The findings of professional misconduct by Sheriff Pasportnikov against the First Minister - were the result of a complaint lodged by a client to the law firm where Nicola Sturgeon worked at the time – Bell & Craig solicitors.
The complaint against Nicola Sturgeon involved the currently serving First Minister’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence.
And, the issues in relation to Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services only came to light after Ms Sturgeon suddenly left the law firm = and the client was forced to go to another solicitor – who it was reported - discovered legal aid forms had not been sent to the Scottish Legal Aid Board – despite assurances the legal aid application had been submitted.
In response to the complaint – the Law Society of Scotland appointed a case manager – a solicitor, and now Sheriff - Olga Pasportnikov - to investigate.
In a five-page report, dated Dec 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: “The complaint in this case has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor.”
Pasportnikov identified three counts ‘of professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor’.
They were: failing to raise interdict, misleading client about legal aid application & failing to properly consider her financial circumstances
Among ‘circumstances which have been ascertained during the course of the enquiry’ were the legal aid form had been completed and signed by the client and the client’s employers but not sent.
Despite the findings of Sheriff Pasportnikov, and her identification of multiple serious issues where she concluded Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide competent legal services qualified as professional misconduct - the Law Society of Scotland concluded there should be no further action and Nicola Sturgeon left the legal profession.
It is important to note - the Law Society of Scotland cleared Nicola Sturgeon even after their case manager Ms Pasportnikov identified various breaches of professional misconduct by Nicola Sturgeon – and that Ms Sturgeon – who then 'stood down’ from the legal profession – to contest a seat for the Scottish National Party – then entered politics without an on the record finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society of Scotland.
Records show from announcements in the legal profession’s press, and Scottish Government news postings - Announced on 31 July 2015 - Olga Pasportnikov was appointed by the Queen following a report to the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon - by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.
Ms Pasportnikov, a University of Dundee graduate, was admitted as a solicitor in 1991. She worked mainly in private practice before joining the Law Society of Scotland in 1998. She has been with the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service since 2003, and is also current convener of the Fife Young Carers Management Committee.
The First Minister has statutory responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen and is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making her recommendation.
The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is an ‘independent’ advisory public body with the role of recommending individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board’s remit including judge of the Court of Session, chair of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principal, sheriff, and summary sheriff.
It has since come to light this story was filed with a Scottish newspaper for publication in June 2018 – after several other newspapers refused to publish the story.
According to now deleted tweets from a former journalist which have now been widely published online – a story on the complaint regarding Nicola Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence, and the identification of several counts of professional misconduct against Ms Sturgeon by currently serving Sheriff Olga Pasportnikov - had support from one editor to be published – until a ‘Political editor’ at the same newspaper voted the story down.
The deleted tweet goes on to allege that some weeks later, the same newspaper which did not publish the story on Nicola Sturgeon - was leaked details of the harassment complaints against Alex Salmond and the investigation by Police Scotland - which subsequently led to Mr Salmond being charged with 14 offences, including two counts of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault, and one of breach of the peace.
Mr Salmond appeared in court on 21 November 2019 and entered a plea of "not guilty".
At the subsequent trial, Mr Salmond was cleared by a jury trial - heard by Scotland's Lord Justice Clerk - Lady Dorrian.
The information came to light after Justice Committee Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative) & former Scottish Government Legal Affairs Minister Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party) made a motivated and concerted effort to close down the same Judicial Interests Register petition which Nicola Sturgeon has opposed and sought to close - throughout her term as First Minister.
The Justice Committee hearing of 2 March 2021 can be viewed here: Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 2 March 2021
This is the same Judicial Interests Register petition the First Minister has tried to undermine and block since Ms Sturgeon became First Minister.
If a Register of Judges’ Interests did become a requirement – Sheriff Pasportnikov who found Nicola Sturgeon guilty of professional misconduct may be forced to list that fact and other details of her service to the Law Society of Scotland.
On Wednesday 3 March 2021 - the Judicial Office for Scotland were asked the following questions:
A currently serving Sheriff - Olga Pasportnikov - conducted an investigation of complaints lodged about Scotland's current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon while she was a solicitor at a law firm identified as Bell & Craig
Ms Pasportnikov was, as the Judicial Office will be aware - a case manager for the Law Society of Scotland from September 1998 to March 2003
In a five-page report released in December 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: "The complaint in this case has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor."
Olga Pasportnikov found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifyable counts of professional misconduct:
They were: failing to raise interdict as instructed, misleading client about legal aid application, failing to properly consider the client's financial circumstances
Events then saw the Law Society clear Ms Sturgeon, who quickly left the legal profession.
Noting Ms Pasportnikov currently declares her time at the Law Society of Scotland on her Linkedin page as a "case manager" - along with other career attributes including a term at the Crown Office as a Procurator Fiscal Depute, and her current role as a serving Sheriff
- does Sheriff Pasportnikov have any comment onthe following questions:
why she does not list her role of investigating complaints against solicitors?
why she found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifyable issues of professional misconduct?
why no regulatory punishment took place upon Sheriff Pasportnikov's findings?
Does the Judicial Office have any comment on the above events and any comment on the impact of a currently serving Sheriff with a long history as a solicitor, prosecutor and now a judge - having found Scotland's current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon guilty of three counts of professional misconduct to which no sanction was ever applied by legal regulators and never declared in any register of interests?
On Friday 5 March 2021 - the Judicial Office for Scotland (JOFS) issued a statement to the media.
The Judicial Office claimed Sheriff Pasportnikov had forgotten she had investigated a complaint case involving the current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon,
A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said:
“The Sheriff was one of a number of case managers working on the Law Society for Scotland’s Client Relations Team from 1998 – 2003. Her role was limited to that of gathering and categorising information as a first step in a much longer process. She did not produce any reports or make any findings. Covering a volume of work, she would not remember specific names in routine cases, including where a solicitor was cleared entirely.”
“In Scotland, sheriffs are appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the First Minister, who makes their recommendation on the basis of a report by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS). The First Minister has statutory responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty and is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making their recommendation.”
“JABS is an independent advisory public body with the role of recommending individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board’s remit including judge of the Court of Session, chair of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principal, sheriff, and summary sheriff.”
A response to the Judicial Office statement was submitted - querying the JOFS claim, and confirming - that material now in the public domain - does confirm Sheriff Pasportnikov did in-fact – investigatge a complaint against Nicola Sturgeon and that Sheriff Pasportnikov identified several breaches of professional misconduct by Ms Sturgeon.
No reply to the additional query has been received, nor has the Judicial Office disputed the terms of questions & information supplied to JOFS staff.
It would be difficult to believe a case relevant to the current First Minister was forgotten about by the investigating reporter - Sheriff Pasportnikov - as there is obviously only one Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland - the current First Minister.
Earlier today, a legal expert assessed the material now in the public domain and deleted tweets from a former journalist which names a Scottish newspaper and a ‘spiked’ story on Ms Sturgeon.
The legal expert said he hoped the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints would now scrutinise the information available and ask further questions of the First Minister.
He said: “In view of suggestions on social media platforms - a former journalist held this information for a number of years, and approached several newspapers seemingly without success - people may reasonably expect questions to be asked of why this story has not come to light until now and the method of travel to the media.”
He added: “Was there motive in withholding this story involving Scotland’s First Minister, either by a newspaper, a political party or a journalist? I am curious to find out. However, I am also curious as to why no one with the information offered the material in evidence to the long running Scottish Parliament investigation of issues involving Alex Salmond.”
“Given the First Minister responded to questions on what appear to be references to the investigation of Ms Sturgeon and a newspaper deal - MSPs should ask rigorous questions of anyone involved in this matter given the situation we face where information now exists alleging the Sheriff complaint probe of Scotland’s First Minister was allegedly swapped for a story on harassment complaints and a Police investigation of Alex Salmond in the summer of 2018”
In discussions late this afternoon – others have come forward to confirm they were aware of this story for some time, but were unable to obtain any answers from Ms Sturgeon on these events.
JUDICIAL INTERESTS REGISTER - would have required declaration of Sheriff’s role in FM Complaint:
It has been previously reported Nicola Sturgeon personally intervened to block the Judicial Register petition - during a long running investigation by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee
The surprise intervention by the First Minister in the bid to bring transparency to Scotland’s secretive judges came to light after a failed attempt by her then Legal Affairs Minister – Paul Wheelhouse – to overturn the petition with claims that ‘gangsters’ could misuse information in a judges register.
In the letter – dated 30 March 2015 - Nicola Sturgeon also revealed Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse had a secret meeting in February 2015 with Lord Gill to discuss the petition and the Judiciary & Scottish Government’s concerted opposition to creating the Judicial Register.
Writing in the letter to John Pentland MSP, Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, the First Minister said: “This petition calls on the Scottish Government to create a Register of Interests for the Judiciary. The Scottish Government considers that such a register of judicial interests is not necessary and that the existing safeguards - the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the system for complaints against the judiciary - are sufficient. These safeguards, together with the register of judicial recusals, are sufficient to protect individuals from judicial bias.”
Further to the evidence that the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Mr Wheelhouse, gave to the Committee on 9 December 2014, he discussed this petition when he met the Lord President in February. The Minister acknowledged the Lord President's concerns about the introduction of a register of judicial interests. The breadth of such a register would make it virtually unworkable. It would need to cover not only financial interests, but also memberships of groups and associations and familial and social relationships. Even so, such a register might not capture relevant issues that could arise.”
“The position of the judiciary is different from that of MSPs and others who hold public office. The judiciary cannot publicly defend themselves. The Lord President has cautioned that such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. In addition, there is currently no evidence that judges who should have recused themselves from cases have not done so.”
The Sunday Herald newspaper reported on First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s intervention on behalf of the judiciary and her opposition to the judicial transparency proposal:
First Minister rejects call for register of judges' interests
Paul Hutcheon Investigations Editor Sunday 10 May 2015
NICOLA Sturgeon has rejected calls for judges to declare details of their finances in a register of interest. The First Minister said the proposal, lodged by justice campaigner Peter Cherbi, was "not necessary" and claimed existing rules were "sufficient".
Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee is in the middle of a long-term probe into whether judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace should be brought into line with other senior public sector figures.
MSPs, MPs, councillors and board members of public bodies are all required to register their outside financial interests.
A petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament in 2012 called for members of the judiciary to declare their "pecuniary" interests, which would include shareholdings, directorships and membership of external bodies.
Judicial officer holders can recuse - or remove - themselves if a conflict of interest arises during a case, but nothing more is required.
The plan was met with hostility by the country's top judge, Lord Gill, who repeatedly snubbed calls by the committee to give oral evidence. He relied on written testimony to blast a proposal he said could compromise judges' privacy by encouraging "aggressive media or hostile individuals".
Lord Gill concluded: "The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary."
The issue has now reached the desk of the First Minister, who has backed Lord Gill.
In a letter to John Pentland MSP, the Committee convener, she supported the status quo: "The Scottish Government considers that such a register of judicial interests is not necessary and that the existing safeguards - the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the system for complaints against the judiciary - are sufficient.
"These safeguards, together with the register of judicial recusals, are sufficient to protect individuals from judicial bias."
She also repeated Lord Gill's fear about "aggressive media" and noted: "The position of the judiciary is different from that of MSPs and others who hold public office. The judiciary cannot publicly defend themselves."
The First Minister also revealed that Paul Wheelhouse, her Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, met Lord Gill in December to discuss the petition.
In his evidence to the Committee, Wheelhouse said he feared a register could leave judges open to "threats or intimidation", adding that colleagues at an environment quango had already been threatened by organised criminals. However, emails between the Government and Scottish Environment Protection Agency revealed no link to organised crime.
Cherbi said: "I am surprised Nicola Sturgeon supports a judicial ban on transparency just because judges have been asked to declare their substantial interests. "We are always told if you have got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. What are the judges hiding and what do they fear? "There cannot be one set of rules for judges and another for everyone else. A register of interests will enhance public trust in the justice system, not detract from it."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Scottish Government considers that a specific register of interests is not needed. Existing safeguards, including the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Interests and the system of complaints against the judiciary, are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland."
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
56 comments:
Very good and thank you for including the Judicial office statement
I would like to ask the following questions
Any thoughts why an ex journalist now on the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party West Coast list approached several national newspapers with this exact same story over a number of years only to be rejected at every attempt?
What amount was asked from each newspaper for the story on each attempt?
Was a financial deal brokered with the 'victim' and if so how much?
Why has it taken twenty three years for this story to emerge?
Is this the same story which is alleged to be at the centre of a deal to publish on Alex Salmond instead of Nicola Sturgeon?
I too would like to know as I am sure many of your readers will agree -- why has this information not been submitted to the Scottish Parliament investigation of the Alex Salmond scandal?
Douglas Ross has tabled a no-confidence motion today in Deputy First Minister John Swinney and we now have a story in the public domain which a former journalist who joined the Conservatives has held onto for around four years.
Given the Scottish Conservative Mr Tomkins tried to close your petition for a register of judicial interests last Tuesday in the video link you kindly posted within your news report has this material fallen victim to a Conservative plot at the Scottish Parliament?
Answers appreciated in advance.
Finally the truth about our First Minister!
What happens now? SHE MUST RESIGN!
@ 9 March 2021 at 10:35
Thanks for your comment.
These questions and any answers are obviously of public interest and are therefore best dealt with by the Scottish Parliament's Committee who are investigating Harassment Complaints & Scotgov handling of Judicial Review re Alex Salmond
As indicated in the article, several persons came forward yesterday - 08 February 2021 - to confirm information in relation to the FM's time at Bell & Craig solicitors and the events of what occurred in the complaint and at the Law Society of Scotland - have been known about for some time and questions to those involved have either been deflected or denied.
In relation to numerous comments which will not be published at this time, the content is noted and matters raised will be looked into.
Anyone wishing to comment on this article should follow the comment posting rules - and please remember - this article reports on - why - if a Register of Judges' Interests for all members of Scotland's judiciary had existed - Sheriff Pasportnukov would likely have been required to declare she once investigated complaints against Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon - who recommended Ms Pasportnikov for her role in the judiciary.
It is a matter of record, as reported in the article - the Scottish Parliament has been investigating and has supported a petition to create a Register of Interests for all members of Scotland's judiciary - since 2012
There have now been two attempts to close the petition - both by Scottish Conservatives - firstly - Maurice Correy during the petition's progress at the Public Petitions Committee - and secondly (last week, 2 March) by the the Justice Committee Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative) & ex Legal Affairs Minister Annabelle Ewing (SNP)
In response to a number of questions in published & unpublished comments - this blog has chosen not to identify either the newspaper which has been identified on social media in relation to a 'spiked story' or the journalist who tweeted out material relating to this case ...
Clearly these are issues which the Scottish Parliament Committee examining Harassment Complaints & the Scottish Government's handling of Alex Salmond's Judicial Review - should be given a chance to make further enquiries into - including any requests to those involved for evidence - and then for MSPs to decide on the relevance of information contained in this article and now available on social media regarding the First Minister and others involved.
This is a Scottish Parliament inquiry which should be allowed to perform the given task no matter how strong or weak those on opposing sides feel the inquiry is going.
Transparency is in the public interest, and anyone who withholds relevant information to the inquiry for their own gain or malicious or political intent should be rightly scrutinised.
For the record this blog does not support political plots, headline grabbing no-confidence motions or other political spin, political gangsterism, backstabbing or other such behaviour.
Safe to say the Tories are out to murder your petition about the judges interests
Does this surprise anyone?UK now has the most corrupt governments in many a lifetime and the judiciary are feeding off their handouts.
As you said on twitter vested interests support vested interests
Taken what you said your comment and will rephrase
Given we now know Nicola Sturgeon committed some acts of professional misconduct and this information has been concealed by Nicla Sturgeon and the Law Society for over twenty years and from reading twitter this story was allegedly swapped for the Alex Salmond exclusive ......................... Nicolas Sturgeon should resign and there should be a new investigation into how the story was leaked and by who what their interests were (obviously pro-Sturgeon) and the leak itself is a criminal act and those involved must face a court and public identification.
Well done Peter always good to read your blog and know you are on the peoples side!
Have to admit Peter this is the first time I read your marvelous blog after a recommendation from one of your Twitter followers
YOU DO NOT DISAPPOINT IN YOUR TRUTH SEEKING!!!!!!
Attention Members of Scottish Parliament please ask the following questions of the First Minister
Anonymous said...
Very good and thank you for including the Judicial office statement
I would like to ask the following questions
Any thoughts why an ex journalist now on the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party West Coast list approached several national newspapers with this exact same story over a number of years only to be rejected at every attempt?
What amount was asked from each newspaper for the story on each attempt?
Was a financial deal brokered with the 'victim' and if so how much?
Why has it taken twenty three years for this story to emerge?
Is this the same story which is alleged to be at the centre of a deal to publish on Alex Salmond instead of Nicola Sturgeon?
I too would like to know as I am sure many of your readers will agree -- why has this information not been submitted to the Scottish Parliament investigation of the Alex Salmond scandal?
Douglas Ross has tabled a no-confidence motion today in Deputy First Minister John Swinney and we now have a story in the public domain which a former journalist who joined the Conservatives has held onto for around four years.
Given the Scottish Conservative Mr Tomkins tried to close your petition for a register of judicial interests last Tuesday in the video link you kindly posted within your news report has this material fallen victim to a Conservative plot at the Scottish Parliament?
Answers appreciated in advance.
9 March 2021 at 10:35
I learned a lot from reading your blog tonight.
Important to understand lawyers and judges make themselves useful and indispensable to politicians and the Scottish Government with a return of two way protection.
The legal fraternity operate on the same level in England and make themselves indispensable in the same way to Boris and his horrible government.
FM to judges You scratch my back and I scratch yours
So in view of your reporting and an ex journalist now Tory wannabe msp tweeting the name of the 'newspaper' alleging the story was spiked and he was involved along with a political editor and news editor where does the newspaper which cannot be named now stand after their editorial denying they were leaked the Alex Salmond story in order to spike an upcoming scoop about Sturgeon?
Murky times ahead
Rumours on a well known website a certain blue meanie political party was/is holding Sturgeon to ransom with the complaint file about her time as a lawyer so WELL DONE on you publishing the story and saving Scotland from the blue meanies!
Maybe even Sturgeon is finally relieved to see it out there and she can now talk about blue meanie plots!
@ 9 March 2021 at 20:13
Yes, exactly as you said it.Tell others.
@ 9 March 2021 at 20:47
And judges do same when they need something, like money & power .. or perhaps sneaking their trainee lawyer relatives into Scotgov legal dept.
@ 9 March 2021 at 21:09
Except there are a number of newspapers who were approached [by a now former journo] with this story and all refused to publish except one newspaper which is alleged to have ate a hamster.
Ask the newspaper I guess? and ta for not naming the newspaper because not publishing any comments going down that route.
@ 9 March 2021 at 22:22
A very interesting idea ... and not outwith the bounds of Tory plotting.
Door is always open to interview an FM (or ex FM)
I do like your sense of humour Peter
However NS will not speak to you because you are the real Law Society or better the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission instead of the two dummy orgs everyone puts up with
THIS COMMENT IS AN EDUCATION. PLEASE READ EVERYONE!!!
Anonymous said...
I learned a lot from reading your blog tonight.
Important to understand lawyers and judges make themselves useful and indispensable to politicians and the Scottish Government with a return of two way protection.
The legal fraternity operate on the same level in England and make themselves indispensable in the same way to Boris and his horrible government.
9 March 2021 at 20:13
THANK YOU PETER FOR YOUR DEDICATED WORK!!!!!
Nicola Sturgeon was found to have committed THREE counts of professional misconduct by a solicitor she later recommended for the position of a Sheriff within Scotland’s powerful judiciary - currently led by Lord President - Lord Carloway.
You couldn't make this up
After reading your report I can understand why Sturgeon and her corrupt party and her corrupt judges and the corrupt Conservatives are desperate to stop your petition for a register of judicial interests
Corruption in plain sight for everyone to see
Good thing you said Judge in the headline instead of Sheriff because most people assume Sheriff refers to a Sheriff as in Police.
If you allow me I will explain to your international readership
In the year of 1521 where Scotland is currently living under the SNP/Judge jobsworth dictatorship about 500 years behind everyone else on the planet a Sheriff is a judge and is not a Policeman
Oh my there are many despotic Sheriffs across Scotland as any half decent not corrupt person without an interest can confirm off the record.
How do the BBC get away with running headlines targeting Harry and Meghan to find out where their money comes from
and at the same time the BBC never ever reported about your judges register petition?
------------------------------------------
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51047186
Prince Harry and Meghan: Where do they get their money?
Prince Harry says his family cut him off financially after he and wife Meghan "stepped back" from being senior royals and moved to California.
So, where do they get their money from?
Do Prince Harry and Meghan get money from the Royal Family?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced in January 2020 that they wanted to stop being working members of the Royal Family and would "work towards" being financially independent.
-------------------------------------------
BBC like to target everyone else and they never mention corrupt lawyers or judges only in a good story so they are biased
I have been told this story has been going round Holyrood for weeks.Also heard this story is the reason The Tories lodged the no confidence motion in John Swinney yesterday instead of a no confidence motion in Sturgeon.
Any idea when Ruth Davidson was told of this information about Sturgeon?
Stories going around RD and top Tories knew for months.
What I hear and read gives credence to above comments Scottish Conservatives dangle prospect of bad publicity over Sturgeon to have their wicked way in govt also to close your petition with the obvious Tory/Ewing venom in the video clip you posted.
Did Linda Fabiani write to the Scottish Government to say the Committee were not satisfied they received all the evidence on the back of what you have been saying on Twitter and your amazing blog?
I read your postings of September 2020 mentioning Roddy Dunlop and the comments.
You are writing and talking as if you read the Scottish Government legal advice long before they released the advice last week.You even name Dunlop and infer he is s QC hired by Sturgeon and then someone in your comments section asks you!
I have so many questions would love to talk with you Peter and hear the truth of Sturgeon and Alex Salmond because from what I read you know the whole story and presumably how this will end.
Honestly cant thank you enough for your writing.
Worrying if you read the news
"I too would like to know as I am sure many of your readers will agree -- why has this information not been submitted to the Scottish Parliament investigation of the Alex Salmond scandal?
Douglas Ross has tabled a no-confidence motion today in Deputy First Minister John Swinney and we now have a story in the public domain which a former journalist who joined the Conservatives has held onto for around four years.
Given the Scottish Conservative Mr Tomkins tried to close your petition for a register of judicial interests last Tuesday in the video link you kindly posted within your news report has this material fallen victim to a Conservative plot at the Scottish Parliament?
Answers appreciated in advance.
9 March 2021 at 10:35"
Equally concerning Ruth Davidson and Douglas Ross Tories joined forces with Adam Tomkins and the SNP's Annabelle Ewing to break your petition for the judges register now we know about Nicola Sturgeon and the Sheriff Pasportnikov
Tomkins comes across as very aggressive in the you tube video about your petition.
Looking forward to your news report on the video and the Justice Committee and full marks for the Sturgeon story everyone I speak to is delighted with how you wrote the story and linking these events to the judiciary and Sturgeon.
safe to say if you want to avoid being called a corrupt lawyer in a complaint best thing is to stand down and enter Scottish politics
You should all start thinking twice about other former or current lawyers in the Scottish Parliament eh
Think Sturgeon will make Pasportnikov the next Lord President? LOL
This stinks. Yet another example of the Law Society circling the wagons and protecting its own.
Secondly, surely no-one can still cling to the belief that we have a free press in the UK.
Someone at the Faculty of Advocates who knows you says this has been known for a long time and used by the Faculty and LSoS on issues including blocking your petition
Watched the video, the naysayers simply trot out the same tired old trope about judicial independence, which has nothing to do with the petition - as Moi Ali pointed out to the Petitions Committee years ago.
Only the desperate suggest that the register will interfere with the independence of the judiciary while choosing to ignore the fact that the decision making processes of the Court will remain completely unaffected and the judiciary will remain as independent then as it is now.
Understand Sheriff Pasportnikov admitted her role investigating complaint against Nicola Sturgeon and confirmed much of what you write
FYI the Judicial Office for Scotland considered approaching you not to print and then discovered they were too late
Any thoughts why J.O. called off approach or why assumption you may co-operate?
Your timeline and publication does not match J.O. pullback claim
Keen to hear more.
@ 10 March 2021 at 12:38
Thanks. Knowledge is meant to be shared. Tell others of what you learned.
@ 10 March 2021 at 17:02
The FM is as Tory as the Tories .. and she is funded by the Tories to keep other parties from resurgence. Boris' best asset in Scotland, much like how the party helped keep a certain leader in charge of the opposition which resulted in their ill deserved majority last election.
@ 10 March 2021 at 17:29
Thanks, and yes there are a few other Sheriffs needing looked into re conduct & conflicts of interest ...
@ 11 March 2021 at 01:33
Interesting and valid point raised ... thanks.
@ 11 March 2021 at 09:27
Sounds like political blackmail at work .. very interesting, thanks.
@ 11 March 2021 at 10:04
Honestly, no idea. The Committee inquiry re Scotgov handling of Harassment Complaints & Judicial Review re Alex Salmond - is some kind of mystery to the world of competent investigations.
For starters, why did no one seek to call Roddy Dunlop and Christine O'Neill QC to give evidence or at least a written submission.
Committee members talk ad infinitum of the legal advice given by both counsel to Scotgov yet have not asked counsel one single question even after the release of the legal advice.
What kind of investigation omits key figures and players in the set of circumstances re legal advice & threats to resign - as the public now know to be true.
@ 11 March 2021 at 11:31
These people are meaningless and only raised a no confidence motion to grab headlines. Don't be fooled - and for the record - the FM shouldn't step down just because the Tories say so. If there are proper findings by the Scotparl probe and if merit resignation then this is quite another thing.
@ 11 March 2021 at 12:52
Well rehearsed Justice Committee meeting. A full report will appear in time along with the video.
@ 11 March 2021 at 21:00
Oh yes, absolutely.
@ 11 March 2021 at 21:45
Anything is possible in the weird world of Scottish politics & power mad judiciary.
@ 12 March 2021 at 11:07
Has it ever been anything else ...
@ 12 March 2021 at 16:34
Yes, seems to be the case ...
@ 13 March 2021 at 08:32
The judiciary are scared of a Register of Judicial Interests because the judiciary have corrupt financial dealings & interests which have generated a lot of good intel over the nine years of this petition.
@ 15 March 2021 at 18:38
Interesting, thanks. Sheriff Pasportnikov did indeed investigate complaints against the FM while she was a solicitor and other journos have been aware of this for some time, there is no exclusivity on the story.
Regarding the other issues - no idea, however the Judicial Office once demanded I remove a report because I said Lord Carloway failed to mention a Sheriff who resigned from the bench was also involved in another civil action prior to his resignation.
I thanked the Judicial Office for their input, asked a few more questions, then said I would publish their complaint and not delete the report. The Judicial Office request to censor my news report - from their Head of Governance - was apparently withdrawn after I indicated I would publish more details.
In relation to a large number of comments which do not qualify for publication under comment rules - views are noted.
Information provided in certain comments will be looked at.
As usual you have the inside story - and the facts to back it up.
What a pity the lamestream media lack the courage to do likewise.
In response to numerous, and voluminous unpublished comments on this article, the content of which has been noted.
This investigation and report, was written as a feature about the lack of a register of judges interests, conflicts of interest in the judicial system, and the secrecy around judicial appointments - all of which require to be radically reformed and management of which should be removed from the judiciary to a fully independent, completely devoid of all legal vested interests - public body to ensure the judiciary are fully compliant with transparency, accountability, impartiality and free of bias, self interest, vested interests and other issues which malign and corrupt justice in Scotland in the 21st Century.
This blog is aware of additional, if heavily altered versions of this article which appeared in the press. Blog journalists have since been provided with communications which detail one version of this story (among many) was swapped for another - on the back of a deal not to mention the Sheriff identified in this report - in exchange for naming the second solicitor (now a QC) who was hired to address the remaining issues of the unidentified client in the original story.
It is also appropriate to remind readers the story at the centre of this investigation and report - originated in 1998 - over twenty years ago - and readers should note details of the original story were refused for publication by at least three national newspapers from 2017 to 2021.
In time, a full report on any further matters relating to this article, may be looked at for publication - along with corroborative audio records.
As of 3 August 2021, the Scottish Government has recently confirmed a Register of Judges' Interests will be created, as part of a package of much needed reforms to Scotland's justice system.
As part of these reforms to our justice system, courts and judiciary - this blog urges the Scottish Government to take justice out of the hands of the - all consuming, greedy dishonest & despicable money making for advocates and lawyers business model which Scotland's courts are currently run under - for a balanced, fair, transparent, equitable, accessible, accountable, independently regulated and just - justice system for all Scots.
Thanks for your updated comment.
May I ask a couple of questions on your update since you appear unwilling to publish further comments
You said "This blog is aware of additional, if heavily altered versions of this article which appeared in the press. Blog journalists have since been provided with communications which detail one version of this story (among many) was swapped for another - on the back of a deal not to mention the Sheriff identified in this report - in exchange for naming the second solicitor (now a QC) who was hired to address the remaining issues of the unidentified client in the original story."
Do you know why Sheriff Olga Pasportikov name was removed from the alternate story in exchange for "Cath Dowdalls" who is actually Kate Dowdalls QC ?
Why did the Judicial Office talk to you, presumably confirm the identity of Sheriff Pasportnikov as stated in their response to your inquiry and then not speak to the newspapers?
https://amadvocates.co.uk/2018/scottish-law-commmission-appointment-for-kate-dowdalls-qc/
Scottish Law Commmission appoint Kate Dowdalls QC July 12, 2018 Kate Dowdalls QC has been appointed a Commissioner of the Scottish Law Commission, a position she will hold for the next 5 years.One of her responsibilities as Commissioner will be to lead a family law project as part of the Commission’s tenth programme of reform.
You also said "It is also appropriate to remind readers the story at the centre of this investigation and report - originated in 1998 - over twenty years ago - and readers should note details of the original story were refused for publication by at least three national newspapers from 2017 to 2021."
Are you able to shed any more light on these events and who was involved in hawking a 20 year old story to "at least three national newspapers from 2017 to 2021" ?
Anticipating your reply and publication of my questions and your response.
Thanks again in relation to numerous, unpublished comments.
In response to the published comment @ 4 August 2021 at 20:59
1. Many comments on this article appear to assume a current politician connection to events in a story of over twenty years ago where none exists.
This is a report on conflicts of interest in the justice system and judiciary, and the lack of existence of a Register of Judges' Interests - which the Scottish Government have since taken on - with regard to Petition PE 1458 - and have committed to create.
2. You will have to ask Kate Dowdalls QC and the Faculty of Advocates - and then find out why the name of "Cath Dowdalls" was used by the alternative version of this story instead of "Kate Dowdalls QC" - and what everyone appears to now view as a political party smear story.
3. The Judicial Office were presented with facts, and a media request for comment. The Judicial Office responded to this request, and as is usual, their response was published in the article.
4. There is allegedly a PoliceScotland probe of a leak from the Scottish Government involving what could theoretically be events mentioned in your question ... however no one appears to expect the PS investigation to reach any conclusion.
In time these questions may be answered more fully, however - a more appropriate place to start looking would be any political motivation behind the alternate versions of a twenty three year old story, which today in 2021 is really just about judicial interests and conflicts of interest in the justice system, rather than complex conspiracies which tend to be easily recognisable as non existent.
Thanks for your reply Peter.
I understand and accept what you say as I realise from how you answer questions you tell the truth and back up what you write.
I accept you cannot break confidentiality given your work as a journalist.
However may I thank you for the small clues to look for.
Any clue why an ex car dealership owning MSP claims he was briefed last year on the other version of the client story (the newspaper story naming Dowdalls) and laughed at his colleagues "ridiculous plot" to oust the FM?
@ 7 August 2021 at 12:49
This scene as depicted could perhaps make a good painting ...
DOI journalists are available to interview any "ex car dealership owning MSP" who may or may not hold such information.
If the comments above refer to the print edition with the incredible claim the victim lost the decision letter
The SNP BAD sidebar by Mrs Tory MSP in the SE was a dead giveaway to the pre-election political hatchet print version of the FM story.
If the decision letter was lost why did the Law Society not produce a new copy and as others have pointed out why the deal to name Dowdalls instead of Sheriff Pasportnikov.
All very murky and begs the question who asked or received what amount of money from the newspapers to run this story and why did newspapers refuse to print until after you published.
And why did a famous solicitor advocate say your honest legal speak register version was sexed up by one newspaper for political ends and he names another newspaper which refused the story after they were reputedly offered for thousands?
@ 12 August 2021 at 17:32
The article as published was based on reports revealing conflict of interests in Scotland's justice system, judicial appointments, a response from the Judicial Office in relation to enquiries and material which was withheld to ensure identities of sources and those requiring anonymity in terms of law were protected.
Any Solicitor Advocate making such claims will be aware of established contact procedures for journalists and this blog.
Readers should note - several media orgs were aware of this story for a number of years.
Does this have anything to do with Ruth Davidson's sarcastic jibe at Sturgeon saying did she think she is a better lawyer than Roddy Dunlop and Christine O'Neill?
I see you tweeted this so must be significance https://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1370083387789172738
@ 13 August 2021 at 11:54
Certainly interesting an opposition party leader now in the House of Lords praised and PR'd QCs who represented the Scottish Government in the Alex Salmond Judicial Review defence ...
Were you aware a copy of a Charge Sheet of a close relative of an unnamed top Scottish politician was obtained by a pro-UK Holyrood political party msp who passed the content via an intermediary to pro-UK campaigners and bloggers?
A media lawyer you may know added a newspaper turned down the information on legal advice after they were told the identity of the msp and feared any story would lead to a criminal investigation of the leak.
Care to comment on any of the above?
@ 12 September 2021 at 13:20
Any 'leak' of such a document may be more to do with a struggle to retain power at Police Scotland and political allies/friends of top cops piling on the pressure to get their way.
In relation to what you say regarding the "media lawyer" - if advice was given not to publish on the basis stated - this is probably correct - notwithstanding the fact - the leak of any such document in relation to charges and an ongoing investigation certainly qualifies for an investigation of any leak, who leaked it to who - and their motive for doing so.
Very interesting Peter and thanks for your candid reply.
I had not considered Police are also into manipulating the media and playing politics in the way you mention.
One of your secret admirers in the profession told a friend your take on Sturgeon and the client complaint investigated by Sheriff Olga Pasportnikov is the sole authentic account of this story and you stick to the facts instead of politicising what happened.
This is THE news story that initiated the end of Nicola Sturgeon and public trust in her Government.
Everyone was too afraid to admit it until now and only now because she is finally resigning and all of Scotland can see exactly how corrupt the Scottish Government has really been all these Fourteen years.
Scotland's lost decade and a half.
And to you Mr Journalist Peter Cherbi who told us the truth first time around in your news reporting of Sturgeon and her failed client well I can only say thank you very much on behalf of myself and every single person I have ever talked to who reads your blog.
I knew straight away you had gotten to the truth when you published this article and Sturgeon was asked those questions about the story swap on the client for Alex Salmond expose at the Committee.
Brilliant journalism.
Best wishes to you Peter the journalist who believes the public have a right to know and provides us with the real truth for free because that is how news should be.
@ 23 February 2023 at 19:12
There is more on the story and further linked Law Society of Scotland reports which are interesting in terms of how the Legal Mcmafia and someone else may have used these against the outgoing FM over the years and stalled publication for their own interests.
And not forgetting a very detailed series of audio explanations of who exactly was involved, and the role of a major news organisation which refused to break the story and set it back to origin. Handy to have such corroboration for whoever has it and leaves little doubt in the scrutiny of honesty and dishonesty in Government, the legal profession, judiciary and Scottish politics.
I bet there is more and you are going to tell it someday mister!
Noting recent unpublished comments, there is nothing useful which blog journos feel can be added to what has already been said.
In response to one point of note - well ... all that actually happened was she just ran out of lies and that was it.
The same applies to most/all Scottish public authorities following the Scottish Govt path. When their staff and CEOs run out of lies, that's it - and they have to rely on the Scottish Government to protect them from scrutiny.
In relation to an issue raised on the "story swap" - there is no one who "can require journalists to disclose material or sources" nor would it be within the judiciary's interests to do so.
It should be noted - with politicians, media groups and elements of the legal profession involved in the events at the time - these issues will likely never see the light of day in the Scottish media but can be reported in other venues along with accumulated material - when of interest to do so.
Since this blog is the only place where you answer questions on this article can you offer any comment on the following?
Why do the newspaper versions of this story differ so much from your more detailed and clearly less lawyer-interfered-with version?
None of the coverage I have read in newspapers published the full investigation of Nicola Sturgeon by the Law Society of Scotland and Olga Pasportnikov and unless I missed a story none of the newspapers published Sheriff Pasportnikov's name in their versions.
Can you offer any explanation why newspapers did not or refused to publish Sheriff Pasportnikov's name in connection with the investigation?
An editor alleged his newspaper was offered the story in 2017 for a substantial sum of money and rejected the offer. The editor named a former journalist (not you) at the media gathering.
How many journalists had sight of this information and what was their purpose to withhold the news until after you published this investigation?
You appear to indicate there is more material. If so do you intend to publish?
Grateful for any replies to my questions should you feel able to publish.
PQ65
@ PQ65 1 April 2023 at 16:22
To answer your questions in order -
1. Vested interests, politics, motive, and fear & dishonesty in the media - contributed to a variety of versions which are in some cases very far from the original investigation featured in this article.
2. Sheriff Pasportnikov's name is on the investigation, although when Ms Pasportnikov carried out the investigation on Nicola Sturgeon, she was not a Sheriff. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon appointed Ms Pasportnikov as a Sheriff - as the article correctly states.
3. Ask the papers media lawyers and Scotland's judiciary - who were determined Sheriff Paspornikov should not be named or the fact Scotland's First Minister appointed a solicitor who previously investigated evidenced allegations of professional misconduct against the now former First Minister.
The investigation published on this blog contains responses received from the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service, and Judicial Office - as is customary for journalists to seek comment and response for articles to be published.
4. An email sent to blog journalists and several other journalists in 2016 and then again in early 2017 contained information in relation to this case.
During research into this case, and taking into account further reports held by the Law Society of Scotland - to which several individuals assumed related to only one client but in fact relates to additional issues - this investigation was published in March 2021 on this blog.
5. Several journalists were and remain aware of this information.
Readers should understand what was a Twenty year old case in 2017 - became the subject of intense discussions around how to publish, given the culture of fear and loathing created by the current Scottish Government in all it's forms since 2007.
Where media failed, and political motivations saw further delays for a variety of sinister reasons, the article was published as alluded to above.
6. Yes, there is additional material, and in relation to further instances which has since been obtained and may be published in a future investigation.
Some general comments in relation to this article and to answer questions which have not been published at this time:
Public interest journalism is an important part of scrutinising government and public services including elected representatives in Government, and anyone who is employed in the public sector.
When material comes to the attention of blog journalists, work is undertaken to verify and corroborate any material and information to ensure publication is accurate and evidence is published to ensure readers can decide for themselves the content in relation to issues within the article - and that any published evidence, material or Freedom of Information responses can similarly be viewed in their disclosed format to provide the public with a greater understanding of the material, and to ensure if relevant - consumers of legal services, the public and others can be assisted by published disclosure of material.
If any information is withheld from publication it may be because - for example - the information has led to further discovery of additional complaints and clients who may have been let down by the same solicitor - and the motives of a legal regulator which compiled files on any particular solicitor or ex solicitor - where then used to ensure vested interests got their way on say - legislative issues and much more.
The investigation in relation to this article is still open, and has received further information in relation to matters which will be considered for publication at a later time.
any chance of a non legalese translation of your last comment for us mere mortals?
@ 6 July 2023 at 14:24
Noting information obtained from an interview with a senior figure in the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy & Framework and the obtaining of further material with regard to matters contained in this article:
Any solicitor or former solicitor who is or has been subject to one complaint - has also been subject to additional complaints and further regulatory investigations - which have detected additional failed work and attempts by solicitors or former solicitors and their law firms - to conceal further failures, negligence or dishonesty - in respect of their career as a solicitor.
Closer and closer to the truth
After reading your excellent report in March 2021 I always thought there would be more to this than one single case of a failed client because your blog has long educated us to expect solicitors and their regulators to walk over complaint after complaint with no action to help clients.
Solicitors only leave the profession after a string of failures or the LSoS digs up extremely embarrassing dirt such as false accounting or lying to clients or corruption at the law firm where they work.
Looking forward to reading more!
Long time no read
Are you aware your judicial register petition came up in a conversation between a former police officer and a politician?
Several days later a well known judge met with a leading advocate to offer the SNP investigation can be dropped in exchange for the Scottish Government dropping their promise for your judicial register
Notes of meetings identify all participants involved
What happens next reveal how the judiciary and lawyer mafia control Scotland instead of a pretend Scottish Government and parliament
Is this worth your attention? names of participants removed for legal reasons
* Cherbi's judicial register petition was used to influence the initial ruling on the definition of a woman
* Are any journalists aware of this?
* Yes but so far they haven't used it,.... perhaps waiting for the appeal
* Which journalists?
* *** and ***
* They both know Cherbi have they told him or talked about this?
* I don't think so otherwise he would write or Tweet about it by now but he may well know and has not outed the information for other reasons
* Any chance this can be stopped from newsprint?
* Yes *** and *** can be approached both have previously agreed to alternative exclusive in exchange.
* How about Cherbi if he finds out or knows?
* No he stopped talking to us and blocked ScotGov Justice on Twitter.
* *** says he knows all about the register being used as influence and has scandal info on the FM. *** says Cherbi has the genuine Law Society files, prepared to publish and may have shared with others.
* Are there any law firms we can ask to threaten Cherbi or cause him to go away?
* Not possible. I don't want to get into that kind of a conversation given he seems to find out everything we do before we do it. We believe he knows everything and why the register is not being created.
* Okay we are in a difficult situation once again.
* Any suggestions before he ends the world as we know it?
* Can you call me after work to discuss?
* Will do
Feel free to publish comments by Executive source on this article and read the accompanying email.
Kind regards
@ 16 July 2023 at 20:02
Thanks for the comment and yes, there is more to come when the time is righ ton this article.
On other matters mentioned in your comment - the public appear to need continual education despite this blog publishing time & again what happens in Scotland's legal profession when cases go wrong, clients are ripped off and the legal mcmafia self regulators gang up on consumers & halt any reform to self regulation.
Clients & consumers should be learning from their mistakes ... and start paying more attention to their own legal interests, where they keep their title deeds, how stupid issues between family, friends & neighbours over the size of a hedge, fence or how a bird (avian, not other) might be looking at them in a funny way do not need to be dealt with by throwing cash at lawyers who are basically laughing at clients walking through their law office doors for another rip off.
Read and learn, folks ...
Noting your comments & documents received "Executive source" - material has been passed to a colleague for scrutiny.
btw - interesting to read of how Scotland's legal profession and justice mcmafia in Scotland are trying to fit up a prominent politician to claw power back for themselves and as the documents state "set an example" ... some of the comments echo copies of messages floating around from a rude baron now at Westminster. Do you think a prominent politician would like to hear how [in their own words] her own Ministers conspired against her, in and out of office - with former leaders and political foes while begging for funding & support to dump their boss? might make a good chapter in a book or two. The material has already been shared with journo colleagues & non-UK colleagues to protect evidence gathered from any harm.
The content of several unpublished comments has been noted and will be looked at.
Post a Comment