STEVE WHITE

ACCOUNTS EXPENDITURE VERIFIES INSTITUTIONALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGENDA

POTTY TRAINING - Using a potty correctly may be a new skill for your planning team to learn if they keep missing the bowl or forgetting to flush, or maybe even fumble the paperwork. Being patient and firm with them will help them get it right eventually, even if they sometimes feel frustrated. They should be taught that every person is entitled to a toilet no matter how much their legal team are out to harm a challenging member of the public - and yes we know how irritating it is to be caught out consistently by some members of the public - and yes of course that makes you hate that/those members of the public more - leading you into trying another dirty trick. But will that lead to more spillages?

So, if you are going to plan a vendetta, hoping to harass someone to vacate Wealden land for the benefit of someone else locally, be sure that you don't get caught with your trousers down, forget to flush, or even pull your trousers up too soon. Be careful to stay in the groove by following statute to the letter and don't hope that all Judges or Inspectors will turn a blink eye with a funny handshake - there are many who are not members and these are the airings that are sure to come back to haunt you to reveal what you did and why you did it. Sleep safe at night by doing the right thing. Do not try to deprive anyone of their state granted rights and put the lid down.

One way of looking into the goings on at your council is to dissect the accounts. A forensic examination will reveal how much a local authority is spending on any one issue. Disproportionate or prolonged expenditure is likely to reveal the extent of any vendetta. There are sure to be discrepancies that can only add up to one thing.

Accounts disclosure can be ordered by any Court in relation to suspected misuse of public funds.

ATT: Steve White FAX TO: 01323 443333
Accounts Department
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Road
Hailsham
BN27 2AX 13 August 2001

Dear Mr White

ACCOUNTS – MISSING ENTRIES

Thank you for your assistance with my request to inspect the Council’s accounts last Thursday the 9th August 2001. I was not shown the full accounts, only extracts. I have now had a chance to look at the entries supplied that relate to myself.

There appear to be large sums in connection with “Committal Proceedings” about which event I know/knew nothing of. The sums are not broken down where the Council should be accountable. I believe the subject matter would require the Council to obtain Counsel’s Opinion and this/these Opinion(s) are not shown under the P200 or P300 sections. I was wondering if you or the appropriate person could explain the situation to me.

Lastly, I have in the past written to many Councillors where it is my right under Article 3 of the Council’s Constitution – also under 3.1 (b) (iv) “to see reports and background papers and any records of decisions made by the Council and the executive”. I can see no reference in the accounts to expenses incurred by the Members in dealing with matters raised. Could you please provide information of this expenditure and a breakdown as appropriate.

I should like to give the Council the opportunity to provide me with the ‘missing’ information rather than refer the matter elsewhere and I would hope for your fullest co-operation in a reasonable timeframe.

Yours sincerely

Nelson J Kruschandl

C.C. Cllrs: Ainslie, Coltman,
Thornely-Taylor, West

Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold

Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant

MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE

When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as did Ian Kay in the Stream Farm matter), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR), where police constable Bowden failed in his duty to protect a member of the public.

Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://web.zurich.co.uk/

http://www.royalmail.com/

http://www.sussex.police.uk/

http://www.wealden.gov.uk/

Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Black Julian - Boakes Beverley

Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn

Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford

Lant Charles - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J. - Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio

Scott Trevor - Kevin Stewart - Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.