It gets ugly: honi soit qui mal y pense – you become history, and the facts published:
Introduction: This living document is about stealthy (illegal) procurement of public rights of way, the political expropriation of land (unlawfully taking from legitimate ownership) that features desirability/suitability for public use; appropriation and fraud is an absolute necessity, not in isolation but regularly occurring, to overcome. Against the Queen’s peace:
Euphemisms detract from factual truth.. & ..the Planning Inspectorate will force you to bowdlerize: remove that that offends them and their cronies. ‘It is not my purpose to allow any discrimination: illicit bullying, public deceit and evil by DEFRA, to thrive in silence.’ ~ If the truth hurts, let it prosper.. ; this document is not ‘a five minute read’, it rationally correlates to c50 years of stealth locally; when you add the wider stealth: “The Fraternity”*
[*Richard Connaughton’s publication of 21 July 2010] ..I believe that the Definitive Map Review is a national public disgrace on par with the early Hillsborough inquiries.
Commonsense does not permit me to show all my cards, but rest assured, much truth has come out in the wash at Five Fords; the first three years revealed, and I could have moved on to addressing the other sham public inquiries, local and national; but some of those related to the victims that requested my help.. had other agendas, the synergy (in simple) of multiple unpleasant groups of people lying and frustrating my best ability to perform has been challenging; I set out to be as objective, lucid and openly honest as possible.. in the farm’s best interest, ditto – in the community’s best interest; they did not.
Five Fords (Farm) [nee East Parks] was the barton farm of Uffculme as of 17th March 1336 when King Edward III granted Cogan the lord of the manor a special licence to enclose his ‘Wood of Uffculme’ (the modern spelling)* and an additional 300 acres. The licence was granted some 12 years before the Order of the Garter whose signature can be found at common and civil law courts of England & Wales; not for this reason alone, but for the fact that I swore: privately 2nd Aug 2007 and publicly (Mowbray Woodwards Solicitors – Bath on 20th Aug 2007) because of the evil. [*Owned by Glastonbury Abbey in the 9th century.]
The overt stealthy procurement of East Parks’s private access lane began to materialise in the early 1970s. Much of the common law evidence produced during the expropriation period and relative malicious retaliatory trespass, i.e.: c1980 – 2012, by the conspirators, has its roots, or exists as a result of statutory Acts of Parliament; each and every document appears to corroborate those independent that came before; all link back to Glastonbury.
Thus; when the original Definitive Map was produced in the late 1950s, there wasn’t any public right of way crossing that area of Five Fords (Farm) other than the king’s highway that divides the two specific parts: East Park,* and East or Lower Park {combined ‘East Parks’ = Five Fords (Farm)}. [*The 50 acres of East Park is clearly and irrefutably recorded in the 16th century. Tithe and overseers for the poor documents of the period 1800 to 1947 clearly record the acreage as agricultural land.]
Two independently stored records books [Kew & Exeter] of Finance Act 1910 corroborate the lane to be agricultural land with a higher sporting value than the basic land value used. Ditto; the survey of c1934 that resulted in the creation of the Uffculme Parish Atlas 1934, is testimony of what the Parish Council thought in 1934; the afore is reinforced by the Tithe Act 1936 papers, and the original Definitive Map; all probative that any statements made by the Parish Clerk, and his mentor – Cllr/Mr Jack Gollop, during the period of 2001 – 2012 are factually mischievous. ─ Was the Parish Clerk to be.., mislead from childhood?
Cllr/Mr Jack Gollop letter of 18 July 2007 is a foolish, cleverly crafted, act of public deceit..
There is no ambiguity that the lane’s c1.025 acres was considered anything but a private accomodation road by the local authorities during the period 1934 – 1964;* the incongruity surfaces within the way the Parish Minutes were recorded in the early 1970s. There lies a transition from, all appears satisfied, when the overt signage in place (certified aerial photos of 1969 to 1990)** is (has) not (been) challenged by the Parish Council and/or the highways departments of the rural and county councils. [*Arrival of the current owners.]
**As a very young child, I witnessed the overt slate sign on the gable end of the cart-house; its message was clear; a private lane with no public right of way. Fact; I never encroached beyond either end of the lane by any more than a few metres until Jan 1979, when, aged 12 years & 6 months, I asked the farmer if I could work on the farm during weekends.. until 21 Sept 1982 when I enlisted. locus standi:
I used to rough shoot on the farm from the age of about 15; was granted incorporeal rights to shoot on my return from West Belfast in February 1985: “..always free to shoot on the farm.“
During the period of 1977 to Sept 1982 I personally witnessed challenge – controversy re the private nature of the lane, but this was few and far between because the lane’s status was commonly recognised not having any public right of way existing. The few challenges that I witnessed (would later become) significant during the sham public inquiries of 2007 to 2012 re the Definitive Map Review (Uffculme).
The long-term serving Parish Clerk (appointed Dec 1978, until spring 2016?) was one of the few people I’d ever seen on the lane; the afore event c1980, a public challenge [not recorded until 4th April 2005], ensured the said clerk would carry a heavy burden of what appears misfeasance whilst he was in public office, if not malfeasance..
DEFRA’s creation in 2001 and early communications to Devon County Council appears a complex conspiracy to defraud, enable me sufficient understanding of Peter Millman’s acts of misfeasance and the overt appearance of malfeasance in public office during 2007 and 2008 was not circumstantial.
By spring 2010 I had gathered sufficient factual evidence to counter Peter Millman’s evil reports of 15 Oct 2007 & 18 July 2008; both common law and statutory law evidence was harmonious, absolute in its corroboration of the truth; but instead of being able to protect & prepare evidence for an inevitable third sham public inquiry ─ a retaliatory act; ignorant agendas simmered under the surface.. ..appear wanting to prove Peter Millman’s report true, and prevent the truth being heard; whilst other sham public inquiries were expected.
in pari delicto ? ─ I think not; the owners of the farm had become bewildered by the fraud.
My belief is supported by the opinions of Lord Justices Cotton, Bowen and fry in the Court of Appeal re Edington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 CH D 459. The evil stealth is seen factually apparent in the (early) 1970s. The Parish Clerk’s failure to act openly and early re signage placement (indicating a private lane without any public right of way) during his period in office; its placement at least a decade or more prior to the (public) challenge that affronted both father and son (the Parish Clerk) in c1980.
As the stealth frenzied, the Parish Clerk and his mentor appear to have become reckless to the consequences of misfeasance nexus nonfeasance in public office. By 1991 stealth was a natural formality, appropriations of all descriptor would have taken place. In Jan 1991 Mid Devon Rural District Council (Tiverton) appointed Richard Spurway as its new rights of way warden.
The Parish Minutes clearly identify an illicit black-hole in the overall recording of entries re rights of way and leisure.
When the [Definitive Map] Review (Uffculme) took place in 1995-96 it is reasonable to state that there was an irrefutable interest in the various paths tracks and lanes in the vicinity of Five Fords and Brookshill on the parish borders of Uffculme and Culmstock.
The proximity in timing between the Review and First Registration of Five Fords Farm is a significant point of interest, for it is reasonable to infer bias, a corroboration between the Parish and County Council and Land Registry, nexus the complex conspiracy to defraud existing when Land Registry demanded further evidence of ownership from the Farm early in 1996. The Parish Minutes and First Registration documents support corruption in play.
At this point in time Mrs J Parsons’s is involved, is clearly recorded actively appropriating public rights of way in Uffculme and Culmstock, without limitation; the opportunity to buy part of the Brookshill Estate in the late 90s appears too good to miss, foolish to avoid.
(In simple) the owners of Five Fords were denied title to, the lawful possession of, certain land until they could demonstrate (its) freehold ownership. The aforementioned purchase is the foundation of Hunkin Wood ─ desire and suitability for public use of the ‘any’ paths tracks, lanes or ways in the vicinity of Five Fords & Brookshill, influenced by the bias Land Registry findings, provided ‘all’ those (individuals and/or organisations) involved with the belief that it was only a matter of time; that unless any other claimed ownership of the lane its status would facilitate changes to the Definitive Map. But the owners did not accept the Land Registry findings, they maintained their belief that the lane was a significant part of the farm without any public right of way, and acted accordingly.
In the meantime the Parish and County Council are seen to appear willfully dormant re the Definitive Map Review (Uffculme) [by acting contrary to what an informed person would expect]; the statements made by the Uffculme Parish Council representatives for & during the events of public inquiries of (the period) 2005 to 2012, do not ring true. An inference of truth exists in the Parish Council chronicles – the Parish Minutes; the Parish Council did nothing..; nothing supports the Parish Council’s claims that the lane was a public place, a county road.
(In simple) further signage was placed on the lane in the spring of 1998, and in 2001 when the foot & mouth endemic existed. Coincidental or not; DEFRA’s creation in the summer of 2001 conveniently corresponds with the ’20 year rule’ landowner acquiescence to public use of paths and ways.
Rocking horse pooh;
The Travelling-forum (J Rudge, R Coombs, E Spurway, J Parsons and A Kind), irrefutably provided the nonsensical discoveries of evidence, by contriving harmoniously clever and ill fitting proofs of evidence to accompany their (feigning of) individual statements of case for the other sham public inquiries of the period c2005 – 2016, inclusive: Pitt Lane, Prescott Path – Culmstock; and Cripple Lane, Forestry Commission land Blackborough, Uffculme.
jus tertii ‘law of the third’ Arguments made by a third party in disputes over possession, the intent of which is to question one of the principal parties’ claims of ownership or rights to ownership.
in omnibus For one person to fathom the darkness of complex conspiracies to defraud has not been a pleasant experience; you cannot expect anyone to work miracles or have evidence by rogues’, seen as nonsense, by those equally dishonest or corrupt, or convey factual truth when Planning Inspectorate are harmoniously adjoined in fraud. ~ inter se :
Nor should I be expected to account for those that shackled and stabbed me in the back to thwart the truth, and to achieve their own selfish agendas, when their motives offend and attack me ─ Justice does not expect impossibilities!
Their foolishness was complemented on the 1st April 2016, when the retiring Parish Clerk Mr Wellands was unwarrantedly and unwittingly given a scroll offering freedom of the Parish of Uffculme by the Deputy Lieutenant of Devon Lord Ivar Mountbatten; the aforesaid having no lawful right* to counter the special licence granted at Westminster on the 17th March 1336: Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Vol. IV. 1 – 14 EDWARD III. A.D. 1327 – 1341 [*malum prohibitum]
Contradictio in adjecto – contradiction in itself – A contradiction in terms. Undoubtedly the Deputy Lieutenant of Devon’s action were bona fide, but for a significant impediment caused by the area (size & location) of Uffculme nexus Cogan’s Park.. its hub; the freedom would import a liberty to trespass on private lands of the Parish protected by the king’s licence.
There are no winners in DEFRA’s purposeful creation – a mechanism to facilitate the false discoveries of public rights of way. State organised fraud naturally undermines any public confidence in what takes place within the Planning Inspectorate; more significantly justice is undermined. Having sworn privately – reinforced publicly – the truth will out; please enjoy what you read, it inevitably identifies the boundaries of psychology & sociology.
[I use legal maxims and common law authorities (precedence) within this document.]
~
If you step into the limelight and get caught for bad faith & stealth, expect to be oppugned and denounced re ‘your’ evil non-truths and wilful contempt for ‘others-own’ peaceful enjoyment of their homes, life & property. ─ If the synergy of the Devon County Council, British Horse Society (BHS) & DEFRA partnership appears irrevocably equal a conspiracy to defraud, is it not for the public to know? ─ Modern technology enables the accessibility (storage & retrieval) & compilation of the wealth of historic documents that, for whatever reason, are held across the country.
Ditto; technology has enabled the pooling of information that highlights the overt inquiry fixing that has made the Definitive Map Review of public rights of way – one of the biggest records of corruption in public office, it counters ethical practice and the truth being heard; many discoveries of additional public tracks appear to lack any factual dedication as public right of way; see Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal Navigation (Proprietors) v. Birmingham Canal Navigation (Proprietors) (1866). Of those mischievously finding dedication:
Fiction: why is it necessary and/or regularly acceptable to feign discovery of dedication of land for public use by the landowner in some time past, since time immemorial when it is incorporeal lacking actual substantive/physical document/record of public announcement of any such dedication — (my emphasis) Why?
What message is portrayed to children in an educational environment, does cheating rise?
—Why do the regular players* – instigators of public inquiries appear totally inept and wilfully blind (lack common sense?) when it comes to interpreting basic – common law evidence during public rights of way public inquiries: maps & papers re the 1836 & 1936 Tithe Acts, Finance Act 1910, Rights of Way Act 1934, the Definitive map document itself, and all local papers associated/produced for them during creation? [*emphasis inspectors]
—The first place any credible person would look if they were interested in public rights of way in Uffculme would be the Parish Atlas – of six inch to the mile Ordnance Survey maps of the Parish; it is a fact none of the Travelling-forum* – referred the Parish Atlas of 1934 despite [it is rational to infer] all having seen it and conversant of its recordings. Their objective was to procure a land mass of 1.025 acres of agricultural land (according to tithe and Finance Act 1910 papers) — of which the Parish Council did not consider to hold any public right of way in 1934 (reiterated by Tithe Act 1936 surveys) is proven by original Definitive Map Survey of the 1950s. [*The author’s descriptive term for the conspirators.]
However; such was the dependency on the Parish Atlas of 1934 during events that are diverse and clearly recorded, prior to – and after – the creation of Hunkin Wood in the late 1990s, that a series of complex evidential chains nexus significant appropriations, exist.
In simple; multiple significant complex conspiracies – comprised of sub-conspiracies were happening in the period of 1975 – current. Evidence exists to infer contention was taking place in certain minds of Uffculme Parish before 1975, no implications of tortuous activity. The overt stealth and misfeasance (malfeasance?) occurring appears recorded from about 1975 onwards. Justice considers factual evidence of:
- a) What was happening within the minds of certain influential members of the Parish;
- b) Between members of Devon County Council and Uffculme Parish Council;
- c) Members of notable ‘User Groups’ of public rights of way, Uffculme Parish Council and Devon County Council;
- d) Nepotism re Emily & Mr Richard Spurway between 1991 – 2002 nexus rights of way and the creation of Hunkin Wood, now not only a monument to the Millennium, but to the corruption that is (was to be) ‘The Definitive Map Review’;
- e) Adjoined political bias between Devon County Council and Land Registry Plymouth;
- f) DEFRA’s creation [announced] in the summer of 2001 – as a mechanism to facilitate the absolute frauds and public inquiry fixing – illicit changes to the Definitive Map;
- g) Devon County Council’s collaboration with DEFRA;
- h) Planning Inspectorate and DEFRA’s bias during the period of quasi public inquiries, inclusive of favouritism to ‘User Groups’ [nexus Devon County Council representative];
- i) The overall shadow of undue influence & hidden agenda to administer/facilitate any illicit/fraudulent procuring public rights of way, not only in Devon but nationally:
- j) The appearance of ‘The Institute of Public Rights of Way (IPROW) as contrivance to enable/facilitate communication/association between significant players in the deceit.
- k) The common law evidence surrounding the events a) to j) above, inclusive probative common law evidence that Uffculme Parish Council’s claim – public statement in 2007 that they – the Council (in simple) always considered Violet Lane to be a public highway is perjurous; much more than a fiction of imagination – appears linked to the period of First Land Registration (Land Registry) 1995 – 1996, and a false sense of security after.
A series of sham public inquiries involving the same fraudsters & perjurers leaves a scent:
alii sementem faciunt, alii metentem: some do the planting, others the reaping; their overt desire to cheat is recorded by their own perverse hands aliena opprobria sæpe absterrent vitiis: we are often deterred from crime by the disgrace of others, but aliena pericula, cautiones nostræ: others dangers are our warnings. Psychologically enhancing fiction:
The conspiracy members separating from each other during the period of inquiries – to enhance/glorify their claims; by each person presenting, claiming to belong to a different ‘User Group’. – Doing so has the effect of reducing any perception of circumstantial occurrence i.e., those blind of the facts or corrupted, perceive several ‘proofs of evidence statements’ provided by the notable User – Groups, each agreeing or harmonious, creates a synergy of whatever is being claimed.
[to explain: “..well, if three or more notable rights of way groups agree, it must be true.”] “they’re the experts!”* [*Insp’ Helen Slade re Devon County Council {their representative Mrs Spurway} October 2012] — factually; Devon CC’s submissions for the Uffculme inquiries are deplorable; particularly because of the stealthy nature was clearly advancing from c1980; the becoming of Mrs Spurway in c2001 from Mr Spurway’s appointment as Mid Devon Council public rights of way warden in Jan 1991 is a significant and interesting occurence, one that is fundamental — and recorded in the Uffculme Parish Minutes.
Too much reliance was in play re two adjoined farms in the vicinity of the area to be called Hunkin Wood. It appears that contention was always there; the influence of bias from Land Registry in 1995-96, and its finding – paved the lies and deceit that flowed. Uffculme Parish Council and its Clerk foolishly adjoined with Mrs Parsons and Co., and it became their stratagem to conject a plethora of nonsense — having perceived their scheme would be watertight.
But it wasn’t; they hadn’t considered the factual history of the farm in question, and its correlation to King Edward III – 17th March 1336 — “the sporting farm of Cogan’s Park” Sir Richard Cogan Lord of the manor Bampton Hundred, that incorporated the Uffculme Hundred following the Battle of Hastings 1066; Uffculme belonged to Glastonbury Abbey in the mid ninth century. — The conspirators appear to have capitalised upon the elderly farmers vulnerability – when the man of the farm was significantly ill in the winter of 1995-96.
pavore carent qui nihil commiserunt; at pœnam semper ob oculos versari putant qui peccarunt: the innocent are free from fear; but the guilty have always the dread of punishment before their eyes.
Consider the following:
- When Cripple Lane was expropriated in the late nineties [it had been on the agenda of expropriation for over half a century] Jenny Parsons and Julie Rudge were complimented on their in-depth research; however; when you rationally evaluate what was happening conterminously and nationally, what happened after, you experience the evidential facts of liars and public cheats in a complex cartwheel conspiracy to defraud, fabricating evidence and (in simple) re-writing local history by presenting it in a contrived fashion to suit fraud;
- It happened re Violet Lane, Jenny Parsons & Emily Spurway fronted the corruption during the first two sham inquiries, then swapped; Roy Coombs and Julie Rudge fronted the evil retaliation against those objecting to ‘their’ histories of the Farm of Uffculme, Dunkeswell Abbey, and the boundaries of the manor hundreds of Uffculme & Hemyock.
- A complex serial fraud linking: Cripple Lane; Prescott Path and the plethora of paths in the vicinity of what is now Hunkin Wood; Violet Lane, The Old Dairy Gillards Penslade Path and Pitt Lane:
Mr Coombs’s challenging interpretation of Finance Act 1910 evidence in the expropriation of Cripple Lane at the beginning of the twenty-first century corroborates the evidence of a very arrogant man revealing himself inept and nasty in the face of polite truth. — The Finance Act 1910 surveyors recorded the adjoined parishes of Uffculme and Culmstock – under the letter C in alphabetical order – therefore the surveyors field books flow from Culmstock to Uffculme. This is significant because the documents record land ownership.
- The Planning Inspectorate’s letter of 20 April 2007, and DMO Guidance supplied, induced a belief, a legitimate expectation, that principles of natural justice would apply during the period of public inquiry(s).
In hindsight of personal experiences re the last ten years, clear evidence exists probative that the provision of DMO Guidance may meet some obscure act of necessity imposed upon the Planning Inspectorate; but the clear facts identify its provision or availability (notification of) is a deviant distraction to lure an objector (ordinarily naive) into a false sense of trust, give a legitimate expectation that fairness will take place; when in fact, the shambolic activity inclusive of [intentional delays] is used to perfection – is (has been) DEFRA and its agent provocateurs (political agents) game-plan, all along.
—When Mr Coombs provided his evidence submissions for the Violet Lane inquiry of Sept 2007, no one objecting to the Modification Order had sight of them until he read them out on the day; they were a complete nonsense, he’d endorsed the significant errors that the County Council representative had colluded with Mrs Parsons; farcically Julie Rudge endorsed the three of their fictions, but when challenged, second inquiry July 2008, Mr Coombs’s mind appeared buried in the sand; but, as previously, —his papers were not produced prior to the inquiry, they were read-out on the day. Unbeknown:
The Planning Inspectorate had been wilfully concealing evidence, on which Mr Millman had relied upon during both occasions and foundation to his inquiry reports 2007-2008. I made multiple requests to see use of the official tithe maps of Uffculme ‘specific substance’ following the release of Mr Millman’s 15th Oct 2007 statement. (And so it is that:]
By the time DEFRA’s innocent and naive victims begin to sense any reasonable conception of what is/has taken place, because (it is reasonable to infer) they are confused; oppressed and in total bewilderment, —their only point of challenge is in the High Court, but without any sincere cooperation from the Planning Inspectorate, are likely to be doomed.
“Do Not!” believe using the ‘Ombudsman Service’ re ‘public rights of way’ or ‘planning’ will get you anywhere; you may spend many hours (measured in evenings and days). I believe it will be a significant period of your life wasted; the Financial Ombudsman Service is not the same [my emphasis]; do not be drawn into a false sense of security from seeing reports of successful cases re finance. The Planning Inspectorate will provide you with (or direct you to) the procedures of objecting and complaints (their publication). Very few instances of success are recorded – such is the prevarication & sophistry the conspiracies to defraud produce.
The statistics are readily available on the internet; in selecting the Ombudsman approach you compromise your probability of success because (in simple) you only get one attempt.
—You will probably believe that your cause/case is different to others previous; do not fall for this self-delusion, imposed fallacy. [For many this will be their first (& only) experience of challenging fiction.] You will be pleasant & polite; whilst ‘rudeness gets you nowhere’ – but DEFRA’s inquiries are not administered with impartiality; expect skulduggery and to be ignored when you tell the truth; it’s vicious.
I believe the most rational method of challenge is in within the criminal courts; there is no shame in starting a criminal prosecution, but expect the police to tell you it’s a civil matter; by then your mind is likely to be so vexed.. You need to be switched on from the beginning of all events – your administration has to be impeccable; your evidence will have to be very good, factual – not hear-say; focus on proof of fraud and other activities of public deceit. Do record public inquiries – it’s quite lawful; but don’t tell anyone -especially if the inspect’ asks at the beginning if anyone is or intends to record events; there is no requirement that anyone knows that you are recording a public event – DEFRA’s public inquiries lack proper jurisdiction – have little integrity compared with the upright courts of England & Wales.
Freedom of Information Act 2000; 77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure
(1) Where—
(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and
(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.
~
Argumentum ab inconvenienti plurium valet in lege : (Co. Litt. 66.)—An argument from inconvenience avails much in law.
Viperina est expositio quæ corrodit viscera textus : (11 Co. 34.)—It is a bad exposition which corrupts the text.
Ambiguitas verborum latens verificatione suppletur; nam quod ex facto oritur ambiguum verificatione facti tollitur : (Bac. Max. Reg. S3.)—Latent ambiguity of words may be supplied by evidence; for ambiguity arising upon the deed is removed by proof of the deed.
—Savile (Savill) v. Roberts (1698)(1795?) applies to the malicious activity, malfeasance in public office by Planning Inspectorate employees (names held) when they overtly assisted the withholding of evidence: BHS 60 page document. Three consecutive sham public inquiries took place effecting & affecting two historically adjoined farming estates having a wealth of common law evidence, illustrating criminal activity – stealthy appropriation in the Culm Valley spanning several decades.
Peter Millman had perjured most of the evidential fact within his first report Oct 2007, it was natural that a second inquiry should be demanded but with a different inspector. — But it was not to be; Annie Owen of the Planning Inspectorate working with others appears to have ensured the BHS primary 60 page document was unseen – remained withheld from those objecting to the Modification Order taking place. — It was a malicious act violating the principles of equality of arms; see Blatch v. Archer [1774]. Board of Education v. Rice [1911]. Johnson v. Youden [1951]. Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962]. Re K (Infants) [1963-65].
If the perpetrators had produced the BHS 60p document at the first inquiry when I raised the issue, they may have got away, escaped with the public deceit they’d nurtured for fifteen years and more. — But everything taking place around me during the process of inquiry, since being asked to provide a simple statement (user evidence statement), opposed ethics, and the principles of natural justice.
The facts being discussed during the first inquiry 2007 left me estranged; on plumbing, it became apparent that there had to be a significant underlying reason why documentation was being withheld.* During the early months I did not want to make irrational unjustified comments about anyone significantly involved in the expropriation taking place; perverse activity is difficult to accept. [*but what; all was surreal.]
I stopped my communications to Planning Inspectorate when it was absolutely evident that Mrs Annie Owen and others were withholding the information that I sought; that that should have been provided (notification of) before the first inquiry, and certainly when I raised the fact that everyone seeking the Order was relying on a fake map of 1852, unborn by eleven years when the tithe apportionments of 1840-41 were accepted by the Tithe Commission in 1841. — Nothing had been produced during the public inquiry to identify use of the official tithe map 1840 that had been accepted and (significantly) identified by the Tithe Commission – as accompanying the tithe apportionments. All the maps (3 tithe – 1 not) are clearly dated; the word ‘tithe’ does not exist on the 1852 map because it’s not a tithe map according to common law, it’s an overseers for the poor map for the 1852 survey.
In Wiseman v. Borneman (1971) Lord Morris said “I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be affected by the tribunal’s decision”
Withholding the BHS 60p document – considering the plethora of bad faith and deceit, was a deliberate act; I requested the Planning Inspectorate provide evidence of the official Tithe Commission map of 1840 being used, because the facts recorded no use whatsoever, the BHS representative appeared to have fabricated a document after first day of inquiry, and took it to the second day, its purpose to mislead (me); she should have provided the 60 page document – as should the Order Making Authority: Devon County Council; Peter Millman (chairing the sham inquiry) clearly and objectively – countered the truth. See:
Fagan v. Metropolitan Commissioner (1968-69) The defendant accidentally drove his car on to a policeman’s foot and when he realised, he refused to remove it immediately. It was held that the actus reus of the assault was a continuing act which, while started without mens rea, was still in progress at the time the mens rea was formed and so there was a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea sufficient to found criminal liability.
Regina v. Taylor (Michelle Ann) Regina v. Taylor (Lisa Jane) (1994) An investigating police officer had suppressed an inconsistent statement made by a highly material witness, and there was also complaint about press coverage during the trial. Held: The reporting was “unremitting, extensive, sensational, inaccurate and misleading”. Though the judge had given appropriate warnings to the jury, it was impossible to say that the jury had not been influenced. A fair trial was no longer possible, and the appeal succeeded, with no re-trial being possible either.
In R v. Maame Osei-Bonsu 22 June 2000 the defence made further disclosure requests of the CPS for the evidence which they failed to produce at the Crown Court. The CPS ignored them. Lord Justice Otton observed “the information that was requested was an entirely proper request & that the information was clearly disclosable”. At the Appeal a notebook was produced which Lord Justice Otton found contained “material in the notebook which was of considerable importance to the defence”. ~ is a most compatible authority that correlates with the BHS 60p document retention.
Ditto—In Mitsui & Co Ltd v. Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd [2005] it was held: Such relief was available “where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where the claimant requires the missing piece of the jigsaw.”
The precision timing of the 60p document’s release – corresponded with my provision deadline for any intended submission for the second inquiry; it had been withheld for nearly a year. Within; I was totally surprised by what [I believed] was the reason for its being withheld; but there was much more that I’d have to allow to enter my mind in an independently objective way as it was quite clear that the proof of evidence statements and verbal rhetoric provided to expropriate the lane from the farm was effluent absolute. Why?
æquo animo: with an even or equitable mind ~ the BHS representative had thrown caution to the wind; had totally disregarded the official maps accepted by the Tithe Commission as they did not live up to her expectation of grandeur, followed Assistant Tithe Commissioner Dawson’s recommended: plain engineers drawings without any ornate embellishment; she did not give RD Bevan’s tithe maps any credibility whatsoever; this is absolutely clear. But neither did DEFRA’s inspector, Peter Millman; during the first sham of Sept 2007 he was obstinate in his action to avoid looking at the facts detrimental to DEFRA’s bias cause – once a perjurer, always.. .
The facts clearly identify the BHS representative colluding with the Devon County Council representative, whose submission for the second inquiry (15 July 2008) contained a most interesting backdating of information — a farcical medley re tithe evidence, that is caught by estoppel: the Devon County Council proof of evidence for the first inquiry was totally dependant (absolute) on the 1852 overseers for the poor map – but with the twist of titling it: “The Tithe Map of Uffculme 1841” -my emphasis re 11 years incongruousness existing.
~
Non est disputandum contra principia negantem : (Co. Litt. 343.)—We cannot dispute against a man denying principles. — Peter Millman’s predisposition:
Mr Millman’s reports (15 Oct 2007 & 18 July 2008) are slippery and of devious accuracy. When he arrived at Madgelake Hall, Uffculme on 15 July 2008, Mr Millman did not arrive with a clear conscience; his purpose was to voice his anger, tell me a Barton was a farm yard, and challenge me to a duel – take him to court – because I’d stated he was bias, and had requested another (independently objective) inspector. Predisposed to challenge me:
He shouldn’t have been there. A plethora of legal dictionaries record Barton* correlates to Demesne – manor – manorial; particularly in/to Devon. Mr Millman’s argument appears too tainted by a totally foolish/absurd use of modern (twenty first century) dictionaries to evaluate documents of the 18th, 19th & 20th century — is just one of the tricks of this artisan’s perjurious trade. With manorial courts functioning in the 1920s it takes little..
*Noscitur a sociis : (3 T. R. 87.)—The meaning of a word maybe ascertained by reference to those associated with it. ~ The two tithe districts of the (Uffculme) Bampton hundred factually correlate to Cogan’s Park [addressed below].
The repugnant bias of Mr Millman’s wilfully closed mind came alive during this tirade; it boiled over at the end the day, when I asked the Devon County Council solicitor to record events a sham. Mr Millman’s report of 15 October 2007 was significantly offensive. ~ The events quasi, not proper tribunal or inquiry according to common law. The following..
Maltbridge Island Management Co v. SSE & Hertfordshire County Council [1998] –appears to provide a significant understanding why Peter Millman’s persona at public rights of way inquiries is that of a bully capitalising on the innocence of Sullivan J’s dictum. Maltbridge Island.. illustrates why it’s not rationally acceptable for any of Insp’ Peter Millman’s decisions to stand. It’s most evident that his mind’s capable of understanding rational interpretations of evidence, but it’s corrupted by personal bias; his position of public trust – as an adjudicator in legal affairs is similar to Jimmy Savile’s possession of unimpeded access to a secure mental hospitals where he could exploit – further disturb the minds of those vulnerable within*; Titus Oates the perjurer, and George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys of Wem, PC; aka. “The Hanging Judge.” all precede him. [*Millman’s elderly victims.]
In a separate case at Uffculme (same conspirators – Millman presiding) – July 2011:
TRF: Madam Parsons (& E Spurway) laughed at the Forestry Commission representative’s frustration at being deceived; TRF Alan Kind’s participation in the conspiracy to defraud Uffculme; assisted madams Parsons & Spurway against the Forestry Commission 2011 and in events re Pitt Lane Culmstock – Hemyock, Dec 2015 – 2016 is overt.
~ It was interesting to see Mr Millman’s ability to blow hot and cold during the public inquiries at Uffculme; it is rational to infer the comments about him nationally, regarding his lack of integrity* are true. It’s nauseating to see Millman perform, he’s not the only one Wednesbury-unreasonable. [See Richard Connaughton’s “The Fraternity” 21.07.2010]
~
TRF: Mr Coombs’s squeals of delight at the Uffculme Parish Clerk’s absence on 02.10.2012 during the third sham inquiry is actually recorded,* the malice retributive act – against me nexus Uffculme tithe evidence (my shield Savile v. Roberts) and the BHS 60p document’s concealment during first sham public inquiry, and its timed release inclusive of associated Planning Inspectorate letter. The Schedule 14 Application (for the inevitable third sham inquiry) appears made by the conspirators to coincide with, 12 days before, the second.
[*The Parish Clerk’s participation is most significant, and is identified later on within; the events are complex and vast; it isn’t rational to digress currently – it is addressed later.]
The transcript of the above third successive sham public inquiry reveals how the Inspector, Helen Slade, shielded Mr Coombs when he proved himself to be merely the messenger of Mrs Parsons. Only in Dec 2016 was I able to grasp the facts – comprehend the complexity. Enter Alan Kind; was he now the messenger or protector of Mrs Parsons, always involved in the stealthy duplicity, i.e., prior to 2011? Mr Coombs’s (absolute) ignorance of the facts that he was presenting on behalf of the Devon Green Lanes Group soon disintegrated during the course of third inquiry; as his co-conspirators: Madams Rudge, Spurway & Parsons – revealed their involvement; the contrivance collapsed; it was farcical:
[Page 5] 24. Fraud Act 2006:
..cases where the accused cannot be proved to have had the necessary degree of knowledge of the substantive offence to be perpetrated; it all evolved from Mrs Parsons’s trickery.
Maleficia propositis distinguuntur : (Jenk. Cent. 290.)—Evil deeds are distinguished from evil purposes. ~ It is human to make multiple mistakes in life, results may be circuitous; but if events (when viewed retrospectively) have irrefutable form and a clear controlled organisational structure targeting and appropriating the personal and/or private rights of others, involves skulduggery & stealth; there is – immaterial of any initial good intention, a case to answer, the perpetrators are accountable in law.
Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt : (8 Co. 167.)—The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood. ~ I began reading the common law in 2009. Prior to this my primary knowledge of statute was City & Guilds in plumbing (distinctions) and regular reassessments (quinquennial) in natural gas, liquid petroleum gas (LPG) [‘CORGI’ ‘Gas safe’], OFTEC – oil, and unvented hot water & heating systems; faultfinding & system design and analysis ─ a Registered Plumber.. involves Building Regulations. I do not intend to present myself as a solicitor. My interests involve psychology and character, their effect on the environment, ‘vulnerable children – adults’, and corruption infecting society.
Let the truth be heard, expose the arrogation for what it is.
Fault finding and system design/analysis requires common sense, if DEFRA inspectors were to apply common sense during situations that necessitate it, the outcome of many inquiries would be different. Corruption during public inquiries and tribunals requires acts of irrationality, an agenda opposing science of evidence & truth. It needs an inner core – an infrastructure to facilitate the plethora of political frauds and public deceit necessary to avoid its manifestation. Transitioning to a society of leisure ~ Labour’s DEFRA:
Once the foundation is laid – an infrastructure in place, successive government does not ordinarily make changes to departments where public awareness is not apparent of the engine of deceit existing; departments remain. Few staff leave their posts, and whatever political sway fundamental to the corruption remains active. Departmental changes can remain pretty much the same; any changes-recruitment are actuated by the shadow of political bias – jobbery.
Cotton v. James (1830) The burden of proof can shift during the course of a trial.
Silence in circumstances in which a party would be expected to answer might convert evidence into proof. ~ Gray v. Haig & Son (1855) – destruction of evidence;
My ten years of direct participation provides an evidence chain of many links; the complex stretching of fact and interwoven fiction that will, would effectively, confuse anyone having no interest in understanding evil minds; but ordinarily, as evidence goes, it is reasonable to comprehend.
In, Ubi cadem ratio ibi idem lex; et de similibus idem est judicium : (Co. Litt. 191.)—Where there is the same reason, there is the same law; ..of things similar, the judgment is similar. Of stealth; habits and form; a man’s acts at one time are looked to as guides to an opinion to be formed of his acts at another.
From Rex v. Bond [1906] – Justice Kennedy, we see why travelling instigators at DEFRA’s quasi assizes are accountable for their activity if it involves unlawful conspiracy to defraud:
The court considered the rule excluding evidence of the defendant’s bad character: “The general rule cannot be applied where the facts which constitute distinct offences are at the same time part of the transaction which is the subject of the indictment. Evidence is necessarily admissible as to acts which are so closely and inextricably mixed up with the history of the guilty act itself as to form part of one chain of relevant circumstances, and so could not be excluded in the presentation of the case before the jury without the evidence being thereby rendered unintelligible.” The court gave examples of trials for murder or wounding, where evidence is given to show prior assaults by the accused on the victim, or menaces or threats uttered to him.
Ubi lex aliquem cogit ostendere causam necesse est quod causa sit justa et legitima : (2 Inst. 269.)—Where the law compels a man to show cause, it is incumbent that the cause be just and legal.
DEFRA’s Planning Inspectorate – inclusive of its own appointed inspectors ensure that when any objectors citing activity and occurrences at other ‘local’ inquiries and how events involve contradictions of ‘applied-evidence’ in those hearings correlate; are overtly ignored or told by the inspector, that they (the inspector – in simple) cannot and will not consider – take notice of anything involving “other inquiries”;* – this was most apparent at Uffculme 2 Oct 2012. [*Inquiries involving irrefutably adjoined evidence.] — And so it is:
The inspectors, when assisted by the instigators, then appear to achieve the minimum sway/result required, aware that any further challenge ordinarily has to be made in the High Court. Ordinarily this does not take place, the cost of doing so prohibitive; it’s an oppressive fact.
The requirement above is achieved by the principles of distinction between circumstantial or incidental evidence, or not being so, by applying the principles of Regina v. Exall (1866).
From my experiences at DEFRA’s public rights of way inquiries, the inspectors are looking for just a thread of substance re an angle of evidence; ordinarily the instigators of inquiries provide three to four distinct (weak) angles of. The inspectors add their own gloss to these threads so that they each resemble a cord. Three or more cords [entwined – my emphasis] is rope (according to Baron Pollock CB – 1866), and the fiction of discovery carries.
Gomersall (1875) 1 ChD 137, and Peek v. Gurney (1873) illustrates fraudulent knowledge; they are supported by Brownlie v. Campbell (1880). Applying Regina v. Ellis [1899]* to the brazen activity of travelling from parish to parish inciting changes to the Definitive Map as a discovery of evidence necessitates change … according to statute; and inspectors willfully remaining indifferent to [won’t recognise or receive] lucid common law documents nexus with/to statute
*In the case of what is a result crime in English Law, the offence is committed in England and justiciable by an English court if any part of the proscribed result takes place in England. The gist of the offence of obtaining by false pretences lies in the act of obtaining, and that if this act is done within the jurisdiction it matters not that the false pretence was made abroad.
In House of Lords, Hodgetts v. Chiltern District Council [1983] Lord Roskill: “It is not an essential characteristic of a criminal offence that any prohibited act or omission, in order to constitute a single offence, should take place once and for all on a single day. It may take place, whether continuously or intermittently, over a period of time.”
Mr Kind’s significant involvement at Uffculme in 2011 and during the Pitt Lane inquiry of Dec 2016 illustrate how role-play reversal during a conspiracy to defraud – the Fraud Act 2006 harmonize, is forensic to our comprehending the inquiry fixing, and why innocent victims are oppressed. Mr Kind’s participation at Hemyock in Dec 2016 does not appear to be coincidental according to Regina v. Exall (1866); just like Mr Coombs before, he carried and presented in similar conspired fashion, the nonsense that appears to carry the scent of Madams Parsons, Spurway and (the late) Julie Rudge, from earlier times about the valley.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA); Section 125(7) of the SOCPA amended the definition of course of conduct in section 7(3) of the PHA so that in relation to two or more persons a course of conduct means conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each person. ..a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions, and in relation to the harassment of two or more persons, it means conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each person. It is clearly a matter for the courts, on a case by case basis to determine whether two or more incidents amount to a course of conduct which consequently leads to persons being alarmed or distressed.
Much understanding can be gleaned from reading Mrs Parsons primary statements for the Pitt Lane and Violet Lane inquiries; the events of participation are particularly significant. The two documents corroborate entity of conspiracy, decadence from an innocent cause; if at the beginning – it (innocence) existed at all.
[arena sine calce: sand without cement] animus homini, quicquid sibi imperat, obtinet: the mind of a man can accomplish whatever it resolves to do ─ but ─ in arena ædificas: you are building on sand (i.e., it is in vain), when expropriation and procurement is based on dishonesty and fictional nonsense is being accepted by predisposed (bias) quasi courts.
It is reasonable to infer a course of criminal conduct; when reading the afore primary statements in conjunction with the slim profile of Mrs Parsons’s BHS summary for the first Violet Lane inquiry 18 Sept 2007 (the reader) “aware of the time difference separating the two documents (Violet Lane) and [late] proximity to inquiry” — in correlation to the ‘Schedule 14 Application’ which appeared to be a retributive act, and not coincidental, in timing with the second (sham) public inquiry 12 days later. Following Rex v. Bond [1906];
The opinion of Lord Sands in ‘Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68; [1930] ScotHC HCJAC’ is a very good example to begin with to comprehend LIAREs @ Inquiries; bearing in mind it was written c80 years prior to the culmination of bad faith and stealth re the Definitive Map Review, Uffculme. Written at a time of poverty/recession, but when social/moral values and communities were much greater than they are now. It is my experience that the DEFRA appointed Inspector Millman is detached from the truth, unhinged; with this in mind this case law is purposely included because of the quality of definition, and relevance to evidence, construing the acts of stealth. Lord Sands:
“..It is, however, as I humbly think, desirable that, when a full bench has been convened to consider a matter of this kind, we should make some endeavour to go to the root of the matter. … Accordingly, the matter, as I understand it, with which we are here concerned, is limited to the question of the relevancy of evidence in support of one charge as corroboration of the evidence in support of another charge libelled in the same indictment.
… The two offences may be of such a peculiar character or have such incidents attending them as to satisfy a reasonable mind that they were committed by one and the same person. … even though there was a considerable interval of time between the two offences, no reasonable mind could resist the conclusion that identification of the accused as the man who committed the one offence was corroborative of his identification as the man who had committed the other. Any rule of law which was deemed to forbid this would, in my view, be quite unreasonable.
The other landmark is what has been described as embarking on a course of conduct. Where the accused, about the time the alleged offence was committed, has embarked upon a certain peculiar course of conduct, the fact that he had done so its corroborative of evidence of a special act alleged to have been committed in pursuance of that course of conduct. …
A great deal of the argument in the present case turned upon the question of time—the interval between the alleged acts. This is an important and, in some aspects, a vital consideration. This results from the quality of the acts as evidence of a “course of conduct.” A “course” involves some continuity. Acts isolated by a long period of time do not make a course of conduct. But whether a series of acts is to be regarded as disclosing a course of conduct must depend upon the nature of the acts themselves and the surrounding circumstances.
A course does not necessarily imply that the offence is committed or attempted every day or even every month. Opportunity or inclination may be intermittent. A man whose course of conduct is to buy houses, insure them, and burn them down, or to acquire ships, insure them, and scuttle them, or to purport to marry women, defraud and desert them, cannot repeat the offence every month, or even perhaps every six months.
Time, however, may undoubtedly be an important factor in determining whether evidence imports a certain course of conduct. As I have already indicated, misconduct of a general character, if I may use the expression, even though frequent, will not suffice. There must be some special circumstances connecting the incidents in order that it may be held that a course of conduct is established. …
But in judging of any particular charge, the jury are entitled to take into account evidence led in support of another charge only in so far as it is relevant to the particular charge they are considering. It is relevant to this effect only when there is such an interrelation between the two charges that evidence in support of the one will aid a reasonable understanding in coming to a just conclusion in regard to the other.”
~
æquam servare mentem: to preserve an equal mind (or even temper)
Lord Sands dicta is clearly supported by later authorities; in Regina v. Kray (1969):
“The drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before.”
The court discussed how cases could be joined: “All that is necessary to satisfy the rule is that the offences should exhibit such similar features as to establish a prima facie case that they can properly and conveniently be tried together.”
In Jemmison v. Priddle [1972] Lord Widgery CJ: “it is legitimate to charge on a single information one activity even though the activity may involve more than one act”. ~ In the R. v. Lake (1976) Lord Widgery LCJ – Subject to a judge’s discretion to order separate trials in the interests of justice, there are powerful public reasons why joint offences should be tried jointly.
See: O’Leary v. R (1946) 73 CLR 566 – drunken orgy lasting several hours re workers at a timber camp. &, Distiller’s Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson [1971] AC 458. &, Hodgetts v. Borg [1982]
~
Like many political organisations good and bad can be found within ─ extremists abound.
A multiple of different agendas makes truth difficult to hear, compromises fact & elevates fiction. Are you a victim of the corruption ─ fake news ─ fraudulent re-writing/portrayal of evidence? Would you travel the country manipulating and twisting history? As Devon County Council supported their employees performing this illicit bent – vicarious liability applies.
True justice and plumbers of factual truth prefer factual corroboration, not errant hearsay.
Rerum ordo confunditur, si unicuique jurisdictio non servetur : (4 Inst. Proem.)—The order of things is confounded if every one keeps not within his jurisdiction:
At the beginning of all public inquiries DEFRA’s – self appointed inspectors identify* their purpose and duty is to look objectively at the facts presented to them. ─ They wilfully state desirability and suitability for use are not factors that they can consider; but DEFRA’s pro-horse bias has been on the political agenda of those that caused the transition from MAFF to DEFRA in 2001. [*You find this declaration at the beginning of their reports, thus the events appear perjurious.] We can apply Regina v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Soblen [1963] 2 QB 243. Lord Denning:
“If it was done for an authorised purpose, it was lawful. If it was done professedly for an authorised purpose, but in fact for a different purpose with an ulterior object, it was unlawful.”
Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo prohibetur et per obliquum : (Co. Litt. 223.)—When anything is prohibited directly, it is also prohibited indirectly.
Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur omne per quod devenitur ad illud : (2 Inst. 48.)—When anything is prohibited, everything relating to it is prohibited.
As DEFRA’s pro-horse bias was published shortly after 2001 its communications to Devon County Council make interesting reading. ─It would be helpful to know whether or not the significant (pro-horse) survey that evolved was exclusive to Devon County Council* or that other counties – shires such as Somerset & Dorset also conspired. Conspired because the factuality of underhand dealings, ─clearly recorded existing in the early 1990s evolved into the sham public inquiries that have taken place ’20 years’ after the ’20 year rule’ of the Highways Act 1980 written into the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (1981 + 20) = 2001.
*If other counties were not involved in similar legitimate survey (absolutely) it is rational to infer, from the facts that I have seen (merely the tip of the iceberg) that Devon County Council’s public rights of way department has been the training centre ‘boot-camp’ of the corruption that caused and undermined Parliament’s intention to have an accurate definitive map of public rights of way in England & Wales, according to the common law. DEFRA’s communications and the ensuing significant survey enable me to understand the bias against me post 2nd Aug 2007 – why they inversed the withholding of inquiry papers.
Politiæ legibus non leges politiis adaptandæ : (Hob. 154.)—Politics are to be adapted to the laws, and not the laws to politics. The common law clearly identifies that:
Significant corruption was clearly in play in the early 1990’s (Uffculme Parish Minutes) to enable conspiracy theorists consideration that the ‘foot and mouth endemic – 2001’ could have been a contrivance to distract public attention from the creation of the administrative mechanism necessary for the (inevitable) plethora of prolific discoveries and falsification.
What if the foot and mouth endemic was a contrivance; a disturbing thought, bordering rational, considering DEFRA have demonstrated copious acts of bad faith. Would – could Tony Blair’s agent provocateurs have caused the foot and mouth endemic to facilitate the changes to administrational departments necessary to manage the fraudulent discoveries and fictional dedications of the past?
[Digressing:]
─ Before we look at the alleged principles of the definitive map as per the ‘Countryside and Rights of Way Act 1949′ (the 1949 Act), should we not consider the disruptive impact that DEFRA’s purpose has had on the integrity of schooling in England & Wales, its promotion of lies & deceit re local history during public inquiries. What message is being conveyed?
Should children think/believe, tell their children in the future, that duplicity or corruption in public office is justified? ─Is DEFRA’s promotion of undermining history not overt evil; where does the corruption stop – does wilfully causing a campaign of stealth & dishonesty convey the wrong message?
Can we correlate the breakdown of access to justice in the U.K. to the immense difficulties that good teachers face from any corrupting factor: promotion of corrupt practices, ─bad faith from within local & national authority. ─ Is politics too encroaching on education? There is absolute absurdity in the cheating and falsification – doctoring – of exam results in order to award equal results (ensure pupils are scored evenly); it is rational to infer that all pupils will have different academic abilities and difficulties, but scoring should include effort made by the individual, and by result; (emphasis) two different score (sheet) tallies.
A pupil with a below average working memory may work ten times harder than a pupil not impeded: has an above average working memory; the former mentally tired, burnt out well before the latter. ─Those familiar with Microsoft Vista compared to XP; Vista replacing XP was like ‘a step back in time’, provides a rational comparative between a below average ~ and an above average working memory. The difference between above average working memory and below should be consideration, a most essential one – to be looked at before any secondary education.
If teachers are perpetually thwarted by bureaucracy (post 1990), and SATs scoring prevail over any children with working memory difficulties, all is irrational; but when you add the corruption that was designed: DEFRA – to administer the destruction of the definitive map by unlawful/dishonest means; it’s unacceptable.
Ditto; how will giving local authorities more power ─ ability to issue fines at will: exaction – ‘Pay or Challenge!’ improve society’s worth & common values, if/when no rational access to factual justice appears to exist? Devon County Council’s public rights of way department sullies the rest of the County Council ─ but vicarious liability remains.
“It’s a civil matter.” Is often stated by police officers (appearing to) affront the reporting of crime; regular newspaper reports & media articles are supported by personal experiences.
Are our police forces being crippled by austerity, or political dominance and convenient bias; from reading the reports there appear too many shackles on those carrying the cuffs; “We can’t do everything” -is the message from Devon and Cornwall Police – “..we will protect vulnerable people” [Front & 2nd pages of ‘The Culm Valley Gazette’ – 29 Aug 2017]
We cannot rely upon the police to enforce the law re public rights of way, because they are too quick to point out that: “..it’s a civil matter!“; the homeless at Windsor should be left for the local council to deal with/assist; not the police!
It is quite clear that the police have more significantly diverse challenges mundane, and it appears that these events have not occurred overnight. They have taken a parallel course:
[Resuming] The definitive map & statement should form the legal record of all the known public rights of way in Devon (and nationally: England & Wales). ─ It should be accurate without any corrupting blemish, but the facts illustrate a farce. Let’s look at the basics:
─ Each public right of way is classified as a footpath, bridleway, byway open to all traffic or a restricted byway (see examples described below). For each path, the route is indicated by a line on the map & the notation used indicates its classification.
The statement also describes the path’s route and type, with some other details. By law, the map and statement provide conclusive* proof of the existence of every path they show so that you know you are entitled to use any of them.
[*Ending all argument; decisive, convincing.]
Footpath: a right of way for the public on foot only.
Bridleway: a right of way for the public on foot, riding or leading a horse or on a bicycle.
Restricted byway: a right of way for the public on foot, riding or leading a horse and with any non-motorised vehicle such as a bicycle or horse-drawn vehicle.
Byway open to all traffic: a public right of way for all users but one which is mostly used like a bridleway.
A private right of way may exist on any of these public rights of way, e.g., landowners may drive to their properties, whilst the public access is by foot only.
Correcting the definitive map and statement:
It is possible that in the past some paths have been shown on the wrong route or with the wrong classification, included by mistake or omitted altogether. If you think the map or statement are wrong, there is a legal procedure for changing or modifying them.
This allows path users and landowners to be kept informed of the reasons for the change and to comment on it.
These comments should be based on evidence about what rights of way actually exist and this may consist of historical records documenting the creation of a path or showing how a path has been treated in official records in the past. Alternatively the evidence may consist of witnesses who have used a path for a period of time, usually twenty years, in such a way that the landowner must have meant to dedicate it for public use. “Accuracy of, The Definitive Map consistency guide 3 revision June (See DMO Folder)”*:
4.14 The Definitive Map and Statement are conclusive as to the status of the highways described, generally without prejudice to the possible existence of higher rights (defra Circular 1/09, WO Circular 5/93). This conclusivity is not, however, a permanent feature: as Lord Diplock put it in Suffolk CC v Mason (1979) The entry on the definitive map does not necessarily remain conclusive evidence forever. It had been held, in the case of Rubinstein v Secretary of State for the Environment (1989), that once a right of way was shown on a definitive map, it could not be deleted, but the judgments in Simms & Burrows 1981 made it clear that s53 of WCA 81 allowed both for the addition or upgrading of rights of way on the discovery of new relevant evidence, and for their downgrading or deletion. In his judgment Purchas LJ stated that he could see no provision in the 1981 Act specifically empowering the local authority to create a right of way by continuing to show it on the map, after proof had become available that it had never existed. Parliament’s purpose, expressed in WCA 81, he said, included the duty to produce the most reliable map and statement that could be achieved, by taking account of changes in the original status of highways or even their existence resulting from recent research or discovery of evidence.
4.15 Parish/community councils usually provided the information regarding the routes to be added to the Definitive Map and Statement and the status of those routes. It is not uncommon for witnesses (e.g. local inhabitants, parish/community councils or user organisations) to assert that the parish/ community council’s inputs to the Definitive Map process are not reliable. It is variously argued that they did not have the proper guidance, or that they misinterpreted it and these assertions then form the basis of the case for the modification. The Memorandum attached to Circular No.81 was distributed down to parish council / parish meeting level and the legal ‘presumption of regularity’ applies. Unless claimants can demonstrate otherwise, it should be assumed that a parish/community council received this detailed guidance and complied with it. The diligence with which a parish/community council met the remit is a different question. The Council minutes can be a useful source of information on this, and other local highway issues which have arisen since the relevant date. As the minutes are a public record of the perception of the parish/ community council at that time, and therefore probably also represent the perception of parishioners, they may carry significant evidential weight. [*DMO Consistency Guidelines – 6th revision April 2010 Section 4 pages 7 & 8]
—But what happens if the recording of the definitive map is riddled with wilful inaccuracy; is inaccurate due to absolute stealth, errant hearsay, overt lies, bad faith, misfeasance and counterfeisance: corruption by those in public office;
—what if the conclusive proof that has been provided is nothing more than a counterfeit nullity founded upon a conspiracy to defraud: fictitious, contrived discovery & unlawful usurpation; as identified above?
What happens when public officials place reports before others: corrupt civil servants, public agent provocateurs, equally willing to collude with fellow artisans skilled in deceit & sophistry? Ordinarily one would say “Chaos!” – when the afore blends; it is intrinsically the same – it is linked (with that that follows). Consider the Russian Olympics scandal re drug abuse and doping; the general public are not happy with what appears to be public fraud.
What if many charismatic and ostentatious scoundrels embellish obscene discoveries of landowner dedication; create/complicit fiction and collude with others, also inept, willing to withhold the embellished reports & papers from those who require to see them; and public inquiries are manipulated by others in joint enterprise… —a synergy exists based upon bad faith and unlawful conduct; thus in Ferrell v. The Queen (Gibraltar) 2010 it was influenced by the authorities of R. v. Kray (1969-1970), and Ludlow v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] — a ‘series of offences of a similar character’: if DEFRA’s inspectors are of closed mind – wilfully blind:
When a series of events involving the same illicit acts by the same players flow from one parish to the next in organised fashion, with subtle changes be it in person/organisation submitting documents alleging discovery, & have inverted their use of self-submitted fact from a previous event(s); as has been the case re the upper Culm Valley, despite the fact that its history (upper Culm Valley) is ‘Impeccably!’ documented, —and the principles of natural justice are continually thwarted by the same government department controlling the public inquiries;
—the result is a pretentious sham: Bovis Homes Ltd. v. New Forest District Council [2002]. The Definitive Map Review re public rights of way is corrupt; those accountable for its overt ruin should appear before proper courts, where maladministration can be fathomed, and the fraud exposed judicially.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: conspiracy: The action or an act of conspiring; (a) combination of people for an unlawful or a reprehensible purpose; an agreement so to combine, a plot.
Quæ mala sunt inchoata in principio vix bono peragantur exitu : (4 Co. 2.)—Things bad in the commencement seldom achieve a good end.
By 2005 DEFRA was supporting the Countryside Agency: (extract from the following link)
..Thousands of miles of ancient and defunct tracks across private land – some which have lain forgotten for 500 years – are to be reopened to the public at a cost of £20 million.
Researchers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will record every path, track and byway listed in public archives and, if no record can be found of the route being legally closed, it will be reinstated. Many of the tracks will be open to 4×4 vehicles. …
“The researchers are going back as far as they can, which means looking at maps and old church tithe records from as long ago as 1500,” … “Under the current legislation, if a route is found to have been used by horses and carts hundreds of years ago, and there is no evidence of legal closure, the only way we can record it is as a byway for use by all traffic.
Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, said that the project would encourage more people to visit the countryside. “Historic routes are a priceless and fascinating part of our heritage,” he said. “I am delighted that we now have a structured and systematic way of tracking down the lost ways so that they can be recorded for everyone’s benefit.”
And; from: www.sal.org.uk/salon/archive/issue no=96&f=2&fs=undefined&cs=undefined
..the following* is identical; illustrates that the fraud that is – the Definitive Map Review, identifies the conflict of interest: factual truths versus predisposition; the later prevalent because bias is absolute during the DEFRA – Planning Inspectorate partnership.
From experience it’s clear that the majority of DEFRA’s inspectors are blind to all/any comprehension of clear documentation of heritage; they adjudicate with antipathy and disregard common sense when fantasy & nonsense is presented re historic documents.
*Rediscovering lost ways:
The Countryside Commission has announced that it has set up a new Archive Research Unit (ARU) to undertake a systematic trawl of historic documents held in national and local records offices throughout England to find evidence of ancient rights of way. The aim is to uncover and map as many historic footpaths and bridleways as possible over the next twenty-one years, before the deadline of 1 January 2026 set by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for registering rights of way on the definitive map. For further information, see the Countryside Commission Website [link removed – as not functional].
The detailed evidence collection will start with research in the National Archives at Kew, utilising the collection of Tithe and Finance Act Records. This will be followed by a staged approach to county-based research in local records offices, beginning in two lead areas Wiltshire and Cheshire. In advance of this evidence collection, base maps will be prepared using OS contemporary mapping supplemented with available local authority information. A comparison will be made with digitised OS pre-war Historical Map Data County Series.
Archive research in the two lead areas will be completed in May 2005. This will be expanded to collect all of the available evidence for ten counties by the end of the third year of the project. In advance of research beginning in each county, Regional Planning and Liaison Officers (RPLO) will contact key interest groups, including rights of way and archive officers, volunteer groups and experienced researchers, landowners and managers to explain the approach.
Launching the Lost Ways project, Alun Michael, MP, Rural Affairs Minister, said that Historic routes are a priceless and fascinating part of our heritage. He said that the cut-off date of 2026 did not mean an end to new pathway creation: instead the creation of a definitive map would enable local authorities to think strategically about a network that meets the need of users of today and the future, and to create new links where these would be valuable. He also emphasised that there was an important role for volunteers in the mapping project.
~
..and so it was that Jenny Parsons and Julie Rudge used the title: ‘researcher of lost ways’; they would make any number of abhorrent misrepresentations to steal rights of way across Devon..
In 2012 Alun Michael was chosen as the Labour Party candidate for the inaugural election for Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales; was re-elected in 2016 — a Justice of the Peace since 1972. But what of (from the above Telegraph article): “Historic routes are a priceless and fascinating part of our heritage” and “..we now have a structured and systematic way of tracking down the lost ways so that they can be recorded for everyone’s benefit.”
It would be unfair to ‘tar’ Mr Michael with the same brush as Madams Parsons & Co., but would he have been rubbing shoulders with Hilary Benn S of S DEFRA when he (Benn) was inciting trespass during the 2009 Labour Party Conference; Jenny Parsons structured and systematic way of tracking down the lost ways – was contrary to any fascination or respect for our local heritage; her overt disregard for English heritage was shared by Peter Millman.. , most apparent 15th July 2008; and the perjury of Madams Helen Slade & Sue Doran that followed.
Was/is Mr Michael blind to the bias corruption that emanated from within the Planning Inspectorate offices on behalf of DEFRA and it’s conspiracy to defraud the public re public rights of way?
~
The Attorney General’s 09.01.2007 introduction to the Fraud Act 2006 makes interesting reading.
Some people may think that they are above the law, and do so; it may be that they become accountable but do not realise that what they are doing is a public wrong. However; when it is evident that some are clearly acting in common purpose with others, & their common purpose illustrates public evil nexus public inquiry fixing, fraud & wilful corruption of public justice; it is rational & reasonable to infer that they, of dark faith, are no different to common criminals; given enough rope (many corrupt/sham inquiries) they will perish:
Crime: In the Del Basso case,* Lord Justice Leveson concluded by quoting from the final remarks of the trial judge, Mr Justice Baker QC, who said:
I have received the strong impression that neither the [appellants] nor their accountants appreciated fully the risk that the companies and individuals involved in the park and ride operation faced from confiscation proceedings.
They have treated the illegality of the operation as a routine business risk with financial implications of the form of potential fines or, at worst, injunctive proceedings. This may reflect a more general public impression among those confronted by enforcement notices with the decision whether to comply with the law or to flout it.
The law, however, is plain. Those who choose to run operations in disregard of planning enforcement requirements are at risk of having the gross receipts of their illegal businesses confiscated. This may greatly exceed their personal profits. In this respect they are in the same position as thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers.
[*Case: Del Basso & Goodwin v. R (2010) EWCA Crim 1119]
The above case relates to capitalizing from the flouting & abuse of planning regulations re airport parking; those involved found it financially viable (profitable) to pay penalties & or fines. We are supposed to live in a democracy, DEFRA’s pro socialism is ugly.
It should not be that public rights of way can be contrived and then added to the Definitive map, but that is what has happened re the reviews of the said Map of the borders of Devon & Somerset; public events have exposed a significant complex evil, many a multiple public fraud; acts of misfeasance and malfeasance in public office. What example does it set?
If ignorance of the law does not excuse, why; should disdainful overt acts of illicit inquiry fixing fraud prosper, when those inciting criminality are informed but throw caution to the wind because they are the same evil; should we be silent/not posterize?
Not according to Marlene Masters, now 80, a local campaigner who helped the late Mr & Mrs Peppard, and their son Rodney:
(Acronyms) (a) LAWS: Logical Analysis of Written Substance, (b) Logical Inconsistencies Applying Regular Evidence Speciously @ Inquiries: LIAREs @ Inquiries:
This country is having its heritage undermined by antagonists of truth, those that openly declare (are recorded saying) that they* will pervert evidence during public inquiries.
*The upper Culm Valley [Hemyock, Culmstock, Uffculme] has had its history and heritage re-written by Mrs Jenny Parsons (British Horse Society, Devon Green Lanes Group, and Taunton Vale Harriers inclusive its branch of the ‘The Pony Club’), working in illicit stealth and collaboration with others such as Emily Spurway of Devon County Council, whom it seems, continued (& shared) Richard Spurway’s eleven years recorded dealings in the Culm Valley January 1993 forward – “Not a clear case of nepotism, according to Emily!”; does it matter:
Alan Kind, Mr Roy E Coombs of the Devon Green Lanes Group & The Devon Trail Riders Fellowship (DTRF) with the late Julie Rudge, have fraternised with J Parsons, E Spurway and others ‘?,?’ appear of the same bent to embellish reports, and withhold such reports during sham public inquiries, to undermine, and generally corrupt any element of truth being heard, in order to sustain that what appears to be a perverse criminal fetish.
Qui per fraudem agit, frustrà agit : (2 Rol. Rep. 17.)—What a man does fraudulently, he does in vain.
Peccatum peccato addit qui culpæ quam facit patrocinium defensionis adjungit : (5 Co. 49.)—He adds one offence to another who, when he commits an offence, joins the protection of a defence.
The conspirators illicit dealings were made worse by the assistance that they received from public servants working at the Planning Inspectorate* and politically bent inspectors such as Peter Millman, Helen Slade and Susan Doran, cheating with unreasonably closed minds Wednesbury [1948]. They appear to set out to endorse the skulduggery & perverse inquiry fixing with their own self-sophistry & embellishing fraud. [*There appears little margin for truth being heard; –educated minds appear wilfully ignorant in an illicit union to deceive.]
When I was initially requested to write a simple statement (of the facts as I knew them) I did not know much about the political corruption existing re public rights of way – changes to. Facing abstract barriers (698. Regina v. Richardson Unreported, 09 May 1991):
Unravelling the facts; those acting corruptly tended to cover their tracks,* it soon became apparent that an overt arrogance existed; whilst I witnessed the vibrant excitement at the inquiries, I also had to contend with a multitude of different agendas, from close quarters, which appeared both stupid & selfish, that have been undermining & frustrating the truth, their own credibility; it has made what was initially a straightforward complex situation intensively more difficult, affected my ability to compose the factual truth – focus during the ensuing public inquiries that affected, by reducing, the local communities hearing.
[*Lord Diplock: “Corruption in the public service is a grave social event which is difficult to detect, for those who take part in it will be at pains to cover their tracks.” Public Prosecutor v. Yuvaraj (1970)] -the principles of this authority apply to any hidden agenda.
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi : (9 Co. 20.)—Truth fears nothing but concealment. Once you use euphemisms truth becomes tainted; what I have witnessed and experienced during the period of August 2007 – 2017 (a decade – 10 years) is for the public to know.
The disturbances continually alternating across England and Wales are reminiscent of the 17th century inclusive of the English Civil War and the perjury behind the Popish Plot.
—The reader may be shocked or offended by what is written, but shouldn’t worry if they’re not part of the significant blight, that’s now very much sham truth, perverse characters & evil folk law; the chronicles of Five Fords – Brookshill, the manorial and parish boundaries that connect Uffculme & Culmstock, —were the epicentre of much conflict Dunkeswell Abbey [16 Feb 1201 – 14 Feb 1539 (Valentine day)].
“There has never been a scoundrel, however black, who did not find somebody who would maintain that he was a misunderstood or mistaken idealist..” Nigel Balchin in c1950: the Introduction of – ‘Anatomy of Villainy’:
It is one of the most sublime of all human illusions that time is on the side of truth─that:
“When all its work is done, the lie shall rot. The truth is great and shall prevail When none cares whether it prevail or not.” ~ Naturally papers that remain, are probative of evil.
During investigation; I have read the parish minutes of Uffculme 1894> (reproduced the rights of way & leisure entries) in their entirety, and have a much greater awareness and understanding of Tithe Act 1836 (1936) &, the Finance Act 1910 documents of Culmstock & Uffculme (surveyed as two separate parishes under Culmstock), and the local authority records of the 1940s, those that are portrayed by Madams’ Parsons, Rudge & Spurway – with Mr Coombs; all appear wilfully blind to their own (obscene) ignorance and perversity of local and national history – informative guidance of the period Tithe and Finance Acts.
Nimium altercando Veritas amittitur : (Hob. 344.)—By too much altercation truth is lost.
I do not fiction an interest in local history like Mrs Parsons. My interest is sincere, I look at the facts objectively; if I discover unidentified public right of way, I will declare it; but all I have seen is deceit; if a public right of way exists, why the stealth bad faith & illicit activity; it should not require intensive criminal activity to make a public right of way apparent. In Dec 2015, Hemyock, on several occasions Mrs Parsons openly identified her intent during public inquiries was not to portray truth – these confessions are significant because it was a public inquiry – I believe the Perjury Act 1911 applies; consider Titus Oates the Popish Plot.
When plumbing the depths of depravity & fathoming the truth, patterns notable may ratio over one or more decades:
It takes time (often many years) to unravel stealth, the advantage of doing so fulcrums on discovery, not only must you accept that that some appear sociopaths and/or psychopaths, whom are so bonded to their fellow conspirators, tied-up in perverting the truth; is it not a cogent fact that:
Uffculme and Culmstock Parish Councils have been swimming with the sharks of the Travelling-forum; the former council has been bitten. What of Culmstock and Hemyock Parish Councils? It does not require a genius to perceive many innocent have been mislead by the fraudsters.
“Warts & all!” in an English civil war [*allegedly Oliver Cromwell’s instruction to Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680) re his portrait of Cromwell painted in 1654.] -applies to facient truth.
The Travelling-forum’s remarkable discoveries lead from one act of deceit to another – public frauds; their orchestric activity counteracts any claim of circumstantial occurrence according to the wise authenticating words of Pollock CB in R. v. Exall [1866].
You soon discover that the events of injustice, from their elaborate & fictitious discoveries of fact, both common law evidence (old documents & statutory surveys e.g., Finance Act 1910 or tithe) & [not to be confused] statutory: ‘User Evidence’, was not coincidental; to the contrary, DEFRA’s pro-horse bias is well documented from c2001, is probative that the illicit conduct has been sanctioned from within national government despite being contrary to Parliament’s intention! see Glaser v. The United Kingdom 32346/96; (2001)
We know natural Justice is an umbrella term for the legal standards of basic fairness. It is a fundamental doctrine within the common law, and resting upon many centuries of legal tradition:
—Sir John Donaldson – Master of the Rolls, in R v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin PLC (1987): “… a failure to observe the basic rules of natural justice, which is probably better described as fundamental unfairness since justice in nature is conspicuous by its absence.”
—Lord Bridge in R v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd (1988): “Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as if it were upon trust, not absolutely – that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way in which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended.”
—Lord Diplock in Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984): “the decision to make the finding must be based on some material which tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically self-contradictory“.
~
It matters; whatever evidence DEFRA’s Travelling-forum apply (have applied) absolute, their presentations (proof of evidences) will be unreliable, a leopard doesn’t change its spots; chameleons in their presentation of local history, their interpretation of statutory & local authority documents – any evidence, is quite sad; their charisma may blind.. particularly when they receive the overt devotion of bias from the Planning Inspectorate and some of its inspectors, for, I believe, not all inspectors appear willing to corrupt.
Socialism: Labour Party’s Hilary Benn is recorded inciting trespass in September 2009, his hollow rhetoric re ‘telling the truth‘; but must we not look back, to the procrastination that came & went before, the stealth in play that marinaded misfeasance re the Definitive Map?
Revelation of their stealth, skulduggery & corruption is not here to mislead; if however the synergy of facts & truth identified here.. ..may shock or offend! see Cox v. Feeney (1863) 4 F & F 13; you may also consider:
Savile[Savill] v. Roberts (1698)[Reviewed 1795?], the Fraud Act 2006, and the Attorney General – Lord Goldsmith’s report of 9th January 2007 re the Act.
–If you know better than I, or, you are aware of other scoundrels doing same, please reply ‘politely, I ask’, for events certain have entered both County and High Court.
Perjurious thoughts! Public rights of way must be protected at all costs, but ‘at all costs’ should not infer that fiction, stealth & overt conspiracy to defraud &/or that corruption by those in public office ‘entryism & jobbery’ would be acceptable to Parliament. — The wilful illicit activity has caused fraud against house-buyers in the Culm Valley, and nationally.
–An incredulous evil blight: I’ve struggled to accept the volume of corruption; I believed there must be rational links between the various sets of common law evidence that the perpetrators: Rudge, Parsons, E Spurway, Coombs and Kind are wilfully ignorant of – e.g., Tithe Act 1836, Finance Act 1910 & local authority records 1934 – 1944; common sense:
It soon became obvious that the primary players those representing the ‘User Groups’ seeking the modification orders [Definitive Map (Uffculme)] were inept, –appeared to be dishonest and arrogant; play it clever, —ordinarily know they have the support of DEFRA.
If: Maleficia non debent remanere impunita; et impunitas continuum affectum tribuit delinquenti : (4 Co. 45.)—Evil deeds ought not to remain unpunished; and impunity affords continual excitement to the delinquent.
It is not in the public interest for the trickery of the Travelling-forum: Julie Rudge, Jenny Parsons, Roy Coombs & Emily Spurway, to go unpublished? — Ditto, Alan Kind’s ‘Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde’ personality re forensic evidence; facts prevail over fictions of discovery. Is it not rational to infer Mr Kind’s influence trespasses beyond an innocent participation in attempting to protect & preserve public rights of way? The ingenuity of deception wise.
Nullus dicitur felo principalis nisi actor, aut qui præsens est abettans aut auxilians ad feloniam faciendam : (3 Inst. 138.) — No one shall be called a principal felon except the party actually committing the felony, or the party present aiding and abetting in its commission.
Qui per alium facit, per seipsum facere videtur : (Co. Litt. 258.)—He who by another does anything, is himself considered to have done it.
Accountability; in R v. Becerra (1975) 62 Crim. App. R. 212 it was held that any communication of withdrawal by the secondary party to the perpetrator must be such as to serve “unequivocal notice” upon the other party to the common purpose that, if he proceeds upon it, he does so without the further aid and assistance of the withdrawing party. According to Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law:
If an accomplice only advised or encouraged the principal to commit the crime, he must at least communicate his withdrawal to the other parties.
Where an accomplice has supplied the principal with the means of committing the crime, the accomplice must arguably neutralise, or at least take all reasonable steps to neutralise, the aid he has given. ~ The authority cites Rex. v. Edmeads and Others 1828.
Fraud Act 2006 (conspiracy to defraud) Smelter Corporation v. O’Driscoll [1977]: In an action for misrepresentation, it did not matter that the representation was made by an agent who did not know that the representation was untrue. Mr Kind failed re the Forestry Commission land at Blackborough (Peter Millman*), and Pitt Lane (Helen Slade*) – Susan Doran) [*Both involved in the criminal activity that took place at Five Fords – Brookshill.] -it is rational to state a jury would recognise the difficulty of preventing the expropriations when the quasi tribunals are facilitated and controlled by a political party of bias – DEFRA
Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant : (Wing. 680.)—Fraud and justice never dwell together.
In his participation Horse play & frolicking with truth re the upper Culm Valley,* Mr Kind appears technical adviser to the Travelling-forum wilfully spoiling common law evidence, —he appears to have upset the horse pulling any cart of credibility, see R v. Swindall and Osborne (1846) [*Forestry Commission – 2011.] ~ The following authority connects with Mr Kind’s involvement with Mrs Parsons and the Travelling-forum’s illicitly manipulating evidence, and receiving shady support from the Planning Inspectorate when doing so:
Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v. Blackledge and Others [2000] —Here a party had fraudulently altered documents and had suppressed others. The object of the rules of discovery was to secure a fair trial. A failure in disclosure might normally not defeat a claim, but a determined attempt to prevent a fair trial should do so:
“A decision to stop the trial in those circumstances is not based on the court’s desire (or any perceived need) to punish the party concerned; rather it is a proper and necessary response where a party has shown that his object is not to have a fair trial which it is the court’s function to conduct, but to have a trial the fairness of which he has attempted (and continues to attempt) to compromise.” As to pre-CPR cases: ‘The old authorities are of interest only as the straws in the gale force winds of change which blew in Lord Woolf’s reforms.’ and ‘The attempted perversion of justice is the very antithesis of parties coming before the court on an equal footing.’
~
‘The Supreme Court’ ruled that James Rhodes had every right to “tell the world” about his ordeal “in all its searing detail” “The right to report the truth is justification in itself” they said championing free speech. [May 2015] ~ is supported by the following authorities:
Loveless v. Earl; Capital & Counties (Financial Services) Ltd [1998]; Fraser-Armstrong v. Hadow [1995], Cox v. Feeney (1863) and Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863).
—I believe the majority of those who reside in the afore three parishes and User Groups identified in this document would not approve of the inciting of trespass & underhand tactics of Mrs Parsons & co.. .
-that a clear majority of those seeking to protect public rights of way are not in the same position as thieves fraudsters & drug dealers; but the complex conspiracy to defraud [public deceit to cause expropriation] places those accountable on par with pickpockets & shoplifters. —But if the corruption is significantly connected to abuse of public office and undermining the principles of natural justice; at what point does the organised crime parallelize with the evil of exploitation: people trafficking and paedophilia, the vulnerable?
—Most User Group members are able to recognize right from wrong, and are unlikely to adopt bad faith, they appear to respect landowners; however, infected minds of fanaticism can dominate, misguide & infect others, the young & innocent; the strongly infected minds will tend to exploit & abuse at any given opportunity, immaterial of equity, because they [probably] think: a) they can get away with the tort, and respectively have self-concern for getting caught; and b), the infected, are so convinced that they are within their rights, due to the perversity & infection, that it may appear that we have a “what came first situation, the chicken or the egg?”, but however, it is not! ~ It leads to me asking,
What of the Institute of Public Rights of Way:
“It must be one of the biggest injustices on a local level of all time. It will show how the continual indulgence by the Courts as far as local councils go has led to the rot seeping into the core of government bodies themselves and how it is not our democratically elected councillors who are running the country but the bureaucrats with their petty grievances and personal ambitions.”
The above is Maureen Comber’s – introduction to part 1. below:
Mrs Maureen Comber appears to be a good public role model for the BHS, her articles:
1) BROXHEAD COMMON, the beginning
2) Broxhead Bridleway part 1
3) Broxhead Bridleway part 2, inc Helen Slade (this includes significant reference to DEFRA’s Inspector Helen Slade @ p17)
-they provide insight to the corruption, the barriers that have frustrated good society from having an accurate definitive map;
—Are there others in the BHS like Mrs Parsons acting overt and perverse in collaboration, who appear to have ruined the Definitive Map Review – now a public fraud, for which there is no escape of the law? — Truth looks at the participation of Alan Kind in the public fraud that has taken place to counter Parliament’s intention to have an accurate Definitive Map of public rights of way, and how his affinity with and access to the Institute of Public Rights of Way (IPROW) includes DEFRA’s self appointed inspectors like Peter Millman.
False evidence … the conspiracy had a broader objective and was not brought simply in respect of evidence given. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. See Surzur Overseas Ltd v. Koros and others [1999]
In Michaels (Furriers) Limited v. Askew & Others; Times, 25 June 1983; [1983] Court of Appeal Bound Transcript 278 25 – Rose LJ, Dunn LJ, Purchase LJ:
The court heard an appeal against injunctions granted in an animal rights protest context against named Defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of other members of an unincorporated association. Held: Appeal denied. “Every case must be determined as one of degree by reference to the particular circumstances.” An injunction can be ordered against unknown members of loosely formed unincorporated association. Dunn. LJ “Care must be taken to ensure that Ord. 15 v. 12 is not abused. But when a number of unidentified person are causing injury and damage by unlawful acts of one kind or another, and there is an arguable case that they belong to a single organisation or class which encourages action of the type complained of, and their actions can be limited to that organisation, then the rule enables the Court to do justice in the particular case. The narrow construction of the rule advanced by Mr. Warner would in my view deprive the Courts in a situation like this of a useful remedy.” Purchase. LJ: “Convenient administration of justice, in my judgement demands that the Courts should be able to afford effective protection to the victims of illegal or threatened illegal action by members of associations whose declared aims are in line with a calculated to promote such illegal action.”
Nihil facit error nominis cum de corpore constat : (11 Co. 21.)—An error of name is nothing when there is certainty as to the person. ~ Having membership or participation in multiple organisations does not provide immunity from recognition in the eyes of the common law; justice sees nexus and mode of operation. There is nothing technically wrong by appearing at one public inquiry representing ‘X’ organisation and ‘Y’ at the next, or ‘X’, ‘Y’ & ‘Z’ at another; but by so doing ~ immaterial of what Planning Inspectorate and its self appointed inspectors promote re “..is a previous or different inquiry; I can’t take into consideration.”; it is a fact that the common law adjudicates – dictates any comprehension of statute & Acts of law; if, as the information and/or the substance provides burden against one person and it appears, according to the common law of England & Wales, that common purpose exists between two or more acting illicitly; as the authorities cited above clearly dictate, it doesn’t matter what title is being used; or contrived ignorance apparent re evidence the selectivity of between one inquiry and the next — Armstrong v. Strain (1951):
Devlin J said: ‘A man may be said to know a fact when once he has been told it and pigeon-holed it somewhere in his brain where it is more or less accessible in case of need. In another sense of the word a man knows a fact only when he is fully conscious of it. For an action of deceit there must be knowledge in the narrower sense, and conscious knowledge of falsity must always amount to wickedness and dishonesty. When Judges say, therefore, that wickedness and dishonesty must be present, they are not requiring a new ingredient for the tort of deceit so much as describing the sort of knowledge which is necessary.’
Ex procedentibus et consequentibus optima fiet interpretatio : (1 Eol. Rep. 375.)—The best interpretation is made from that which precedes and follows.
Mrs Maureen Comber’s documents illustrate how ‘private members clubs’ like the IPROW have evolved; the author does not infer all in the IPROW are corrupt, to the contrary, that would be absurd; but there has to be a fulcrum from which DEFRA’s evil engine of bad faith & expropriation can operate and prosper, necessitates a central hub to enable those in union/unlawful common purpose, like Emily Spurway of Devon County Council and Helen Slade of the Planning Inspectorate an ability to fraternize : IPROW is that sphere.
Alan Kind’s membership of the Institute of Public Rights of Way, ditto Emily Spurway, gave them access to DEFRA’s bent Planning Inspectors that have corrupted the Definitive Map Review, not only in Devon but nationally. Justice recognizes Mr Kind’s participation in the complex national conspiracy to defraud to be most significant.
—Don’t be fooled by hollow self-statements that portray: ‘Devon Council are neutral’, one can infer the facts probative: likely to be the converse, a surreptitious ploy/distraction; the public deceit an absolute evil from what may have (ordinarily) had an innocent beginning:
IPROWcode_conduct_2010
The afore appears weak – nothing but a hollow guide, when compared to the standards of the General Medical Council’s guidance to being an expert witness:
Acting_as_a_witness_in_legal_proceedings
–some may say that the purpose of the afore two documents differ, the former merely etiquette for exclusive association, the latter, a formal guidance to protect &/or avoid any allegations of improper conduct – procedural impropriety, which, sadly & unfortunately, is rampant during DEFRA’s political show-trials.
Perverting the path of justice can take many forms, the complexities and publicity vary:
Stephen Lawrence inquiry..
Hillsborough – multiple illicit adjustment of police officers’ records, by senior officers: political undue influence;
The fifa World Cup (football) corruption scandal; match fixing in cricket;
The Jonathan Spelman case re rugby & public eye;*
Lance Armstrong & cycling – doping claims; Maria Sharapova!
(Andrew Mitchell Plebgate) PC Keith Wallis jailed for his fictitious e-mail to an MP;
Chris Huhne MP re speeding – the retaliatory Vicky Pryce, & Constance Briscoe (barrister);
The afore cases illustrate streams of bad faith, & pathways of injustice; but:
*Those whom have a reasonable understanding of public rights of way & the law, and, are objective in their approach to public justice will, I believe, see a difference between the Jonathan Spelman case, and all the others provided above; I don’t believe that it requires much explanation other than (in simple):
a) The naivety of a young man, b) -whose mother is in the public eye: the Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP; c) that the young man: Jonathan was in the public eye – in his own right, playing rugby at significant public level: one-time England under 16s, and Harlequins; had taken a banned substance during recovery from a sports injury; caught, his parents sought to protect him from the media, and so obtained an injunction against the press whom then appealed re freedom of expression.
Tugendhat J. of the High Court lifted the aforesaid injunction, –but with a clear warning to the media. [Details of the case are easy to obtain on the web.]
It’s rational to state that public interest was key to the lifting of the injunction; thus the precedent can be applied to events of Mrs Parsons in a public arena with her British Horse Society antics of stealthy bad faith and willing the overt conspiracy to defraud.
Having witnessed Madams’ Parsons & Spurway’s colluding & embellishing, laughing at the Forestry Commission representatives in July, just before the inner city riots of August 2011 when they stated (on behalf of) the Forestry Commission their feeling of betrayal, that the contempt caused by the common purpose of Devon County Council and the British Horse Society was not acceptable; —A clear vibrancy, buzz of deceit, accompanied Mrs Parsons during the public inquiry fixing. I have read many documents to find the beginning..
“One has to look back over the series of events..”* local – national, and ask when and where exactly did those, whose personality & charisma has changed the Definitive Map through bad faith become — as Judge Baker QC so eloquently put it re the contempt of public planning issues in the Del Basso case, on par with (the words endorsed by Lord Justice Leveson): thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers?
[*Lord Pearson in Distiller’s Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson (1971); see O’Leary v. R (1946) 73 CLR 566 – drunken orgy lasting several hours re workers at a timber camp. & Jemmison v. Priddle [1972] 56 Cr App R 229.]
The following publication illustrates the national public rights of way fraud apparent when I was coming to terms with the gravity of the irreparable damage being caused:
21 July 2010, Millman, The Fraternity
To rationally comprehend common evidence traits applicable to complex conspiracies that affect/effect the vulnerable we have to make logical choices in the common law authorities that are available; Director of Public Prosecutions v. P [1991] identifies probative force and value of evidence adjoined. Steel v. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Unreported, 10 February 1993 is a perfect example of the malicious activities surrounding DEFRA and its agent provocateurs – the Travelling-forum – wilfully withholding and manipulating evidence during the facade of public inquiries in the Culm Valley. By judicial comparison:
Like Jimmy Savile smoking a cigar or having his penis sucked by the vulnerable : DEFRA’s apathy will contribute to mental disturbances within the minds of many adults. That they should bear the stigma of humiliation in DEFRA’s kangaroo courts, be traumatised and commit suicide, appears too closely related. What effect do quasi courts have on children?
One should not get confused by my (the author’s) use of Savile (Savill) v. Roberts (1698) in respect of the overt procedural abuses & misfeasance in public office that has taken place with the explicit events of Gary Glitter (Paul Gadd) & Jimmy Savile; there is, however, several aspects that can be observed and comparison made, they include notoriety:
Public trust: the charismatic evil charm that duped so many.. . The long-term humiliation & suffering of the abused.., all tied up & concealed, by those able to protect the evil taking place. Vulnerable children and adults fucked and abused – and the only whistle-blowing.. !
—Who knows what to believe, depersonalisation disorder in children, or distinguishing between sociopaths and psychopaths? Particularly if DEFRA’s undermining of commonly accepted moral values (as per belief of reasonable minds living in a democracy) is anything to go by.
Since the 1990s many children have been fed a plethora of mixed values that naturally has caused them a chaotic mind – outlook on life; what can be expected of anyone – particularly the young, if they are being pushed to the extremities of moral behaviour from those holding political public office; a failing education – society!
If the above connects to Hilary Benn & others unlawful activity and interventions to make changes to the Definitive Map, is it not in the public interest to know; after all, it is fraud to conceal fraud. – Those interfering or perverting the course of justice on regular occasion during inquiries are seen taking many paths, are arrogant, do not expect justice:
DEFRA’s kangaroo courts and corrupt assizes have affected the lives of many; illicit appropriations and trespass have violated communities; normally a victim’s only recourse is to challenge the corruption in the High Court, but ordinarily does not happen due to the prohibitive cost thus, as with the pro-horse bias that DEFRA has overtly and unashamedly stated in c2001, with self administering show-trial – sham public inquiries {*see Ouseley J’s summing up in Bovis Homes Ltd. v. New Forest District Council [2002]} -the truth is prevented from being heard.
DEFRA’s creation in mid 2001 appears to be a specific office clearing act, a reorganisation admin to remove any potential threat of danger* to the overt corruption surrounding the ‘20 year rule’ of the Highways Act 1980, that that is prominently written into the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. [*any honest administrators that would whistle-blow.]
Multitudo imperitorum perdit curiam : (2 Inst. 219.)—A multitude of ignorant persons destroys a court.
—The first appearance deceives many; our understandings rarely reach to that which has been carefully reposed in the inmost recesses of the mind (i.e., looks can be deceiving, but actions produced under trial reveal the true character of the person).
As a result scoundrels like Alan Kind, Jenny Parson, Emily Spurway, Roy Coombs & the late Julie Rudge (AKA the Travelling-forum) may appear to be experts by those ignorant of the facts; to hear and read DEFRA’s inspectors reports is quite enlightening, particularly when they refer to them as ‘experts’; experts in what; sophistry! — wilful ignorance & overtly alternating selectivity of evidence to pervert the course justice?
Lacking credibility re Tithe Act 1836-1936, Finance Act 1910 & Local authority records; not for lack of ability, but sincerity; they become icons of stealth, prevarication, sophistry and embellishing reports, often paid for by the public purse, free to enable others politically motivated/corrupt such as Annie Owen, Peter Millman, Helen Slade & Susan Doran to continue to undermine factual truth; making the definitive map a tribute & testimony to what can be achieved by bad faith, illicit stealthy activity, a complex conspiracy to defraud.
Misrepresentation of Tithe evidence: Veritas, a quocunque dicitur, à Deo est : (4 Inst. 153.)—Truth, by whomsoever pronounced, is from God. ~ Peter Millman rejected challenges to the misrepresentation of an overseers for the poor map 1852 being presented at the public inquiry as “The Tithe Map of Uffculme 1841” — The BHS was totally reliant the 1852 map.
The 1840 map’s three specific features in the recording of Five Fords Barton troubled me the moment I discovered the 1840 map’s absence – not used by those causing the inquiry.
All those supporting the Order relied upon the 1852 map; despite plenty of opportunity to produce the BHS 60p document* – the Order Making Authority, in this instance Devon County Council, remained silent contrary to their legal obligation and the principles of natural justice; everyone remained silent; eventually Inspector Millman broke the silence by stating there were two maps at Exeter. [*did not, were reliant upon the short summary, that that was (according to rational inference) scanty and provided late to disturb.]
I was extremely uncomfortable with what was being said about the area of the parishes I’d spent my first sixteen years of life. The public inquiry was surreal – too much was not clear to me because of the synergy of nonsense written within the ‘proofs of evidence’, those that I had read, and some statements read out on the day not being produced – provided to the defence prior to the inquiry, despite me requesting that the Planning Inspectorate keep me informed of any developments, in my phone call to them 3 Aug 2007.
Veredictum, quasi dictum veritatis: ut judicium quasi juris dictum: (Co. Litt. 226.)—The verdict is, as it were, the dictum of truth : as the judgment is the dictum of law. ~ Inspector Peter Millman’s contempt for those that objected to the Order being made – he appeared predisposed, and the ambient vibrancy of the kangaroo court at play; required redress, his report of 15 Oct 2007 unrepresentative of the facts – is perjurous – and written cunningly.
Values of the British Army, UK-anti-Corruption-Plan
Jurare est Deum in testem vocare, et est actus divini cultus : (3 Inst. 165.)—To swear is to call God to witness, and is an act of religion.
—I resent bullies, and have adhered to my private declaration 2 Aug 2007, and the later publicly sworn oath of 20 August 2007. Having witnessed the lies, deceit and corruption; do believe evil to him who evil think:
Monumenta quæ nos recorda vocamus sunt veritatis et vetustatis vestigia: (Co. Litt. 118.)—Monuments which we call records, are the vestiges of truth and antiquity.
Manerium dicitur à manendo, secundum excellentiam, sedes magna, fixa et stabilis : (Co. Litt. 58.)—A manor is called from “manendo,” a seat, according to its excellence, great, fixed, and firm.
Consuetudo manerii et loci observanda est : (4 Co. 21.)—The custom of a manor and place is to be observed.
Nunquam res humanæ prosperè succedunt ubi negliguntur divinæ : (Co. Litt. 95.)—Human things never prosper where divine things are neglected. ~ Abused – Tithe Act 1836:
W F Harrison & Co v. Burke [1956]
Contract; If a notice of assignment of a debt describes the assignment by reference to a wrong date, the notice is invalid because it has described a non-existent document. Law of Property Act 1925 139 ~ All produced evaluation of 1840-41 tithe apportionments against the 1852 none tithe map ~ the overseers map may look the same, but it is not a tithe map according to (both) statute law and common law; we need not digress to the absurdities of.
—The complex conspiracy became apparent (me) because of the nonsense written about the Tithe Commission accepted map & apportionments of Uffculme* and Finance Act 1910
*1840-41; in accordance with the Tithe Act 1836 [Officially re-evaluated in the 1940s as per the Tithe Act 1936.] corroborated by the Finance Act 1910, parish documents recorded in 1934 re the Rights of Way Act 1932, and the original survey papers for the definitive map as per the 1949 Act — when read in harmony with the principles illustrated by Peter Murphy – ‘Murphy on Evidence’ 6th edition – (now available, 2017, in its 15th Edition ISBN: 9780198788737) portrays DEFRA’s policy to defraud a surreal injustice; the finding of public paths where they don’t appear to currently exist – seen on par with the evil witch finders of the 17th century.
Benignè faciendæ sunt interpretationes, propter simplicitatem laicorum, ut res magis valeat quam pereat; et verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire : (Co. Litt. 36.)—Liberal constructions of written documents are to be made, because of the simplicity of the laity, and with a view to carry out the intention of the parties and uphold the document; and words ought to be made subservient, not contrary, to the intention.
Nimia subtilitas in jure reprobatur, et talis certitude certitudinem confundit : (4 Co. 5.)—Nice and subtle distinctions are not sanctioned by the law; for so, apparent certainty would be made to confound true and legal certainty.
James Parkhouse’s will of 6 Dec 1900 is quite clear re the Five Fords & Brookshill estates; his niece Annie Baker Joyce became life owner upon his death; held in trust she had no power to grant public access over – devalue them. The afore maxims apply to interpreting:
The Parish documents: Tithe Acts 1836 [1936] were statutory documents in force when the primary farm of Uffculme was purchased in March 1964, link to the special licence of 1336 King Edward III – Westminster.
The Culm Valley: Hemyock, Culmstock & Uffculme has a fascinating history – particularly when one delves into the feuding ownership of the manors of Uffculme & Dunkeswell, and the reason behind the creation of Hackpen Barton in the late c1240s, & Cogan’s 300 acre park (see below), the later is not a myth, – to the contrary: I wore the cipher in West Belfast
honi soit qui mal y pense — the cipher is seen on 10 Downing Street’s lectern & at criminal courts administering the common law of England and Wales. — Cogan’s Park at Uffculme pre-dates the ‘records of the king’s wardrobe (Edward III) by circa twelve (12) years.
honi soit qui mal y pense – is famous per the Order of the Garter, formed by Edward III in c1348; the same King of England whom on the 17th March 1336, some 12 years earlier, granted Sir Richard Cogan special licence to enclose his wood of Uffculme and an additional 300 acres adjacent to the wood, for a sporting park.
Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Vol. IV. 1 – 14 EDWARD III. A.D. 1327 – 1341
Membrane 26. March 17. Westminster 56
Licence of special grace, to Richard Cogan, to strengthen with a wall of stone and mortar and to crenellate his house (mansum) of Baumton, co. Devon, and to enclose and make a park of his wood of Ufcolme, co. Devon, and the 300 acres of land, meadow and pasture adjacent thereto, and to hold the said park and manor to him and his heirs to be without let or hinderance of the King and his heirs* or any their ministers**; provided that they are not within the king’s forest; grant also, of special grace, to the said Richard and Mary his wife of free warren in all their demesne lands of Hunnespel, co. Somerset, and Baumton and Ufcolm, co. Devon.
Also that no one may enter these lands to hunt or take anything pertaining to the warren without the licence and permission of Richard and Mary or their heirs on pain of a fine (forisscuram) of 10 pounds in hand.
*Queen Elizabeth II, **Tony Blair, with Hilary Benn MP as Secretary of State DEFRA.
The Portland Papers in conjunction with the overt plethora of Parish Papers are irrefutably probative that the author’s perception that the original Definitive Map for Uffculme was accurate; written between c1585 & 1661 their effective date range is c1545 to 1661 – & are specific to Cogan’s Park.
The aforesaid papers allow a rational and reasonable inference of the sporting park’s size:
When the papers are read in conjunction with the King’s special licence and its ‘Official Translation of 1912’, and that added to the afore by Mr Steve Hobbs, senior archivist at the Wiltshire Heritage Centre; the acreage recorded in the overseers for the poor papers, Tithe Acts 1836 & 1936 (below) & Finance Act 1910, the land conveyancing details 1955 – 1964, and local authority records 1934 – 1944 ..truth can be confirmed absolute!
It is rational to fine tune [Review] the Definitive Map in the area of Uffculme & Culmstock.
Edward’s special licence 17 March 1336 to Richard Cogan to enclose his wood of Uffculme and an additional 300 acres is clearly supported during the passage of time – is the reason for Uffculme’s two tithe districts (‘Uffculme & the Lands of Richard Hurley’), but although Hurley was lord of the manor – and claimed modus – “..an ancient park.”, tithes were quite separate from the sporting rights and ownership of the free-warren (according to common law); hence Richard John Marker practitioner of law – man of Uffculme, raised the issue during the period: a question of Modus: is clearly documented within the Parish Papers of 1840.
Devon County Council forfeited its legitimacy in modifying the definitive map of Devon when it began falsifying and fictioning the ‘discovery of evidence’ — to illegitimately justify changes under the auspice of legal obligation to review the Definitive Map regularly. When the recorded stealth commenced is necessarily controversial only to the pedantic, it is fact:
One has to look objectively at the influence Cllr/Mr Jack Gollop has had on the truth by promoting countering hearsay, and how he appears to have dominated the Parish Clerk’s (Francis J Welland appointed Dec 1978 – 2016) irrational thinking re known parish paths.
The underlying causes/stealth orchestrated by prominent members of the parish at the beginning of the twentieth (20) century [is clearly recorded in the Parish Minutes (-held at Exeter).] -connect to the events (transition of corruption prominent) in the mid 1970s; by 1979 it was becoming cogent; by 1991 irrefutable: — Devon County Council’s ‘boot-camp’ appears existing/in its infancy.
By the mid nineteen nineties Devon County Council appears working in common purpose with Land Registry [Political bias during any Land Registration process.]. Ready for 2001, when the ‘twenty years’ of the Highways Act 1980 – written into the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 – had past, when DEFRA appears created to administer the endemic public rights of way frauds to fruition.
Considering the names Welland and Gollop are clearly recorded within the early Parish Minutes – and the appropriation of the mineral and sporting rights of Uffculme takes place it is rational to say justice looks at the overall picture that portrays Mr Welland the Parish Clerk’s silence re him and his father being challenged for trespassing Violet Lane in c1980; why no one during the course of the sham public inquiries comprehends the significance of his public declarations of Sept 2001 (Parish Minutes), 4 April 2005 and for the inquiry 18 Sept 2007.
Cllr/Mr Jack Gollop’s letter that was produced for the first sham public inquiry re Violet Lane carries a significant misrepresentation; in simple he was a parish councillor between the 1980s until the Parish Minutes of 26 November 1996 record:
The “Contribution by J Gollop to Council Matters – having had to stand down at the last election due to ill health Jack still works very hard on village matters, including “shadowing” the Clerk by reading all documents Council receives which require a formal response. Both the Chairman and the Clerk wish to acknowledge his contribution formally by this entry in official Council Minutes.”
-from the Minutes etc. that record Cllr/Mr Gollop’s activity after; it is reasonable to infer that his letter was a deliberate misrepresentation to pervert the truth during a local public inquiry: the Parish Minutes and other informations illustrate his letter to be a contrivance; at what point Cllr/Mr Gollop began nurturing the Parish Clerk to be – Mr F J Welland isn’t likely to be known; but the substance illustrates Cllr/Mr Gollop to have been reckless and stupid in allowing Mr F J Welland to appear to be accountable for misfeasance in public office, if not malfeasance.
The Parish records support Cllr/Mr Gollop being on the Parish Council for a significantly substantially different period besides that that his letter for the first inquiry portrays; the Parish Minutes don’t support his rhetoric; they indicate him procrastinating any activity re Violet Lane having public rights of way whilst he was a parish councillor, and if this is true he was a misfeasor in public office; his letter of July 2007 appears nothing more than a contrivance; a contemptuous act.
Cllr/Mr Gollop statement within the letter re the use of Violet Lane (as an alternative path) does not weigh-up to reality, there’s no record of this conjecture taking place, & contrary significant informations – evidence, to rebut; imply his imbalanced statement to be fraud. Justice likes to be informed of events prior..
And so it was that in January 1991 Richard Spurway became Mid Devon District Council’s public rights of way warden; when Emily took over from Richard does not really matter, it’s what was taking place between the Parish Clerk being politely challenged for trespass in c1980 and c2005; DEFRA’s creation in 2001 merely adding to the Uffculme plot. Land Registry appears caught up in the conspiracy to defraud when Hunkin Wood was created in the late 1990s; the majority of primary players re public rights of way in the upper Culm Valley appear to have been telling lies regarding signage placement on Violet Lane.
Understanding liars:
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia : (Hob. 96.)—The law requires not impossibilities. Lex rejicit superflua, pugnantia, incongrua : (Jenk. Cent. 133.)—The law rejects superfluous, contradictory, and incongruous things.
Regina v. Roberts (Michael); Regina v. Roberts (Jason) [1998] Lord Bingham of Cornhill: “it seems to us plain that the duty of any witness when giving a statement is to describe the relevant events to the best of his or her honest recollection and certainly not to invent or fabricate evidence to assist the prosecution or the defence.”
The following authority is most suitably apt for the deceit surrounding Cllr/Mr Gollop’s provision of letter July 2007: Regina v. Lydon (1987) CACD, Woolf LJ; Criminal Evidence:
A gun and two scraps of paper (saying “Sean rules”) were found along the route of a road passed by a car with which the prosecution sought to link the defendant (Sean Lydon). The documents and the gun could themselves be linked forensically. Held: They were admissible evidence to corroborate a disputed identification connecting the defendant to the car and thus to a robbery, but not to prove that Sean did indeed rule.
The court explained: “Sometimes it is possible to avoid the hearsay rule by showing that a statement made in a document is being used as an original and independent fact for instance, that a person who made use of the document had certain information in his possession at a relevant time – and not as evidence of the facts stated.
It is always important therefore, whenever an objection is taken on hearsay grounds, to ascertain for precisely what purpose the evidence is being tendered.
It may be hearsay for one purpose and not, and therefore admissible, for another,” per Cox J in R v. Romeo (1982) 30 SASR 243 at 262.
“In these cases it seems that the writing when properly admissible at all, is relevant not as an assertion of the state of facts but as itself a fact which affords circumstantial evidence upon the basis of which the jury may draw an inference from any other relevant circumstance of the case” Cross on Evidence, 6th ed, at 464.
~
In considering why the promoters of illicit means to procure public rights of way inevitably tell lies, it is best to refer to the authority of Lord Lane CJ in Regina v. Lucas (Ruth) [1981]:
People sometimes tell lies for reasons other than a belief that they are necessary to conceal guilt.
Four conditions were identified which must be satisfied before a defendant’s lie could be seen as supporting the prosecution case:-
(1) The lie must be deliberate;
(2) It must relate to a material issue;
(3) The motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and fear of the truth; and
(4) The statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or evidence from an independent witness.”
~
Is it unreasonable to compare an industrial psychologist’s overview of Titus Oates and his bad influence on significant members of society during the late seventeenth century to the rampant villainy of those of DEFRA’s mechanism corrupting the Definitive Map (Review)?
http://www.nigelmarlinbalchin.co.uk/ the Nigel Balchin website reads: Trained originally as an industrial psychologist, in which capacity he helped Rowntree’s to successfully launch Black Magic chocolates in 1933, Nigel Balchin first received critical acclaim as a novelist during the Second World War … that made good use of his wartime employment experiences at the Ministry of Food and later in the army. … “…As recently as 2016, Clive James observed that “if a whole era’s most unjustly neglected literary tendency [i.e. novels set in a place of work] is to be revived and properly estimated, Balchin is undoubtedly the place to start.” [From the Home Page of Derek Collett’s website dedicated to N M Balchin]
The following is a direct quotation re Titus Oates, from Balchin’s The Anatomy of Villainy; Balchin’s descriptive of Oates appears most familiar..
“Nevertheless, Oates was, in some ways, an unusual type of scoundrel. Often liars are common enough—men who lie to get themselves out of difficulty or to gain some momentary advantage.
But your genuine creative, constructed liar—the man who will build a complete, large structure and a definite place in society on gratuitous lying—is comparatively rare.
Apart from anything else, it is an extremely complicated process, and one which would need great care, skill and intelligence to carry out successfully. There is no sign that Oates had intelligence of this order, and indeed plenty of evidence that he had not.
He was a brazen liar, but not a very skilful one. His stories were very carelessly constructed, and the number of “loose-ends,” anachronisms and inconsistencies that they contained would horrify the average writer of cheap detective stories.
Moreover, he made his own task even more difficult by the number of irrelevant details he included, which did little to help his story, but every one of which provided opportunity to catch him out in inconsistency.
There was, in fact, an air of improvisation about it all which is distinctly puzzling. Oates’s sole asset seems to have been that he was always ready to tell one more lie to justify the one before, like a fraudulent company promoter who can only keep one swindle afloat by starting another. It was this crudity and clumsiness that brought about his downfall.
We may, of course, explain Oates’s lack of skill in his chosen profession by assuming that he was at once very brazen and very stupid, with the stupid man’s typical conceited belief that he can convince people of anything. …”
~
— The following is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Oates
…After nearly three years and the execution of at least 15 innocent men, opinion began to turn against Oates. The last high-profile victim of the climate of suspicion was Oliver Plunkett, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, who was executed on 1 July 1681. William Scroggs, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, began to declare more people innocent, as he had done in the Wakeman trial, and a backlash against Oates and his Whig supporters took place. On 31 August 1681, Oates was told to leave his apartments in Whitehall, but he remained undeterred and even denounced the King and his Catholic brother, the Duke of York. He was arrested for sedition, sentenced to a fine of £100,000 and thrown into prison. … .
Oates’s victims tended to be high profile, DEFRA’s don’t so we will never know the deaths attributable to stress or suicide.
Whilst much is known about the foot & mouth endemic of 2001, little is known about its timing convenient to DEFRA’s creation and British political policy re farming and a society of leisure pro-horse. It is rational to infer the scoundrels perceived the expropriation of Violet Lane from Five Fords Farm would be ‘a walk in the park‘; Peter Millman appeared to ensure it was reality. He would not listen to rational argument, he appeared a deaf bully.
~
Maureen Comber’s documents (identified above) illustrate the difficulty she had with the corruption that is the Institute of Public Rights of Way; that not everyone should be tarred with the same brush. Not everyone in parish – county councils illustrate bad faith, politics is the same, and/or that those working in public office receiving payment from the public purse (or not) is bias to a political (their own personal) cause; but jobbery and entryism has played a significant part in the corruption of what is the Definitive Map Review since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 indirectly identified the year 2001 to be a specific target – an objective of desire (1981 + 20) = 2001
Nullus dicitur accessorius post feloniam, sed ille qui novit principalem feloniam fecisse et ilium receptavit et comfortavit : (3 Inst. 138.)—No one is called an accessory after the fact but he who knew the principal to have committed a felony, and received and comforted him.
When the second Violet Lane inquiry took place (2008) the primary players re-wrote their testimonies in fraudulent and deceptive fashion then provided them within a week of or on the day of the inquiry. Dramatic; significant changes prior had taken place beside criminal acts to ensure the second inquiry was (in simple) an administrational act only; it wasn’t an inquiry in the true spirit of justice, hence the rules of estoppel apply to the backdated fraud that was provided – relied upon by the primary players. Authorities on estoppel:
Patras v. Commonwealth (1966); ~ Western Fish Products Ltd v. Penwith District Council and Another [1978]; ~ Brisbane City Council v. Attorney General for Queensland [1979]; ~ Taylor Fashions Ltd v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982]; ~ Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982]; ~ The August Leonhardt [1985]; ~ Willis and Son v. Willis [1986]; ~ Walton Stores (Interstate) Limited v. Maher [1988]; ~ Youell v. Bland Welch & Co Ltd (‘The Superhulls Cover-Case) (No 2) [1990]; ~ In re C and M Ashberg Times, 17 July 1990; ~ Arnold v. National Westminster Bank Plc [1991]; ~ W F Trustees Ltd v. Expo Safety Systems Ltd (1993); ~ Talbot v. Berkshire County Council [1994]; ~ Gale v. Superdrug Stores Plc 2 May 1996; ~ Regina v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Ex Parte F & I Services Ltd [2002]
Most perceive that corruption should be eradicated when & wherever possible; it is for the public to know that crime does not pay. Many know that intimidating a witness is unlawful and does not carry qualified privilege; Devon County Council’s Michael Jenkins (retired in circa April 2013) appears to have been endorsing DEFRA’s pro-horse bias & corruption for many years.
How many of DEFRA’s victims he’s threatened whilst he was in public office we will never know, but if you know of any incident, all information will help. Both R. v. Kellet (1976) & the Witness Protection Act 1892, provided below, disapprove of Mr Jenkins intimidation of witnesses at a public inquiry, his letter of 10 Oct 2012 appears unlawful given the underlying facts:
Dear Mr Field,
Public Inquiry – Uffculme
I have been given sight of your closing submissions made to the Inspector at the public inquiry you attended in Uffculme last week.
You made a number of defamatory remarks about Mrs Spurway which are completely without foundation. I understand that you had your submissions returned to you by the Planning Inspectorate prior to the inquiry as your comments about Mrs Spurway and others were considered libellous, yet you insisted on making them in person at the inquiry.
If you continue to make such accusations at any future inquiries the matter will be passed to the County Solicitor with a view that action is taken in the Court.
You are strongly advised to keep your objections to Definitive Map proposals confined to challenging the evidence and make no further comments on the integrity of those involved in the process.
Yours sincerely,
Michael J Jenkins
Public Rights of Way and Country Parks Manager
~
Compare Mr Jenkins’s letter with European law – the Witness Protection Act 1892:
In this Act the word “inquiry” shall mean any inquiry held under the authority of any Royal Commission or by any committee of either House of Parliament, or pursuant to any statutory authority, whether the evidence at such inquiry is or is not given on oath, but shall not include any inquiry by any court of Justice.
Every person who commits any of the following acts, that is to say, who threatens, or in any way punishes, damnifies, or injures, or attempts to punish, damnify, or injure, any person for having given evidence upon any inquiry, or on account of the evidence which he has given upon any such inquiry, shall, unless such evidence was given in bad faith, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be liable on conviction thereof to a maximum penalty of one hundred pounds, or to a maximum imprisonment of three months.
—And so it is that where Mr Jenkins states: “I understand that you had your submissions returned to you by the Planning Inspectorate prior to … .” -he indirectly reveals the overt illegitimate dominance that the Planning Inspectorate has over the course of its own sham public inquiries. Planning Inspectorate appears to interfere with any evidence detrimental to its own self-satisfying cause. see Regina v. Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust ex parte L [1997]; Court of Appeal Naidoo and Another v. Naidu and Others, 2001
Devon County Council’s fraudulent activity relevant to the creation Hunkin Wood in the late 1990s involved a significant amount of appropriations being made re the paths & ways marked on the early maps known (common law evidence) these specific paths became part of evidence in a complex conspiracy to defraud; I apply Regina v. Bowden (Terence) [1996]
[Closure] – Thus with the Definitive Map Review:
Mr Jenkins’ ignorance re misconduct in public office appears built on his own & others bad faith and corruption to engineer illicit changes to the Definitive Map, the common law is clear; he or his cronies could start proceedings against me at any time – but rest assured the common law of England & Wales is clear about conspiracy to defraud, intimidation of witnesses and contempt of court; is informative re stealthy unlawful conspiracies:
Regina v. Whitehouse [1941]
In Chan Wing-Siu v. The Queen [1985] Sir Robin Cooke described the simplest form of joint enterprise: “a person acting in concert with the primary offender may become a party to the crime, whether or not present at the time of its commission, by activities variously described as aiding, abetting, counselling, inciting or procuring it. In the typical case in that class, the same or the same type of offence is actually intended by all the parties acting in concert.”
Regina v. Mitchell and King [1990]
CACD, Otton LJ. The court considered whether the defendants had continued to be involved in a criminal action where they were originally involved, but claimed to have ceased involvement. Held. In considering whether a person had withdrawn, there must usually be some act and not merely a mere mental change of intention or physical change of place by the person contending he had withdrawn. The jury should be directed that they must be satisfied (a) that the fatal injuries were sustained when the joint enterprise was continuing and that the defendant was still acting within that joint enterprise, and (b) that the acts which caused the death were within the scope of the joint enterprise.
Regina v. Hyde, Sussex, Collins [1990] CACD, Lord Lane CJ; Crime
Lord Lane CJ restated the principle underlying the responsibility of a secondary partner in a joint enterprise: “If B realises (without agreeing to such conduct being used) that A may kill or intentionally inflict serious injury, but nevertheless continues to participate with A in the venture, that will amount to a sufficient element for B to be guilty of murder if A, with the requisite intent, kills in the course of the venture. As Professor Smith points out, B has in those circumstances lent himself to the enterprise and by so doing he has given assistance and encouragement to A in carrying out an enterprise which B realises may involve murder.”
R v. Rook (1997) Cr. App. R. 327 applies to Mr Kind’s taking over from Mrs Parsons the BHS representative during events re the Pitt Lane inquiries of 2015 – 2016, the conspired evidence relied on during events, the criminal activity I witnessed. What of Mr Jenkins:
…the court held that, as in the case of joint enterprise where both parties are present at the scene of the crime, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that a secondary party who lends assistance or encouragement before the commission of the crime intended the victim to be killed, or to suffer serious injury, provided it was proved that he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk and nonetheless lent his assistance. ~ Mr Jenkins must be either very naive or incredulously blind to truth being vented, for him to menace me.
In Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) v. Lannon [1969] 1QB577 Lord Denning observed that: “Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking “the Judge was biased”.
Mr Jenkins was au-fait with Regina v. Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372 CACD and Stephenson LJ’s definition of the crime because he referred to it: I have been given sight of your closing submissions made to the Inspector…
The defendant saw disparaging statements made about him by neighbours in the course of divorce proceedings. He wrote to them and asked them to withdraw the statements they had made and threatened proceedings for slander. He was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Held: A threat or promise made to a witness with the intention of persuading him to alter or withhold his evidence was an attempt to pervert the course of justice, even if the threat or promise related to a lawful act or the exercise of a legal right. It was for the jury to decide whether the defendant’s letter constituted a threat to bring an action with the intention of causing his neighbours not to give evidence. The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice would not necessarily be committed by a person who tried to persuade a false witness or even a witness believed to be false to speak the truth or to refrain from giving false evidence.
However proper the end, the means must not be improper.
“Perversion of the course of justice is per se an offence against the public weal. An attempt (or incitement) to pervert (or defeat) the (due) course of justice is an offence against the common law and no less than a conspiracy to pervert it was a punishable misdemeanour: Reg. v. Grimes (Note) (1968) 3 All E.R. 179, 181, per Kilner Brown J; ~ Reg. v. Vreones (1891) 1 Q.B. 360, 367 [provided below]; ~ Rex v. Greenburg (1919) 63 S.J. 553; ~ Reg. v. Andrews (1973) Q.B. 422, 425; ~ Reg. v. Panayiotou (1973) 1 WLR 1032.
Those cases show also that tampering with evidence, including a person to give false evidence or not to give evidence, for reward are instances of this common law offence, whether the evidence is to be given in criminal or in civil proceedings and whether the inducement is effective or, as in this case, not. But they were all concerned with the manufacture of false evidence or the withdrawal of a true complaint. They do not deal with the limits of the offence or indicate whether it can be committed where the evidence of the potential witness is false or may be false, or whether it can be committed where the means used are not bribery or reward but threats, or where the threats used are threats to exercise a legal right, or where the intention, or one of intentions of him who approaches the potential witness is to exercise such a right or to see that justice, is done to himself or another.
It would seem repugnant to justice and to common sense if in every one of these cases the “offender” could be said to be attempting to pervert or defeat or obstruct the course or the ends of justice”.
~
I rely on Regina v. Vreones (1891) 1 QB 360; (1968) 3 All ER 179:
It was alleged that the defendant had tampered with a sample of wheat to be used in an arbitration, and he was accused of perverting the course of justice. Held: Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence covering a wide variety of situations. The offence was committed when a person does an act or embarks on a course of conduct which tends and is intended to pervert the course of justice.
There is no closed list of acts which may give rise to the offence and it would be wrong to confine it to the specific instances or categories which have so far appeared in the reported cases. An act is not beyond the ambit of those tending to pervert the course of justice by reason of its being performed after the crime but before investigations into the alleged crime have begun. Whether an act has a tendency to pervert the course of justice cannot depend upon whether investigation of the matter which may become the subject of court proceedings has begun.
Lord Coleridge CJ: “The first count of the indictment in substance charges the defendant with the misdemeanour of attempting, by the manufacture of false evidence, to mislead a judicial tribunal which might come into existence. If the act itself of the defendant was completed, I cannot doubt that to manufacture false evidence for the purpose of misleading a judicial tribunal is a misdemeanour. Here, in point of fact, no tribunal was misled, because the piece of evidence was not used; but I am of opinion that that fact makes no difference.” and “I think that an attempt to pervert the course of justice is in itself a punishable misdemeanour; and though I should myself have thought so on the grounds of sense and reason, there is also plenty of authority to show that it is a misdemeanour in point of law.”
Pollock B: “The real offence here is the doing of some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration of public justice.”
~
There is significant evidence probative that sufficient facts exist to indicate a conspiracy to defraud has been ongoing in the Culm Valley to illicitly procure public rights of way since time immemorial. In jure non remota causa, sed proxima, spectatur : (Bac. Max. Reg. 1.)—In law the proximate, and not the remote, cause is to be regarded.
I believe DEFRA’s position of controlling evidence submissions during the sham facades of what is claimed to be an impartial public inquiries violates the principles of natural justice; it is caught by the common law.
Interval..