ANATOMY OF INJUSTICE:

Set against a background of increasing pressure to gain convictions, many police officers fail to investigate fully for fear of finding inconvenient truths, which they will then have to pass to a defense team during the discovery process.

The fact is it is all too easy to put an innocent man behind bars where a blunderbuss serious of charges, often used in sexual assault cases, make it all but impossible to mount a defense with alibis for specific events claimed then impossible as a defense.

In most cases an allegation grows like a pyramid, once the system kicks in. Unfortunately, at each stage of the process, the allegation grows as it is passed from one person in the chain to another, each adding their own interpretation and filling in the blanks, so to speak.

In this case the girl making the complaint said to begin with that when her mother went out 'the room' her boyfriend would touch her. It was her friends who forced the girl into making the complaint, once she began sending text messages to them.

Some time earlier, the girl had made claims to much more serious events, according to the only school friend giving evidence. This friend also claimed the complainant had said she'd dreamed of making love to the defendant. Later, the earlier claims to more serious allegations were withdrawn. The girl said she was only joking and had made it up.

SUPPORTING CAST: Once a person is wrongly convicted, the English judicial system is geared up to keeping it that way. England is not a signatory to the right of appeal. They use a system to filter out appeals where a single judge (in this case Christopher Holland) can fudge things to manipulate the statistics - all of which is designed to fool the public into thinking that the justice system rarely gets things wrong. Meantime, the number of false allegations in on the increase, while prosecutions for making false allegations in on the decrease. It's a one way system where women in particular can make an unfounded allegation and the state will get a conviction - true or not. That is because in England a man accused of a sex offence has to prove innocence, rather than the State prove guilt. A swing in the balance of fairness on the scales of justice.

The law should always err in favour of the accused receiving a fair trial. This swing from to gain extra convictions come what may (from 2003) is a breach of Article 6, but then in England what do you expect! After all, we invented concentration camps, not the Nazis. It follows that we practice Eugenics policies as a hidden agenda, discrimination is discrimination - whether it is against the Jews or any other Nationality - it is a crime that England is guilty of.

LAW CHANGED TO INCREASE CONVICTION RATE REGARDLESS OF INNOCENCE

Where an allegation has been made (which is often the case) by a young girl or boy who may find him or herself in an uncomfortable family situation, which could be a combination of loneliness, stress from school work, social stresses from friends, or lack of them, not feeling important or feeling ignored. Sometimes just being bored or mischievous, or simply bearing a grudge - the child will often pander to the attention they are suddenly receiving, and sometimes they are simply bunny boilers, out to ruin someone they feel abandoned by...... It's a win, win situation for the accuser, with no comeback at all if found to be lying!!! They can simply move onto the next target, or go about life as usual - since nobody knows who they are. Should there not be a register of accusers?

The policies of Labour's Harriet Harman, Minister of State for Women, coupled with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from David Blunkett were designed to raise conviction rates is sex related cases, regardless of evidence in what some may agree was some kind of Nazi inspired eugenics crusade designed to convict anyone accused of a sex crime regardless of innocence or guilt. This has resulted in many more appeals and innocent men being freed, having been convicted on little or no evidence. It begs belief that such cases are brought, considering the irreversible harm caused to the victim, in these case the person defendant.

In many cases (number unknown) innocent men are rotting in jail, since there is no appeal for them unless fresh evidence surfaces, which may only happen once a bunny boiler repeat offends. Otherwise, there is no justice for men. A point overlooked by Harriet in her rush to up statistics for voters.

WHOOPS - This is the document that Cramp & Co did not know about when defending a case between 2006 and 2008 - but would have discovered if they had challenged the medical evidence as instructed by their client. This could have led to an adjournment, and following specialist reports, dismissal of the case, on the assumption that appropriate applications would then have been made. The Crown's expert, Dr. Melanie Liebenberg, told the Court that a naturally occurring anatomical feature was suspicious. The above document reveals more than that little error, it also reveals that if the girl had been penetrated as claimed, there would have been physical evidence to back that up. When as a matter of fact the girl was "tightly closed and could not be opened with labial traction." Virginity tests should be mandatory in all cases where penetration is alleged. It's time for a change in the law to protect victims of false allegations. Children from single parent families are more prone to making false allegations - especially against departing (foster/step) parents, who they treat as disposable items against which to vent their frustrations at being abandoned by their biological fathers.

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP IN THE HOVE CROWN COURT FEBRUARY 2008:

Set against a background of increasing pressure to gain convictions, many police officers fail to investigate fully for fear of finding inconvenient truths, which they will then have to pass to a defence team during the discovery process.

The fact is it is all too easy to put an innocent man behind bars where a blunderbuss serious of charges, often used in sexual assault cases, make it all but impossible to mount a defense with alibis for specific events claimed. (This may of itself breach Article 6 for a lack of detail, as is required by Article 6 (3) (a), but English defenders frequently fail to use this Article to pinpoint exactly what the Crown are alleging.)

This is called the 25-75% rule. Statistics prove that a single charge results in a conviction rate of 25%. This rises to 75% with four charges. Thus, the Crown simply have to add a couple of allegations - to be sure of obtaining a conviction. They do this by cajoling a person making an allegation, into agreeing that whatever he or she is claiming may have taken place more times than they are suggesting. The grateful claimant takes what social workers and police officers are suggesting, as a sign that they believe the claims - so, elaboration begins.

If you are very lucky, this may eventually be the undoing of the case, even though this may be years later, having served a prison sentence and having had your life ruined.

In most cases an allegation grows like a pyramid, once the system kicks in. Unfortunately, at each stage of the process, the allegation grows as it is passed from one person in the chain to another, each adding their own interpretation and filling in the blanks, so to speak.

Where an allegation has been made (which is often the case) by a young girl or boy who may find him or herself in an uncomfortable family situation, which could be a combination of loneliness, stress from school work, social stresses from friends, or lack of them, not feeling important or feeling ignored. Sometimes just being bored or mischievous, or simply bearing a grudge - the child will often pander to the attention they are suddenly receiving, and sometimes they are simply bunny boilers, out to ruin someone they feel abandoned by...... It's a win, win situation for the accuser, with no comeback at all if found to be lying!!! They can simply move onto the next target, or go about life as usual - since nobody knows who they are. Should there not be a register of accusers?

The policies of Labour's Harriet Harman, Minister of State for Women, are designed to raise conviction rates is sex related cases, regardless of evidence. This has resulted in many more appeals and innocent men being freed, having been convicted on little or no evidence. It begs belief that such cases are brought, considering the irreversible harm caused to the victim, in these case the person defendant.

One key element in raising convictions in sex cases, was to shift the burden of proving guilt, to the defence to prove innocence. This was achieved simply by arbrogating the need for a Judge to give a warning to a Jury, that it is dangerous to convict on the unsupported say so of a a claimant - where this had so many times in the past proved to unreliable evidence. Nobody even noticed this slight of hand be the Justice Minister in the 1990s. The results though were devastating. The conviction rate soared. It was no longer "your word against hers". It is now "you are guilty mate, unless you can prove otherwise."

Before this arbrogation, it was the job of the Crown to prove guilt. That is no longer necessary. It is a witch hunt, plain and simple.

In many cases (number unknown) innocent men are rotting in jail, since there is no appeal for them unless fresh evidence surfaces, which may only happen once a bunny boiler repeat offends. Otherwise, there is no justice for men. A point overlooked by Harriet in her rush to up statistics for voters.

The English Appeal system relies on a Single Judge, who is usually biased in the extreme, no matter what HM Courts Service puts out. The Single Judge system breaches Article 6, where it is a paper application. This has been held consistently in the European Court, the exception being where an appellant has the benefit of solid (unrestricted) drafting of grounds of appeal.

In many cases it is the Court Administration that slips up, refusing transcripts - which may later be found to have been vital for the application to the single judge. By then it is all too late. Once the single judge has refused an application, that is held to have been an appeal, even though there has been no oral exchange, where a barrister may point a judge to evidence that is very often overlooked.

A later application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, faces new obstacles, for even if you can now prove that the single judge got it wrong, or that your barrister was negligent, you may not argue anything that has been argued before. Catch 22? No, it's much worse than that - it is a State sanctioned stitch up, which breaches Article 17. The reason the State get away with this, is because your average lawyer is not aware of Article 17, and Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act 1998. it was deliberately left out so that Her Majesty did not have to provide an: "effective remedy." Which of course means, that they can make it up as they go along. 

LORD DENNING - You should try looking at that statement from behind bars M'Lud. It is this kind of thinking that leads to greater corruption in the system. If this is coming from a leading Judge, what hope does the ordinary man have of receiving a fair trial, when the beak is leaning toward imprisonment before any trial begins. Our Judges appear to have lost the ability to remain impartial. And, how can anyone take a person wearing this kind of ridiculous straw hair accessory seriously.

ARTICLE 5(1) INCOMPETENCE

It is a basic Human Right that a person facing a criminal charge should be tried by a competent court. In our estimation that must mean that a trial Judge should be on top of the evidence being given, such that when Summing Up, he gets the facts right and identifies any factual errors in dates and the like, so that when cross referenced against the testimony of key witnesses - he can say if there is any inconsistency.

This is extremely important in a case where sexual assault is alleged and a time and place has been given in evidence, which if that proves not to be factual, then that on its own will cast serious doubt as to the reliability of a witness.

In the case below a work diary not known about by either the police or the defence until half way through the trial, came up from nowhere. The diary belonged to the mother of the claimant. Nobody would ever have found out about the diary, but the claimant's mother took the stand and when caught out lying about why her daughter locked her door at night (another issue to be explored) realised that her testimony was just about worthless and suddenly blurted out about the existence of her work diary. We see this as a last desperate attempt to recover from a situation she must have thought was hopeless.

[In summing up Judge Joseph said of her claims to locking the door only when the defendant was present: "She agreed that the lock had been put on Gemma’s door because she complained about James barging in."]

It turned out the mother had hidden this diary in her loft. She had failed to mention the existence of this diary to the police - and the defendant now thinks he knows why. Because when cross referenced with a calendar anyone would have realized that the dates did not add up. The defendant was not alone with the claimant when she claimed - thus disproving at least half of her story. 

The problem was, that the defence were not allowed time to analyze the diary before the defendant was due to give evidence on the diary - so he had no idea of the value of his testimony, or how accurate his recollection was. He says that he just answered questions the best he could, given that neither he, nor his defence team had been able to do a forensic comparison with the claimant's testimony.

The claimant's mother must though have realized the value to the defence, and as it is alleged that the motive was both financial and blackmail (we have statements from witnesses who knew the defendant had been threatened) to keep the defendant as her fiancée, she hid it in the loft.

It gets worse, we now have financial records relating to the claimant's mother. It seems from cross referencing her testimony with these financial records, that she may provably perjured herself on more than one occasion. That though is not the end. For sure it seems that as alleged, she had failed to declare a capital sum, rents as income, and was claiming benefits. Obviously, all of the information that has been passed to us, needs to be passed to the fraud department of the local authority, or whoever it is that investigates fraudulent benefits claims. This gives us the motive and more.

CEDRIC JOSEPH'S SUMMING UP ON THE DIARY:

"He was just finally taken through his diary again, and,
members of the jury, I do not think he really added very 
much. He said: “14th August possibly, probably CC,
GG and I recording, 6th September ‘GG recording’, that
Probably happened. 18th September, maybe just me and GG 
recording. 25th September I don’t think that the singing went
ahead”, there was reference to trampolining you will
remember, which I think was crossed out. He agreed that they
may have been alone on that occasion.

“2nd October it looks as if GG was singing with me.
11th October reference the electric bike, probably all three
of us were present”, and I think he meant JJ as well as GG.
“16th October GG and me working on the bike possibly.”
13th November it says “GG and NK after school horse pict”,
you will remember, and he said: “That may have been when I
took pictures of GG at a horse sanctuary. 27th November:
‘GG NK’, maybe I did pick her up that day. 4th December
entry: ‘GG NK’, I may have picked her up from school.”
24th January: “NK CC recording” and he said: “Maybe
GG was there as well.” 5th February: “GG NK after school”, 

the only comment he made about that was that it did not actually

mention that they were recording.

26th February he said: “Well maybe she did come to the barn on 

that day. 20th May: ‘GG and NK after school tennis’ and then 22nd May: 

‘NK music. Take GG to Bushy Wood’ maybe I took her to the horses.”

Well there we are, members of the jury. You will have to assess his 

evidence, of course, with the same care as you assess the evidence of 

all the other witnesses."

But there were no witnesses for the defence, only witnesses for the prosecution. The state had seen to that with Legal Aid not being increased where the burden of proof in sex cases had been reversed. Nelson Kruschandl entered the courtroom presumed guilty thanks to David Blunkett's Sexual Offences Act 2003 human rights abuses. And that makes all of those involved in the justice system, party to the human rights abuses.

to cap it all when you look more closely at the dates in the diary, they do not coincide with the Thursday events the the claimant had cornered herself into with her own interview. The CCRC have no yet looked at this issue, because Cedric Joseph got his summing up wrong, directing the jury to consider the diary as belonging to the defendant.

NOTE: The identities of the persons concerned have been changed, save only for the defendant, who is asking for help from any investigative reporters with an interest in miscarriages of justice. The days that were important were Thursdays. The venue that was important was Herstmonceux and being alone at the venue. So we need to identify Thursdays when NK was alone with GG. You can see from the above Summing Up extract, that NK's testimony on this issue was extremely important. Firstly, the diary was sprung on the defence, with no chance for forensic examination or research into who was where for what - an Article 6 violation. Article 6 requires that the lawyer of the accused have time to prepare a defence. It was a Friday. Lawyers don't work over the weekend and the case continued the following Monday.

You can see from the table below that far from Judge Joseph's assertion that:  "I do not think he really added very much." That NK was actually confirming dates that had no bearing on the claims of GG, but rather disproved her claims. GG was caught out by the diaries that her mother hid in her loft to prevent the Police seeing them.

Where Judge Joseph failed to go through these dates by cross referencing then with a calendar, to be able to point out to the Jury that there were discrepancies between the dates and the claimant's evidence, the Jury were, in effect, being told by Joseph that the dates were all proofs of opportunity. He also failed to point out to the Jury that the girl's mother had hidden these diaries in her loft to prevent Sussex Police from finding them.  The act of concealment very much aligns with the financial conduct of the claimant's mother, in that her testimony is unreliable. Could it be that such crafting of her story did not take place in the two weeks before the Police finally decided to start recording facts. It seems to us that in order for the girl to begin crafting a plausible turn of events, first of all her mother had to hide her work diaries in her loft.

The only reason this woman did not destroy her work diaries was that she needed them to prove patient care - otherwise, we feel sure she would have disposed of them.

Without cross referencing the above with a calendar, it looks pretty damning. But, when cross referenced, most of the dates do not coincide with the Thursdays when abuse was alleged - so eliminating them. Then, on other of those dates the defendant now has testimony (that was offered at the time from a list of 17 character witnesses, but his barrister failed to take statements) from third parties who were present when the claimant claims to have been alone with the defendant - so proving that the claimant had made up an unsupportable story. As Judge Joseph said, the defendant only had to disprove one occasion to prove the girl a liar.

TABLE OF DIARY ENTRIES – TO BE CHECKED BY CCRC 2014 APPLICATION

Total Possible Opportunities 1

This table needs to be read in context with the evidence that was given at the trial and in statements. Taking into account the times GG admits to events where nothing happened, and eliminating all days that are not Thursday – out of a total of the 15 diary entries that were introduced late in evidence, then realistically, there is just one possible opportunity where NK/GG could have been alone for singing or tennis.

However, that totally destroys GG’s claims irrevocably where she claims three times in the first month - which you can see from the diary is September of 2003, when such claim is impossible. Indeed, even if you take October or November of 2003, there is no such opportunity – and that explains SS’s need to hide her diary in her loft away from the police. SS had also said there were just two times when NK was alone with GG, and she wrote the diary? She knew that if the police read that diary with time to cross reference, that they would know her daughter was lying.

What you should know at this point is that the police did think that GG was lying, so refused to investigate - because GG kept changing her story. It was only at the insistence of mother and grandfather that a medical examination was carried out, and that is where the second layer of deception occurs. This gave GG and SS two whole weeks in which to work out the details of their allegations before she was formally interviewed - contrary to the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ACT 1996 (CPCIACPO) and CODE OF PRACTICE ORDER APRIL 2005, where speed is important to prevent an accuser from building a story, or from being coached. 

We can tell from the language of GG that she was coached. She used the word "appropriate" several times in her recorded interview. She was also reminded (coached) to "tell the truth" several times, suggestive that she had been rehearsed as to what was expected of her - that expected, being the version that social services called "the truth."

FRAUD: We do not know which if any of these houses were owned by the claimant's mother. If we did know we could not tell you for legal reasons. But, we know that she owned a house in this area of Hailsham. The defendant did some work on the roof of a house in this general vicinity for her. This was under the instruction of her Masonic father and before the defendant lived with the family.

What is damning, is that when the property was sold some years later, the girl's mother suddenly wanted to put a substantial sum, far exceeding the threshold for her to continue to receive state benefits on another property in Hailsham, into a Club Account operated by the defendant. She told him where the money had come from, but not that she was claiming Housing Benefit and Working Tax Credits at the same time. The amount was just over £24,000. The threshold for state benefits was at the time £16,000. We are saying that it appears to us that she used the defendant to hide money from the state, so that she could continue to defraud the system. Her father was responsible for doing the accounts, and knew that his daughter had given the profits from the house sale to the defendant. It may be then that there was a conspiracy between mother and father to defraud the state. Surely, in light of this information, there should be an investigation?

We think that the Jury should have known about this. If you put that together with the Diary fraud, the Jury would have seen a pattern of dishonest behaviour. There is also the matter of a fraudulent insurance claim following an accident where the mother did not have an MOT. Nor did she declare a medical condition to her managers at work, or to her insurers. She did though follow through with a claim and used the money to buy another vehicle. We think that the Jury should have known about this also.

You should know that when the defendant left the family, that he insisted on returning what the girl's mother had not spent, to his former partner. This was around £15,000. She had spent a lot of money on home improvement at her other Hailsham address. In addition, the mother claimed that she'd not received any money from the defendant, whereas, we have seen a pile of bank receipts that prove that the defendant was paying his partner's credit card off on a monthly basis. This credit card was used to buy food and other family items. Hence, he did contribute to the family financially. We have read a transcript of her evidence where she claims otherwise. In a court of law, making a false statement like this is called Perjury. Any evidence giving that is misleading, may be seen as Perverting the Course of justice. Do you think the Jury should have know about this? Damn right they should. If you have any evidence that you think the Police or the CCRC should have, please get in touch directly, or contact us and we will help you get to the right person.

The cunning on the part of SS, was not to reveal the existence of her work diary until the trial, when she knew that the defence would not have a chance to do any research. She kept this up her sleeve for 18 months. Eighteen months during which she might have mentioned to the police that there was written evidence to substantiate her daughter's claims. You need to know that SS was a serial fraudster, to give this the weight that it deserves.

Judge Joseph did not instruct the Jury to cross reference the dates with GG's claims and her mother's work diary. He did not provide the Jury with calendars for the years 2003 or 2004. He left them with no way of checking the facts for themselves. 

In any event the Jury would not have had time to properly consider these issues when they returned their verdict in just a few hours and had a lunch break in between. The fact this Judge instructed the Jury that this was the defendant's diary, when it belonged to the mother of the claimant, adds to the farcical decision making - all based on incorrect information. As far as we know any decision based on misinformation is void in law.

In the absence of any solid proof, in the UK, our highly conservative juries will always return a guilty verdict. The most conservative towns will err even more on the side of conviction, regardless of any discrepancies. Hove Crown Court is one of the most conservative courts in England. If you want to convict someone where you think there may be a possibility of challenge, this is the court to choose. In this particular case the defence solicitor Cramp & Co and the defending barrister Julian Dale, failed to follow the direction their client was giving them; to challenge the evidence and call character witnesses. Tim Stirmey did not take a statement from a single witness, despite 17 names being given to him as to willingness to attend court to give evidence on behalf of the defendant. The witnesses confirmed to us that they were told their evidence would not be of any use in the case. That was not correct advice. Where the defendant regularly baby-sat a number of the witnesses at a young age and acted appropriately at all times, the Jury needed to know this in order to be able to asses the likelihood of the allegations being true. We believe that if there had been any truth in the allegations, that there would most probably have been a pattern. The witnesses are still ready to give evidence should the CCRC or a Royal Commission decide that this point needs to be crossed off any list.

DIARY MALAISE

As you can see from the chart above, it has been possible to eliminate all but one occasion when the girl claims she was alone with the defendant. You must remember that this was when the claimant claims she was abused/raped - when she was alone with him on a Thursday after school. The dates in the diary actually prove that the defendant was not alone with the claimant and that he did not have the opportunity that the claimant and her mother gave in their evidence - utterly destroying their credibility.

Judge Joseph appears to have been so intent on assisting the prosecution that he forgot the basics of trial recording, and that is cross referencing dates, times and places. He should have constructed a grid of dates when the claimant said she was assaulted with the dates in her mother's work diary. And that is why it appears to us the Article 5(1) has been breached, because it is the Court itself that appears to be lacking in competency.

The claimant claims regular assaults which would have left her with a gaping hymen - whereas, she was tightly closed. To disprove that element of the allegation, you will need to see extracts from the RCPCH guidance above. These matters have not been looked at by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Most confusing of all the the Jury, must have been when Judge Joseph told them that he defendant was giving evidence on his diary. It was not of course his diary. It was the claimant's mothers' work diaries (more than one), so an independent record of events that the Crown would have had difficulty denying - since it was their witness that had accidentally introduced it - in might we say, remarkable  circumstances. Come on CCRC, what are you playing at! If we can see that there are some serious concerns as to the safety of this conviction, why can't you?

LACK OF CONTROL OF THE MEDIA

The next item on the agenda is the whys and wherefores of the media breaching Judge Joseph's ban on reporting. How it was the reporters managed to sneak into court, and how it was that when the fact that the media had published in contempt of court, that this trial judge simply lifted his own ban. Mid-trial reporting is bound to affect the fairness of any trial. Publishing mid-trial gives the press the opportunity to sway the public with sensational headlines. You will not be surprised to learn that the Jury were reading the newspapers on the steps of the Courthouse. This is another issues when it comes to the Article 5(1) competence of the Court.

MEASUREMENT - A colposcope can measure minute distances between the hymen and vaginal wall, such as to give a reliable indication as to whether penetration has taken place. Invariably, non-consensual sex will leave a victim scarred. Penetration more than once will leave a victim with a hymen that is open, the  degree of which is dependent on the regularity of sexual encounters. Don't forget that when examined this girl had not injuries and that her hymen was tightly closed. Unless this was the second immaculate conception, we fail to see how this man could have been convicted on the evidence, save only that the new guidance was not available for his trial.

Dr Liebenberg failed to mention to the jury that none of the expected lacerations, transections and/or healed scars to the fossa or posterior fourchette - or angular clefts or tears, or labial adhesions of the hymen were present. She might have mentioned that the absense of any and all of these signs, given the claimed regularity of the claimed rapes, was not consistent with the allegations. Dr Liebenberg could have mentioned that had any of these signs been in evidence, that would have been either definitive proof of sexual abuse or at best highly suspicious circumstances. But, as we stress that - none of these were present - and the jury had a right to know that before sending a man to prison. Dr Liebenberg had no right to keep that information to herself. Tailoring evidence to gain a conviction is analogous of fraud.

None of the Class 3-4 signs were present, as one might have expected if as claimed, the girl had been regularly penetrated. The trial judge told the jury this might have been as many as 40 occasions. What are the odds of that? Unless her name was Maryam of Nazareth.

ANATOMY OF A STITCH UP - FLOW CHART

In a case where sexual assault is claimed, it is vital for investigators to act quickly to prevent potential witnesses from rehearsing and developing a version of a false claim. The investigators in this case allowed the claimant two weeks to rehearse a story, all the while she was obtaining feedback from social services and friends as to what to say such that it might be acceptable (believed). Coaching or rehearsing a story is of course illegal. Clearly, in this case coaching is a major feature. SOCAP procedures are designed to prevent coaching by obtaining a statement the moment an allegation is made. By this means false allegations may be revealed by preventing changes to a story that repair obvious lies that a defence will be able to disprove.

Clearly, in allowing 2 weeks for the claimant to speak with friends and social services, the Sussex Police were negligent in this case, depriving the defence of a valuable record of changes in the story as the allegation was developed.  Was this simple negligence or criminal negligence? The CPS knew this was going on and used it to their advantage.

RIGHT OF REPLY

If any person who wishes to refute the facts as published herein, we would like to hear from you. A failure to respond to this invitation will be taken as deemed acceptance.