You cannot argue two opposing points of law at the same time to seek to gain money against property taxes




Magistrates Court hearing date Bohemia Road Hastings


LEGAL ESTOPPEL - It matters not that the enforcement notice is a fraudulent instrument, the law of Judicial Estoppel or the alternative interpretation Res Judicata applies. This is an estoppel that precludes a party from taking a position in a case that is contrary to a position it has taken in earlier legal proceedings.

By asking for Council Tax on the parts of the buildings that covered by the extant enforcement notice, Wealden are trying to argue the opposite of that they have already argued and must stand by. You cannot argue both positions in law at the same time - and nobody is above the law.

If Wealden believe that the enforced sections of the building are being occupied residentially, they should of course prosecute.

But, there have already been two such actions. One in the Magistrates Court that they lost and another in the High Court in February of 1997 when they sought to empty out the contents of the building, including all of that required by the Health & Safety Regulations 1972. This information has been provided to the Court at page 50 of an exhibit bundle.

On appeal to the High Court Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss agreed that the items required by the Health & Safety Regulations should be reinstated. This was despite the fact that residential occupation could not take place as per the enforcement notice from 1987/88.

Once again Legal Estoppel prevents Wealden from arguing anything other than that these items do not constitute a residential use, comprising a canteen with storage cupboards and sink, two toilets, washbasins and showers. Whereas this Council have led the Valuation Office to take such fixtures as being for domestic use. In the High Court this Council argued that a hat and coat rack that was full of coats constituted a residential use, but the Court did not agree on that one. A place to put hats and coats is needed whatever the use.



Magistrates Courts are mostly there to serve councils and the police rather than deliver justice to the people. For example there is no Legal Aid even where there are complex legal issues for any layperson to have to deal with, meaning that there is not a level playing field or equality at arms and that this is a state engineered situation contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.





The Valuation Office makes many decisions that are unfair to boost Council Tax revenues for corrupt councils in England and Wales, such as Wealden District Council.


In a case involving Andrew Corkish, Tracy Nicholson and Valuation Tribunal Service panel members Judith Barnes and Peter Hardcastle, it was explained to the tribunal that was held in the Hastings Council offices on the 7th of September 2018 that an enforcement notice prevented residential occupation of The Old Steam House in Lime Park, Herstmonceux. It was explained that the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 required Wealden to remove incorrect information or defunct charges from the register, and that this had not been done, and as a consequence of that the council had put the defendant in a position where he suffered loss or the risk of loss in that he could neither occupy the premises legally nor sublet any other part of the premises covered by the extant enforcement notice in seeking to offset the charges that this council were seeking in the full knowledge that they were preventing full use of the premises yet seeking the full council taxes as if the premises had not been so blighted - and so causing loss.


It was explained to a Valuation Tribunal on appeal that Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 was then applicable and that the Wealden District Council were guilty of fraud. In that the valuation tribunal chose to ignore this information or recommend that WC carry out their function before they might reach a decision, made the parties involved guilty of being part of a conspiracy to defraud.


The situation is rather darker than it appears in that Wealden's officers have been involved in a long term agenda to part the defendant from the premises, including seeking to bankrupt the gentleman and lying to the Secretary of State's inspectors on at least two occasions and several High Court judges along the way in seeking to devalue the land in question such that neighbours might avail themselves of the premises at an undervalue.


For this reason and due to the perceived malfeasance in public office, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 kicks in where this series of attacks violates Article 8 and Article 13, save that we have no Article 13 in our domestic legislation, therefore relying on the European Communities Act 1972 and Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that binds local authorities to observe the European Convention.


The players in this little Nazi/Gestapo like charade were:


Andrew Corkish (for VO)

Charlotte Corkish (for VO)

Judith Barnes (VTS panel member)

Peter Hardcastle (VTS panel member)

Tracey Nicholson (for the VO)

Graham Wayman (for WDC)

Jon Bestow (registrar for the VTS)


Other players involved in the conspiracy to defraud over the years included:


Steve Bliss

T. Matthews

Jo Coll






Adolf Hitler


Adolf Hitler

German Chancellor


Herman Goring


Herman Goring



Heinrich Himmler


Heinrich Himmler



Josef Goebbels


Joseph Goebbels

Reich Minister


 Philipp Bouhler


Philipp Bouhler SS

NSDAP Aktion T4


Josef Mengele


Dr Josef Mengele

Physician Auschwitz



Martin Borman


Martin Borman




Adolf Eichmann


Adolph Eichmann

Holocaust Architect



Rudolph Hess


 Rudolf Hess




Erwin Rommel


Erwin Rommel

The Desert Fox



Karl Donitz


Karl Donitz




Albert Speer


Albert Speer

Nazi Architect








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


Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine 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



Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending Christopher

Black Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw Clifford - 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










PROCEEDS OF CRIME - Valuation 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.





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













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.