they did or didn’t do is accurate; he is reporting what Ms. Jadzak told him.)
All of her complaints were being handled by a Metropolitan Police Officer, one Detective Sargent Shaun Reardon. Despite repeated requests for updates on what was happening to her complaints she had no response from Reardon.
…..She reported this intimidation [LM- referred to earlier in LJ blog] to the Met and was surprised to find out that yet again these complaints were being refereed to a Detective Sargent Shaun Reardon, the very same officer who had failed to investigate her initial complaints of UKIP racism and EU fraud.
Worried about escalating violent intimidation and seeking to cope with her own failing health, Jasna then seeks a restraining order court injunction against Batten in Feb 2012.
Met officer supports UKIP.
Here’s where the begins to get interesting, MPS Detective James Galvin turns up at court, embraces Gerard Batten proceeds to tell the court that the MPS has no record of any allegations against Batten nor were there any current, active police investigation into him. That was a lie and, as the MPS has now admitted Galvin, had no authority to represent the Met or attend court. Her case was eventually dismissed as a result.
I interrupt Lee Jasper’s blog at this point to introduce readers to what appears to be DS James Galvin. Sources say that this is James Galvin’s public Facebook profile
This James Galvin has locked his Facebook profile so that his previous online comments and activism re UKIP cannot be seen. Unfortunately for him, he forgot to completely change his settings. The following are taken from “Photos James Galvin Likes” and “Pages James Galvin Likes.” And I have taken screenshots of a great, great many more. Enjoy – although I’m sure Jasna Badzak didn’t
By Sunday, 9th November, DS Galvin had removed all the UKIP photos he liked and UKIP pages he liked from his Facebook, after I tweeted several examples. He had left up his pro-UKIP activism on “Posts James Galvin likes” and “Posts James Galvin has commented on.” DS Shaun Reardon had also deleted his LinkedIn profile. If indeed this is the same James Galvin, the conflict of interest with Galvin’s political activism online is obviously huge.
I have been able to verify, in a court statement provided in the civil case by DS James Galvin, that he intervened in a private citizen’s civil case on behalf of Gerard Batten MEP of UKIP. I have this evidence in my possession.
Furthermore, having intervened in a civil case on behalf of Gerard Batten MEP without any authorization to do so, James Galvin should not have been investigating Jasna Badzak for any alleged offence. He had a giant conflict of interest. Ms. Badzak filed a complaint against him as soon as he intervened in her civil case.
Update: I have now been able to verify that police documents exist, appearing to show that DC Galvin told Ms. Badzak’s lawyers saying he had NOT been a witness in the civil case.
“Whilst investigating another matter a man called Goran from Hodge Jones and Allen who claimed to represent Ms. Badazk asked me if we were going to charge Ms Badzak, he also asked if I had given evidence in a civil matter. This took place in the custody suite of Charing Cross Police Station. When answerd [sic] that the CPS would be handed the file and I had not given evidence he said “He had concerns”. I invited him to make a formal allegations [sic] if he had concerns and upon showing him out of the Police station asked him to make his complaint to a senior officer via the station office if he had “Concerns”
Yet despite all these many, huge, irregular, politically motivated actions DC James Galvin took against Jasna Badzak, he was one-half of the investigating team and one-half of the arresting team.
Gerard Batten, then formally wrote to the MPS on October 5th 2012 reporting his fraud allegations against Jasna. He actually wrote his allegation on UKIP letterhead, which must constitute and attempt to politically influence the investigation. The Met having failed to investigate any of Jasna serious previous allegations, then acted immediately upon receipt of Battens complaints. .
Jasna was subsequently arrested on 29th November 2011, when surprise, surprise, Detectives Constable James Galvin and Detective Sargent Shaun Reardon both, attended her home. They wanted to arrest her there and then, but she Jasna was so ill, it was decided to take her to hospital instead.
The Met formally denies the existence of two serving police officers misleading the Prime Minister David Cameron.
Subsequent to her eventual arrest and charging, Jasna wrote to the Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe asking, why her many complaints to the MPS had not been investigated? This she pointed out, was in total contrast to the Mets swift and immediate response to Battens complaint.
This lead to another key question, why had DC Galvin had turned up at the injunction hearing, defending Batten?
The answer, when it came, was as shocking as it was unexpected. The Mets Department of Professional Standards informed her that the Metropolitan Police Service employed no such named police officers. Shocked and alarmed she persisted and again she was told again that no such officers were employed by the Met.
She then wrote to the Independent Police Compliant Commission who after some time, wrote back, confirming, that after discussions with the Met, they too confirmed that no such officers existed.
Jasna at this stage was completely frustrated and wrote to Mayor of London, Boris Johnson and Prime Minister David Cameron. Both men wrote to the Met and both were told, in writing, that no such officers worked for the Met.
The fact is the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the IPCC, were mislead and possibly willfully mislead, by the Met DPS about the existence of these two officers.
This begs they very important questions as to precise circumstances that led to two of the most senior Tory politicians in the land were provided with inaccurate and misleading information?
I can confirm in this blog that I have, in my possession, the following evidence:
1. A letter to Jasna Badzak from a third officer at the Met Police’s Directorate for Professional Standards saying that they could not investigate a complaint against officers Galvin and Reardon because they did not exist “the officers you have named as being officers of the MPS are not officers with the MPS. I have throughly interrogated all MPS systems and cannot find any trace of those officers.”
2. An email to Jasna Badzak from the same officer dated 10 Jan, 2013, again repeating that these two officers, do not exist (following her astonished protests of disbelief, since these officers had actually shown up at her house and arrested her).
3. Firm evidence that, in a phone call to Ms. Badzak, a fourth officer – this time of the rank of Inspector, I think it is important to state that – spoke to her about this matter and stated
Insp: “In 2012, I understand you attempted to make a complaint about officers Fleming, Galvin and Reardon… you made a complaint.” Ms. Badzak said she had made a complaint to the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister, who, she said, wrote to Bernard Hogan-Howe, who, she said, passed it further down. The Inspector replied “Yes”. “And I got the reply which I got which said that these police officers do not exist,” Ms. Badzak responded. “Yes,” the Inspector replied. “We made an error, and I apologize for that error.” Ms Badzak exclaimed “You made an error!” The Inspector replied “Yes. They do exist. It wasn’t correct what we told you.” Ms B: “So why did you tell me that, then?” Insp “The officer who made that decision, and told you, is on a career break, he’s not in the country, I can’t ask him why. But it may be that he misread our database. You know – sometimes people make human errors. But the bottom line is we made a mistake, I apologize, we made a mistake.“
Again – Ms Badzak was arrested, November 4th, by a DS in the Major Crimes Unit, Westminster, for “harassment” of Gerard Batten, MEP, for RTing a blog in which these allegations are detailed.
UPDATE: THU Nov 6, 2 of 2: I have now seen evidence that Ms. Badzak’s conviction for fraud was based in large part on an “expert witness statement” provided by DS Shaun Reardon. This is the same DS Reardon to whom she had addressed all her initial complaints about UKIP racism and Mr. Batten, complaints which had not been acted upon. This is the same DS Reardon whom she complained about to the IPCC. When Ms. Badzak was reporting extensive physical harassment at her home by members of the EDL, as noted in Lee Jasper’s blog, she was amazed to find that her complaints about that were being directed to…. DS Shaun Reardon, whose inaction was the subject of her IPCC complaint. Again, nothing was done.
It was Officer Galvin whom, it is alleged, showed up, unauthorized, to court to defend Mr. Batten in her attempt to secure a restraining order against Batten (I am trying to verify this part of the story).
But it was then DS Reardon and Officer Galvin together who showed up at Ms. Badzak’s house to arrest her for fraud. She complained about both of them – clearly there was at this point a colossal conflict of interest in having either officer, both with pre-existing complaints about them to the police, arrest or investigate Ms. Badzak for anything. And then she was told, the Mayor of London was told, and the Prime Minister was told, falsely, that neither officer existed, see above.
This morning I must update and report that I now have further evidence in my possession that Ms. Badzak’s conviction for fraud was based in large part on the “expert forensic witness” of DS Shaun Reardon who claimed that she forged a bank statement. I have a copy of DS Reardon’s “expert witness” statement to the court, testifying against Ms. Badzak This is the same Reardon who was the subject of her complaints and who was “disappeared” by the Directorate of Professional Standards at the Met in a letter, on headed official paper, in my possession.
As far as I can tell the only evidence against Ms. Badzak for fraud was this “altered statement” alleged to exist by…. Detective Sgt. Shaun Reardon
Personally, I believe in transparency. I am absolutely confident of my evidence and I present it here in order that there be as little cover-up going forwards as possible. I am prepared to make my evidence available to the IPCC and other sources.
One officer threatening a journalist
A second officer from the Directorate of Professional Standards denying the existence of Met Police Officers (twice, and in detail, and emphatically) that Ms. Badzak claims harassed her
A third officer of the rank of Inspector telling Ms Badzak that the officer who denied their existence was “on a career break” “out of the country” “I can’t ask him why” “It may be that he misread our database”
And a fourth and fifth officer, Detectives Galvin and Reardon, who had vast conflicts of interest that should have barred their testimony at any trial of Jasna Badzak.
Clearly, this matter goes beyond any kind of politics to the very deepest, darkest abuses of our capital’s major police force against a private citizen. I am not an investigative journalist (thankfully, Mr Crick does have those credentials) but I recognize shocking abuse when I see it, and I hope I have enough of a sense of duty not to remain silent when I am confronted with hard evidence of injustice being done.