Here are the almost full e-mails from the infamous convicted Internet Bully and serial political failure of Jersey - Stuart Syvret, which he sent to his ex-Partner in 2010 after being slung out of her House for his increasingly paranoid and drunken behavior.
A man (if you can call him a man) who claims to care for others yet this damming collection of threats for money clearly shows that this man only cares for himself. He is nothing more than a deranged thug, a terrorizer of women and a coward.
A freak who is prepared to frighten a lone woman and her children by concocting fictitious court orders with only one intention to extort money.
As a few simple Bloggers in Jersey and Tweeters around the World turn a blind eye to Stuart Syvret's behavior it only highlights their double standards and the hypocrisy of the Jersey Care Leavers Association, whose Members and supporters are becoming better well known as psychologically messed up dysfunctional misfits.
Luckily for this lady at the end of her abuse she managed to get away from this freak and is happily married to a man who loves her, cares for her and is 100 x better than this vindictive piece of shit.
Any Women even thinking of dating Stuart Syvret beware, this man is a psychopath, and once you manage to get away from his creepy world, the threats for money will start and the evidence below is damming:
From: Stuart Syvret <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: carolyn Labey <email@example.com>; Carolyn Labey
Sent: Tue Aug 03 12:13:422010
Subject: Re: Settlement
This e-mail has been received directly from the Internet: you should exercise a degree of caution since there can be no guarantee that the source or content of the message is authentic.
If you receive inappropriate e-mail from an external source it is your responsibility to notify Computer Services Helpdesk (telephone 440440).
The Full States e-mail Usage Policy can be found here:
Here is the text of the provisional Order of Justice, just in case you couldn't open the attachment.
Monday; unless I receive some constructive response from you; the very least that can be expected given your barbaric and needlessly destructive conduct towards me, the lies you told me, and the variety of defamatory smears you have peddled to others concerning me.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRQVISIONAL ONLY
DRAFT AS AT 2ND AUGUST, 2010
IN THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY (Samedi Division)
BETWEEN: STUART SYVRET Plaintiff
CAROLYN LABEY Defendant.
1. The Defendant is Carolyn Fiona Labey.
2. The Defendant was in a relationship with the Plaintiff for a period of approximately sixteen years; fourteen of those on a publicly acknowledged basis.
3. The Plaintiff is Stuart Syvret. He was in a relationship with the Defendant for approximately sixteen year, fourteen of those on a publicly acknowledged basis.
4. The Defendant has three children arising from her marriage to Robert Roynon-Jones, who is the father of all three.
5. The Children are: -
9. The Defendant is by normal standards very wealthy and financially secure.
10. She inherited substantial property, including buildings and land which will accrue to her fully upon the death of her mother who benefits from lifetime enjoyment of an extremely large house
- Le Parcq, two adjoining flats, and a substantial amount of land.
11. The property occupied by the Defendant adjoined Le Parcq, and is know as le Petit Parcq. The property was a part of that inherited by the defendant, but which her mother previously benefited from life enjoyment of.
12. Le Petit Parcq was transferred into the name of the Defendant and her ex-husband, and between them then developed as a habitable home.
13. Upon the failure of the marriage, an amount remained outstanding upon the mortgage, but this was small compared to that which is faced by most people in the Defendant's circumstances, as was paid-off via a combination of some of her own cash reserves and settlement moneys from her ex-husband, thus leaving her in outright ownership and enjoyment of Le Petit Parcq; that in addition to the substantial revisionary ownership of the main buildings of Le Parcq, its adjoining buildings and flats and associated lands.
14. The building, Le Petit Parcq, owned outright and occupied by the defendant is, of itself a substantial building, set in very extensive surrounding gardens, and is set in a valuable location.
15. The Plaintiff devoted at least 14 years of his life to the partnership he had with the Defendant, and has now reached the age of 45, with the relationship having only very recently terminated duet to the infidelities and dishonesties of the Defendant.
16. The Plaintiff - having no children of his own - has devoted substantial amounts of his life, time and resources to the Defendant's three children.
17. The Plaintiff, having been abandoned and rejected and betrayed by the Defendant, now finds himself homeless, unemployed - in no small measure due to the immensely unreasonable and unfaithful conduct of the Defendant. He is also the victim of psychological and emotional abuse, and very significantly the victims of financial loss, having subsidised - over a period of at least fourteen years - the raising of the defendant's three children.
18. Given the comparatively great and extremely advantageous wealth of the Defendant - and her ex-husband - and the needlessly damaging and destructives betrayal of the Plaintiff by the
Defendant, he seeks some moderate financial recompense, by way of compensation for only some of the moneys disbursed by the Plaintiff towards -
19. (a), the raising and support of her children;
20. (b) various capital amounts spent upon the improvement and capital benefit of her property;
21. (c ) the resultant significantly reduced expenditures that were incurred by the defendant as a result.
22. The amount conditionally and generously sought as a settlement at this stage being: -
24. The Plaintiff also seeks recognition in any compensation to be awarded, the damages suffered by him in the various betrayals and infidelities engage in by the Defendant and the resultant harm, psychological damage and loss.
25. WHEREBY THE PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED WRONGS
26. WHEREBY THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS JUST RECOMPENSE FOR THE SAID WRONGS;
27. ADDITIONALLY ANY FURTHER RECOMPENSE THE COURTS CONSIDERS FITTING.
28. Saving all just exceptions. Address for Service:
34 Le Clos de la Ville
On 2 August 2010 21 :47, Stuart Syvret <st.syvret@gmai},Qom> wrote: Carolyn
As per these e-mails, the FIRST DRAFT - WITHOUT PREJUDICE - of the Order of Justice is attached
I need not provide you with these opportunities of a less rancorous settlement, but I am.
Frankly - you do not deserve it- given the despicable behavior you have so strongly manifested. But - nevertheless - here is the first draft of the Order of Justice.
Please note - it is provisional only; I am fully within my rights to claim against you for a far larger amount.
As stated clearly in the previous e-mails - in the absence of constructive dialogue from you - an Order of Justice against you - based upon the attached document - will be served this coming Monday.
On 2 August 201000:10, Stuart Syvret wrote: As per my recent
communication, and your failure to acknowledge it.
It is now the case that you have chosen to abandon whatever goodwill may have existed, by which a settlement may have been reached - a settlement I was offering you upon extraordinarily generous terms.
The sum of £250 per month - as a cash contribution to your household - effectively, a subsidy to you, your ex-husband and your three children, as the sum being paid by me, was dramatically lower than reality, and was offered by me in an effort to avoid unnecessary rancour.
By failing to even acknowledge the e-mail- sent, let it be noted, to both of your e-mail addresses - I am left with no choice other than to conclude your well-evidenced belligerence and intransigence continues.
It now being pass midnight - as warned in my e-mail of 20.40 ofthe 1st August - the generous terms offered in my e-mail of 19.34 of the 1st August are now withdrawn, and no longer stand.
Instead - a more realistic - but frankly still generous - figure of £ 100 per week - for the subsidy of the three children of you and your ex-husband - plus the various capital disbursements by me upon you property - form the basis of the required sum.
£100 per week x 4 = £400.
£400 per month x 12 = £4800
£4800 per year x 14 = £62,700.
You therefore owe me a sum of £62,700 - that amounting to a de minimus amount of subsidy for the raising of your three children over a 14 year period - plus a de minimus amount of capital expenditure upon your property.
I repeat - these are still generously low claims; in reality, the sums by which I have subsidised you and your ex-husband are far greater.
Legal proceedings will - in the absence of a constructive acknowledgment - be initiated in 7 days.
Yours sincerely, Stuart Syvret.
On 1 August 201020:40, Stuart Syvret <stsyvret@gmIlU.com> wrote:
I should also point out that the generous concessionary offer I make in the e-mail below is time-limited.
Should Inot receive at least an indication of your position by midnight tonight, the full
amount justly claimable by me will added into a revised account. That account being the basis of the legal proceedings.
On 1 August 2010 19:39, Stuart Syvret wrote: Carolyn
We were in a relationship for 16 years.
You - de facto - terminated that relationship.
You did so for your own reasons - and, in particular, you did so in ways that were needlessly and profoundly dishonest, destructive and massively damaging to me.
Your conduct in this regard is consistent; you had exactly the very same effect upon your ex-husband, who also wrote of the immense harm you had caused him and his mental health.
That your ex-husband and I have both ended up suffering the appalling ill effects of your profoundly unpleasant and toxically dysfunctional personality, some might say was our faults, for ever falling for your selfish duplicitations in the first place.
However, the fact is you cannot continue to go through life - using, crushing, then spitting out, those who you have formed relationships with - just as soon as they cease to be "convenient" to you; just as soon as you feel you're "not getting enough attention"; you're "not having enough fun" - to quote your reasons.
That - as the correspondence proves - both yours with me - and much of that between you and your ex-husband - is the nature of what you are.
It is also plain that in addition to using - then utterly and recklessly discarding those close to you as soon as they cease to be of any use to you - you have also ruthlessly milked whoever was on the scene for financial benefit, as much as the unfortunate person could supply.
The moneys you took you ex-husband for are well-documented - and were much more extensive than those you suborned from me. Not a surprising fact, given his immense wealth in comparison to me, and the fact he is the father of you three children. I remember
the fall-out very well indeed - as I helped you to a massive extent in ploughing through all
this documents and in writing legal letters and assisting you generally in fighting him and his new father-in-law when he decided you were taking him for a ride financially.
Financial affairs between you and your ex-husband are resolved. However, they are not between you and me.
We were in a relationship for 16 years. I realise you don't like to admit that fact, and you prefer to claim 14 years - because you were still with your husband when our affair began in 1994. Nevertheless, our relationship did begin in 1994.
However - I will be generous - and play along with your charade, and, for argument's sake, and for the purposes of these calculations, refer to the relationship as having begun in 1996
- and thus having continued for only 14 years.
We had a long and intimate relationship for 16 years; a period of time when I - de facto spent most of my time staying and sleeping at your home. I fully moved in on a permanent basis in 2008.
During the 14 year period, I spent a very considerable amount of money on your household, in the broad sense.
I routinely shopped, and purchased substantial quantities of food and other goods for the house - especially in respect of the children. I spent substantial quantities on petrol, taking them back and forth to school. I do not include in these amounts such expenditures as presents and other treats - but rather day to day and week-to-week support costs of the children as they went about their lives.
These sums of money were subsidies by me - to you and your ex-husband in the raising and support of your three children.
In comparison to both you and your ex-husband, I am penniless. I have no assets, no property, no pension, no security of any description, and - given recent events - no employment.
Nevertheless - during at least a 14 year period I have expended what are by my standards vast sums of money on contributing to the raising of the children of you and your ex husband.
You own outright several million pounds worth of property, including very substantial houses and flats.
Your ex-husband is the senior partner of an extremely profitable Jersey off-shore
accountancy firm. In addition he himself, and his current wife, both own substantial assets - not least their house and property in the UK.
I spent very substantial sums of my money on contributing to the raising of your children in good faith.
I considered we were in a secure, loving long-term relationship, which I fully expected to continue for the rest of our lives.
In effect, we were in an informal contractual situation. Having studied the law in these
, matters, I am aware that such concepts as "common law marriage" carry no legal meaning or weight in law. That, however, does not mean that a long-term partner, especially one who co-habited, and who contributed to the household, is without any legal rights.
Given that you have - effectively taken money from me under false pretences, I am claiming back from you a reasonable sum; a sum based upon my expenditures - and the
fact that you are the party at fault - indeed, as you were when the relationship between you and your ex-husband broke down.
Co-habiting couples are legal entitled only to what each brought to the relationship; no more. So I make no claim on your properties.
I do though make legitimate claim for that which I spent during the relationship in ways that were to the clear advantage and benefit of you and your children and the capital value of your property.
It is - after all - the case that I have been left ruined - destitute and wrecked in fact - by your sheer dishonesty and needless destructiveness. It is entirely reasonable that I recover those moneys you obtained from me in bad faith and under false pretences.
You have - for a long period of time - being having affairs with other men. Kevin Eloury for example, and more latterly Kenny McKreely.
These betrayals of me by you had been on-going for a significant period of time, but impacted upon me most damagingly and destructively when you demanded I left the household during the early part of 2009. Ostensibly, you claimed to me that this was because you felt I was working too much on my legal case and writing the blog - and that you just wanted a few months for things to "calm down" before I would move back. You also stated on several occasions that you felt you "weren't having enough fun", and that your "weren't getting enough attention".
I felt utterly devastated by this rejection - especially given the length of our relationship and the fact that - at that moment in time - of all times in my life - I needed support - not betrayal - from those close to me.
Nevertheless - you seriously misled me by continuously insisting that you did not want the relationship to end.
In due course, I moved out, and lived on a temporary basis at friends homes for a couple of months. My feelings towards the relationship varied over this period - sometimes feeling I wanted to restore it - sometimes feeling that you had - by throwing me out - ended it. Whatever the position, you seemed entirely content, either way.
It was towards then end of this period that I was subjected to yet more unlawful abuse by the Jersey oligarchy who decided I would no longer be able to adduce the evidence
necessary for my public interest disclosure defence. I decided I had had enough - on top of
being homeless, and would go to London to seek support.
It so happened by coincidence, I saw you in the States building and simply told you I was gomg.
You immediately - in what is now revealed as yet another act of duplicity - pretended to be upset, and stated you wanted me to return to live at your home until I went to London.
Like a fool, I fell for this pretence on your part that you did want the relationship to be re
established. All the while you were having affairs - most noticeably with Kenny McKreely.
During my time in London - you visited on several occasions, and we slept together, with you giving every impression you loved me and wanted the relationship to continue. Again - like a fool - for a long time I fell for this nonsense - even though I had heard a conversation between you and McKreely one Sunday morning before you threw me out of the house.
Your betrayal of me - at the worst possible time of my life -was utterly despicable. It completely ruined and undermined my ability to deal with the legal proceedings - already an immense burden -and was instrumental in my decision to go to London.
Further - I would have returned earlier - and not have lost my seat in the States had you not played such absurd and wicked games with me.
Indeed - even that destruction you wrought upon me was not sufficient, instead, after I had
returned to Jersey, you got my friend Paul to dump a huge quantity of my possessions
where I am lodging, in a deliberate act of malice and spite designed to undermine my moral and preparations for the election.
In fairly recent times - your twisted, shallow and duplicitous motivations for your disgraceful conduct have become very clear.
You have long wanted rid of me. You were too dishonest - and spiteful and vindictive, just to say so - and thus avoid a great deal of damage and pain. Instead your prime and overarching motivation was to be rid of me - but -' crucially - for me to be seen as the
'villain of the piece' - as 'the bad guy'.
You were - and are - utterly determined to paint yourself as the innocent party - rather than the shallow, hedonistic, money-obsessed individual you are - and to depict me as some
kind of sociopathic monster who you just had to have out of the house for a few months - but would then want to have back. And to boost that dishonest spin - you have spent months remorselessly smearing me to mutual acquaintances.
You have been a coward and a lair throughout.
You have caused untold - and quite needless - and avoidable - damage.
Well- having been treated so utterly despicably by you - and having had my career - and my life - destroyed by you - merely to prop-up your self-propagandising 'goody-two shoes' image - I am damned if! am going to let lie the very substantial sums of money I
have spent over the years on subsidising your house - and the children of you and your ex
husband - two multi-millionaires.
I am within my rights to claim substantially more than the amount below. However, I have been more than reasonable, and have significantly and generously reduce it; for example, by only applying a generalised expenditure to your household and children of £250 per month.
I layout bellow the entirely reasonable calculations of the relevant sum.
In the event you do not supply me with a cheque for the amount in question - to which I am legal entitled, the sum in question being no more that a portion of that which I brought to, and spent upon the existence of the household - I will initiate legal proceedings based upon the above facts.
I have significantly developed my understanding of legal basics, and will represent myself. I should also point out that I - having precisely zero to lose - have fear of neither public repercussions nor court costs in the event of losing in litigation. I make those points clear so that you may see that I am extremely serious in what I write
It is - in so many ways - desperately disappointing that - after 16 years - things should have ended this way between us. It could have been avoided, Carolyn - if only you had - for once in your life - simply been honest - and been prepared to shoulder the consequent responsibility for your choice.
Instead, you found yourself reduced to engaging in drunken fist-sights in Fridays' Bar, when people who know me saw you out getting drunk with one of your boyfriends - who was pawing your backside - whilst I was in London.
A wretched state of affairs.
We were in a close and intimate relationship for 16 years.
You do not care to admit those first two years, therefore, as a charitable act, I will discount the first two years, and for the purposes of the calculations below, use your preferred figure of 14 years.
Until around 2002, I was in the habit of paying for most of our meals when we dined out.
I also largely funded certain other expenditures, for example, the acquisition and purchase of the tickets to see Tom Waits.
Though I continued to rent a flat in town for most of the period in question, in reality - as is easily demonstrated - I lived largely at your house following the departure of your ex husband
Therefore, I routinely spent weekly sums on shopping that were for the entire household. Certainly, a proportion of those sums were to my own direct benefit. But given the quantities spent on food and general groceries that went to the support of the children, that portion was money brought and invested by me into the household.
In addition to such general weekly expenditure, I also reasonably regularly spent sums of money on capital items for the house. For example, various building materials, such as paints, glues, cement, concrete, tiles, other items, such as chainsaws, strimmers, ladders etc. Another item being the near-£400 I spent on the controller for your AGA.
In addition to such capital outlay, I put a very substantial quantity of man-hours into work upon the development and improvement of the property - thus raising its capital value to your permanent benefit.
For the period of time I actually moved permanently into your house, we had an agreement that I would pay you £833 per month in rent - starting after one year "rent free". (An agreement of itself that is extremely revealing concerning your mercenary motivations.) Nevertheless - no matter how inappropriate it was to regard the accommodation of your partner as a mercantile transaction, I did agree to that arrangement, so I do not seek to recover that £833 per month, which was paid for approximately 15 months, totalling an amount of £12495.
I paid that amount for something over a year - but yet continued to spend additional sums - both in the form of weekly groceries and occasional capital sums as the household required.
Taking into account the average weekly sum I spent subsidising the three children of you and your ex-husband - who are both rich - plus occasional capital sums - plus the value of my labour that has also contributed to the value of your property - I could very easily calculate a sum approaching £1000 per week. However taking into account my own benefit
- to one-fifth of the occupants - and in a gesture of reasonableness - I will base the following calculation on an average monthly sum of £250.
£250 per month x 12 = £3000 per year.
£3000 per year x 16 = £48,000
The relationship existing for 16 years.
However, reducing that time period to 14 years-
£3000 per year x 14 = £42,000
You therefore owe me a sum of £42,000.
And - at that - that calculation is extraordinarily generous and reasonable on my part, as, in truth, my expenditures to the benefit of your household and children is substantially more than that. And that is without taking into account any amount for damages given the grotesquely unreasonable, dishonest malicious and destructive conduct you have exhibited towards me.
I know for a fact that sum in question is easily affordable by you; both in terms of hidden cash, or, failing that, a loan using one of your extensive property assets as collateral.
I expect to hear from you shortly with a positive response. Should I not do so, I will begin work on the legal proceedings.
Yours sincerely, Stuart Syvret.