DAVID PHILLIPS

Her Majesty's pleasure, imprisonment for corrupt officers

 

  Council officers like David Phillips who abuse their positions of authoirty should be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006, a pension would then be proceeds of crime and not payable.

 

HOME   |   CASE STUDIES   |   LAW   |    POLITICS     RIGHTS    SCANDAL  |   SITE INDEX   |   WHISTLEBLOWING

 

 

David Phillips was the Enforcement Officer responsible for the demolition of the Bushy Wood animal sanctuary buildings and the fraudulent presentations to Committee members that resulted in enforcement against the Old Steam House monument. Now Herstmonceux Museum.

 

Other officers of this council were also party to the deception (making this a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) over a prolonged period of time, designed to deprive the occupier of the buildings a beneficial use in 1986, with the unlawful suggestion (agenda) that that buildings would be better in the ownership of neighbors in Lime Park. Article 14 prohibits discrimination as to property ownership.

 

This was recorded and transcribed from an Area South Committee planning meeting. A copy of the recording was sent to every member of the Committee, but they did nothing - because they were told what to say and do by the officers. The same officers who had deceived planning inspectors and judges for many years - which is of course perverting the course of justice.

 

 

Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage  David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl

 

Christine Nuttall & David Phillips - partners in crime

 

 

A COURSE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT

 

The suggestion that property should be in the hands of another person is not only unlawful discrimination in HR terms under Article 14, but it is akin to procurement by this corrupt council acting as an agent for neighbors who may have expressed an interest in acquisition, presumably, provided that the price was well below market value. And so Fraud creeps into the equation.

 

Many of you will know that unlawful discrimination as an agenda, goes from civil misfeasance in public office to criminal malfeasance. Wealden District Council routinely ignore European law, and only modified their behaviour to try to get away from past unlawfulness, in 2000, when the HRA 98 was enacted in the UK. They have since gone back to their old ways. Fraud is not only doing something, but failing to do something; such as forgetting to consult English Heritage.

 

"It was an easy mistake to make guvnor. It just slipped my mind."

 

"Not once, but several times?" 

 

"Yeh, well, I've got a terrible memory."

 

"When you're paid to forget?"

 

"I can't recall honest."

 

Another ploy used by councils is to swap staff around, to distance themselves from their past misdeeds and prolong employment that is wholly inappropriate, being akin to obtaining monies by deception. The ratepayer does not want to employ dishonest people to run their councils. It increases their rates.

 

We will bring you more on this unresolved saga in the coming months - in the hope of obtaining a prosecution of the co-conspirators who worked for this Council at that time, and any member or officer of this Council who attempts to prevent or hinder any ongoing criminal investigation as of March 2016.

 

 

Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council  David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council

 

Victorio Patrick Scarpa & David Whibley - partners in crime

 

 

THE LAW

 

At the moment the Sussex Police appear to have granted their chums at Wealden immunity from prosecution. The law is though clear, where an instrument was obtained by deception some time ago and limitations may have applied, if that instrument is being used today, then the method by which the instrument was obtained may be the subject of a criminal investigation under the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Chris Arnold is the latest Wealden officer to come under suspicion in terms of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. Sussex Police are once again invited to investigate - and no doubt will do their level best to do nothing at all - which makes them party to the crime. It is a criminal offence to know of a possible crime, but not to investigate it.

 

 

 

Fraudulent warrant to enter premises Justice Peace E Brooks 29 April 2002

 

 

EVIDENTIAL PROOF - David Phillips and Christine Nuttall attended the Old Steam House with a Sussex Police officer in evidence. The incident was recorded on video camera. Refusal to enter the premises became an issue where these officers were challenged as to the lawfulness of the above Warrant. The council officers were asked if they knew what a malicious prosecution was? Instead of pressing for entry, once this question was posed, the council officers ran down the drive, got in their car and exited Lime Park as fast as they could go. The police officer who was attending the scene at the request of Wealden District Council, was astounded. He had never seen such a reaction to what should have been a simple entry to a building. That the officers of WDC ran from the scene of their crime, is an admission as to the fact.

 

 

EVIDENTIAL PROOF

 

David Phillips and Christine Nuttall attended the Old Steam House with a Sussex Police officer in evidence. The incident was recorded on video camera. Refusal to enter the premises became an issue where these officers were challenged as to the lawfulness of the above Warrant. The council officers were asked if they knew what a malicious prosecution was? Instead of pressing for entry, once this question was posed, the council officers ran down the drive, got in their car and exited Lime Park as fast as they could go. The police officer who was attending the scene at the request of Wealden District Council, was astounded. He had never seen such a reaction to what should have been a simple entry to a building. That the officers of WDC ran from the scene of their crime, is an admission as to the fact.

 

The police officer concerned was then invited into the premises by Nelson Kruschandl, a victim of a long running vendetta. He explained to PC Crichton (Badge No:CC850) that the above Warrant was obtained by deception. That in itself should have resulted in prosecution of David Phillips, but to be sure the matter was investigated by the Sussex Police, a formal complaint was lodged on the 27th of May 2002 - as you can see from a copy of the letter that we have been lucky enough to secure.

 

 


ATT: PC Crichton CC850                                                                                               FAX REF: Delivered by hand
Hailsham Police Station
George Street
Hailsham                                                                                                                                STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
East Sussex
BN27 1AB 
                                                                                                                                                                               27 May 2002

Dear Constable Crichton



MISUSE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY – FUNDS & MALICIOUS CONDUCT

 

I write with reference to the visit that took place this evening and our conversation shortly before the Council’s Mr Phillips; Mrs Nuttall; Mr Whibley and one other vacated the site.

Firstly, I should like to commend you on ensuring there was no breach of the peace. On another occasion when Mr Phillips and two other officers attended the site without the Police in evidence, Mr Phillips did in fact seek to barge past me to gain entry. He was more careful on this occasion.

Please find enclosed copy of my letter to Sgt. Colin Dowle dated 20 April 2001. You will see that the Crime I reported in that letter has become supplanted with further acts by these same enforcement personnel. 

On the one hand they appear eager to pursue their enforcement activities, then on the other, content not to carry out other functions required by statute – because if they did that would be an end to the matter. Hence the prosecution of the matter may only be seen as malicious and I would refer you to Councillor West on the matter.

The enforcement matters Mr Phillips alluded to prior to 1998 were in fact all based on misinformation. I know the principle is established in criminal law where a decision by a Court based on misinformation is void. This has also been established in civil law with the R v Canterbury Council ex parte Springimage case of 1991.

The Council’s enforcement campaign going back many years is based on information put before a Planning Committee that this building holds no historic interest. In the eyes of the archaeological experts and with reference to an independent survey, this is demonstrably incorrect.

When I wrote to the Council earlier this year asking there Monitoring Officer (MO) to make a report on the matter – he (Mr Scarpa) simply refused. Their MO is the same solicitor having conduct of the matter since the early 80’s. The refusal constitutes a failure to carry out one’s duty under the Local Government & Housing Act 2000.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                  P.1

 

Where Mr Phillips refused to explain what information he had put before Mr Brooks, the JP concerned, I strongly suspected that he mislead the gentleman, so as to be able to continue his malicious campaign to continue to deprive me of any reasonable beneficial use for this property. The visit you attended was known visit number 181. I think any reasonable man would take the view that so many visitations would constitute harassment. 

If it is that Mr Phillips failed to show Mr Brooks JP the recent correspondence with the Council regarding injustice and the Canterbury rule, then he failed to properly inform – a failure to advise, about which Mr Phillips has admitted so doing to the County Court previously. There are several other recorded occurrences (other persons) where Mr Phillips’ evidence has been manufactured.

In the matter of any crime, a person is entitled to know the nature of the evidence against him. I asked for sight of the evidence Mr Phillips relied on and I also asked to see his written authority. Being the committee authorisation in respect of the site visit – the originating process. I refer to article 6 of the Human Rights Act 3. (a) “to be informed promptly, in a language he understands and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.” The video camera captured Mr Phillips refusing to provide me with any information other than to wave a piece of plastic in the air. When I asked him if he understood what a Malicious Prosecution was, he replied “no comment.” 

The plain fact is that the Council’s previous enforcement initiatives are poorly founded. The Council has been nursing the lie ever since and compounding injustice after injustice, rather than carry out an independent investigation and clear the slate, where I have provided ample opportunity.

Also mentioned in my letter to Sgt. Dowle is the matter of civil litigation. If fact I applied to the LSC for funding to expose the goings on, but unless this Council actively continue their malice and issue some form of proceedings, I cannot make my case. The LSC confirm funding will be available to mount a counterclaim at that juncture only. However, it appears this matter may now supersede any civil case.

With reference to the above I should like to formally press charges against the officers concerned. Can you please log my complaint and give me a crime number reference at your earliest convenience. I am available to make a statement, which will be accompanied by supporting documentary and other recorded evidence and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely 




Nelson J Kruschandl 

                                                                                                                                     P.2

                                                                                                                                              

 

 

 

A COURSE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT

 

Malfeasance in public office is a criminal offence. A Council may not investigate themselves when it comes to officers at a high rank conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The Local Government Ombudsman is also precluded from criminal investigations, where they can only make a finding of maladministration, having no remit to go further. Maladministration is a civil wrong.

 

You may not be surprised to learn that to date, and despite repeated formal complaints, so far all of the Chief Constables of the Sussex Police (SP) force have managed to duck the allegation that they conspired with Wealden District Council officers to nurture a lie. The efforts that WDC and SP have gone to to bury this case is astonishing. We wonder how much longer they can keep this particular game of musical chairs in motion.

 

The vendetta did not stop here. Knowing the Mr Kruschandl is a determined character, Sussex Police tried their very best to gain other convictions. They know he has the goods on them and Melanie Liebenberg in the sex case and that it is just a matter of time before medical science sets that record straight. So they tried to compound the character assassination by (possibly) soliciting complaints from Don Wales and T J Hughes. In the case of Don Wales they raided office archives, smashing five doors down, but were forced to concede wrongful entry in the return of most of the documents seized, some being allegedly stolen by Sussex Police. SP did not prosecute Don Wales for wasting police time and so far have not offered compensation for the damage to property.

 

In the case of T J Hughes, SP failed to disclose exonerating video evidence and failed to interview the key witness for the defence. It is somewhat worse than that, video evidence was doctored to remove the salient parts, being payment. Despite these disadvantages, and being directed by Judge Scott-Gall to disregard the missing evidence, a Jury acquitted Kruschandl where it was obviously a fit up. The point here being that the modus operandi of SP has now been exposed and tested in a court of law. Sussex Police routinely craft their cases by not investigating evidence that proves innocence. This is of course a breach of the Criminal Procedure & Investigations Act 1996, Section 23, Code of Practice, as reproduced below. If you only investigate one aspect of a crime, such as to mask evidence that would upset the possibility of a conviction, that also constitutes fraud, as per the Fraud Act 2006, also reproduced below for convenient reference.

 

 

FRAUD ACT 2006

 

Section 4    -    Fraud by abuse of position  [such as a police or planning officer]

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —


(a)
occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another 

     person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission    

     rather than an act.

COMMENT - In relation to David Phillips' suggestion that The Old Steam House would be better in the possession of another property owner in Lime  Park, you can see from the above that he breached Sections (1) (a) and (1) (c) (i) and (ii) of the Fraud Act 2006. In that this Council then sought to obtain possession with a Statutory Demand, such as to be in a position to effect a transfer of land, that reinforces the allegation that all of those officers of this Council involved, conspired to that effect. The Fraud Act 2006 was not statute at the time, but it is now (March 2016) and the vendetta is ongoing. That then brings into time their earlier transgressions as a continuation of the earlier malfeasance in public office.

 

 

Consent Order, County Court stay and planning agreement

 

A COURSE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT - When their conventional efforts were defeated, Wealden's enforcement team then embarked on a different tack. This time the council bullies tried to use a costs order from Dame Butler Sloss in the High Court, to bankrupt their target. But this backfired when Mr Kruschandl counterclaimed, knowing that he could prove the deception. Once again this cowardly council ducked the issue. Rather than face Kruschandl in a Courtroom, they offered to sweep the costs (that had themselves been obtained by deception) under the carpet and to correct their earlier deceptions before the Secretary of State and various High Court judges, by making a planning application at their own expense. Kruschandl was persuaded by his prospective father-in-law, a friend of Councillor Nigel Coltman, the then Leader of the Council, not to pursue the Council, but to accept their offer that was cast in stone in a Consent Order in the Eastbourne County Court.

 

 

A COURSE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT

 

When their conventional efforts were defeated, Wealden's enforcement team then embarked on a different tack. This time the council bullies tried to use a costs order from Dame Butler Sloss in the High Court, to bankrupt their target. But this backfired when Mr Kruschandl counterclaimed, knowing that he could prove the deception. Once again this cowardly council ducked the issue. Rather than face Kruschandl in a Courtroom, they offered to sweep the costs (that had themselves been obtained by deception) under the carpet and to correct their earlier deceptions before the Secretary of State and various High Court judges, by making a planning application at their own expense. Kruschandl was persuaded by his prospective father-in-law, a friend of Councillor Nigel Coltman, the then Leader of the Council, not to pursue the Council, but to accept their offer that was cast in stone in a Consent Order in the Eastbourne County Court.

 

Having bought themselves time, this Council were then able to look at other ways of taking out or discrediting their target. It appears from the paper trail that they had no intention of honoring this Agreement, and they are still in Contempt of Court as of March 2016.

 

What happened next was that a sex charge appears to have been manufactured. Kruschandl had split from his former fiancée after she became first controlling and when that did not go her way, aggressive, ending with her assaulting Kruschandl and smashing his laptop. They nurtured the upset to gain a revenge conviction that is now the subject of review. Due to poor representation, their target was convicted of rape, despite the fact that the claimant was still a virgin after the claimed sexual episodes. Where WDC had hidden the fact that the Steam House was a historic building, the Sussex Police hid the fact that the former Mason's granddaughter was intact, by employing the services of Dr Melanie Liebenberg, who stated on oath that a naturally occurring feature was (in effect) not natural, but in her opinion could only have been caused by penetration. Dr Liebenberg ducked the issue of virginity by not following correct procedure, once she realized that the girl she was examining had an intact hymen. Liebenberg failed to use a colposcope to measure the distance from the hymen to the vaginal wall.

 

It is well know that high ranking members of the police are Masons. Though there is no evidence as yet to prove the Masonic link, it is a highly suspect set of circumstances. The CCRC are to be asked if they can investigate. It later transpired that a diary hidden in her loft so that Sussex Police could not find it, proved that there was no opportunity for Kruschandl to carry out the assaults claimed. It was unfortunate that during the trial, Judge Cedric Joseph got so confused that he instructed the Jury to take the diary evidence as belonging to the defendant, rather than the claimant's mother. The Judge also neglected to point out that the diary had been secreted in a loft so that the police could not find it. Was the Judge a Mason you might ask?

 

What, if any part, David Phillips may have played in all of this remains a mystery. We know that his colleague Ian Kay had told a client of Mr Kruschandl, that he was going to prison for a very long time. Ian Kay said this over a year before any trial. How then did Ian Kay know the outcome of a trial that was yet to be heard? It begs the question: was Mr Kay or any other officer in WDC a Mason? e know that Mr Kay deceived a planning inspector in 1997 and was still working for Wealden in 2006. We would love to hear comment on these issues from Ian Kay, Nigel Coltman and David Phillps. We will publish any clarification or explanation they might care to offer as part of our fairness and transparency policies. Plainly, the injustice of these issues must be rectified.

 

 

Life behind bars as a prisoner

 

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE & INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996, SECTION 23 - CODE OF PRACTICE

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare a code of practice containing provisions designed to secure —

(a) that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular,
all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued;

(b)
that information which is obtained in the course of a criminal investigation and may be relevant to the investigation is recorded;

(c) that any record of such information
is retained;

(d) that
any other material which is obtained in the course of a criminal investigation and may be relevant to the investigation is retained;

(e) that information falling within paragraph (b) and material falling within paragraph (d)
is revealed to a person who is involved in the prosecution of criminal proceedings arising out of or relating to the investigation and who is identified in accordance with prescribed provisions;

(f) that where such a person inspects information or other material in pursuance of a requirement that it be revealed to him, and he requests that it be disclosed to the accused, the accused is allowed to inspect it or is given a copy of it;

(g) that where such a person is given a document indicating the nature of information or other material in pursuance of a requirement that it be revealed to him, and he requests that it be disclosed to the accused, the accused is allowed to inspect it or is given a copy of it;

(h) that the person who is to allow the accused to inspect information or other material or to give him a copy of it shall decide which of those (inspecting or giving a copy) is appropriate;

(i) that where the accused is allowed to inspect material as mentioned in paragraph (f) or (g) and he requests a copy, he is given one unless the person allowing the inspection is of opinion that it is not practicable or not desirable to give him one;

(j) that a person mentioned in paragraph (e) is given a written statement that prescribed activities which the code requires have been carried out.

(2) The code may include provision—

(a) that a police officer identified in accordance with prescribed provisions must carry out a prescribed activity which the code requires;

(b) that a police officer so identified must take steps to secure the carrying out by a person (whether or not a police officer) of a prescribed activity which the code requires;

(c) that a duty must be discharged by different people in succession in prescribed circumstances (as where a person dies or retires).

(3) The code may include provision about the form in which information is to be recorded.

(4) The code may include provision about the manner in which and the period for which —

(a) a record of information is to be retained, and

(b) any other material is to be retained;

and if a person is charged with an offence the period may extend beyond a conviction or an acquittal.     

 

 

WDC Autumn 2010 STAFFING UPDATE (MUSICAL CHAIRS)


Following on from the changes reported last time we can now report that the planning specialists in Conservation & Design and Landscape & Arboriculture will join with the Enforcement Team under the team leadership of Chris Arnold. David Whibley has moved from the South Team to become Chris' assistant Team leader. Paul Barker, conservation specialist has left us and Rowanne Meagher will supplement the expertise in that area job sharing with Geoff Kavanagh.


In Development Management Ralph Forder is now a senior Planning Officer, Tracey Dixon is now a permanent Planning Officer and Emma Cleasby has joined, also as a Planning Officer. Marina Brigginshaw is in Planning Policy.

 

Can we find photographs of these officers on the web? Can we buggery. Any person who is afraid to publish their photograph on the internet for fear of recognition, is to our mind hiding a whole lot.

 

 

 

   

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


Queen Elizabeth, prison service and wrongful conviction injustices


LINKS

 

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-prison-service

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/contents

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/03/cnn-embarrasses-itself-with-amanda-knox-coverage/

www.dailymail.co.uk Amanda Knox victim anti American trial Hillary Clinton launch investigation

 

 

The Immaculate Deception

 

Sexual cannibalism in humans is commonplace where the (UK) state still pays bunny-boilers to fabricate allegations - despite the untenable ratio of false allegations. This is called Noble Cause Corruption, so named because the cause (more convictions of rapists and perverts) is noble, but the means (convicting significant numbers of innocent men) is corrupt. A decent justice system is one where convictions are safe; where an appeal is guaranteed and where the court system does not refuse appellants the evidence for their barristers to perfect grounds of appeal. Unlike most European countries, the right of appeal in the UK in not mandatory and the discretionary single judge paper system is open to startling abuses. This book is based on a real case study, that reveals the fatal flaws in the English justice system. No man in England is safe until these issues are dealt with - it could happen to anyone.

 

 

 

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.