POLICE SUSSEX

A police state is one that puts fear into the heart of its citizens to control them politically and physically. In Sussex the police selectively investigate cases to avoid prosecuting criminals who are chums, such as council planners, and selectively prosecute those who complain about the lack of prosecutions of such criminals, often with charges that amount to a frame up.

Sussex police use the same case crafting as Wealden District Council officers, such as ignoring evidence that does not support their point of view, and including misleading evidence that supports their presentation, to planning committees.

Police shooting: The victim - Wednesday 23rd May 2001

James "Jimmy" Ashley had a reputation for being cold and calculating, a man who used violence as a tool to get a job done. Police knew him as a man who rarely showed emotion and considered him dangerous. His family and friends saw him as a much-loved son, brother and father, who was a "gentleman of gentlemen".

He could well have been familiar with the world of violence and drugs as early as his childhood, as he grew up in an area of Liverpool, the Dingle, which had a history of criminal activity based on the drugs trade. At that time, it was well known for the turf wars that took place between rival cocaine gangs.

Already toughened up in his teenage years in Liverpool, Mr Ashley moved down south in his late 20s.

He headed for Eastbourne, to work as a bouncer in a nightclub, and settled there building contacts and becoming a familiar face round town. He spent many years in and out of work as a bouncer or a labourer. It was during his time working on the south coast that he became known as a hard and violent man.

In 1993, this penchant for violence led to him facing murder charges after he punched father-of-three, David Hitchmough, 41, to death, during a pub brawl at the Bourne Inn, Pevensey Road, Eastbourne. Mr Hitchmough died after one single punch to the head by Mr Ashley during the fight outside the pub.

He became involved in a row with Mr Ashley during the evening over an insulting comment made about Mr Hitchmough's estranged wife Sarah but the fight broke out when they were told to leave the pub.

During his trial, Hove Crown Court heard how Mr Ashley, and his friend Paul Howey, then of no fixed abode, had lashed out at Mr Hitchmough. Picking a fight with Mr Ashley proved to be fatal. Mr Ashley was cleared of murder, but convicted of manslaughter and affray. He walked free from Hove Crown Court in June 1993, having served two years in prison on remand, much to the anger of Mr Hitchmough's family. Less than a year later, in April 1994, Mr Ashley was taken to Eastbourne District General Hospital with stab wounds and serious head injuries following a brawl in an Eastbourne pub.

The following year he was charged with criminal damage after breaking windows at the Sherlock Holmes pub in Eastbourne, where he lived at the time. In January 1998, detectives suspected him of being part of a gang of drug dealers. Officers linked him to the stabbing of a man during a brawl in Eastbourne, although five months after his death, an independent inquiry found "no evidence" he was involved and had in fact tried to pull the offender from his victim.

Mr Ashley moved to St Leonards, near Hastings, where he met his teenage girlfriend, Caroline Courtland-Smith, in a seafront bar. She would often stay the night at Ashley's flat and she was with him on the night police decided to bring him in for questioning. He was shot dead in front of her as he stood naked by the side of his bed in the dark.

Yesterday, Judge Mrs Justice Rafferty described Mr Ashley as "a violent, dangerous and ruthless drugs dealer". She said: "He did not walk alone, such men never do." His family hit back and said Mr Ashley's two children were now planning to sue the force for compensation for the loss of their father.

His brother Tony, 32, said: "Jimmy had no convictions for drugs. I feel he is being maligned. He is being tried and convicted after they executed him."

His sister Pauline Ashley, 38, said: "We still mourn the unacceptable and unnecessary loss of a much-loved son and His mother Eileen, said: "He was my son, so to me of course, he was lovely."

1997 PETITION FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE - IS A CRIME WAITING TO BE INVESTIGATED

In 1997 as a result of accumulated complaints of a serious nature directed at Wealden District Council's planning, enforcement and legal departments, a petition was lodged by 12 independent signatories asking for an independent investigation.

A panel of three die-hard officer's men were selected to look at complaints through a mesh so fine, the panel were not empowered to investigate any on the matters put before them. Before looking at any evidence, the panel members said they were right behind the officers - hardly an open minded approach. The panels was chaired by Lord Richard Newton, with Jack Gore and Eddie Powell.

After much ceremony, the panel gave their colleagues a clean bill of health, except only that serious issues (the subject of the complaints) were supposedly handed over to the Police - as not being within their remit - this act in itself is an admission that there were matters to be looked at that were too hot to handle at the misfeasance level.

The remaining serious matters were handed to the Police, when Detective Sergeant Keith Lindsay failed to conduct any sort of investigation, failed to contact any complainant to take a statement and failed to interview any of the suspected officers, but simply bundled the petitioners complaints on to the CPS, who in the absence of any investigation - looked the other way.

The CPS, of course, could see that none of the informants had been interviewed. They thus knew there had been no investigation. The CPS became party to perverting the course of justice, and failing to investigate a crime.

What they should have done was ask why there was no evidence in the form of statements from the informants. Wealden's panel had said there was a criminal element to be investigated. The Council did not pursue such lines of enquiry. Because, as they said it was: "Not within their remit."

But then it gets worse, this force then allowed the then Council's chief executive (and presumably other officers), to write a letter purporting to be to their council from Sussex police, using official police headed paper.

This ruse convinced members they were looking at the result of an full investigation. However, the Police later admitted there had never been one. Later still when the truth was discovered, the replacement chief executive (the former CEO, Derek Holness, having made a get away on an enhanced pension) refused to allow Petitioners sight of the fraudulently concocted Police letter.

One of the 12 complainant's kept on pushing for an investigation, where Ian Kay, J D Moss, Victorio Scarpa, George White and others lied to Inspector Raymond Dannreuther and other Secretary of State planning Inspectors between 1986 and 1998.

Nelson Kruschandl knew that his Human Rights had been breached, causing his marriage to fail after 7 years of trying to correct the injustice, and subsequently a second long term (common law) marriage to crash after another 7 years of trying to correct the injustice - 14 years of stress that was brought on by Wealden's crooked officers.

As Nelson stepped up his efforts to correct the injustice, to include talking on tough enforcement cases and winning at Appeals, including the threat of citizens arrests, it is alleged that both Wealden and Sussex police conspired to frame the activist, where he represented a risk to the continuation of them milking the system.

An opportunity arose as the result of Mr Kruschandl leaving a relationship, after his partner started hitting him and damaging his computer equipment. It is alleged that the daughter of this partner was groomed by by her grandfather (and possibly grandmother) to claim that she'd been sexually assaulted by penetration of her vagina.

This was despite the fact that the claimant was intact and a virgin at the time that she was groomed - something not known to their victim at the time, and something his solicitor and barrister refused to challenge - claiming legal aid restrictions on funding.

As a result of what amounts to a conspiracy to frame Mr Kruschandl, he was convicted and forced to serve 3.75 years in various prisons in the United Kingdom, deliberately kept many miles away from his family - to cause him maximum distress.

Why? Because in the UK there is no Right of Appeal. You have to ask for permission to appeal. But in his case the Court Service refused to supply vital transcripts of the trial. Including the testimony of Dr Melanie Leibenberg and the claimant's mother, a single parent working as a community psychiatric nurse.

Some time into his prison sentence, while at Her Majesty's pleasure, the victim of this incredible frame-up, came across a medical report by Elizabeth Carter, the real expert for Sussex police. Her evidence in another case contradicted that of Dr Leibenberg. Subsequently, investigations into female anatomy in the US, that Ms Carter had made reference to, was incorporated into English law. This research confirmed that marks that were held to be suspicious, were in fact naturally occurring. Hence the Jury in the case had been mislead. With Judge Cedric Joseph apparently appointing the Jury as medical experts, in allowing them to make of the testimony of Dr Leibenberg, what they wished.

The Judge also appeared less than competent, presumably why he'd been chosen - where he wrongly attributed the work diary of the claimant's mother to the accused. Either a serious blunder, or a deliberate attempt to ensure a conviction.

Not having had an appeal, the case was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), but they did not tackle either the virginity issue or the diary misinformation. Arguing there was nothing to look at, when even a layman looking at the transcript would realise that the Judge had got his facts wrong.

In addition, on application for a Judicial Review as to the incompetence of the CCRC, the High Court wrongly declared that the CCRC were entitled to take a view in relation to two near identical cases they had referred to the Court of Appeal, when that is a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights - as in unfavourable case treatment.

We feel sure that a non-activist, would have been treated differently by the CCRC.

Since that time Sussex police have hounded Mr Kruschandl, kept him on a Sexual Offenders register and arranged for three further attempts at frame-ups. It must be then that apart from the Article 6 offences against the person, that Article 3 is also invoked.

Many policemen are Masons. This can lead to corruption at high levels, where fellow Masons, members of the public, might obtain favours, charges dropped, or charges brought against someone, as examples. The law is quite often used incorrectly (illegally) to further the objectives of private causes. But who is there to investigate? Since many, if not most high ranking officers are Masons, in whichever force, even an outside force is unlikely to identify an officer who will make any effort to investigate a fellow officer. It's a club, for a favoured few.

The above is just a few of a number of persons likely to be investigated in respect of certain cases brought against Wealden Action Group members, on the instigation of known Masons, Councillors, or planning officers, many of which are themselves Masons.

Adolf Hitler

German Chancellor

Herman Goring

Reichsmarschall

Heinrich Himmler

Reichsführer

Joseph Goebbels

Reich Minister

Philipp Bouhler SS

NSDAP Aktion T4

Dr Josef Mengele

Physician Auschwitz

Martin Borman

Schutzstaffel

Adolph Eichmann

Holocaust Architect

Rudolf Hess

Commandant

Erwin Rommel

The Desert Fox

Karl Donitz

Kriegsmarine

Albert Speer

Nazi Architect

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH - This website is protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Injustice Alliance avers that the right to impart information is a right, no matter that the method of communication is unpalatable to the State.