TRANSPARENCY - Is the key to identifying council staff who might be abusing their positions of trust, to nip organized crime in the bud. The more a council, police force or other government official seek to cloud answerability, you know that office is more likely to be corrupt. We advocate Zero Tolerance to all persons in any chain of corruption that follows, including police officers, court officials and judges. Let's get rid of the rats in the system who are bleeding the ordinary man dry.
ORGANISED CRIME IN THE UK - When you hear about organised crime, you think of tough gangsters with knives and guns beating people up in dark alleys. You should be thinking about council staff in smart buildings and suits, who are on the take and crooked police officers who back them up in the taking. Yes, it is criminal and it is part of our culture, just as much as bribery is part of the culture of Brazil, India, and many other countries.
It's a great system for those in positions of trust, and as with Jimmy Saville and the BBC, they get the protection of the state. Nobody gets reasonably priced accommodation in the UK. You either buy a house where all the professionals in the chain have had their cut of your flesh, or you apply for planning permission - where once again all those in the chain insist on a slice of your cake. Yes, your cake - a slice of your life. And that is why millions of youngsters will never break free of the renting society these crooked officers have operated for years to create and control.
KEEPING CONTROL - To keep control, executive officers in councils have a secret agenda to resist any development that has not been approved by them. If you develop a site without paying them first (applying for planning permission), councils come down on you like a ton of bricks, even though such development may be lawful.
Councils, and other agencies working with them, employ the courts to obtain orders using false evidence, and for the most part the Judges are in on it. The Courts are not independent, neither are the police. All UK agencies work together to pile on the pressure to discredit and demoralize a victim, immune from data protection and privacy laws.
Councils are skilled at involving MAPPA agencies to enforce mercilessly until they break you, both mentally and financially. But, every once in a while a citizen fights back. In one case we are following, the citizen was unlucky enough to buy an old building in the Wealden area. That was in 1982. More to the point, having beaten them into a corner on the origins of the building by about 2000, they tried first to bankrupt the citizen in 2003 using costs obtained by a defective (fraudulent) enforcement notice with the help of Dame Butler-Sloss, then when that failed to stop him winning client cases, they did their hardest to discredit the citizen, because he was winning by using their own tactics against them, even to the point of effecting citizens arrests at illegal site visits - that they knew would lead to an eventual prosecution of their officers - and exposure of the corruption in the system: Organized Crime, with a few Masons in the mix to add yet more intrigue.
THE WORST - In all the cases we have reviewed on this website, this is by far the worst. As the case is so scandalous, we know that readers will not believe it. We also know that the perpetrators will seek to deny everything and again try to discredit the Victim and say his claims are unsupported. For that reason, we are publishing the key documents - so that you can see for yourself the level of malice as supported by documentary proof to the criminal standard. We hope that the general public might learn from the episode, how your council and local police work together using the courts, to pervert the course of justice.
Wealden District Council threw all their might behind what became a Vendetta of Biblical proportions - costing the taxpayer over £500,000 (and it's not over yet), to stop a man protecting a Historic Monument. It is, of course, the Duty of a Council to protect local history and offer a beneficial use. But in 1983, any person could apply to their local authority for a grant to repair historic buildings. This council did not want to contribute, so embarked on a course of denial and character assassination. Though the identity of a person is not a material consideration - for that would constitute discrimination - and has been unlawful ever since the Nazis exterminated the Jews in their Concentration Camps.
You are reading this thinking that this is not possible in Robin Hood's England, where a man's home is his castle. But that is only the case if you knuckle under, work nine to five and pay all the taxes that the Sheriff's Men demand from you to Empire build submarines and aircraft carriers, while you (the workers) struggle through life paying a mortgage for a property that you might have purchased at half the going price, if property prices were not rigged by the British System, that at the moment uses compliant judges and other corrupt officials to whip dissenters back into line - without any kind of audit or review of the system.
It's not a wonder that the UK is under performing with councils like Wealden using their powers to prevent an activist, who in this case happened to be an entrepreneur, from achieving any of his potential, in the process wrecking two marriages. Such conduct would be a serious enough Article 14 violation to topple into the malfeasance bracket, so would constitute a criminal use of public office.
TIMELINE - A COURSE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT WDC & SP, LOCAL AUTHORITIES: CONSPIRACY
APL 1987 - WDC Perverted Course of Justice (PCJ) Denied A Historic Building - Dannreuther
CCT 1988 - Malfeasance & Malicious Prosecution (MP) - Appeal Allowed - V Scarpa, Judge T Clay, Price Lewis
INJ 1995- Malfeasance, Continued MP - C Nuttall
INJ 1997 - Perjury DLP - Deprivation Health & Safety facilities Judge E Butler-Sloss
APP 1997 - Perjury - Deception, Fraud, PCJ
APP 1999/2000 - Failure to Determine, PCJ
CC 2005 - WDC Consent Order (CO)
CCT 2008 - Fraudulent Conviction (SP) - Taboo clincher
SP 2014 - PCJ Editing Inconvenient Evidence, Investigation Fraud MP - M Robinson, H Kelly, CPS, A French
CCT 2015 - Jury Acquittal SP MP - Sx Police, Judge Scott-Gall
HOW DOES THE QUEEN FEEL ABOUT THAT AT THE AGE OF 90?
Why the Queen you might think? Because the Queen is Head of State in this case. The buck stops with her at the moment. It will eventually be her successor. The get out for the Queen, is that she transfers her power to an elected Government and from that point on the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible. Acts of Parliament, no matter how unjust - or in some cases unlawful under European or International law, receive Royal assent - and only then pass into law with support of the Spiritual Lord Bishops.
The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons.
Dissolution (the act of dissolving) happens when: the Government's fixed four-year term is complete, the Government loses a vote on important bills – the budget, for example – in the House of Commons, or impropriety is uncovered. Typically, the Queen will avoid such scandal with an arrangement that a minister will resign, such as when Tony Blair's was called a war criminal by protestors for invading Iraq.
THE ROYAL COMMISSION
Then there is the Royal Commission, which in theory will put an application to a court through to the Lord Bishops. Theory, because any corrupt judges in the pipeline who rule the courts, will simply strike an inconvenient application out. Before that the Court administration, usually Clerks or Masters, is the filtering system by which claims of corruption are denied a hearing. There is thus no Right to a Hearing, a violation of Article 6. Court officers are bound by Article 6 and Section 6 of the HRA 1998 to ensure the rights of any citizen to a fair hearing. Corrupt officials will do anything to stop the Royal Family and the Prime Minister hearing about Fraud in their courts or in the system - and for that they may be knighted by the back door - for services rendered. You may think then that Sirs and Dames need to be treated with caution, if it is that they obtained their titles by violating the rights of any Citizen to a Fair Hearing, and that might be prudent. We would love to see the reasoning behind certain knighthoods.
Sometimes the Prime Minister is not an honest officer of the land, in which case the job of getting heard will be harder still. David Cameron is one PM who is considered to be an honest officer, properly serving Her Majesty. But, even so, applications citing the Attorney General or the Home Office are not getting through. The proof is in the pudding. Many are trying and being led a merry dance.
Barristers and Judges know that they must service local government frauds. If they do not, they will soon be cut out of the pie, so not be given any cases. So they tow the party line. They convict anyone just for the asking, knowing that council officials will fabricate evidence to help them get the job done - and they actively assist in controlling their courts in biased fashion. A judge simply has to allow evidence for the prosecution that aught to be ruled out, deny time for proper examination of fresh evidence, allow the press into sensitive cases, or misdirect the jury as to important facts. A barrister merely has to present a case that ignores evidence in their clients favour and fail to examine important witness thoroughly, or even fail to challenge forensic evidence.
Sometimes it is not fabricating evidence on the part of the CPS, in the sense of creating false evidence, it is simply not investigating, or only presenting evidence that tends to support their case. Some statute has been crafted as a tool to assist the courts obtain fraudulent convictions. Once such abomination is the Sexual Offences Act, where a person is guilty until proven innocent - instead of being innocent until proven guilty, as required by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
TO BE CONTINUED ......
US SEX CASE EVIDENCE - The testimony on Myron T Scholberg FBI, invoked the certainties of science to guide a Jury and the ruse did its job: the verdict came in guilty - sending Kirk Odom to jail for 22 years on bogus hair evidence. On the basis of a single hair Kirk Odom was to spend the next 22 years in prison and a further nine living the half-life of a paroled sex offender. The trouble is that Scholberg’s testimony wasn’t scientific, and it wasn’t true. Fast forward to 2009, by which time Odom had spent 28 years in prison and on parole. In that year the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRCNAS) released a landmark report into the practice of forensic analysis in the US. The NRCNAS report pointed out a basic problem with the idea that you can compare two hair samples and produce a positive match. No statistics exist that map the distribution of hair properties in the general population, and that renders it impossible to make any meaningful calculations about the probabilities of a particular hair type being found. As a result, “all analyst testimony … stating that a crime scene hair was ‘highly likely’ to have come, ‘very probably’ came, or did come from the defendant violates the basic scientific criterion that expressions of probability must be supported by data”. To put that in plain English, Scholberg’s statement to the jury at the Odom trial – that the match he had found between the defendant’s and the rapist’s hair was a “very rare phenomenon” – was complete fantasy.
The FBI’s 1977 pamphlet Microscopy of Hair: A Practical Guide and Manual.
The assumption running through its 53 pages is that with the help of a microscope a skilled examiner can positively match two hairs to the same person with a high probability of
accuracy. Clarence Kelley, then director of the FBI, wrote a starry-eyed foreword to the manual in which he expressed his hope that it would promote “maximum use of physical evidence in our criminal justice system of America”.
At its peak the microscopic analysis unit in Washington had 11 special agents devoted entirely to hair comparisons, working on up to 2,000 cases a year and testifying 250 times annually. Between 1972 and 1999, the unit produced at least 2,500 positive hair matches that were used in criminal cases, and tens of thousands more may have resulted from FBI
“so-called experts” training detectives to use the technique in states across the country.
JULIAN ASSANGE - If you go about revealing all about politicians and their sneaky tactics, you are bound to find yourself accused of something unsavory. Wikileaks! Nice one Julian. Freedom of speech and transparency in office. If they abided by those principles for real, the world would be a safer place.
UK SEX CASE EVIDENCE SIMILARITIES - Substitute Myron Scholberg for Melanie Liebenberg and anatomical evidence, rather than the matching of a hair - Mr Odom's conviction was obtained using the same methods used in the UK by the CPS. The CPS knowingly called out of date medical evidence to seal a wrongful conviction, the FBI used outdated anatomical evidence. It's time the UK did the needed research to not only convict those guilty of offences based on scientific data rather than fantasy opinion, but also to protect those falsely accused of crimes. Ref: Extracts from a Guardian article by Ed Pilkington
APPEAL HEARINGS CAN NOW BE FILMED AND TWEETED
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2016. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary Trust UK All trademarks herby acknowledged. Contact Us.