WHIBLEY - Is still at it today, taking photographs and feeding them to his chums in
Wealden's legal department. The middle picture was taken over 10 years ago
when Whibley attempted to enter the BushyWood
animal sanctuary illegally. Nelson Kruschandl snapped this beauty as he
challenged the right of Wealden's storm troopers to be on this site near
Hailsham. Kruschandl asked to see their authorisation from the Area
South planning committee, on pain of citizens arrest. Whibley could not
provide that authority making the site visit unlawful - and they beat a
The outside pictures
were taken by Kruschandl in January of 2014. We would like to know how
it is that despite Lord
Nolan telling councils not to employ anyone is the same position for
more than 5 years, that David Whibley is still doing today what he did
all those years ago? This council need to wake up and smell the trees.
Don't forget that any employee blowing the whistle
as to misfeasance or other procedural irregularity, is protected against
redundancy or other bully boy tactics to get honest employees to tow the
party line. There are unlimited damages - should a council try to punish
someone for revealing the truth. David is in the firing line at the
moment in 2016, where he is being used as a sapper for Charles
Lant and Kelvin Williams. Behind these two are Trevor Scott, a
solicitor who might soon be struck off the Roll of Solicitors for his
part in a malicious course of conduct. Look forward to some Youtube
videos as David is questioned on camera about his part in what looks to
us to be a malicious prosecution.
F.A.O. David Whibley & Kelvin Williams
RECORDED FAX & POST
Planning & Enforcement Dept.
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham
East Sussex, BN27 2AX
30 February 2017
SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME and POLICE ACT 2005
I write with reference to my letter dated the 21st of February 2017.
You were asked to confirm or deny that your Council has or has not updated your Local Land Charges Register to reflect the truth of the history attaching to The Old Steam House, currently held on record by the County Archaeologist at East Sussex County Council.
You are required by law to act on records held by the County Archaeologist as being a superior and historically reliable record that supersedes your own data where the records differ.
You were advised that if you failed to confirm one of two possible scenarios, namely:
1. That the register has been amended to show that the Old Steam House is the original generating building as per the Report of Archaeology South East, or
2. That the register has not been amended to correctly state the facts as to the history of the site as per the Report of Archaeology South East dated the 29th of September 1999, now on record at
East Sussex County Council with the County Archaeologist.
And that if you failed to provide such information at all, that your silence as to this extremely important matter would be taken as an admission as to Fraud as defined by the Fraud Act 2006 at Section 4. Manipulation of public records to the detriment of anyone is a serious matter as it affects property status and hence value.
Retrospective Tipp-Exed entries such as those relating to Ian Kay and declarations of interest in relation to Sandcastles - his father-in-laws property in Pevensey Bay - are proofs by way of similar fact evidence that several independent witnesses have verified first hand. Please therefore, do not attempt to alter the record to make it look as though you had complied some time past, for that will be taken as attempting to pervert the course of justice.
This is not rocket science; it is a really simple thing to say YES or NO. YES, I stole the sweet, or NO I did not steal the sweet. In this case that would be: NO we have not amended the Record, or YES we have amended the
Either your Council has performed its legal duty as required by statute or it has not. You were advised that if you failed to respond to the charge of FRAUD, that such “admission by silence” would be referred to the proper authorities for investigation and possible prosecution.
An innocent man is typically eager to deny wrongdoing and explain his actions. A guilty mind will avoid having to face the music, typically with a “no comment interview. Your lack of denial/comment is therefore grounds for investigation.
Your Council is not above the law, though on several memorable occasions, (via high ranking officers) it has acted without regard to its statutory function – and then sought to hide the truth from the taxpayer.
Statute exists to protect the public from criminals and criminal behaviour regardless of the fact that it is officers of a local authority that are committing the identified crime and that the offenders are in trusted positions paid for by the taxpayer to perform statutory duties.
Having confirmed “by your silence” on the key subject that your Council is Guilty of
Fraud as defined by Statute, I must now ask if there is any remorse within your organisation for having committed the Fraud and if you intend retrospectively, to correct/update your Records by way of mitigation?
If you do now intend to comply with your statutory function, could you please say when the Public Record will be corrected/updated?
If I do not hear from you as to the above extremely urgent matter within the next 10 working days, you will leave me with no alternative but to take up the matter with the proper authorities by way of a Formal Complaint under the heads of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Please also note that I intend relying on this series of letters as proofs as to your Council’s negative conduct as may come before the
Secretary of State and the Courts.
I remain hopeful that your conscience will steer you to do the right thing.
Nelson Kruschandl (Victim & Informant)
c.c. Rt Hon Theresa May Prime Minister
Katy Bourne Crime Commissioner
Sussex Police Chief Constable
Leader of the Wealden District Council
Chief Executive of Wealden District Council
The District Auditor
WHIBLEY LATEST - FEBRUARY 21 2017
RECORDED FAX & POST
Planning & Enforcement Dept.
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham
East Sussex, BN27 2AX
21 February 2017
MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE – FORMAL COMPLAINT
I write with reference to my letter dated the 9th of December 2016, not having received a reply to the pressing matter of correct data entry, and bearing in mind the voracity of your letter of the 9th December 2016 setting the scene for urgent action.
Apart from your Council’s holding letter dated the 15th of December 2016, there has been nothing further from you for in excess of 73 days or well over 10 weeks. The delay has given you ample opportunity to seek high-level legal advice (as is your MO concerning myself) and go to committee several times over. Your Council is required to respond in 3 working days and give a substantive reply within 21 days to comply with the Citizens Charter. I was assured that you would deal with this matter in December 2016 by the 29th.
In that you are required to act with due diligence and are threatening action with serious costs consequences, loss of opportunity and more, I should firstly like you to confirm that you were the author of these letters and not merely the officer picked to front for your Council?
If that is not the case and the writer is Kelvin Williams, Douglas Moss or perhaps a person in your legal department, such as Trevor Scott or Trevor Abbott, I believe that the authorities will need to know should the illegality identified persist. Who is the controlling mind hiding behind the corporate veil?
Secondly, and most importantly, if I do not hear from you that you have now seen the Local Land Charges Register and can confirm:
1. That the register has been amended to show that the Old Steam House is the original generating building as per the Report of Archaeology South East, or
2. That the register has not been amended to correctly state the facts as to the history of the site as per the Report of Archaeology South East dated the 29th of September 1999, now on record at East Sussex County Council with the County Archaeologist.
Then I must assume from your silence (being an admission as to the facts and not wanting to come straight out and admit wrongdoing) that your Council is guilty of Fraud in maintaining a register that is defective with the intention of causing financial harm to all those with an interest in the property – and thus, potentially a gain for all those with competing interests in the village neighbourhood, or other property developer.
If I do not hear from you as to the above extremely urgent matter within the next 10 working days, after consideration of the already 10-week plus delays in reply, you will leave me with no alternative but to take up the matter with the proper authorities with a view to seeking a full investigation of this particularly repugnant example of institutionalised discrimination.
That said I remain hopeful that you will do the right thing.
Nelson Kruschandl (Victim & Informant)
WHIBLEY - DECEMBER 14 2016
Wealden District Council,
East Sussex BN27 2AX
Dear Mr. Whibley,
I sent WDC a replacement affidavit recently detailing an enforcement report that I saw relating to the Old Steamhouse, Lime Park, Herstmonceux. You were at pains to advise members that the owner / occupant had a
criminal record, and you failed to marshal the facts as to the historic origins of the structure.
I became acquainted with the planning applications relating to Bridge
Farm, Horam over the years. 1) WD/77/1449/X, 2) WD/79/2955, 3) WD/81/1898, 4) WD/90/3572, and 5) WD/95/2908 represent an incomplete list.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere is there to be found any mention of Peter Basil Digweed's criminal record in any of your executive's reports.
My recollection is a little hazy, but I believe the facts and circumstances of the offence ran thus. C. 1970, Mr. Digweed, together with an accomplice, Mr. A Lower, skimmed off live
chicken from a
Ford “A” series lorry to a
Bedford CF 30cwt pick-up after the lorry had collected a load in the Reigate area and then been weighed off at a weighbridge. It therefore delivered short weight. This was fraud. Should you require further and better particulars someone may volunteer a newspaper clipping if this communication is put on the internet.
There would have been ample opportunity for a consistent and non discriminatory executive to give a little “background” where the subsequent planning frauds executed via various agents were inaccurate S.27 notices ( no newspaper advertisement ), and an uphill drainage run in 1), developing land which he did not own, regularised in 2), no newspaper advertisement and fraudulent traffic estimates which triggered the Direction to Refuse threat via the Chairman Preddy correspondence in 3), an inaccurate S.27 notice which gave your executive a lie to nurse for c. 1,915 days in 4) and no newspaper advertisement initially, plus the shenanigans over a S.27 notice ( that was supposedly attributable to P. B. Digweed ) and were explored in great detail in my complaint to
Lord Newton's panel in 5).
So was the secret Steamhouse report
1 ) discriminatory,
3) both inconsistent & discriminatory,
either 1, 2, or 3 combined with a failure to marshal the facts?
If I can be of any further assistance do not hesitate to contact me.
By email and Recorded Delivery AI423084526GB.
Zurich Municipal Fraud Team,
The Zurich Centre,
Hants. PO15 7JZ.
Recorded delivery KK 3340 7239 8GB
For presentation to the underwriters responsible for assessing the risk on shared legal indemnity policy no. QLA 17H 089 0093.
WHIBLEY - DECEMBER 12 2016
F.A.O. David Whibley
RECORDED FAX & POST
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham
East Sussex, BN27 2AX
12 December 2016
Dear Mr Whibley,
MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE – FORMAL COMPLAINT
1. Thank you for your further letters dated the 5th and 9th of December 2016 the latter received on the 12th.
2. These are my thoughts on the matters you raise and not those of Lime Park Heritage Trust. I would again urge you to write to the Trust. You are quite wrong in your conjecture and you would do well to revisit your files to get your story straight. I will rely on the correspondence on the subject between your Council, the Trust, and myself as may the Trust of course. It has though, been brought to my attention that files that are inconvenient to your meanderings are being routinely deleted. I would urge your Council to stop deleting these files in the interests of justice.
3. The most important hurdle that your Council face is procedural impropriety, following a campaign (vendetta) against my person that is so biased and obviously discriminatory that it makes the complaint of Kelly Davis against
Wansdyke District Council pale into insignificance. In Mr Davis’s case the award of damages for unfavourable treatment was £790,000.
4. In the case of Davis when he applied for planning permission, Wansdyke routinely refused his applications. When an identical application went in under a different name Wansdyke approved the application – discrimination plain and simple – because he was of African descent. The colour of my skin
is not the issue, the principle is the same whether you use the fact a person has been to prison to cloud your thinking, or that an applicant may or may not implement a permission, or you are taking sides with neighbours. It is still discriminatory decision making. It appears from the evidence that you are still acting as an agent for neighbours in Lime Park to foster their interests – rather than abiding by your duty to conserve the historic built environment.
5. Where your council attempted to correct the defective enforcement notice dated the 18th of April 1986, by agreeing to pay for a planning application to include the cost of instructing experts in the Consent Order from 29 November
2004, it was only while I was engaged to a councillor’s daughter that your Council turned the corner and made any effort to make up for their past misdeeds. After calling off that engagement, there has been a return to the earlier
unfavourable case handling.
6. It appears to me that you are proceeding with the threat of enforcement action on the basis of a Notice that is a nullity in law. That fact renders your Council liable to criminal prosecution, unless you first correct your records such as not to rely on, or to invite any member, or committee of your Council to rely on a document known to be defective. I here put you on Formal Notice of the defect.
7. The reason for this is clear, in not striking the defective document, your Council are not according me (the Trust or any occupier) full Permitted Development rights – and in denying those rights you are causing me (the Trust or any other occupier) a substantial financial loss in denying enjoyment of land that Statute says is a right to every person, natural or otherwise. Even replying to your correspondence where you are being vague about development complained of - is costing me time researching at a high level. As was established in the Bushywood public inquiry and the High Court costs Order 45/99 dated the 20th of May 1999; I am entitled to costs for my time wasted by your Council. It follows that I am entitled to (Section 13) damages for any failure to correct inaccuracy that causes loss and just satisfaction in Human Rights terms against Article 8 interference where I am entitled to peaceful enjoyment, as is any other person.
1986 ENFORCEMENT NOTICE - INVALIDITY
8. This Notice is not worth the paper it is written on. It was obtained on the authority of a Planning Committee using character assassination, completely ignoring the correct procedures to find out more about the history of the building as per the then live Circular 22 of 1984.
9. Your officers told the members and the subsequent appeal Inspector that the main generating buildings the subject of the notice was not the original generating buildings constructed by
Roemer, but another building built on the foundations of the original generating buildings. You called this building a “garage/store.” Inspector Raymond Dannreuther based his decision on the lie that your Council have been nursing ever since.
10. I have found from inspecting your files and it should be noted that your Council considered that a previous Enforcement Notice that was not served was considered to be defective because it did not include the building to the rear, that
Thomas Hoy subsequently identified as being in residential use. A fresh Enforcement Notice was considered to be necessary to remedy this defect.
11. This fresh Notice does not correctly identify the brick built building to the rear that was being used for accommodation, citing a concrete building that was being used as a tool store. There is no concrete building on the site, that is the first serious error in the 1986 Notice.
12. The adjacent coal bunker more fits that description and the map attached to the Notice identifies the coal bunker – being to the left of the north-east corner of the main building, rather than to the right. The brick built bomb shelter from the
2nd World War in on the right some six feet from the reference corner of the main generating buildings.
13. The land on which the brick built Anderson type building is built was not in my ownership. You failed to serve any Notice on the landowner or take steps to find out who the landowner was, though you did enquire of the Land Registry and those enquiries would have shown what a search revealed to my then solicitors in 1981/82; that the land to the rear or north of the generating buildings is unregistered.
14. Somehow your Council managed to bamboozle Inspector Dannreuther to the extent that he did not notice that the plan and description of the site and buildings were/are defective. He also appears to have overlooked the fact that the land in question to the rear was not in the ownership of the appellant (myself). Had he noticed that the enforcement process was procedurally deficient, he would have had little option but to make that finding and declare the buildings immune from enforcement under the Four Year Rule, since the Inspector noted that there were only days short (disputed) at the time from four years of use.
15. We already have case precedent in support of this argument in the form of Judge Clay’s finding in 1988 in the
Crown Court, where HH Judge Clay corrected the assumption of Raymond Dannreuther, when he agreed that I had not breached the April 1986 Enforcement Notice (EN), quashing the Magistrates verdict on appeal in Lewes in 1988. Your Council had alleged breach of this Enforcement Notice but did not challenge that finding by appealing to the Court of Appeal; so accepted the Crown Court’s decision to the criminal standard that is far higher than the civil burden of proof. From that point on your Council had knowledge (mens rea) that the 1986 EN was defective and of no value in law.
CROWN COURT - On the 26th of April 1988 (as a newly wed) Nelson
Kruschandl was convicted by magistrates who ignored their clerk's
advice to return a guilty verdict in the Hailsham
Magistrates Court. He was fined £300 pounds for allegedly breaching the
(defective) enforcement notice. The strange thing is that Nelson was
living at Polegate at the time with his new wife - so why would Wealden
bother spending taxpayers money trying to obtain a conviction? Of course
it was a malicious prosecution. It backfired.
appealed to the Crown Court calling witnesses and questioning Mr Peter
Townley, a neighbour who lives at The Old Rectory in Lime Park.
Peter Townley had been this Council's stooge, it is alleged, mainly
because he was interested in purchasing the generating buildings -
obviously, if he could blight the object of his desire, it would cost
less to buy. What the Court heard and saw was that the enforcement
notice did not cover the brick built building to the right of the
generating buildings. He heard from witnesses that this was used as
accommodation along with another underground building, but clearly the
enforcement notice was defective, leaving HH
Judge Clay with little option but to quash the Magistrates Court
conviction. The Council had scored an own goal. The verdict effectively
undid the 1986 enforcement notice by airing the cracks in public. From
this point on Wealden could no longer use the criminal courts to foster
their evil ambitions. Instead, they tried the High Court for injunctions
- each time hiding the fact that the enforcement notice was defective -
and that they'd lied to Inspector Dannreuther about the history of the
frequently refuse to abide by the decisions of the Courts and will try
anything to get around the law, such as Health & Safety legislation
- another inconvenient hurdle that this Council failed to mention to the
Court below Dame
Butler Sloss in the Court of Appeal.
GEORGE MORHAM WHITE
16. Turning now to the evidence of George White in January of 1987, you can see at Paragraph 7.5 (b) that this RTPI member acknowledges that conversion to residential use is appropriate for “barns, oast houses and chapels…” There is though no reference to any consultation with English Heritage, as suggested by DOE Circular 22/84 (Annex C, paragraph 1), where this would have been of particular importance to help identify the archaeological remains that in this case were neither listed nor scheduled and where I claimed a history attaching to the site. In view of the qualifications Mr White boasted of in his opening paragraph, the failure to follow the proper procedure must have been calculated to dissuade
Inspector Dannreuther from pursuing that line of thinking.
17. I attach 3 photographs as factual evidence marked as “Coal 1, Coal 2 & Coal 3,” and relevant page copy of the 1986 Enforcement Plan and 1987 Appeal Plan dated the 27th of January 1987 for your ease of reference. You will see from the plans that the
concrete tool store that you allude to and identify on the accompanying plan (as being geographically definitive of the limitations of the Notice) – is as a matter of fact half of the extant coal bunker dating from early 1900. The photograph marked ‘Coal 1’ is a view from the corner of the main generating building marked on the Appeal Plan as “Garage Store.” The generating building, northeast corner, in on the left. In line with that corner is the centre of the coal bunker. You can see the
2nd World War bombproof brick building on the right of the picture, some six to eight feet further to the east. Clearly, the WWII building is not included in the 1986 EN, but this building was in use residentially and had been used for more than four years by the time of the appeal making it immune from further enforcement action.
18. You have not made any effort to re-serve an enforcement notice to correct this defect, and the reason that you have not done so is because the footprint of two of the main generating sections would then also be immune under the four-year rule. Please note that there is a third section of generating building that was not included in the April 1986 Enforcement Notice.
19. There was a dividing wall roughly half way along the coalbunker that equates to that portion of the coalbunker that your Council served on. The remnants of this dividing wall is seen in photographs ‘Coal 2’ and ‘Coal 3’ where Coal 3 is a close up where the render is still visible. It is/was the render that may have confused your enforcement officers:
Thomas William Hoy, George Morham White and
Richard Mercer when they prepared what is a defective notice and a presentation designed to mask the history of the building with immaterial factors in planning terms. It is for the council concerned to correctly identify a use, for if they cannot where is the demonstrable harm.
20. In short there are so many deficiencies in your 1986 Notice that it should be struck from the record immediately where it is not only putting myself and others at risk as to financial loss but is demonstrably causing me and others financial loss. Not to do so would constitute a further act of fraud as defined by Section 4 of the
ARCHAEOLOGY SOUTH EAST
21. During 1998 and into 1999 further investigations as to the history of the site brought me to consult with the County Archaeologist in
Lewes at the East Sussex County Council (ESCC). I was referred to PPG15 and 16 and realised that your Council should properly have consulted with English Heritage.
22. On contacting English Heritage (EH), I was advised that there were only two buildings in the whole of
England worthy of mention in a Monument Protection Programme (MMP), being
Batemans (Rudyard Kipling) and Battersea Power
Station. These are important buildings. To be included in such company raises the importance locally and nationally. The university that compiled a report recommending Monument Protection, sent a researcher to survey the site. Soon after EH placed what is now Herstmonceux Museum on their MMP for the
electricity generating industry.
23. Soon after that ESCC commissioned an independent survey or report, undertaken by Archaeology South East, Institute of Archaeology,
University College London (ASE). This survey was completed on the 29th of September 1999 under Project Reference 1146.
24. I would urge you to locate and read this document that is, or should be in your archives. In it the surveying team confirm that the two gabled sections, or main
wooden buildings, are original and not another building on the original foundations as Inspector Dannreuther was invited by George White and Thomas Hoy to believe. It is also confirmed in the ASE report that the brickworks to the rear of the main buildings are part of the generating installation as is the
coal bunker and that a third section of wooden construction is missing, but that the foundations and walls relating to that building remained.
25. After reading the ASE report, I am sure you will realise that this expert document tells us that the very core of Inspector Dannreuther’s
(ID) argument as to what the buildings he was looking at, was entirely and factually incorrect. In his Decision Letter at Paragraph 17, Inspector Dannreuther states that the building is of “corrugated metal construction,” when as a matter of fact it is built of wood and clad in wood.
ID also wrongly asserts that “the foundations of a previous building in that location do not merit special attention.” The foundations do not relate to an earlier building, they belong to the generating works built by
Roemer, that according to English Heritage and the County Archaeologist, most certainly do merit special attention as the MMP inclusion confirms. On this information alone, the EN from 1986 is demonstrably incorrect and must be struck from the record. Not to do so would constitute a fraudulent omission.
26. Please see Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 reproduced below for your convenience:
FRAUD ACT 2006
Section 4 - Fraud by abuse of position
(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
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an
omission rather than an act.
27. I’m sure you will know that the value of land depends on the use of that land, and that the use of the land depends on the recognised status of the land or buildings, and that includes any history attaching.
28. If the land is incorrectly included in any register as a result of any incorrect fact relating to that land or buildings, such incorrect fact will cause the occupiers of that land financial loss and perpetuate that loss until corrected, where the value of land is directly related to use. Financial loss = fraud as per the 2006 Act.
29. I asked your Council to amend their defective entry some time ago, but they refused. That refusal constitutes misfeasance in public office. Please see the Local Land Charges Rules 1977, again reproduced for your convenience:
LOCAL LAND CHARGES RULES 1977
Amendment and cancellation of registrations
8. — (1) Without prejudice to any other provisions of these Rules and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) below—
(a) where a registered charge has been varied or modified or any registration is
incorrect, the registering authority shall amend the registration accordingly;
(b) where a registered charge has been discharged, ceased to have effect or ceased to be a charge, the registering authority shall cancel the registration.
(2) Where the originating authority as respects a charge the registration of which falls to be amended or cancelled under paragraph (1) above are not the registering authority, they shall supply the registering authority with any information available to the originating authority which is necessary to enable the registering authority to comply with that paragraph.
(3) This rule does not apply to any condition or limitation registered before 1st August 1977 which, by virtue of section 2(e) of the Act, is not a local land charge.
30. You will see at Section 8 (1) (a) that the registering authority “shall”
amend an incorrect registration. This is a duty that is owed to me and any other occupier by your Council, but when I asked
you to do so within the last two years they refused.
31. Any refusal is an “omission” as per Section 4 (2) of the Fraud Act 2006, and as it causes me and/or others
risk of loss, is a criminal offence.
32. Statute requires that your Council act to protect my own financial interests and those
of others. Statute requires that you do not discriminate and level the playing field such that I might receive a fair hearing in any matter to be dealt with by committee, the Inspectorate and/or by the courts. This is also a requirement under
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act
1998. This letter will be adduced as evidence in the event that your Council again refuse to correct the
in-corrections that I have identified herein. In which case the matter must proceed firstly to the
Sussex Police for investigation and if necessary and the Sussex authority fail to investigate; to an independent authority for investigation as to why the local force failed to carry out an investigation.
Turning his back on crime. David Whibley is an intelligent man. Once he
has read these arguments and seen the defective documents for himself,
he is sure to realise that his instructing solicitor is party to the
crime identified. Those solicitors, most likely Trevor Scott or Trevor
Abbot (since Vic Scarpa must have been put out to pasture by now) are of
course criminals - in that they are refusing to abide by a procedure
laid down by Parliament. They think they are above the law. We will see
if the law sees it that way in due course.
Mr Whibley or any other worker at Wealden District Council wish to
explore the ramifications of turning State's Evidence, we can advise and
give a real life example of a local case where constructive dismissal by
the authority concerned returned £45,000 in cash for the person targeted
to be pressured to leave, and £55,000 in costs. you may find that your
household insurance policy covers you for work related disputes. If not,
try to obtain the additional cover before it is too late.
REMOVAL OF KEY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS
33. I am reminded here that Mr Chester Hudson has noticed that certain incriminating documents that were on file in your offices at the start of 2016 are being systematically removed from your files as they relate to ‘The Old Steam House’ and your former assistant district planning officer, Mr
Ian Kay, perjuring himself during a public inquiry. You
may not have seen Mr Hudson’s Affidavits or Witness Statements, but I would urge you to record any important documents in the interests of self-preservation and keep either a photograph or photocopy for your own reference, should senior officers seek to frame you as the
scapegoat during any forthcoming police investigation.
ARNOLD - This picture was taken on a site visit in 2013, where Mrs Arnold is
clearly holding an enforcement site plan that shows incorrect service on a
supposed tool store, where this council had failed to identify buildings
and uses correctly. This plan was among documents that were later referred
to, to include the original enforcement plan from 1986. This meeting was
recorded as evidence that this matter was brought to the attention of the
Council. This case has cost
the taxpayer more than £500,000 already. Is it not about time they
stopped the waste of ratepayers money trying to hide the truth? Why do you
think Mrs Arnold does not want her picture taken?
ACCESSORY TO THE FACT - ACCOMPLICES
34. A misfeasance based on a misfeasance, so compounding the earlier misfeasance becomes a malfeasance and
a prosecution based on malfeasance is a malicious prosecution – and that is a common law criminal offence. If you are party to a crime, it is as if you were the perpetrator rather than simply an accomplice according to the
Accessories and Abettors Act
1861. If you fail to investigate these allegations yourself or to report of a breach of statute, or misfeasance or malfeasance, that is in itself a criminal offence, where failing to investigate a crime is an offence in itself. As an officer of the Court you are compelled to investigate a reported crime.
35. With respect, you cannot proceed with any proposed enforcement until your Council have corrected this defective instrument. Any committee deciding what course of action (if any) is appropriate would be operating on a false basis, to compound the existing misfeasance and identified fraud and fall foul of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
36. Indeed, you would be making each and every committee member party to a conspiracy to defraud and pervert the course of justice, even though they may not realise that the officers presenting incorrect information to them – is incorrect. For it is up to the members to be sure that their Council is acting legally and that their administration is operating lawfully at all times.
37. Until this matter is put to rest, it appears to me that the insurance policy that your Council have with
Zurich Municipal No: QLA 17H 089 0093 must be deemed void – otherwise you are making Zurich Municipal party to the crimes identified herein.
38. Zurich Municipal might care to settle a/any claim from me against your Council without admitting to liability, by way of an ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement. I have no doubt in my mind that that might occur to them. But at the moment this is a criminal matter not concerned with civil damages or just satisfaction in Human Rights terms.
39. This letter is being copied to Zurich Municipal that they might know that your Council are conducting themselves in a manner that the ordinary man in the street would see as being uninsurable. That is like offering an insurance policy to a bank robber against conviction and imprisonment. It would be illegal to provide such insurance and it would be illegal to prevent any council from admitting liability if it is – as
it is in this case – a statutory function of the insured.
40. Having read the files for yourself and taken a look at the Local Land Charges Act and Regulations, you may agree that this is a matter for the Cabinet and whoever is the Monitoring Officer, who in my opinion cannot be
Trevor Scott, because he was party to the Consent Order in November 2004. An Order that your Council is currently in contempt of.
41. When looking at this matter and considering how other people locally are treated by your Council, please take a look at other developments nearby that your Council have approved or considered is permitted development. This is supporting evidence to show that the identity of an occupier or ownership of land brings about a more favourable result - as long as I am not involved.
42. I cite five photographs of other developments in the country each of which is outside the
Herstmonceux village development envelope. These are marked as “Dev” 1 through to “Dev 5.” Development 1 is a garage attached to ‘Sandhurst’ in Church Road. The roof height of this unit was agreed by your Council to be a permitted development and is significantly higher than anything that the Trust is doing. I stress new build, rather than repair of a historic building.
43. Development 2 is a garage attached to Lime, built on the opposite side of the Park. This new build has been positioned some 30-40 meters from the original house. It provides garaging and in the past few years, residential accommodation. The roof height is significantly higher than the revised roofing at
44. Development 3 is known as Sunny Meadows and is further along Church Road. It is a wooden building with a slate roof, much the same as Herstmonceux Museum, except that the roof is considerably higher than the Museum. Again, this is a new build, not a repair to a historic building.
45. Development 4 is a repair to the clay tiles at the Old Rectory. The original clay tiles have been replaced by cement tiles of a different colour and texture that materially alters the look of the building – thus according to your Council would require planning permission. Your Council did not threaten enforcement action nor make enquiries of the owner/occupiers.
46. Development 5 is a massive new build with two double garages and a seriously imposing roof height in open countryside. The properties are known as Oak View and Lime View and are in Church Road. How your Council can justify the grant of planning permission for these voluminous houses – and then complain about repairs to a historic asset is beyond me. Double standards indeed.
47. Last year your council granted consent for 70 houses as 45 large residences and 25 affordable units under case
reference: WD/2015/0990/MAO. This large-scale development is in the adjacent field, presumably allowed because of the housing shortage. The plan accompanying this development puts houses with high roofs well above Herstmonceux Museum. There is nothing in this development that is sustainable in terms of energy self-sufficiency as written in the NPPF. How your Council can justify this grant of planning permission – and then complain about repairs to a historic asset is something to be considered alongside the
Kelly Davis case.
48. You have provided me with a plan of the site as the northern corner of Lime Park including land outside Lime Park, that fails to adequately identify the issues in relation to your claim that planning permission is required. That said I will attempt to assist you where I am able proceeding in the order that you have suggested as points 1-4. I of course lawfully occupy an area residentially so am to be accorded those rights. That other buildings acquired immunity from enforcement for residential purposes, as per the Four Year Rule, permitted development rights must be accorded the whole of the site as per: The Town & Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 [GPDO 95] and The Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) order 2015 [GPDO 15]. This is separate and in addition to the showing of the historic buildings by way of a Museum, though that is something to bear in mind.
49. Please see Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A and Class B of the above Orders, as these sections appear to relate to most of the issues you raise. Permitted Development (PD) is, the enlargement, improvements or alterations of a dwellinghouse – in this case. What is not permitted is more revealing, for what is not permitted defines what is permitted, otherwise just about anything would be permitted. None of the buildings at this end of Lime Park are listed. East Lodge, the former gatehouse is a listed building some 400 yards south. But, East Lodge is not the subject of your concerns.
50. The height of the main (former) generating buildings are approximately 5.9 meters to the courtyard floor. Any part of the building that is within 5 meters of an existing building within the same curtilage is to be treated as forming part of the building when calculating the permitted areas of enlargement. (A3 (b)).
51. (Your Point 1) Planning permission is not required for a garage or other outbuilding, this falls to be considered as a Permitted Development within 5 meters of an extant building. The roof of this building is 3.3 meters from ground level where it is visible from the field adjacent. This is well below the height of the main building(s) – no matter what your viewpoint. Please see the accompanying photograph marked “Roof 1”. You can see from this photograph that the roof of the studio is well below the roof height of the generating building, and that the roof of the outbuilding (garage) is significantly below the height of the studio roof. It appears therefore that once the correct use is assigned to the buildings as per the Four Year Rule, that this is a permitted development. It is therefore imperative that you disinfect your files for nullities.
52. The problem with this site, and this applies to the whole of Lime Park, is the gradient that rises considerably as you proceed north from Chapel Row making buildings further north appear higher. This is also the case with the adjacent field. Looking down onto a building again makes the building appear taller than it is. If this was a building on flat ground – looking from afar from level ground – I doubt if anyone would pay much attention to the roof type and style. This roof is considerably lower
than the other roofs that you have not complained about ever in over 30 years, including the studio roof revisions in 2006. I wonder then why you raise this now?
53. (Your Point 2) Planning permission is not required to change the external look of a building unless it falls under Article 1(5). The studio has been in existence as it is today since around 2006. The roof height has not changed. The building was constructed of wood, including the ground level, which has not changed save that repairs are in progress and nearing completion to the lower woodworks. The studio has been occupied residentially since around 2006, hence acquired additional immunity from enforcement action under the Four Year Rule. The time to take enforcement action against this use expired in 2010. We are now heading into 2017. The present repairs constitute a planning gain. You do not specify what alterations you allude to; hence this is only an assumption about your complaint.
54. (Your Point 3) The repairs to the rear of the twin gabled generating buildings are just that; repairs. The rear of the three main generating units was taken down in part around 1936/37 to allow for removal of some of the generating machinery. The Second World War intervened, in that this large wooden section was not put back, but the walls were not taken down and the footings not removed, nor the concrete machinery mounts. The roof height of this section when fully re-instated will be as it was in 1936, namely 5.9 meters. The present repairs are inside what would be the structure of the building as built and so would not require planning permission. As I understand it the Trust cannot afford to fully reinstate this section of the generating buildings. The floor or ceiling height of the present repairs are the same as those of the twin gabled section to which it attaches. Please refer to the Report of Archaeology South East from 1999, wherein the writers confirm what I am saying.
55. The opening wooden hatch that was revealed when the temporary 2nd World War iron cladding was removed some years ago, was an internal hatch. The points of insertion of the beams that formed part of the original internal ceiling, are clearly visible in several photographs and during any site inspection. Presumably,
Historic England (HE) would want to see the building repaired fully at some point in the future. At that time, I would imagine/hope that the Trust will seek the views of the County Archaeologist and HE. For that is what I would advise.
56. I am aware that the concrete and other
brick built archaeology was in danger of being eroded further and dangerous to walk on. This area has no other beneficial use save domestic, where the leaning of the Trust earlier in the year was simply to concrete over the historic asset and level the site to save expense. If that had taken place, access to the archaeology for tourists, historians and students visiting the Museum would have been lost forever. What has been done constitutes a significant planning gain and was the advice of
English Heritage in years gone by.
57. If this was a simple extension under PD rights, it would be well below the area as new build as per Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, A.1 (b) of [GPDO 15]. The height does not exceed the height of highest part of the extant buildings and the height of the eaves of what would then be ‘the enlarged’ section does not exceed the height of the eaves of the extant building of which is it merely a continuation of the range removed in 1936/7 for machinery removals.
58. (Your Point 4) The section shown on your plan is not that precise, but I think relates to the greenhouse type roof that replaces the roof to what was once an ancillary building for the storage of tools and logs, and then became a
piggery according to the Statement of Ronald Saunders from about 1999. This roof repair has been up for a number of years and
is considerably lower than the 5.9 meter height of the main buildings. The height above the bank as seen from the adjacent field is 1.6 meters. The foundations, footings and retaining walls are original features of the generating installation from the turn of the century. This area is therefore not to be taken as an increase in area as per Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, A.1 (b) of [GPDO 15]. However, if it were to be taken as fresh area development, it would still fall comfortably under PD rights.
59. More accurately, the roof would be described as a repair, but as the move of the UK as a whole is to a circular economy and
buildings, the capture and storage of heat to reduce the building’s carbon footprint was considered a significant planning gain. Hence,
glass is being used to help capture incoming
solar radiation wherever possible. This is a strategy that is recommended by many architects and conservationists to reduce heating bills. I wonder why you have waited so many years to mention this. If it was perceived as a problem, should you not have mentioned it at the time of the works? You may care to agree that as these repairs and improvement fall well inside the Order of the Secretary of State (SOS), that there is no breach of planning control. Specifically, the Secretary of State has granted such rights as defined by the sections above (but not limited to those sections). It would therefore be an abuse of process and a misuse of authority that exceeds your powers, not to heed the Orders of the SOS.
60. The former Minister for planning, the Right Honourable Eric Pickles
MP, has written to me in reply to my plea for help with correcting your defective Land Charges Register, and confirmed that it is for your Council to put the matter right. I need a place to live and have that option only at this location. I only ask that you heed his advice and do the right thing, before you and any other person in your Council are committed to stand trial for malfeasance in public office. For that is the ultimate outcome if authority is misused for alternative agendas.
OTHER PLANNING GAINS & SUSTAINABILITY
61. The museum exhibits do not need planning permission for them to be displayed outside on the bank adjoining the neighbouring field. Two of the vehicle exhibits were on display outside for a number of years with passers by commenting on the vehicles that were placed on temporary supports to help increase ventilation of ground moisture. By housing the vehicles rather than keeping them on display exposed to the elements, they are less intrusive for dog walkers, hikers and the like. The Trust considers this solution to be a significant planning gain while preserving the exhibits rather better. On this I hope you can agree.
62. Solar water heaters are being installed to complement low-grade heat capture relating to the use of more glass area. (Class A GPDO 15 page 98).
63. It is planned to install photovoltaic cells on roof and other surfaces that face south such as not to protrude more than 200
millimeters beyond the plane of any wall or roof slope and not higher than one meter above the roof or from the edge of a roof. (Class A GPDO 15 page 98).
64. A single wind turbine is to be installed that does not protrude more than 3 meters above the highest part of the roof, being 8.9 meters (30 feet) in total and not more than 3.8 meters in swept volume. (Class H GPDO 15 page 101).
65. Compared to the matters you raise, the grants or permission identified in the attached photographs, or alternatively failure to take enforcement action against permitted development rights, appear to represent the difference in ownership. The National Planning Policy Framework document (NPPF) of March 2012 tells councils not to enforce where planning consent would be granted in any event. You were given 12 months to revise your plans to take account of
the NPPF. The NPPF instructs councils to pay particular attention to their duty to conserve the historic built environment by helping owners/occupiers of historic assets to find new uses that will help them to generate funds for essential repairs and maintenance. The main generating buildings still need new roofs. The present interference in peaceful enjoyment, as with previous interferences is costing all concerned at this end money, for which, justification is hard to comprehend.
66. You are at liberty to visit me in person to discuss these matters in confidence and take my further evidence, but the information provided herein is considered to be sufficient to gain a conviction for malfeasance in public office and perhaps, attempting to pervert the course of justice, should you or any other staff or members be considering blowing the whistle. Under that flag of truce, on such an evidence gathering mission, I will not be filming you or taking photographs, but helping you to make a case to report – or helping you to turn state’s evidence. I would appreciate 24 hours advance notice of any visit, being that much of the site is in residential use.
67. Therefore and please can you advise as a matter of extreme urgency that you have seen and compared the documents provided herein with those held on file by your Council as a Local Land Charge. Would you also advise if the documents agree with each other or if tampering or replacement is suspected?
68. Please can you also advise what course of action you (your Council) propose in seeking to comply with the provisions of the Local Land Charges Act and Regulations and the Fraud Act 2006 as identified above – to disinfect your files?
69. If, after disinfecting your files you still believe that PD rights do not apply, I would be grateful for your detailed analogy, such that I may try and see things from your perspective – such as whether to advise others with an interest (assuming that I am asked) that permission might be required.
70. I reserve the right to add to or amend this and subsequent documents (with or without supporting exhibits) in reply to your Council’s replies and in connection with any Public Inquiry,
Crown Investigation and Court Hearing.
71. I confirm that I am available to give evidence at any of the above tribunals and that this Statement is made on the basis that I believe it to be a true and accurate account of the present situation based on information that is available and is provided to me from time to time.
72. In view of the tone of your last letter, might I suggest that it would be in all of our interests for you to get on to this matter tomorrow and to be able to come back to me on a return basis with a considered response within 10 working days and most certainly before the festivities and the
New Year whichever is the lesser.
Yours most sincerely,
Nelson Kruschandl (Victim & Informant)
c.c. Lime Park Heritage Trust
Local Government Ombudsman
Sussex Police Chief Constable
Rt Hon Theresa May Prime Minister
Katy Bourne Crime Commissioner
- It is unlawful to discriminate against any person or organisation, with
reference to Article 14
of the Human
Rights Act 1998.
That said, preferential treatment appears to be routinely given to some
members of the community, while Wealden DC use their position of trust to
give others a very rough ride to foster the finances of those they may
have helped in the past for consideration of another kind. Consideration
does not always have to be the folding
stuff. It can be the grant of a planning permission.
pictures above are some examples of planning consents (or development
agreed as being permitted) that has been granted in and around Lime Park,
Herstmonceux. In the case of Lime and Oak View [lower right], this is a
massive house built on green belt without any suggestion of affordability
or other special circumstances. Double garages is a luxury not a
necessity. Compare the cooperation of Wealden in the procurement of these
consents, with the £500,000 of taxpayers money spent to prevent the
restoration of Herstmonceux
Museum in days gone by - with expenditure
ongoing and mounting. Anyone looking at the facts would have to question why this
council is acting so perversely - when planning permission all around the
site is being given for much larger developments. To include a grant for 70
houses in the adjacent field. There can be only one explanation,
unfavourable treatment of one of the occupiers.
WHIBLEY LATEST - MARCH 4 2016
F.A.O. David Whibley and
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham
East Sussex, BN27 2AX
4 March 2016
A COURSE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT - MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
& PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Thank you for your letter dated the 24th of February 2016, received on the 29th.
As I mentioned to Trevor Scott in my letter dated the 16th of January 2014, planning policies applying to Historic Buildings are essentially the same as in 1984. Your comments on that subject are therefore disingenuous.
Your Nigel Hannan, wrote to me on the 7th March 2014 to confirm that your Council refused to correct the incorrect Data entry in the Local Land Charges register to reflect the State recognised History attaching to the site, which you denied in 1986 into 1998.
Historic England confirmed to you that the building is original in 2000, whereas you told the Secretary of State in 1986 that it was a newer building on a historic site. Subsequently, the Secretary of State has written to say that they accepted your Council’s evidence in good faith.
Eric Pickles MP says the onus is on your Council to make the proper corrections. This is a Duty placed on you by the State to keep accurate information on file; a Duty you are in denial of.
VEHICLE REPAIRS – Is it not about time that your Council brought to an end the 30 year Vendetta being waged against my person? The not very clever accusation as to vehicle repairs is in this case particularly stupid given that so many people can give Statements as evidence to confirm the lie, leading me to believe that the “recent query” was solicited. Soliciting complaints is illegal. If the “query” was not solicited, then it is borne out of malice and is an attempt to the
Pervert The Course Of Justice. Either way, this warrants a thorough criminal investigation. And for that reason, I am formally reporting the incident to Sussex Police, and/or the appropriate force if this force cannot assist, as they may be implicated. You are required to furnish me with the full paper trail, if you intend to deny Malfeasance in Public Office and to preserve all evidence from today for any investigating officers.
According to your council, these premises are logged as a Garage and Domestic Store. Even you will realise that garaging or parking of a vehicle is not then anything of concern to an Enforcement Officer.
Page 1 of 4
Please take a look at the attached photographs X 3, taken this morning (29-2-16). They are of a car
(Vauxhall Astra) and a resident in
Park, repairing a car in front of his house and another car (VW
Golf) owned by the same family (or household), parked on the opposite side of the Park, bereft of seats and obviously needing attention to a flat tyre. This car has been stored (parked) on the drive for over a year since a recovery lorry delivered it. I wonder then if you have the right address concerning this enquiry and could you please let me know what action you intend taking – if as you appear to be saying, they may need to consider regularising this unauthorised activity?
RESIDENTIAL USE – The Annex is occupied residentially to provide some level of security to the Museum (main buildings). The Annex was converted in 2007 from a new build roof space to provide self-contained accommodation, including
shower, and kitchen living area and sleeping facilities. It has been used residentially since that time and as per the buildings to the rear of the Historic main building, Ref: Lewes Crown Court 28th June 1988, the unit is immune from enforcement action under the Four Year Rule.
You prosecuted me in 1988 for Breach of an Enforcement Notice, but I was able to prove to Judge Clay, that there was no enforcement notice covering the buildings on site that I was using. This is irrespective of the fact that the Notice relating to that action is Ultra Vires, where Inspector Dannreuther based his decision on misinformation.
You are well aware that unauthorised uses are lawful at all times unless challenged by an Enforcement Notice that is upheld on Appeal. You are of course welcome to issue an enforcement notice against the Annex, but if you decide to put that to Committee, I must insist that you show them the Archaeology South East (ASE) document dated 29th September 1999, and the Monument Protection Programme entry for this building, Ref: English Heritage. In any event there is no demonstrable harm.
In light of this, I cannot see that it would be a good use of the taxpayer’s purse to seek to challenge a residential use that is immune, where your Council complained of the continued residential use of the Annex well into 2009 and possibly 2010, but ceased such complaint for some reason, when occupied by others. You certainly did not serve an Enforcement Notice before 2011 as would have been required if you wished to prevent Legal Estoppel. Please let me know if you are now claiming that such a Notice has been Served, providing the date and identity of the Officers involved and the Names and Identity of the Committee authorising such Service – and the names of the persons Served? I have no knowledge of any such Notice.
CONTEMPT OF COURT – Your Council remains in Breach of Contract and Contempt of Court. On the 15th of October 2003,
Vic Scarpa, a solicitor acting for your Council issued a Statutory Demand. The objective of the Demand was to seek to take possession of The Old Steamhouse, using an Order for costs given to you by
Dame Butler-Sloss in the High Court – all part of the Vendetta I have ample evidence to substantiate. That was in relation to forcing me to remove toilets and canteen facilities that were and are a legal requirement as per the
Health & Safety Regulations
Page 2 of 4
It follows that Mrs Justice Steel (in the Court below) did not have the authority to Order such removal on the 21st of February 1997, where a Court cannot take away from any person, a State Granted Right. Your
Council unwittingly made another Court party to the present Course of Malicious Conduct. I am sure the Heads of State would want to know about this Vendetta and more than likely, to take steps to ensure that other Citizens might not suffer a similar fate.
I filed a Defence and Counterclaim in the County
Court for damages in relation to Misfeasance in Public Office and the same Course of Malicious Conduct complained of today. I also cited Human Rights violations. This Counterclaim would more that likely have succeeded, but Cllr
Brian West (who was summoned to give evidence in the case along with Cllr
Andrew Long) talked me into accepting a deal with your Council, working with Cllr
Nigel Coltman, a then Cabinet Member. This was because I would not apply for planning permission with so many proofs of Abuse of Authority occasioned by the likes of
J Douglas Moss and David
Phillips. Your then solicitor Christine Nuttall was also guilty of contacting my witnesses directly, trying to get them to say something other than the truth. I understand that she was dismissed immediately on admitting her part in the Vendetta.
It was for these reasons, that on the 29th of November 2004, your Council signed a
Consent Order in the Eastbourne County Court agreeing not to pursue the
£26,455 costs obtained by deception in the
High Court from Dame Butler-Sloss. Your Council also agreed to cease Enforcement proceedings (Para 8.1) until such time as the Council had applied for planning permission for me, to regularise any unauthorised use of the buildings extant at that time. I wrote to your Council on the 27th of February 2008 (copy to Cllr Andrew Long), asking Trevor Scott to obtain the specialist reports from ASE and
English Heritage in readiness for the planning application your Council is obliged to make at its own expense. I wrote several other letters on the subject by
Delivery, but received no replies. Your Council remains in Breach of the Court Order. How then might I do business with a Council that is demonstrably populated with corrupt officers. Please let me know what you have to say about that?
WHISTLEBLOWING – I should like to offer any
officer of your Council or
Sussex Police, immunity from prosecution in return for their evidence of the earlier or ongoing malicious conduct. Any person providing such evidence may not be dismissed by either organisation. If, as a result of giving evidence, any person is treated badly by their employer, they are entitled to Unlimited Damages for example for: Constructive Dismissal.
Page 3 of 4
It appears to me from the above that you owe me a detailed explanation as to why Your Council believes that it has cause to Harass me further. Harassment is a Criminal Offence. Violations of Article 14 and Protocol 1, Article 1 of the
Human Rights Act 1998, would also be Criminal issues, in the context of a Vendetta and Misuse of Authority.
I look forward to hearing from you as to the above within the next 7 working days please.
Nelson Kruschandl (Victim in Person)
cc Sussex Police
Heads of State
Horse Sanctuary Trust
Attachments: 3 X photographs cars in Lime Park
4 of 4
Whibley has been an officer at Wealden
District Council for many more years than Lord Nolan decided was safe.
In his report on the planning system, Lord Nolan recommended no more than
five years for any officer serving in any position, to prevent cozy
relationships from forming.
we have not seen David in action for many years, plainly he is still
working as an enforcement officer for this corrupt council. Wealden
have been involved in the high profile enforcement action that we are following
on the Pevensey
Levels. Wealden have been working with Natural
England to obtain a conviction, where the farmer concerned appears to
us, to have done nothing wrong - simply farmed the land.
Knowing that there is an appeal running in
the Pevensey case, Wealden have decided to
increase the pressure on the appellant by threatening to bring enforcement
action against another site near Hailsham. We have learned that Mr Whibley
was asked in writing to reveal the truth about so-called complaints, that we believe
are either solicited, or have been made maliciously by animal rights
activists, but that Mr Whibley refused to identify the source. Why is
that? Does he have something to hide? What about transparent
would remind Mr Whibley and his associates that planning favours are
illegal - especially concerning farming land. We know that nature concerns
have been trying to purchase land at Pevensey. Enforcement designed only
to reduce the value of land by restricting its use is fraud.
accused of a potentially criminal act, is entitled to know the identity of
his accuser - and to be able to question that person as to his or her
motives. This is seen in Article 6 of the
Human Rights Act 1998. The closed session reporting that councils
routinely employ is not Article 6 compliant. It is our belief that
councils employ such tactics to enable them to pursue unlawful agendas -
and to never have to prove that there was ever a real complaint or
person is entitled to enjoy the use of property peacefully - and that
means without unwarranted interference from local authority. This right is
enshrined in Article 8 of the HRA 98 and
Article 1 or Protocol 1.
Planning officers appear to think that such laws do not apply to them,
when, as officers of the courts,
they have a duty to land owners/occupiers equally and without favoritism -
and to present accurate information to judges,
Whibley has a duty to ensure that information presented to the Secretary of State
at appeals, and/or the courts is accurate, such as not to fall foul of the
Fraud Act 2006. Otherwise he may be charged with obstructing and perverting the course of justice by
way of perpetuating a lie.
He has recently been made aware of his Council's criminal deceptions of
old and refused to engage on the subject, where as a law abiding citizen
in a position of trust he is required to make enquiries with due diligence
as to reported crimes.
The Secretary of State, Eric
Pickles, has written to us to explain that it is our duty to bring
these matters to the attention of this council - and that is what we are
trying our best to do, where Trevor Scott
is doing his best to sweep his council's dirty laundry under the carpet.
BY ASSOCIATION - Leader
of this council: Robert (Bob) Standley. He seems quite happy to stand by
and watch his officers carry on with their malicious vendetta. Does he
appreciate that in failing to halt any misuse of authority, that he
becomes personally liable in damages, vicariously. We hope you've got a
good pension plan Bob.
It looks like you may need it. Anyone who fails to report a crime
commits a criminal offence. In addition, the Local Government &
Housing Act makes provision for councils to recover sums spent
unlawfully from the officers (and no doubt the members) in person. There
is no longer the immunity from costs that council employees once
the moment the Sussex Police appear to have granted their chums at
Wealden immunity from prosecution. The law is though clear. As the chief
executive of Blunderland (as in Malice
in Blunderland), Charles
Lant has been under suspicion in terms of
malicious prosecution(s) [misfeasance in public office] for some time. He
is more than likely a mason
(which we invite him to confirm or deny),
and/or his friends and associates at Sussex Police
are. We make this assumption because whenever Sussex Police are invited to investigate -
they simply return all the files to informants having done nothing - which,
in our book makes Sussex Police party to the crime. It is a
criminal offence to know of a possible crime, but not to investigate it.
It is alleged that two of Mr Lant's predecessors (Derek Holness and Sheelagh
Douglas) resigned from this council
over a letter written on Sussex Police headed paper, which it is
alleged, was actually drafted by Derek
moment that this was brought to the attention of Derek's replacement,
she resigned - without even working out her notice. Is that just a
coincidence? We believe that seeking to avoid having to answer
allegations on the subject, may have played a part in the decision to
vacate so speedily. Actions speak louder than words. Yes, Mr Scott,
more dirty laundry, that if you did not know about, you and the members
sure know now.
MEN - You
cannot be a team player in a planning department that still includes
known liars and not become tainted. You become part of the conspiracy to
cover up. Recently, it was confirmed that
despite perjuring himself and acting with Doug Moss in a conspiracy to
re-date attribute photographs, in an attempt to gain a court order, that
David Phillips is still working with
Wealden District Council. Why? And why has he not been prosecuted for
that perjury? Being a conspirator is just as damning. So why has Doug
Moss not been prosecuted alongside David Phillips. There is no statutory time bar to
investigating such crimes. This council actually paid for a barrister's
opinion to assuage the criminal actions of J. D. Moss. That is public money
that was spent for a cover up, rather than to expose a corrupt officer. Who authorized that payment? Who drafted
the instruction to the barrister?
this case Doug Moss took a series of photographs for a planning
application relating to Herstmonceux
Museum, in the process signing an agreement with the occupier to return all such
pictures, to preserve the occupiers right to privacy. Mr Moss then
ostensibly, returned said pictures and negatives long with a letter
confirming that. But lo, several months
later, David Phillips turned up in the High Court claiming that he'd
taken those exact same photographs, in an effort to obtain costs and
injunctions against the occupier. Phillips and Moss were caught red
handed fabricating evidence because one of the negatives had a scratch
that was on the [negative] photos Phillips was claiming had been taken recently. When this was
pointed out to Wealden's
barrister in the High Court, David Phillips refused to enter the
courtroom for fear the judge would jail him. That is though no pardon for the conspiracy. Both of these
officers were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and should be
prosecuted. Doug Moss lied when he wrote to say he'd returned the
photographs - he'd secretly kept a copy. Clearly, masonry is rife in Wealden and Sussex Police are
involved in this ongoing cover up. You should know that this is the
second time David Phillips was caught fabricating evidence using
photographs as an officer of the court. The other case involved an animal
trainer/showman. In other words, the evidence suggest that David Phillips
more than once fabricated photographic evidence and lied to
the court as to date attribution. Do you
suppose it stops there?
4 - Fraud by abuse of
position [such as a planning or police officer]
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
dishonestly abuses that position, and
intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
to make a gain for himself or another, or
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.
Protection from Harassment Act
1 Prohibition of harassment.
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
2 Offence of harassment.
(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of [F1section 1(1) or (1A)] is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
- Hmmm, I can't believe it's not butter!
Planning Enforcement Officer's advertised geographical area of cover. But please
note that they like to play in each others area when a case gets too hot
to handle - and where does Christine Arnold
and David Whibley fit into all of this. If you have been threatened with
an enforcement visit, why not ask us
to come along for free planning advice and as a witness to ensure fair
play. We'd particularly like to meet other officers from this council's
enforcement team, such as Niall Mileman and Tom Holman, or any of their
solicitors, to find out who is running the show.
Dean and Friston
BLAIR - This ex barrister, husband to Cherie Booth, led the UK to war
with Iraq on (effectively) solicited intelligence. Arnie
looks on as Blair laughs. Killing thousands of innocent civilians to
secure cheap oil
is no laughing matter. Many people believe that Blair is a war criminal
and should stand trial. Saddam Hussein was murdered by soldiers and his
country raped - on the
basis that he was making weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass
destruction existed. It is alleged that faulty (or fabricated) UK intelligence had been used as an excuse to
topple the dictator in pursuit of an energy related agenda. This must have
put the fear of God into other Middle
Eastern rulers who should take heed of British Injustices - possibly another string to
our politicians' cheap energy
agenda. Yes, indeed, but such betrayals of trust are also a major blow for
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892
Williams, Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black,
Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas
Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
Trevor - Alcock
Charmain - Ditto - Arnold
Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh
Lesley - Black
Julian -Boakes Beverley
Barker - Brigginshaw
Marina - Brown
Ashley - Coffey
Patrick - Douglas
Sheelagh - Flemming
Mike - Goodwin Daniel
Derek - Hoy
Thomas - Johnson
Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay
- Lant Charles - Mercer
Richard - Mileman Niall
Craig - Moss Douglas, J. - Nuttall
Christine - Phillips
David - Scarpa
Victorio - Scott
Trevor - Kevin Stewart
M. - Whibley David - White,
George - Williams
Amanda Knox victim anti American trial Hillary Clinton launch
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