Council officers who abuse their positions of authority should be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006, a pension would then be proceeds of crime and not payable.






Trevor Scott was chosen from a list of candidates, but we wonder who would be foolhardy enough to want to work for Wealden, with their history of Human Rights abuses, and other officer indiscretions.


Trevor Scott, Head of Legal Services, Wealden District Council


Trevor Scott was one of the officers of Weaden DC who was responsible for negotiating an Agreement in the County Court in Eastbourne in November of 2004 with Nelson Kruschandl. Wealden had claimed that they were owed costs of some £26,455.85 arising from an issue where the council were trying to force removal of sanitation, that it turned out was a legal requirement under the Health & Safety Regulations 1992. Dame Butler Sloss made the costs Order, saying that Kruschandl should remove the sanitation to comply with the Order of the Court below, but then re-instate sanitation to comply with Health & Safety rules. With such absurd decision making in our courts, is it any wonder this country is bankrupt! Would it not have been easier to say that the lady judge in the court below had made an Order that she had no power to make. And that is because no court may remove any right granted by Statute. The H&S Regs are of course a statutory instrument.






Despite this, Wealden served a Statutory Demand (Case No SD16 of 2003) on Mr Kruschandl, when Kruschandl counter claimed against fraudulent use of a defective notice, and malice, among other things. It is alleged, that immediately Wealden realized that the truth would be bound to come out about them falsifying evidence as to the archaeology of what is now Herstmonceux Museum, they wanted to do a deal. The deal involved a joint planning application, effectively to get rid of this Council's defective enforcement notice. All went well. At the time Mr Kruschandl was engaged to a serving Member who cannot be named here for legal reasons. But, in 2005 Kruschandl had an argument with the Councillor where his daughter had told him that he was not contributing to the running of her home. Kruschandl says that was a lie, and we can confirm that we have now seen bank paying in slips that show that Kruschandl was settling his ex-fiancée's credit card bills. Clearly a contribution to running her home. Significant sums were involved. Kruschandl explained that to his potential father-in-law, putting him straight. It seems that the woman concerned may not have declared these sums when making claims to working tax credits. Kruschandl alleges that his ex fiancée was also in receipt of monies from the rental of a garage in Polegate and owned a cottage in Hailsham that was sold, all of which (income and capital sum) information was not shared with investigators that visited her home while he was staying with her. Kruschandl says that she broke down in tears during questioning by the investigators, but he could not understand why at the time. Kruschandl alleges that her father completed his daughter's accounts. Nothing wrong in that of course, provided the entries reflected the true position.


Kruschandl's ex fiancée wanted him to live with her at her home, but the agreement they had when he moved in with her, was that she would eventually live with him. This simple fact raised suspicions about service of the Statutory Demand, which was delivered to his fiancées home while he was living with her. Kruschandl moved back to his home in Herstmonceux and then called off the engagement. Returning to the Agreement, once Kruschandl had called off the engagement to the Member's daughter, the Council then reneged on the Agreement, despite  the fact it was a Court Order. Trevor Scott is now denying that his council are in breach of contract. But the facts are there for all to see. Did they file a joint planning application as per the Agreement? No they did not. The Council also deny that the timing of these events is in any way connected. We wonder if the Council will deny serving Kruschandl at his fiancées home? Once the engagement was well and truly off, and personal property had been exchange (returned on both side) Kruschandl was then accused of sexual crimes including penetration: rape


However you look at it, the timing of events is suspicious to say the least. Kruschandl is now in possession of a Forensic Medical Report that proves the Jury at his trial were mislead. This would have been a matter for the European Court, but they appear to think that there is a domestic remedy, even where the CCRC are denying him that route to an effective remedy. There is also startling new evidence that says that penetration is measurable. But at the time of the allegation of sexual misconduct, the girl claiming penetration was still a virgin. Apparently, this is measurable - according to fresh guidance that was only published after Kruschandl was convicted. We are following both on these issues.


Kruschandl says that it should not be possible to convict a man where there is evidence that a claimant has not been penetrated. The problem is that Sussex police were extremely biased in their investigating technique because of issues going back to 1986/7 and a petition in 1997 where Sussex police helped Wealden to hide inconvenient facts relating to corrupt council practices.


None of this information was available for his trial, where his barrister, Julian Dale, refused point blank to challenge the so-called medical evidence. Kruschandl alleges that the failure to properly represent him, constitutes negligence and cites 'R v PF [2009] EWCA Crim 1086,' a case where a man was also convicted of rape on a girl on out of date medical evidence - and his barrister had also failed to challenge the medical evidence. See latest RCPCH guidance dated March 2008. We should like to add here that we are advocates of punishment to fit the crime, but that there are a small number of wrongful convictions. In our opinion, this case has the potential to change the way that evidence is gathered, which will not only ensure that those guilty of an offence are convicted, but that those falsely accused are not.








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



FAO Trevor Scott                                                                                      Fax ref. 01892 602223
Wealden District Council
Pine Grove, Crowborough

                                                                                                                       15 February 2012
Dear Mr Scott,


Article 8 and Section 6 Unlawfulness – Breach of Contract
Duty to the Historic Environment – Reasonable & Beneficial Use


Thank you for your letter dated the 10th of February 2012.

Naturally, your council will seek to avoid the consequences of maladministration, where you have a duty to the taxpayer to save the public purse, but then you also owe a stronger duty to myself under article 8 of the human rights act 1998. 

So, it’s cash or life? I think the courts will decide that life is far more important. Especially where, by its actions it is the council’s failings various, or indeed, deliberate vendettas, that are responsible for making wrong decisions. 

I think we can agree from the recording of Mr Phillips and Mr Scarpa during a planning committee meeting to decide an application on this property, that Article 14 was breached. That where I, for the first time introduced credible evidence as to the history attaching to the building in question, that your council refused to determine the application, or to make the proper enquiries of the County Archaeologist or English Heritage – as required at that time by PPG15 and 16. The planning inspectorate could not help me with this – for they accepted your council’s misinformation in good faith. Thus, the application route to correcting your errors has been tried and the system found wanting and has in the past cost me a small fortune.

With this is mind the correct route to formally recognising the status of this building is to strike the enforcement notice and/or thus obtain a Lawful Development Certificate. 

Unfortunately, and as I said in my reply to your earlier letters (by recorded delivery), it takes both parties to a Consent Order (agreement), to cancel such an agreement. I take the view that your council is in contempt of court, in breaching the Agreement. However, now that you say that this agreement is in dispute, then we may proceed to review the lawfulness of the Enforcement Notice and the subsequent Injunction you refer to.

I am advised that I am entitled to assert my basic human right to peaceful enjoyment of what has been my home since 1982, and should do so.

I’d rather hoped that with so many years ruining my life, with blatantly discriminatory policies, that you’d have wanted to make amends. Especially where I’ve just suffered another gross injustice, which, is still under appeal – hence my trial is still in progress as per: “Delcourt v Belgium EHRR 355”. Your unlawful enforcement ruined my marriage and a second long-term relationship, as you drove myself and family from The Steam House, unrelentingly, causing tremendous mental anguish and financial hardship in the process. You were lucky that the Human Rights Act 1998 was not then in force, and once it became law, you then fought shy of enforcing – with the Agreement, that you are now seeking to deny.

The facts are that in 1986 your officers obtained an enforcement notice by deception. It is thus ultra vires, as per the settled precedent in “R v Canterbury City Council (ex parte Spring Image Ltd) 1991” and the “Samuel Smiths Old Brewery 1998” case, since your officers failed to consult with English Heritage or the County Archaeologist, and told the planning committee that this valuable historic building was of “no historic significance”. As you seem intent on continuing with such deception, the Fraud Act 2006 applies at 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 loss. 
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

As I recall, your council’s Vic Scarpa told Inspector Danreuther that the building held “no historic significance”, whereupon the Enforcement Notice was upheld by the Secretary of State. At another appeal, your council’s Doug Moss and Ian Kay said much the same thing to Inspector Michaels in 1997, calling a so-called ex English Heritage expert (Chezel Bird) - who also bore false testimony, saying that these buildings were of no historic significance.

As to your duty of care in the Wednesbury sense, you appear intent on causing yet more financial losses, by subjecting me to the risk of enforcement, even though you know the enforcement notice you refer to is ultra vires. Clearly, this invokes section 4 (1) (a) and 4 (2) of the Fraud Act, where you could simply declare your own notice void and recognise my rights under the 4 year rule, or seek a declaration from the court to that effect.

I would say that in the spirit of the Agreement, and knowing that as an occupier of this unique historic building, I am entitled to a reasonable and beneficial use, after consideration of the Monument Protection status of the property, and the survey by Archaeology South East, independently commissioned by the County Archaeologist.

Further, Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, guarantees me interference free enjoyment of my home:-

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Part II The First Protocol
Article 1 Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

Further, Article 14 prohibits discrimination. I can’t think you’d have tried to enforce against me prior to my conviction in February of 2008. This must then me a trigger, possibly brought on by complaints from local residents. Where you will be acting as an agent for such residents, in breach of your duty to the historic environment and myself as the occupier, having used such property as a dwelling for many years:-

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

In addition to the above and as to maladministration, in failing to inform the members in 1986, or the Inspectors various in several planning appeals, of the rarity of such early electricity generating industry remains – you did myself and the history of our country a disservice. Leaving this historic building sitting on your doorstep, rotting away for years while you fuddled to obtain the property for my next door neighbour – and yes I have a copy of Mr Phillips letter, clearly advocating acquisition and sale of the property to Mr Townley, which invokes the Theft Act 1968: as in obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.

Article 17 applies to all of the above, where it is your activities that have destroyed my right to peaceful enjoyment, broken up my relationships and caused financial hardship in the process:-

Article 17 Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

According to section 6 of the HRA, as you have breached several Articles of the HRA, which are convention rights, you have acted unlawfully and continue to do so:-

6 Acts of public authorities.

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

The fact is that as an occupier of a historic building, I’m entitled to a reasonable and beneficial use. I’m concerned that in all of this, that your council, who have a duty to protect the historic built environment, appear content to deny the historic status of this valuable building (evidence of man’s development) simply because it is me. 

It should be the other way round. Instead of telling me that you intend to try and stop me using the building, you should be encouraging any use that would incentivise any occupier to invest in the maintenance of the structure – such as roof repairs, guttering, etc. I would therefore invite you to evaluate the history of the building as part of your investigations as part of the enforcement process.


Please also consider that we are in a recession with austerity measures in several EU countries. You should therefore be sure of the facts of this matter before proceeding to drain yet more of the public purse, which action is almost bound to end up in the European Court by way of a human right claim.

I will be grateful if you will acknowledge receipt of this letter and trust that this letter clarifies the legal position from the long history of the matter.

Once you’ve had time to consider the above, I’d welcome your observations, should there be scope to resolve issues without the need for litigation.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely

Nelson J Kruschandl








We are sure that Mr Hudson has supplied more than enough evidence in the course of his representations. That being the case it could be that Mr Scott is putting his telescope to his blind eye for fear of what he will find. For example, the letter from Mr Hudson reproduced below, for the avoidance of doubt, appears to us to be sufficient information to warrant a full investigation:



Dear Mr. Scott,                                                                    Sent by Recorded Delivery: GQ 1361 0792 5GB


                                                                                                                                                             4 May 2018

Thank you for your one letter of April 25th in response to my five.

I note your request that I “desist in contacting any former officers or councillors of Wealden Distrct Council”. Would you be seeking to "intimidate my person and further conceal the identified corruption from public view contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861"? Do the 185 visits to The Steamhouse based on the defective enforcement report that I saw amount to intimidation? Was the Steamhouse enforcement instrument signed off by Timothy William Dowsett? Because if so, I would respectfully suggest that it amounts to a nullity by virtue of his unique abuse of office identified in my analysis. The officer responsible for resolving conflicts of interest kept his mouth shut whilst he sat through a flagrant conflict of interest having been advised in writing of that conflict twice. You could not make it up. 

Tapping into the accumulated wisdom of the former Councillors that you suggest I should “desist in contacting” can be an education. One can discover that when East Sussex County Council first decided to appoint a female chief executive, it was decided not to countenance applications from certain authorities including The Metropolitan Borough of Kingston upon Hull. If you run the executives named in my analysis through the British Newspaper Archive you will come across one name that pops up in The Borough Surveyors Office in Kingston upon Hull. I am sure it is just a coincidence. Surely you did not need to recruit from a pariah Authority? 

You suggest that I am promulgating a “convoluted conspiracy theory”. Equip yourself with a transcript of the judgement for TN200438 and refer to H.H. Judge Hollis's remarks for 21/7/2003 & 1/8/2003. Consider whether the individual who admitted tape recording in Court could have been liaising with Geoff Johnson so that WDC could get redress against the claimant who had reported WDC to the Audit Commission for planning fraud. i. e. that that individual had been used as a proxy for WDC's vindictiveness. Because unless you can be certain this did not happen, the possibility must exist that you are be being so used. A legal executive of your seniority being kept in ignorance and used as a proxy! That only happens to Councillors within WDC. Or I should have said “some” Councillors within WDC, the ones kept out of the Smith, Woodward, Prangnell, Hinder and Trew loop. Intelligence gathering co-ordinated by Geoff Johnson in order to obtain redress? Does this have a denominator in common with the Stream Farm Certificate of Lawful Use? Of course, if you cannot afford to purchase “third party independent evidence” that rubbishes your statement here, ( whereas you did for WD/96/0043/LU ), one motive suggests itself immediately. Judge Michael Kennedy was another individual who saw straight through your shenanigans about obtaining a £20 aerial photograph whilst you employed Mr. Ashwell at umpteen pounds an hour. May I have your kind permission to post some of Judge Kennedy's observations on 

You comment “No factual or evidential basis”. There will be as soon as you have supplied the photocopies requested 5 times.

It is a bitter disappointment to hear that you “do not have any documents relating to the Strategic Planning and Economic Development [ SPED ] Committee of 20th January 1998”. i.e. the Petition. It was Lord Newton's promise that a copy of the Petition would be kept in reception. Has that been abandoned as well? You will doubtless be delighted to hear that a copy of this 68 page SPED report has been located. May we have your kind permission to put it on please?

You have considerable legal training, and will therefore know that evidence has been evolving. You will know that there now barristers who are obtaining convictions against individuals such as Superintendent Gordon Anglesea. In cases where there are no microfiches, no tape recordings, no returned affidavits, no photocopies of missing letters and affidavits sent Recorded, no live witnesses who have seen dual files side by side, no photographs of Post It notes saying “Get Lost!”, no Petitions, no fax polling slips, no missing WDC Post Books, no obliterated line 71 in Registers, no photocopies of enforcement instruments that have been modified, no enforcement instruments signed off by a District Secretary who had ( or was about to ) lost ( lose ) his moral compass, no letters referring to critical plans which are not on file, no admissions of copyright infringement, no comments from Judge Hollis and no corroborating evidence that has leaked out of WDC without your knowledge. In cases where there is a massive disparity of seniority, status and education. But there was a very plausible member of Pegasus Lodge who pleaded his innocence and sued Private Eye. And then individuals who were 13 at the time of the offence gave their oral “me too” evidence to the court against that distinguished individual and a conviction was obtained. So you will know that when the evidence that your Council has shredded, lost, misfiled, withheld on a “C” file, placed on a supplementary microfiche file or a building control microfiche, supplied late, supplied as a false instrument, denied the existence of etc. emerges, it all amounts to a course of conduct, to a modus operandi. Do you suppose Kelly Davis had the backing of 11 petitioners all saying much the same thing over 30 years? Did you know that the word “Kay” appears 56 times across 44 of the pages of the SPED report that you decline to supply? 

You “see no benefit in wasting considerable time and effort to look at events that occurred 30 years or more ago”. I do. It might be a benefit if the Appointments Committee learned from their mistake in appointing a nepotist, conspirator, serial perjurer, employer of a false instrument and perverter of the course of justice to the top planning job in WDC. Unless of course those are the qualities you actively seek out. Without a proper investigation history will repeat itself.

Wake up, smell the coffee and listen to Radio 4's To-day programme at 07.54 on May 4th 2018. Listen to Rosa who was told she wouldn't get her message out. She did. And Jim Boyling was ultimately convicted of gross misconduct. He was told he would make a mistake one day as indeed has your Council. 

Your function is the timely supply of accurate information. Please perform. I am awaiting the photocopies which will prove my case.


Chester Hudson

The Horse Sanctuary Trust is following the above cases and other similar fact cases with much interest.






This legal officer was sure to have handled the Judicial Review against WDC brought by Robert Clapson and John Cooper with The Firle Estate as an interested party. You can see from the above that the Area Plans South Committee were again duped by the planning officers handling this application, into granting planning consent against wrongly interpreted policies. It is thought that Kelvin Williams played a big part in this smoke and mirrors illusion.


Trevor Scott was also implicated in trying to stop a water mill near Heathfield from being rebuilt where his band of merry men had persuaded the Area Plans South to again authorize enforcement against a wooden cabin that was needed on site for security and storage, etc.


The players also involved Beverley Boakes, Geoff Johnson and Vic Scarpa as you can see from the reference numbers. These days Wealden's officers do their best to hide behind a veil. If you visit their website you will not find the name of any officer, not the contact details for any officer - they are that afraid of the consequences of their actions, many of which have been proven to be unlawful - and a waste of public money to boot.


Wasting public money seems to be one of the hallmarks of this Council. That is the same as wasting energy in a world where climate change is high on the United Nations agenda for 2030.





F.A.O. Trevor Scott
Head of Democratic & Legal Services                                                        Your refs. BJB/C/04/0496/HFD
Wealden District Council                                                                                       VS/GJ/skf
Pine Grove
TN6 1DH                                                                                                            18 March 2005

Dear Mr Scott

Thank you for your letter dated 15 March 2005, a copy of which I have passed to Planning and Civil Rights Limited for comment.

Your council is already on Notice as to the unnecessary interest payments, legal and other costs, attaching to my project as a result of the protracted delays occasioned by your council's threat of enforcement and refusal to answer reasonable questions in good time, or at all.

I cannot see how you or any other person in your council could possibly argue these delays are warranted, or that any competent administration would keep a developer waiting, when all those concerned in your council are fully aware of the cost implications. The irresistible conclusion is that officers conspired by various means to undo the planning permission members approved. Accordingly, these officers have used their influence to obstruct the lawful development of my Mill project with malicious intent.

Having brought the above issues to the attention of the heads of the Council, I hold them personally responsible for my costs in rebuttal and consequential losses arising howsoever from the obstruction I have experienced.

It must be therefore, in your council's best interests to limit its liability. I hope you will agree this may best be achieved by securing the Counsel's Opinion on a 'by return' basis. You cannot simply fire off another holding letter to buy yet more time, when this matter should never have begun in the first place. You've had ample time to obtain several Opinions. Indeed, it is rumoured that you are in receipt of an Opinion already, but that the Opinion you have received is not to your liking, in that it supports my position.

I have offered you on many an occasion a way of resolving the impasse, both amicably and informally by meeting or via my agents. On every occasion your council have refused to communicate. Whereas, I have been both patient and reasonable with no result to show for it.

As a consequence of the above, if I do not hear from you by the close of business on March 23 2005 with bona fide supported rebuttal, I will take it my observations are indeed correct, and that will legally end the obstruction.

Yours sincerely

Sent by the Appellant                                                                          c.c. Members DCS



Section 171B Time limits.

(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.

(2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach.

(3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach.

(4) The preceding subsections do not prevent—

(a) the service of a breach of condition notice in respect of any breach of planning control if an enforcement notice in respect of the breach is in effect; or

(b) taking further enforcement action in respect of any breach of planning control if, during the period of four years ending with that action being taken, the local planning authority have taken or purported to take enforcement action in respect of that breach.




THOSE SIGNING - Nus Ghani MP, Cllr Bob Standley (Leader of Wealden District Council), Charles Lant (Chief Executive WDC). Top Right: Chairman Cllr Chris Hardy and Vice Chairman Cllr Pam Doodes. Bottom Right: Tony McCord (Sussex Fire & Rescue Services Borough Commander) Inspector Tony Wakefield (Wealden’s Neighbourhood Policing Team), with them is Trevor Scott (Wealden District Council Corporate Director).


CROWBOROUGH LIFE NOV 25 2016 - A Pledge to Speak-out against Domestic Violence. Today on White Ribbon Day Nus Ghani MP and other senior figures in public service in the Weaden district signed a pledge to oppose domestic violence in all its forms today.

Front line staff in the Council’s services have received training in how identify domestic abuse and encourage people not to tolerate it. The Council is also planning a number of campaigns to raise awareness about the issue in the wider Wealden communities.

Councillor Claire Dowling, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Community Safety, said:

Domestic violence and sexual violence affects men, women and children, but particularly women and girls. It is a problem which affects everyone.

I am sorry to say that we have seen a steady rise in the number of domestic abuse crimes in Wealden over the past four years. They have risen from 315 in 2012/13 to 580 in 2015/16.

Increased awareness has led to better reporting of these crimes but, as by definition, so much domestic abuse takes place behind closed doors, it is difficult to gauge the full extent of this problem.

We hope by encouraging everyone, including men and boys, to become more aware, we can create a safer, fairer climate in our homes. Domestic abuse is also a critical cause of homelessness, accounting for between 5-8% of all homeless applications in Wealden during the past two years.

Domestic abuse is not just violence. It can involve many kinds of controlling behaviour including physical and sexual intimidation, as well as economic and emotional abuse. In many cases people are unaware they are the abuser. Self-awareness is so important. We hope through the White Ribbon campaign we can raise this as an issue more and more people will be willing to talk about.

A number of senior figures in Wealden District Council, including the Chairman, Councillor Chris Hardy, and the Leader, Councillor Bob Standley, have volunteered to become White Ribbon ambassadors.

East Sussex Fire & Rescue Services Borough Commander Tony McCord and Inspector Tony Wakefield of Wealden’s Neighbourhood Policing Team also made a pledge today on White Ribbon Day.

Wealden District Council has been awarded White Ribbon Status and at the Full Council meeting earlier this week, Councillors were encouraged to sign the pledge to their opposition to domestic violence.

Where domestic abuse is an issue, members of the public should contact Sussex Police on 999, if it is an emergency, otherwise use 101.

A new website, The Portal and a freephone number 0300 323 9985, has been set up to provide advice and support to people suffering domestic violence in East Sussex.

Refuge provides a 24 hours emergency hotline on 0808 2000 247.

The Council also provides a Sanctuary Scheme which provides an alternative to relocation through enhanced security measures to an existing home. Contact the Council on 01323 443380.

You can also make your own pledge against domestic violence at the White Ribbon Campaign’s website




The Immaculate Deception


Sexual 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 anyone.





Section 10 extract of a Consent Order in Case No: SD16 of 2003, in the Eastbourne County Court. This is an Agreement that Mr Kruschandl alleges this council have breached concerning recognition of and the future of Herstmonceux Museum.






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


Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold, Patrick Coffey


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, Beverley Boakes




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







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.