Formal complaint about Judge Stephen Nicholls was returned by the Office for Judicial Complaints as: "gone away". This complaint was copies to the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, who has not yet replied. We must ask how it is that an official office such as this is returning complaints unopened and/or miss advertising the address or person concerned? It's worrying when there is no safety net to monitor our courts and the judges that sit in them!
NATURAL ENGLAND - BIAS
District Judge (Magistrates' Court) Appointment
Friday, 14 January 2011
HM The Queen has appointed Stephen John Nicholls to be a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke QC MP with effect from 14 January 2011.
The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, has assigned him to the South Eastern Circuit, based in Sussex.
Stephen John Nicholls, aged 54, will be known as District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Nicholls. He was admitted as a Solicitor in 1981 and was appointed as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) in 2000.
NATURAL ENGLAND and FRAUD
The NE Board has corporate responsibility for ensuring that Natural England fulfils the aims and objectives set by the Secretary of State. The main roles of the Board are to establish Natural England’s strategy, approve direction and review performance of the organisation. As a local and national authority, they are bound by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, being that they must not violate any of the Articles of the European Convention. In particular they must act without discrimination and fairly, such as to comply with Articles 14 and 6.
There have though been cases where bias has been a feature of case handling. We are following a live case at the moment, being handled by Cath Jackson and Sue Beale, where permissions had been agreed and a landowner at great financial cost made adjustments, but then having agreed those adjustments would be acceptable, Natural England then sought to prosecute the landowner, even where he had permission from the local council for certain works, and there was no danger to any wildlife being caused by other works, which were to protect grazing animals, that otherwise might escape and either drown, or become a danger to nearby road users.
Judge Stephen Nicholls appears to have gone out of his way to hear this case in preference to two other cases that went before him on the 23rd of September 2013. In not allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard, Judge Nicholls accepted everything that barrister Jonathan Mitchell put before him, aided and abetted by Allan Drewitt, a so-called independent expert, actually employed by Natural England and so not independent at all to our mind.
It is well known that councils in England seek to gain high costs awards with the intention to use them to take control of land, that a private owner might otherwise develop quite lawfully. They stoop to such tactics when statute provides legislation to protect landowners and where the council concerned do not like it. These arrogant councils refuse to abide by the law of the land, using the courts to obtain costs, and then using those costs as a means to achieve what they could not achieve lawfully using statute: control of the land.
It appears to us that with such large fines and costs awards being bandied about £45,000 [fine] and £90,000 [costs] that Natural England may be working with other agencies (such as Wealden District Council) and adopting this council's strategies as to generating high costs, in the hope of obtaining land for inclusion in an SSSI, that would otherwise be a fraudulent description in terms of species that actually use the land.
Natural England appear to be ignoring the fact that farming takes precedence over areas of so-called special scientific interest. They ignore this fact then try to get farmers not to farm by telling them what kind of farming they'd like to see on land they do not own. We think you may see why then, they use the legal system to seek to generate costs equal to the value of any land they covet, such as to be able to acquire that land - with the Courts only to eager to lend a hand.
If it is that the Court is aiding and abetting such unlawful activity by Council's working with Natural England, or any other organisation, which in this area includes the Sussex Wildlife Trust, then we want to expose that unlawfulness. Where correspondence is being returned to our agents unopened - our suspicions are raised further.
The burning question is, do any members of staff or the Board have any financial interests in the Wartling area? We have written to Natural England's chief executive, David Webster, seeking assurances and clarification if necessary. We have also written to Poul Christensen, NE's chairman of the board similarly.
Lapwings eating a human, this gourmet meal prepared with the assistance of the chef provocateur, the Brighton Magistrates Court - Ref: Pevensey Levels SSSI
FRAUD EXAMPLE CASE: ERIC DONALD HUNTER October 2011
FORMER solicitor has been struck off and ordered to pay £35,000 in costs for dishonestly overcharging clients.
The Pevensey Levels have not been surveyed since at least 2009 and it is unclear as to what that survey revealed. We tried to obtain copy of the data for this area and were told:-
EMAIL REPLY TO REQUEST FOR DATA 19-9-2013
This is an automatically generated message from the NBN Gateway - DO NOT REPLY
you for your data request via the NBN Gateway. We're unable to allow
access to all species data for the whole of Sussex to you but will be more
than happy to provide you with desktop biodiversity reports for the sites
that you need data for.
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.