ANY MASONS ON YOUR BEAT? - The current Chief Constable is Giles York seen in the picture above. How many masons do Sussex Police have in their ranks is a mystery, but masonic lodges and their members are thought to control the outcomes of most criminal cases in the United Kingdom, simply because we have no written Constitution. Laws and made and changed almost daily by judges who might be doing a favour for one party one day and another favour for another party another day - contrary to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10 and 11 - where the Courts are not independent but some judges work with other masons in the CPS and local police to steer the outcomes to a forgone conclusion. Defence barristers who might be angling for a position on the bench are also influenced by such a system to provide a poor defence in some cases, but concerning a police officer accused of murder, or a planning officer accused of fraud - a free 'Get Out of Jail' card. If a barrister does not tow the party line he or she will never be selected for a position as a judge.
Martin Richards QPM (born 1959) is a retired police officer, whose last post was as the Chief Constable of Sussex
Police, a position in which he served from 1 October 2008 until his retirement from the Police service in 2014. He previously served as Chief Constable of the Wiltshire Police.
Richards was appointed Chief Constable of the Wiltshire Police in September 2004. While he was Chief Constable, he oversaw "Optimus", a 12-month program of modernisation and reform within the Force, as well as a collaborative project involving all five Forces within the South West region.
THE POLICE INVESTIGATION CODE OF CONDUCT
Not many people get a reply to their correspondence even when reporting serious crimes, but this force will spend £10,000 of public money attempting to prosecute a person for goods to the value of £19.99, where that person is a thorn in the side of their chums at Wealden District Council.
On the other side of the coin, this force appear hesitant to investigate complaints involving £ hundreds of thousands of pounds in connection with land fraud and manipulation of land values.
WEALDEN DISTRICT COUNCIL MALFEASANCE
In December of 2016 two members of the public independently reported serious abuses of positions of trust at this Council.
A historic case of ingrained misuse of public office comes from Mr Chester Hudson reporting serious fraud involving Ian Kay and Mr Kay's father in law.
A crime that is in progress as of 12th December 2016 comes from Nelson Kruschandl reporting serious fraud involving documents obtained by deception being lodged on the Local Land Charges Register to cause loss, contrary to Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. The officers concerned include David Whibley, George White and in the background, Ian Kay, David Phillips, J Douglas Moss and Thomas Hoy.
The police intend to keep a lid on these crimes by maintaining that their investigation and conviction of their victim was honest and decent when in fact they knew he was being fitted up and that the girl they were using to gain such controls (a masons granddaughter) was a virgin. The conviction of course was for claimed multiple penetrations (rape) and yet the Jury were not told that she her hymen was intact, rather they were told to concentrate on marks that their so-called expert said were suspicious when it must have been that she knew that these marks were naturally occurring in females of all ages. This particular miscarriage of justice was simply to gain access to more agencies in the hope of further discrediting the activist.
SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE
There are too many cases that demonstrate failures in investigations for this to be a coincidence. Certain individuals that fall foul of Wealden District Council almost invariably end up being wrongly imprisoned or otherwise with a criminal record as a way of Sussex Police to aid and abet this corrupt council. This is one of Weaden's favourite ploys for disposing of cases where they have been caught red-handed tampering with or otherwise falsifying evidence in neighbour disputes, where Wealden have taken the side of the more influential citizen - instead of investigating matters impartially. Wealden's Gestapo like tactics are well known and adopted by other councils according to media reports.
JOHN HOATH & CHRISTOPHER (CRIPPS HARRIES) HALL
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). In this case Bowden was a police officer who saw a crime in progress and walked away from it, calling in sick the next day to seek to cover up his wrongdoing.
If you are the victim of a wrongful prosecution or the police are refusing to investigate a crime you might think of taking your case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), we would though advise that in serious cases of institutionalized corruption, that you should first lodge copy of your complaint with the Attorney General, Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, who is responsible for running our administration under a mandate from the current Ruler of the United Kingdom.
Katy Bourne was elected Crime Commissioner, taking office with an oath to serve the public interest. That is an oath that many are now questioning, where she appears to be serving Sussex Police instead of policing the organisation that has come under such flack for their blatant refusal to investigate so many complaints of malfeasance in public office.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
0300 020 0096
LINKS & REFERENCE
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
LINKS & REFERENCE
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.