Updated
|
|
The Grim Reapers - Law and Ethics
|
Introduction Independent, not-for-profit housing trusts and associations in England generally consider themselves as private entities in that the state does not directly control them; however, legal rulings have recently challenged that claim. Moreover, in 2004 the British government accepted an EU ruling that considered housing trusts and associations public bodies for the purposes of procurement. More recently, a UK high court ruled that housing trusts classified as public authorities subject to judicial review. That decision stated that the public housing sector, in a real sense, takes the place of local authorities due to its permeation by state control and influence with a view to meeting Government aims for affordable housing. That finding gave particular significance to allegations against the Trust which neglects its responsibilities as a public sector housing provider by withholding public information to obstruct due process of law when handling complaints by tenants. Tenant Service Authority (TSA) represents 1200 independent, not-for-profit housing trusts and associations in England and classifies as the umbrella organisation for social housing trusts and associations which provide two million affordable homes for five million people. Housing trusts, generally consider themselves as private entities in that the state does not directly control them; however, legal rulings have recently challenged that claim. Moreover, in 2004 the British government accepted an EU ruling that considered housing trusts and associations public bodies for the purposes of procurement. More recently, a UK high court ruled that housing trusts classified as public authorities subject to judicial review. That decision stated that the public housing sector, in a real sense, takes the place of local authorities due to its permeation by state control and influence with a view to meeting Government aims for affordable housing. That finding gave particular significance to allegations against the Trust which neglects its responsibilities as a public sector housing provider by withholding public information to obstruct due process of law when handling complaints by tenants. Definitions The term "abuse of process" defines as neglect by the Trust to insure due process of law by subverting legal, disciplinary or arbitration proceedings with intent to enforce jurisdiction over tenants generally. The Trust has used unsubstantiated declarations to support evidentiary assertions. Moreover, it has not provided: notice of a hearing; documents substantiating Trust claims; reference to the Trust rules under which they make accusations; minutes of relevant issues; and names and titles of hearing participants and witnesses. Trust executives classify as state actors when they acknowledge complaints. The term "state actor" gives the impression that it includes only officials directly employed by government. However, it also includes public sector officials who deal indirectly with government in the way commonly cultivated by housing trusts. By its non-compliance with its own rules and procedures, the Trust indulged in a pattern or practice of abuse of process. Human rights conventions seek to achieve a fair balance between conflicting rights of housing trusts and fundamental rights of tenants guaranteed by articles of convention. A doctrine of proportionality remains central to achieving that balance. It requires that any restriction of a convention right (where this is permissible) must be proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. In order to satisfy that requirement, any Trust employee (state actor) interfering with a convention right must show cause to a court that the actions did not classify as arbitrary or unfair; that the actor strictly limited the action to achieve a legitimate public policy; and that the restriction did not outweigh the benefit to the community. Knight, Crosthwaite and Garwood did not comply with those conventions nor have they shown probable cause for a complaint against the Tenant. Unacceptably broad interference that imposes an excessive or unreasonable burden on tenants breaches convention rights. In cases involving a serious breach, an application to stay the proceedings as abuse of process succeeds in most courts. Trust employees repeated abuse of process falls into that category. Despite repeated requests for PDF email attachments, Trust officials have refused to send any documents and correspondence by that method. The refusal has allowed the Trust to hold hearings in absentia and evade a discovery process. Tenant receives regular mail intermittently while on assignment abroad and cannot properly address the issues while traveling if he does not timely receive email copies with attachments. Moreover, instantaneous delivery of PDFs economizes in both time and materials. The Trust invaded the Tenant’s privacy by using confidential information to determine the dates when he would not have access to his mail. It then sent mail with a requirement to respond immediately which deliberately created a default. By that, the Trust employee effectively admitted document withholding by claiming that the Trust sent documents to a PO Box knowing that the Tenant would not have access to them. A statement by Knight tacitly admitted that Trust officials held the Stage One Complaint hearing without providing substantiating documents to Tenant. That precluded the Tenant’s legal right to a discovery process and to take depositions under an oath from his adversaries. Garwood has deliberately withheld documents although repeatedly requested to release them to support Trust assertions. By that, Knight's contentions make the issues moot due to abuse of process; moreover, if Knight, Crosthwaite and Garwood (as state actors) persist with their current behaviour, then they risk criminal indictment. Justice relies upon principles and procedures founded in law and precedent; otherwise, a state of anarchy exists which has no place in a democracy. Trust apathy and anarchy has resulted in illegal actions by officials using railroading techniques and kangaroo court ploys with a total disregard for rules, law, and mandated procedures. They have prevented resolution of complaints by ignoring conciliation processes, denied due process of law and conspired with malicious intent to pervert the course of justice. Railroading often denies due process of law by forcing rapid litigation to prevent careful consideration and criticism. It forms an essential part of most kangaroo court procedures which allow denial of human rights without a fair hearing on trumped-up evidence. That procedure dragoons or compels, subjugates, and persecutes by coercion and threats in violation of laws. Knight has completely ignored Trust complaint rules and procedures for both Stage One and Stage Two complaints, then fabricated evidence to support a kangaroo decision. By that, he arguably broadened the scope of the complaint to allow use of complaint rules in a general context. Refusal or neglect to conciliate shows a deliberate attempt to harass an elderly tenant by using railroading techniques. By that, Denny, Knight, Crosthwaite and their sycophants perverted the course of justice and evaded conciliation processes to frustrate both a Stage One hearing and a Stage Two appeal. Antisocial Behavior The Trust has committed multiple violations of the Trust health and safety policy which covers individual criminal liability by Trust directors and managers. They used regulations that apply to the Trust duty of care to tenants for malicious purposes by orchestrating an anti-social behaviour stitch-up. The term “stitch-up” means an illegal act to incriminate the Tenant by manufacturing evidence and bringing false charges under anti-social behaviour legislation. Conspiracy A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act: 1. An act which classifies as lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators. 2. Using criminal or unlawful means to commit an act not in itself unlawful. A person proves guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission that person agrees: 1. With another person or persons that they, or one or more of them, will engage in conduct which constitutes a crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit crime. 2. Aiding another person or persons in the planning or commission of a crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. Trust executive directors and managers ridiculed, harassed and bullied the Tenant. They arbitrarily made a decision to deny service by falsely stating that they had inspected the building and found no fault. No inspection took place since the filing of the complaint and the Trust neglected to address opportunities to mitigate damage presented to it by the Tenant. By that, the Trust has not exercised due diligence (a legally binding process under the Chester & District Tenancy Agreement) by inquiring into the environmental characteristics of the property. The Trust did not verify information and documentation provided by the Tenant in order to facilitate a decision as to the urgency for gas maintenance and repairs to take place. The Trust has not provided a full chronology with its notice of a Second Stage Complaint hearing. Competent panel directors expect a chronology in order to satisfy themselves of the Trust’s due diligence. The term "diligence" was added by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; however, previous legal precedents on "due expedition" remain relevant to consideration to the meaning of "all due diligence and expedition". In determining whether the Trust has acted with all due diligence and expedition, the Panel must apply an objective standard. Panel members must not accept general denial or arguments that executive directors and managers have done their best in difficult circumstances. For example, in an unsigned and undated Executive Summary #4536/45954 on a Trust letter heading (received 14 Jan 12), a Trust source claimed that the problems with gas appliances result from a decreasing availability of spare parts and apply to around 1,000 properties that it manages which have gas back boiler heating systems. That statement shows a lack of due diligence and does not rank as a legal argument; instead it demonstrates gross negligence. The Trust and private landlords have a duty of care to tenants (required by Health and Safety Executive) to act immediately upon receipt of a report of a dangerous gas condition. In this case, the condition has existed since the tenant at #405 took occupancy (01 Apr 11) and The Trust has still not addressed the complaint since the filing nine months previously (31 Mar 11). The term “duty of care” has fiduciary significance and wide legal interpretation for housing trusts. In particular, it describes an obligation imposed by law which applies to executive officers and managers. Those laws require conduct and consideration which insures that tenants do not suffer from wrongdoing or unjust actions. Officials must not by law violate tenant civil and human rights through willful blindness or negligence. Trust executive officers and managers must maintain a high-level duty of care which means that they must not commit any act that could harm tenants. If they do not satisfactorily meet that standard, then they have a legal obligation to consider those adversely affected by acts or omissions and to make reparation. The term "general denial" defines arbitrary and biased statements, innuendo, and assumption that bear no relation to facts. The Trust must controvert all the declarations and assertions as common law requires and not use a narrow construction when legal precedents generally require a liberal construction, at least until a judge rules otherwise. The Trust must present a legal argument based upon fact if it wishes to deny the substantiated assertions in complaints and must provide access to public documents. A general denial, in its legal sense, classifies as proscribed behavior. Most courts will not accept a general denial nor should any properly convened investigating panel admit it into evidence. Trust executive directors and managers continue to frustrate filing of complaints by repeatedly withholding documents. Employee information about public sector employees classifies as public information and the Trust must make copies available upon request. For example, the Trust refuses access to documents to provide substantiation of complaints and to provide a reason for a withholding except to make the arbitrary and arguably untrue statement that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the Trust. If the Trust denies a document request, then it must identify the document and state the particular exemption and statutory reference that applies and give legitimate reasons for the refusal or redaction. The law does not allow a general denial without substantiation with a legal precedent. Self-governing privileges granted by legislatures allow housing trusts to misuse lawful procedures for political purposes. The term “kangaroo court” describes biased courts or tribunals that hand down foregone conclusions using sham legal proceedings to render decisions or opinions before hearing evidence or argument. They deny the basic protection that courts provide as a right even to shoplifters. Proxies sit on kangaroo panels for personal gain and follow the dictates of executive directors and managers. They try to destroy the credibility of tenants to deny due process of law. A kangaroo panel rarely holds a fair or unbiased hearing; moreover, The Trust makes no formal response to charges against it and presents no evidence before convening these courts to address a complaint by the Tenant. It does not disclose the names of the people in advance who will sit on the panel as required by its own rules. Moreover, it hears cases in absentia thereby denying tenants the opportunity to present their case. By that, they deny basic rights in law by disallowing either oral testimony or written affidavits submitted by witnesses. The Tenant, whose only transgression probably relates to exercising his freedom of expression to support assertions of wrongdoing, does not have access to oral recordings or written transcripts of testimony that would enable the right to an appellate decision. Wendy Garwood, Satisfaction and Complaints Officer claimed that although the Trust rules call for three directors to sit on Trust panels, due to them having other commitments she could only find two and would arrange for Denny (who ranks as part of the problem more than the solution) to chair the panel hearing. She then claimed that if the two directors do not vote in unison, then Denny would cast the deciding vote. A reasonable person must ask: Who does she think that she deceives with this stitch-up? Natural justice has two fundamental principles widely held as essential to a fair hearing or valid decision in any complaint brought against the Trust. Moreover, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The fundamental principles: 1. The Trust shall not judge nemo iudex in causa sua (its own cause). That provision prevents bias or conflict of interest or neglect of duty. 2. The Trust shall grant audi alteram partem (a hearing to the other side) which guarantees tenants a fair opportunity to present their case including access to legal counsel. Reasonableness maintains the principle of natural justice which the Trust has blatantly disregarded when addressing the dangerous health and safety issues presently under consideration. Natural justice includes the following notions of procedural fairness: 1. Obligations depriving individuals of their rights to advanced warning cannot be imposed retrospectively. [Retroactive Preemption] 2. A Tenant accused in a Trust/Tenant issue, or at risk of damage or loss, must have adequate notice about proceedings (including substantiated documentation of all charges and citations that support the action). 3. Trust officials must declare any personal interest in proceedings and in the case of conflict of interest recuse themselves. 4. A person making a decision must remain unbiased and act in good faith. 5. Proceedings must allow for fairness to all the parties. 6. Each party to a proceeding has an entitlement to ask questions and contradict substantiated evidence presented by the opposing party. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact or reason (ad hominem: invective without reason) has no place in an arbitration proceeding. 7. A decision-maker must take into account all relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances and dismiss irrelevant assertions. 8. If a decision satisfies the majority of tenants after the issues have had fair and unbiased review in the media, then members will continue to place their faith in the Trust. In the current complaints, Chester & District Housing Trust Ltd. has not complied by any stretch of imagination with the concepts mandated for natural justice. The disingenuous responses to the Stage One complaint by Knight, Crosthwaite and Garwood do not address the complaint. They have not jointly or severally covered the issues asserted in the complaint or referred to the correspondence which substantiates them. Instead, they have submitted inadmissible, unsubstantiated, self-serving general denials not acceptable at any hearing. By that, they have deliberately frustrated appellate action by obstructing the filing of a Stage Two complaint to appeal the frivolous and vexatious decisions submitted in the Stage One complaint which construes as multiple abuse of process. Open Letters and Letters Patent The term “open letter” describes a protest, addressed to one person or a group, disseminated for the public good using newspapers and electronic media. The term also applies to “letters patent” which consist of legal documents mailed to a person or organization by a government regulator or public sector provider which the recipient publicizes to make the public aware of the content. Senders of open letters and letters patent may distribute them individually or publish them electronically to a group. Pattern or practice defines as, and manifests in, two or more organized acts or instances which indicate ensuant activity. Those acts include conspiracy to harass and coerce the Tenant through wrongful use of language that evades the Trust's duty of care. Trust directors have ignored their responsibility to investigate both current and previous harassment of tenants by executive directors and managers without bias. Perverting the Course of Justice Perverting the course of justice classifies as a criminal offence in UK and Irish jurisdictions. A common law offence, it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It can include any of three acts: fabricating or disposing of evidence; intimidating or threatening a witness or juror; and intimidating or threatening a judge. The sentence appropriate for perverting the course of justice essentially depends on three issues: 1. Seriousness of the offence to which the perverting of the course of justice related. 2. Degree of persistence. 3. Effect of the attempt to pervert the course of justice. Railroading denies due process of law by forcing rapid litigation to prevent careful consideration and criticism. It forms an essential part of most kangaroo court procedures which allow denial of human rights without a fair hearing on trumped-up evidence. The procedure dragoons or compels, subjugates, and persecutes by coercion and threats in violation of law - in short, it construes as harassment when it applies to an elderly man approaching eighty years of age. The term "retroactive preemption" means an unlawful and disingenuous time-warp stratagem designed to preempt filing a complaint using corrupted evidence and documents that the parties should have exchanged during a discovery process. All Trust correspondence and actions since 20 Aug 11 which relate to appointments for gas appliance inspections form part of a "retroactive preemption" scam to prevent inspection by an independent structural engineer and gas technician. The Tenant ordered an independent inspection to show multiple negligence and fraud by Trust executive directors and managers. This constitutes a pattern or practice when viewed with actions by the Trust used in a conspiracy against tenants in a consort with PH Jones during 2010. Both Knight and Crosthwaite have retroactively made unsubstantiated, self-serving assertions to cover up Trust neglect provoked by questions evidently submitted to them by Health and Safety Executive. They continue to withhold documents which further obstructs due process. Trust officers use low-echelon proxies (several of them subliterate and most of them catering to pathological lying by their superiors) to evade Trust legal responsibilities. Documentation of issues over a period of twelve months shows a pattern or practice of stonewalling arguably in an attempt to obstruct justice. Executive directors and managers refuse to name the supervisors responsible for low-echelon employees. They then use those employees as proxies to orchestrate evasion strategies and illegal merry-go-rounds. Stonewalling denies appeals and abrogates tenant rights by allowing public sector employees to indulge in contempt prior to investigation. Neglect to provide records promptly or to describe them with particularity construe as silent withholding to evade acting upon lawful requests. Moreover, laws require public sector employees to document any issue in which they officially participate. Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Inquiry The Equality and Human Rights Commission “the Commission”, a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, took over the responsibilities of the Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It now exists as the independent advocate for equality and human rights in UK. The Commission has a mandate to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people also promote and protect human rights. It enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It provides advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors also to individuals. A release of the results (23 Nov 11) of the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry into the home care system in England revealed disturbing evidence about the treatment of many elderly people. It addressed their struggle to voice their concerns about their care and the lack of independent means for verbal, protected discourse. They desperately need forums in which they can discuss the type of support to which they have legal entitlement. Contra Cabal web site exists as one of those forums. In exposing similar breaches of human rights to those applicable to the Trust, the final report of the Commission’s inquiry stated: . . . hundreds of thousands of older people lack protection under the Human Rights Act. The Equality and Human Rights Commission calls for this legal loophole to be closed. It questions commissioning practices that focus on a rigid list of tasks instead of what older people actually need. That focus gives more weight to cost than to acceptable quality of care which sounds very familiar to elderly people occupying Chester & District Housing Trust properties. Sally Greengross, Commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “It is essential that care services respect people's basic human rights. This is not about burdensome red tape, it is about protecting people from the kind of dehumanizing treatment we have uncovered. The emphasis is on saving pennies rather than providing a service which will meet the very real needs of our grandparents, our parents, and eventually all of us”. This inquiry proposed steps that would make sure human rights are protected in future – including changes to the law so that, at a minimum, all people getting publically funded home care are protected by the Human Rights Act. Most elderly people want to carry on living in their own homes in later life, even if they need help to do so. When implemented, the recommendations from the EHRC inquiry will provide secure foundations for a home care system that emphasizes safety with dignity and independence. Greengross (born Sally Ralea Rosengarten 29 Jun 1935) a British politician ascended to the peerage as Baroness Greengross of Notting Hill in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the year 2000. Greengross, who received her education at Brighton and Hove School and the London School of Economics and Political Science, also holds honorary doctorates from seven British universities. Equality Act 2010 Equality Act 2010 (the Act) claims to reform and harmonize equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to prohibit victimization in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; and to increase equality of opportunity. Age and sex now feature as “protected characteristics” and direct discrimination occurs when landlords treat one tenant less favorably than they would treat others. This is a change from previous legislation, which allows for objective justification of direct age discrimination to preserve the status quo. The Act completed the final stage of its passage through Parliament during April 2010 and its provisions came into effect from October 2010. It brings together existing discrimination legislation into one Act and introduces a range of new provisions. Changes significantly affect public authorities and public sector trusts in the affordable housing sector which consists of a wide range of different providers. This leads to some complexity to whom these additional obligations apply. In practice, the new regulatory framework has already made it a requirement for all providers in England to consider the diverse needs of their tenants in everything that they do. Good practice requires that landlords and their service providers tackle discrimination and promote equality and diversity, regardless of the extent to which it is a legal obligation. By considering the diversity of their tenants they can avoid legal challenges. The Act specifically outlaws unlawful age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities or services and makes it possible for an individual to claim that they have been discriminated against because of a combination of two of the protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It also cites additional obligations for public authorities and those exercising public functions which apply to the Trust. It provides a new definition of discrimination arising out of disability. For the Trust this means that they will need to make investigations when granting tenancies or when taking any action against a tenant to make sure they are not indirectly discriminating against them on the grounds of disability and to keep records as to why specific action has been taken. The Act also introduces a public sector duty to tackle discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and encourage good community relations. It also applies to public authorities and “a person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions” in the exercise of those public functions. The Act explains that a public function has a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 which includes acts by the Trust. Fraud Act 2006 Fraud (1) A person is guilty of fraud if in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence). (2) The sections are— (a) section 2 (fraud by false representation), (b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and (c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position). (3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). Fraud by Abuse of Position - Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 1. The amount involved. 2. The use to which money was put (spending on luxuries more venal than on necessities). 3. Breach of position trust, such as by employee, director or trustee. 4. Elderly or vulnerable victim. 5. Extent of loss - Intended and Actual. 6. Extent of gain - Intended and Actual. 7. The period over which, and the persistence with which, the fraud was carried out. 8. Guilty plea. 9. Voluntary repayments. 10. Personal factors such as illness, disability, family difficulties, etc. UK/EU law firms with US associates or Washington State law firms with UK/EU associates interested in acting for Contra Cabal Foundation Limited in several tort actions against organizations described on Contra Cabal web pages should contact: Paul Trummel
|
