The Houses of Parliament, London, England






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.




TPO 34 23-09-1983 - Misfeasance WDC/IMK - To undermine foundations Historic Building - K Wilson, A Brown

ENF 1986 - Originating Malfeasance WDC officers various: T Dowsett, V Scarpa, D Holness, R Robinson

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  1996 - Perjury DLP in Malicious Prosecution - J D Moss

INJ 1997 - Perjury DLP - Deprivation Health & Safety facilities Judge E Butler-Sloss

APP 1997 - Perjury - Deception, Fraud, PCJ

APL 1998 - WDC Council officer Perjury IMK/JDM, P Townley (Witness)

APP 1999/2000 - Failure to Determine, PCJ

STA 2003 - WDC Fraud & MP - T Scott, D Goodwin, A Long

CC 2005 - WDC Consent Order (CO)

CCT 2006 - Virginity/Diary Fraud, Sussex Police (SP) CPS & WDC - G Staker, M Liebenberg, Judge C Joseph

CCT 2008 - Fraudulent Conviction  (SP) - Taboo clincher

WDC 2009 - Breach Contract CO Contempt of Court - T Scott, C Lant

SP 2013 - Criminal Damage in Raid on Premises - False Allegation of Fraud - D Wales, SP, D Tye

WDC 2014 - Failure to Correct Incorrect Data Entry Local Land Charges - C Lant, K Williams

SP 2014 - PCJ Editing Inconvenient Evidence, Investigation Fraud MP - M Robinson, H Kelly, CPS, A French

WDC 2015 - Failure to Protect Ancient Water Rights - R Standley, C Lant, K Williams

CCT 2015 - Jury Acquittal SP MP - Sx Police, Judge Scott-Gall

WDC 2016 - Malfeasance & MP Ongoing D Whibley, R Standley, C Lant, K Williams, A Long







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.



David Cameron, Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street, London





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.






Kirk Odom was wrongfully convicted of rape, a victim of false testimony by the FBI  Victim of a flawed system: Kirk Odom


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.

In April 2015, Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post reported that the FBI and the US justice department formally acknowledged that it had given flawed testimony in almost all the criminal trials in which its agents were involved. Those cases included 32 that put defendants on death row – nine of whom have already been executed.



Julian Assange, freedom of information fighter  David (the chameleon) Cameron, it pays to blow with the wind


UK PRIME MINISTER Will David Cameron tackle accountability for the ordinary taxpayer.  Will he give every citizen an equal opportunity in dealings with their local Council and the Police?


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








As of 2015 UK government debt amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43bn (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income).


How have did we get here? Let's start at local level: In the Wealden district around Hailsham between 1998-1999 around 10 cases of abusing the citizens rights were costing the taxpayers upwards of £100,000 a year. One case exceeded £500,000 by 2001 and is still unresolved in 2016.


Let us stay with just 10 cases we know of in 1998, which totals a cool £1million. We believe that just about all council planning departments were operating the same discriminatory practices country-wide. Now let us multiply the Hailsham area by the number of councils in England & Wales: 455 x £1m = £455m. Then let's multiply that by the years from 1999 to 2013 = £6.37 billion. That's a lot of money down the drain. And this is just corrupt planning departments. Imagine what else is lurking in other departments, social services and the like?


It gets worse. All the while those councils were working to prevent lawful development, they were stopping houses, etc, being used that were needed. Remember the housing shortage? Yup, that is all down to councils trying to keep development in the hands of their chums and at premium rates. Chums are called 'favoured developers.' Favoured developers hand out sweeteners to planning officers, councillors and the like to keep their consents flowing - usually for unsustainable developments = high price houses. The national debt is proof of practices that are unsustainable. It is up to council chief executives to prevent corruption, but they are at the top of the pile, more than likely orchestrating cover ups, etc.


In order to keep house prices artificially high, it is necessary to abuse the rights of the ordinary citizen to develop land for himself. That is the hidden agenda that is ruining our country and making financial slaves of most of us.


What is worse, is that the experts predict a national debt of 99% of GDP within four years if we continue to allow corrupt officials to live off the fat of the land. Please note that several websites give different GDP and debt figures.


One solution is to stop paying council officials high salaries (including gov ministers & NHS consultants). Rotate staff and perhaps consider zero hour contracts for all. That would give us a level playing field, lower wage bills and pay for performance. No more fat bums on chairs for doing nothing but obfuscate and procrastinate. Rotating staff with audits on planning consents, cross linked with enforcement, would show us where policies are not being applied consistently. I.e. where the favors are being handed out, to who by whom. And lastly, fines for councils who do not conform to government dictums.


What all this amounts to is an appalling lack of understanding of administration across the land, or rather a "blind eye" policy, so long as the MPs are nice and comfy and the public don't realize what is going on. The corruption appears to be cross party, by which we mean that each successive government has failed to tackle the grass roots issues.





It costs a fortune to keep a prisoner, though it costs virtually nothing to convict a person, provided that the Police do not spend time on investigating the crime scene. Legal Aid is capped at £1,500 for preparation and trial no matter what type of case or the complexity of the trial. For example, a simple burglary trial could be concluded in one day, with preparations and pleas also taking one day. In which case the £1500 fee would cover that type of representation. But, complex cases mean that solicitors have to justify expenses - which they don't like, and so will not do the extra work and risk being out of pocket.





Now let's look at a complex case involving historical sex allegations. There will be umpteen witness statements to collect, forensic analysis of computers, medical reports - the same for the defence. Do you thing £1500 will cover that? Of course not, and that is the inequality of the system, where a defendant in such a case will not get proper representation. In addition, in the burglary case, the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty, whereas, in the sex case he/she is deemed guilty. The burden of proof shifts to the defence, and on £1500 that is hardly fair - and that is why the state are virtually guaranteed a guilty verdict. And, that is why Lord Denning and other high ranking persons in the British Justice system say: "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned." What he really means is with the loaded dice, he knows that he will be convicting a significant number of innocent men. And, we have not even taken a peek at the fit-up angle. That's all very well Lord Denning, but what about Article 6; the right to a fair trial? Those wrongly convicted take years to get their names cleared, in the process their lives are ruined - and even with their convictions overturned, many people will still not believe that they were innocent. How does the state compensate for that? Surely that is degrading treatment! is it any wonder the the prison population is exploding - and we know what that means. Yup, more state borrowing.





Those who cannot afford a full and proper defence will more than likely be convicted. Legal Aid lawyers get so little money to defend a case that the defence they mount is almost non-existent. The result is that the CPS, who have unlimited funding, will trounce the defence - and it does not matter if the defendant is innocent or guilty. Changes in the law in England were designed to disadvantage any person accused of a sexual offence.



The case of Nigel Evans is yet another case that demonstrates that where a person is able to fund a case privately, he or she is more likely to be acquitted. Click on Mr Evan's picture to read more on the inequalities in the English justice system.




So-called law enforcement agencies are among the worst offenders. Fitting up targeted members of the public, by crafting evidence to obtain a conviction. See "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest"







SUSSEX ROGUES GALLERY - WDC officers and Members involved in covering up the history of Herstmonceux Museum - In the process raising our National Debt. Being involved can mean doing something wrong, or not doing anything when something is called for - such as consulting the experts, or making sure that council officers carry out their duties correctly - or have done so in the past. The latter is just as bad as being the one who presents false information to a committee - or even going along with discriminatory agendas in denial of Article 14. Many members draw benefits for being a member, but do not reply to correspondence - being more interested in remaining in the "club" than standing up for what is right. Such behaviour may now be considered under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, and also as a breach of their duty under the Representation of the Peoples Acts = failure to properly represent a member of the public. We'd like to hear the views of those above. Why is it that nothing is being done to correct past misdeeds? Their silence is deemed acceptance of the situation as we have published.





Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has announced he will issue new guidance that will formally open up planning appeal hearings “to be filmed, tweeted and reported”.

He also challenged councils to open up their planning committees and other meetings.

As part of the government’s review of planning practice, new guidance by the Planning Inspectorate will make clear the rights for members of the press and public, including local bloggers and hyperlocal journalists, to report, film and tweet planning appeal hearings.

Ministers hope this initiative will open up a rarely seen side of the planning process.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has stated that: “provided that it does not disrupt proceedings, anyone will be allowed to report, record and film proceedings including the use of digital and social media”.

Inspectors are to advise those present at the start of the event that the proceedings may be recorded and/or filmed, and that anyone using social media during or after the end of the proceedings should do so responsibly.

Pickles said: “Watching television programmes like Grand Designs, viewers have been baffled as cameras are stopped from filming meetings of the planning committee. Councillors shouldn’t be ashamed or be trying to hide the work they do.

“I am opening up the planning appeals that my department oversees, so the public can see how the planning system works in practice.

“Councils should match this by opening up their planning meetings and other committees,” he said - and we could not agree more.








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.