POTTY TRAINING - Using a potty correctly may be a new skill for your planning team to learn if they keep missing the bowl or forgetting to flush, wet the bed, or maybe even fumble the paperwork. Being patient and firm with them will help them get it right eventually, even if they sometimes feel frustrated. They should be taught that every person in the land is entitled to receive and impart information as a basic Human Right under the provisions of Article 10. This is no matter how much their legal team are out to keep planning consents a closed shop. And yes, we know how irritating it is to be caught out consistently by some members of the public - and yes of course that makes you hate that/those members of the public more - leading you into trying another dirty trick in revenge. But will that lead to more spillages being uncovered? The answer to all bed-wetting is to be persistent and gently keep those in positions of trust from straying too far from statute. 



One way of looking into the goings on at your council is to dissect the accounts. A forensic examination will reveal how much a local authority is spending on any one issue - and is more than likely to reveal culpable overcharging.


Disproportionate or prolonged expenditure is likely to reveal the extent of any vendetta. There are sure to be discrepancies that can only add up to one thing, and why would any council burden the ratepayer in this manner, if it is not to protect the culpable officers from being discovered.


Accounts disclosure can be ordered by any Court in relation to suspected misuse of public funds and misfeasance or malfeasance in public office. The former is a civil wrong, the latter a criminal offence in common law.


In the matter of the toilet appeal and costs, officer time appears to have been overcharged, in that more hours than were available in the 40 hour week were put in as costs, but that overtime was not paid to officers in Wealden land at that time. Culpable Overcharging is a criminal offence.


This is just one issue, the overall cost to the public in relation to this matter is estimated to be well over £500,000 pounds - and is on the increase.


At this rate it is likely to cost this Council (the ratepayer) another £500,000 pounds before the matter is resolved - and that is just in actual expenditure. There will also be associated losses and devaluation as a result of the exposure of the magnitude to the wrong doing.




ATT: Miss J Henham                                                                                     FAX TO: 01323 443333
Treasurers Department
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Road
Hailsham BN27 2AX                                                                                              7 September 2001

Dear Miss Henham




Thank you for your letter dated 5th August 2001.

I would thank you for taking the trouble to copy the listings and Council’s financial ledger. Unfortunately this information falls far short of that requested inasmuch as the three entries I am particularly interested in with the reference MC143

Clearly, according to your letter dated 31st August 2001 there will be supporting vouchers between departments to confirm the make-up of the claim for costs between departments. According to your letter interdepartmental requests for payment for services will:

(i) Show the name of the officer to whom the internal invoice was sent
(ii) Include narrative identifying the period to which the invoice relates
(iii) Include an invoice date
(iv) Provide a list of matters upon which time was spent by legal staff and the charge for these services making up the total sum of the invoice

The information you have provided so far fails to provide this information, which I require to see to corroborate the claims for remuneration, the time spent, who spent the time, etc. Otherwise, the Council may not be seen to be accountable to the public for monies spent or for its actions. I am left with no alternative but to suspect the worst where it appears the Council may be unable to properly account for monies and this could explain the reticence to supply the information in respect of my inquiry.

As I have now written five times in connection with my request, telephoned twice and also visited your offices, you leave me little alternative but to raise this matter with the District Auditor with a view to obtaining the information requested. 

Yours sincerely 


Nelson J Kruschandl


C.C. Cllrs: Blaxland, Coltman
Gore, Kirkpatrick, Parsons
Thornely-Taylor, Tidy

Audit Commission



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


Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Chris (tine) Arnold


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 Douglas Moss 


Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant






As a result of our investigations the identities of all those involved in this and other related stories will eventually be included in a rogues gallery so that other members of the public who may be subjected to the same or similar treatment might cite similar fact evidence.


Councils like Wealden know that they employ officers who become corrupted, they also know that members of their council may be corrupted and fail to declare interests properly. For this reason they do not publish details of their employees - but they should - if it is that they have nothing to hide and in the interests of transparent and open government.





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), where police constable Bowden failed in his duty to protect a member of the public.




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
















Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Black Julian - Boakes Beverley

Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn

Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford

Lant Charles - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio

Scott Trevor - Kevin Stewart - Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve








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.