RICHARD MERCER

  Richard Mercer was the housing benefits officer who helped Wealden's legal department dupe Inspector Raymond Dannreuther in 1987

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

 

 

 

According to his 'Witness Statement' in connection with the Public Inquiry on the 27th of January 1987, Richard Mercer has been brought into the frame to do nothing more than introduce a non-planning related potential claim to housing benefits that was never made - in any event - and never has been made relating to occupation of the generating buildings at Herstmonceux. To be clear on this, no housing benefit payment has ever been made relating to the occupation of the generating buildings. What then was Richard Mercer doing at this Inquiry?

 

Thomas William Hoy was the planning enforcement officer reporting to George Morham White, the principle planning officer at Wealden District Council. As such both of these officers are implicated in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that we are attempting to unravel. The Secretary of State's planning Inspector was Raymond Portal Dannreuther RN. These officers ran rings around Inspector Dannreuther, dazzling him with everything but the relevant issues - because they had not contacted the County Archaeologist as per Circular 22 of 1984, nor English Heritage - they had no intention of following the correct procedure. let us be clear this was nothing less than a deliberate and concerted team effort to pervert the course of justice .......

 

Shame on you Richard!

 

 

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

 

Victorio Patrick Scarpa & David Whibley

 

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

 

 

CO CONSPIRATORS

 

The officers pictured above worked with Ian Kay on several cases, including the Bushy Wood demolition from where this website takes its name. Suspected war criminal, Tony Blair, was the prime minister for much of the time during which WAG frauds were committed. Douglas Moss, a senior planning officer also involved in the mix is not shown here, but is known to still be working for WDC, despite his perjury and assisting David Phillips to commit perjury in the High Court, with reference to an Affidavit sworn by David Phillips in an attempt to get another WAG member struck down for costs and more. That makes Mr Moss and Mr Phillips co-conspirators in the falsification of evidence. Hence, they were involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It remains to be seen who else in Wealden Council's offices were involved in this matter?

 

The objective in gaining costs awards is to blight the land and in some cases, bankrupt the land owner to be able to scoop it up at bargain basement prices and transfer ownership at an undervalue, typically to a well connected neighbour as a favour.

 

 

 

PROCEEDS OF CRIME - Council officers who tow the party line are not only highly paid civil servants, but also stand to benefit from their involvement with underhanded dealings in planning consents in other geographical regions where there may be a "you scratch my back, and we'll scratch yours" arrangement. On the other hand, it could be that insider knowledge can be used legitimately to obtain consents for houses in the country such as this nice little retreat in an out of the way location, that might be termed green belt to the man in the street. If a council officer is paid cash for favours or receives 'in-kind' inducements for what amounts to fraudulent or even insider dealing and they are convicted, their assets could be seized by way of proceeds of crime. Is it worth it? Yes, power corrupts. It always will and those in positions of power will sometimes be tempted - because they know that others in their ring of power will protect them when the brown stuff hits the fan.

 

 

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).

 

 

 

   

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


 

 

 

LINKS & REFERENCE

 

Shadow Sussex Police crime commissioner blogspot UK 2016 January three new cases to rock the Bill

https://www.fca.org.uk/

http://shadowsussexpolicecrimecommissioner.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/three-new-cases-to-rock-sussex-police.html

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

http://www.royalmail.com/

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

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

 

 

 

   

 

 

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.