THE TWIN TOWERS  THE PENTAGON  Lyrics by Timothy Spearman

The Twin Towers 

 

On one side, George W. Bush                         On the other, Osama bin Laden,

two twins divided by a Gulf                            we know as the Twin Towers.

Changeling twins from same                           family and Illuminized fraternity.

Skull and Bonesman’s son                              and the CIA operative bin Laden.

Two royals of one big family                          working for the same societies,

whether on this side or that;                            whether here or way over there.

Falling for the ruse, America,                         of the faulty towers is our fault.

We’re being double-crossed                           again by French House of Guise.

Just look at the coat-of-arms                           they’re wearing on their sleeves

and you will see the EXXON                          logo is the very same as theirs,

proving that the twins work                            for the same Mafia brotherhood.

As for the Holy War over oil,                          they’re using the same script

St. Augustine used long ago,                           and Muslim clerics consulted

to launch the Holy Crusades                           and the Jihad against infidels

that would bring two armies                           to the Holy Land to spill blood:

“Ye are the evil heathens!”                           “Nay, ye are the devil’s infidels!”

“In God We Trust” to win.                            “God is on our side indubitably.”

“We are the self-righteous.”                          “We are Allah’s holy warriors.”

We are a tower of strength.                            The tower is our foundation.

The Strength and Foundation                          are those WTC Twin Towers

known as Jachin and Boaz,                             the twin pillars of the Temple

destroyed by fire and water                            in Atlantis back in 11,000 B.C.,

Newly erected in the USA,                            Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis

destroyed by fire and water.                           They will rise again phoenixes.

The New Atlantis has fallen,                           only to rise up again from ash

in the final stage of creating                            the UN’s New World Order.

THE PENTAGON
                                       Lyrics by Timothy Spearman
                      Music by James Newhouse & unnamed musician 


The truth is not 5-sided.

                                        To those who want to see truth,

                                    sacred is to reveal the profane mask.

                               For sacred geometry to be a sacred preserve

                         its lines and angles would have to conform to peace.

                   Note that there is nothing sacred or holy about HOLY WARS

             either for the Church Fathers or their Sons or for the Son of the Father.

   As for Thomas Jefferson’s street plan for Washington, D.C., why all the pentacles?

 I am sure there are a few hexes in those hexagrams drawn by that Grand Geometrician.
Let us not be deluded into thinking that the Pentagon Building conforms to the norm   

     of what is held sacred according to the letter of the word G, the Great Artificer.

         There is nothing sacred about the Pentagon Building’s sacred geometry;

             it is a travesty of everything called holy to regard it as a holy site.

                It is actually Lucifer’s disguised pentacle from the inside out.

                        So don’t be deceived by the deceiver’s appearances.

                             The world is not called samsrara for nothing.

                                 This unholy site is a mechanized Mecca

                                    for robots like Gen. Richard Myers,

                                           the chief organizer of 9-11.

                                              Know it is on his head.

                                                 He wears the mark

                                                     of the Beast:

                                                            6 6

                                                             6.

 

CoViD-19 Vaccines: Debunking Conspiracy Debunkers

By Timothy Spearman

Bill Gates has used the same M.O. in all of his fraud-related crime since the beginning of his depraved career. Beginning with his computer software company, the strategy was to implement Hegelian dialectics consisting of 1) Thesis: Problem, 2) Antithesis: Reaction, and 3) Synthesis: Solution. This was accomplished by his Microsoft technicians devising viruses to infect Microsoft computer software programs, causing users PCs to become infected, and then supplying the antidote in terms of Microsoft-designed Anti-Virus programs.

The user would then make the online purchase of the Anti-Virus software program and install it on their computer, and presto—problem solved, or so the user thought. What has really transpired is that, while the Anti-Virus program had neutralized the culprit virus, yet another had been seeded in the user’s hard drive, so that another virus alert would occur a few week’s later, advising the user to download another Anti-Viral software program to attend to the latest viral infection in their PC. Few ever questioned the suspicious Anti-Viral software program pop-ups that immediately appeared on the user’s PC to warn them that their computer had been infected. Could they not see that the so-called PC vaccine was linked to the virus itself and that they were each aiding and abetting each other?

As with the computer software programs, their viruses and the vaccines for the virus, so the bioweapon lab technicians experimenting with gain-of-function viruses are the same scientists working on the so-called vaccines for those weaponized viruses. And not surprisingly Dr. Evil Gates and his foundation are behind the same problem-reaction-solution strategy game to seed the viruses, provide the vaccine, implanting yet another virus or at least the appearance of one through the production of auto-immune symptoms by means of the vaccine itself, which would require yet another vaccine in an endless positive feedback loop of infection, sickness and death.

Now the operating system of the human being—the DNA—is being altered by an operating system devised by Gates’ brilliant but diabolical mind. With funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Moderna and Pfizer have embarked upon the creation of what are described as mRNA ‘vaccines’, which are really operating systems meant to program changes in the DNA through reprogrammed RNA transcription and translation hacking the software of life. What will occur is that the mRNA will be reprogramed to instruct the cells to generate the same protein spikes found in the CoViD-19 virus. This will have the effect of producing symptoms matching the effects of the virus itself, resulting in an auto-immune response, in which the body’s immune system will start attacking its own healthy tissues in targeting the embedded spike proteins planted there.

On top of that, Gates and company have implemented a plan to implant the enzyme Luciferase in the vaccine, so that when people pass through the military checkpoints of the future, scanners will be able detect that the person has received the CoViD-19 vaccine. Gates call for vaccine certificates will ultimately lead to nanobot implants aimed serving not only as certificates as well as a means of interfacing with 5G communication towers.

Of course, there are the usual attempts by the mainstream media outlets to debunk all these claims as outlandish conspiracy theories, which most respectable people are inured into accepting as the hairbrained ideas of disaffected, embittered, and deservedly marginalized trouble-makers.
Slapping its usual prophylactic of the disseminators of such claims, the BBC recently investigated what it refers to as “a conspiracy theory” that the coronavirus ‘pandemic’ is a cover for a plan to implant trackable ‘microchips’ in vaccine recipients and that Bill Gates is behind it. And so, I find myself in the bunker once again, debunking the conspiracy debunkers.
According to the BBC, there is no vaccine “microchip” and there is no evidence to support claims that Bill Gates is planning any such measure for the future. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told the BBC the claim was “false.” It is hardly convincing to receive such a denial from the organization. Since when does a corporate entity speak? Who was the spokesperson? Why did they fail to identify themselves? Besides, if you pose a question related to a criminal action to criminals, they are hardly likely to admit to it. And how much do the spokespersons at the foundation actually know about the vaccine anyway? Such spokespersons may be responding on the organization’s behalf based on what little they know and have been told. They may not even be in a position to offer an expert opinion on the subject. They are, after all, acting as spokespersons for the organization, and since they are drawing a paycheck from the organization, they are hardly likely to speak ill of it or question the merits of a vaccine promoted by it.

 

One TikTok user created a video about people being “microchipped” and referring to the vaccine as the “Mark of the Beast.”
The BBC then confirmed that Gates admitted in an interview that eventually “we will have some digital certificates,” which would be used to show who’d recovered, been tested, and ultimately, who received a vaccine. According to the BBC, Gates made no mention of microchips. This is really a question of semantics, the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. What is meant by “digital certificates” and how are they distinguishable from microchips? They may not be chips as such, but they are still embedded in the body subcutaneously with the vaccine injection for the purpose of serving as vaccine receipt certification.

 

The BBC then refers to an article titled, “Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus.” According to the BBC, the article refers to a study, funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone’s vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection. Well, it may not technically be the same as a microchip, but it does the same thing for which a microchip is intended—to store the person’s data so that it can be scanned and verified. It amounts to a different label or name for something that does essentially the same thing.
Still, the BBC defends the technology, claiming, “However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.” Semantics Ana, semantics. Whether it’s a microchip or an invisible tattoo, it is still invasive technology being injected subcutaneously into our bodies without our permission, and in the case of many people without their “informed consent,” which violates the provisions of the Nuremburg Code.

 

How quickly and easily it has been for governments worldwide to repeat the past regimes without the least resistance from the public. All the authorities need to do is use a respected institution like the BBC to affirm that it is all good and everyone is lulled into a sense of compliance and acceptance. The BBC would never lie, they will say, when the fact is that skirting the issue and obfuscating is often worse because it is a grey area that is neither true nor false and leaves people in a No Man’s Land of complete uncertainty.

The BBC then defends one of the greatest criminals on the planet, Bill Gates, doubtless because, like other mainstream media agencies, it has received funding and advertising revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund and support, hence BBC’s defense of the man: “The billionaire founder of Microsoft has been the subject of many false rumors during the pandemic. He’s been targeted because of his philanthropic work in public health and vaccine development.”

The truth is he is not the victim of false rumors. Many of the claims about him are true. He has been found liable of causing vaccine injury in thousands of Indians, and has had legal proceedings launched against him in India on that account. He has also more recently been accused of causing a polio outbreak in sub-Saharan African with a polio vaccination campaign, when this disease is not even a concern in the region, diarrhea and malaria posing far more serious disease threats.

According to the BBC, in May 2020 a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Gates wanted to use vaccines to implant microchips in people. Well, it may not be a microchip per se, but implanting an “invisible tattoo” called Luciferase, which emits a red glow subcutaneously detectable by a scanner, amounts to something just as dystopian and just as invasive as microchipping the population. Implanting an “invisible tattoo” in people is a breach of human rights and highly dehumanizing and degrading. It obviously shows that we are being treated like cattle by being forced to have something invasive embedded in our bodies. Microchip or not, it is an implant and it is scannable. Whatever the truth of these claims an “invisible tattoo” is hardly something people should be accepting and lining up for.

The BBC then attempts to debunk claims that vaccines contain the lung tissue of an aborted fetus, which the BBC alleges is false, appealing to the authority of Dr. Michael Head of the University of Southampton: “There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process.” Well that settles it then, doesn’t it? God has spoken. Since when is the University of Southampton the be all and end all? And who is Dr. Michael Head besides another talking head?

The BBC then refers to a video posted on an anti-vaccine Facebook page, in which “the narrator” claims is evidence of what goes into the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. Why doesn’t the BBC identify the Facebook page and the video in question so those reading the article can check it out for themselves? Is it because the BBC is afraid that they might be more persuaded by the video than the broadcaster’s lame attempts to debunk and dismiss the argument? The BBC alleges that narrator had misinterpreted the study. According to the broadcaster, the study involved exploring how the vaccine reacted when introduced to human cells in a lab. However, this is merely semantics and obfuscation again. Clearly, what is implied is that cells were grown in a lab that were the descendants of embryonic cells “that would otherwise be destroyed.”

The BBC explains further, alleging that the YouTube video narrator did not understand the science:
BLOCK QUOTE BEGINS
Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.
BLOCK QUOTE ENDS
Many vaccines are made in this way, explains Dr. David Matthews, from Bristol University, adding that any traces of the cells are comprehensively removed from the vaccine “to exceptionally high standards.”
The developers of the vaccine at Oxford University say they worked with cloned cells, but these cells “are not themselves the cells of aborted babies.”
Dr. Matthews further explains that the cells work like a factory for manufacturing a greatly weakened form of the virus adapted to function as a vaccine. However, even though the weakened virus is created using these cloned cells, these cells are removed when the virus is purified and are not used in the vaccine, he assures us. Flora Carmichael and Jack Goodman, “Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, ‘altered DNA’ and more,” December 2, 2020, bbc.com/news/54893437.

Biologist Pamela Acker, who has a master’s degree in Biology from the Catholic University of America, has presented evidence that cell lines derived from aborted babies used in the production or testing of various vaccines, including a number of CoViD vaccines, most likely came from babies who were aborted alive, and according to the general practice outlined in medical literature, may have been placed in a fridge alive, awaiting an operation to have their organs harvested.

“A number of these abortions that were done in that way were termed ‘abdominal hysterectomies’ in the medical literature. So in some cases, the women were actually being sterilized in the process as well,” she said. “So these babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered, basically. And this is right there in the scientific literature.”
Bottom of Form
Acker made these comments during an online conference hosted by LifeSiteNews titled “Unmasking CoViD-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health.”
About a decade ago, Acker spent about nine months working in a lab to develop an HIV vaccine with a grant provided by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but when her team decided to use HEK-293 cells for the project, she became troubled by the ethics of such a decision.

 

“At this point, most people have heard of these (cell lines) because they are connected with the CoViD vaccines, but at that time I hadn’t. So I asked (my colleague) what ‘HEK’ stands for, and she told me, ‘Human Embryonic Kidney,”’ Acker stated.

It was after reading Dr. Alvin Wong’s paper titled, “The Ethics of HEK 293,” that appeared in the 2006 autumn issue of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, that Acker was able to come to a proper moral position.

Acker explained the meaning behind the letters and numbers HEK 293, the cell line developed by Dr. Frank Graham in the Netherlands in 1973.
“HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney. But 293 stands for the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop the cell lines,” she explained.

The kidney was taken from a “completely normal” preborn girl aborted in 1972 who, according to Alex van der Eb, the doctor leading the team to develop the cell line, had “nothing wrong” with her.
Acker speculates that there were probably far more abortions behind the final development of the cell line, since “for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. We’re talking probably 100s of abortions,” she said.

Graham, however, recently told Ian Jackson, who was conducting research in the HEK-293 cell line, that only one fetus was involved.

“On my arrival at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands I kept lab books in which I numbered my experiments in the order in which I carried them out starting in 1970. None of these experiments used human embryo kidney cells (HEK) until very late in my studies in Leiden (1973) when I carried out 2 (two!) experiments that utilized kidney cells from 1 (one!) human fetus.”
“Since abortion was illegal in the Netherlands at that time except to save the life of the mother I have always assumed that that fetus resulted from a therapeutic abortion. However, the kidney cells I used had been prepared and frozen away before I even arrived in Leiden. Consequently, I do not have first hand knowledge of the circumstances relating to that single abortion. The second of the two experiments I carried out with these HEK cells was experiment 293 and resulted in the cell line of the same name. The bottom line is that the 293-cell line resulted from cells obtained from a single fetus.”
Acker insists that Graham’s statement is “misleading at best.”

“When a cell line is developed, it is usually produced using a sample of tissue from a single individual unless it’s a hybrid cell line. So on the one hand, it is technically correct to say that the cell line was developed using one aborted baby. However, this is not an accurate representation of how many lives were actually sacrificed in the whole process of developing an aborted fetal cell line.”
Acker pointed out that there is every indication that the cells were derived from an “electively aborted” baby. “In particular, the fact that the cells were stored in the freezer lends further credence to the conclusion that HEK-293 was derived from an electively aborted fetus,” she said.

“The success and longevity of HEK-293 suggests that the specimen was remarkably well-suited for culturing, and anyone who has studied cell theory should know that you cannot derive a living cell culture from tissue that is already dead. Because of the biological impossibility of creating a live cell line from dead tissue, and the practical and biological implausibility of obtaining live tissue from a spontaneously miscarried fetus, it is far more likely that the baby from whom HEK-293 was derived was electively aborted and alive at the time of tissue extraction.”

Acker believes that the tissue from the baby used for the production of HEK-293 was likely obtained through the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction or “C-section abortion,” which can include the removal of the uterus along with the living baby still inside.
Acker then quoted Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain, who described how abortions must be done to obtain uncontaminated fetal material.

“To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms,” wrote Herranz.

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media,” (bold added) he added.
After reading Herranz account, Acker concludes, “Because of the necessity of maintaining a sterile culture of tissue for developing a cell line, it seems reasonable to conclude that there would—at minimum—had to have been some pre-arrangement to obtain sterile, unmacerated tissue from the fetus used for HEK-293. The easiest and surest way to do this is by the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction.”

Acker concludes that the formation of other cell lines derived from aborted babies and used for research purposes, as well as the development of numerous vaccines, must have involved hundreds of abortions.
“Many aborted fetal cell lines and all the aborted fetal cell lines used in currently licenced vaccines are the culmination of a series of experiments that include multiple abortions,” she said. Acker listed the following examples:
· The WI-38 cell line (used in MMR and shingles vaccines) came from the 32nd aborted baby that was used in a series of experiments. Other cell lines that came out of the Wistar Institute include WI-26 (from the 20th aborted baby) and WI-44 cell (from the 38th aborted baby).
· The MRC-5 line (used in hepatitis A, measles, and shingles vaccines) required five abortions to the course of development.

 

 

 

· WALVAX2, the most recent aborted fetal cell line, came from the ninth aborted baby in a series.
· RA273, which is the virus used in the rubella vaccine, originated in the 27th baby that was aborted in an effort to obtain the virus required for vaccine development. Mothers who were infected with the rubella virus during pregnancy were actively encouraged to abort their children. Forty more elective abortions for rubella virus were performed after this, though RA273 was the strain that ended up in the final vaccine preparation.

Acker said that the use of aborted fetal cell lines in medical research, at any level, “fuels a growing acceptance of using aborted babies in other types of medical research.”
“This problem is irrespective of the original number of abortions performed to obtain a cell line, and will only be exacerbated by the acceptance of HEK-293-derived CoViD vaccines,” she added. Pete Batlinkski, “Babies were aborted alive, placed in fridge to harvest cell lines used in some vaccines: researcher,” February 19, 2021, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/babies-were-aborted-alive-placed-in-fridge-to-harvest-cell-lines-used-in-some-vaccines-researcher.

Returning to Dr. Matthew’s explanation and justifications for the use of aborted fetal tissue in cell lines seem comforting, but where did the embryonic cells really come from? He claims they are cloned cells, but that the cloned cells did not come from an aborted fetus. Where did they come from then? Another point that is concerning is the claim that all remnant of this cell tissue is removed. How can they be sure that it has all been removed and that no trace of its genetic material remains in the vaccine?
The danger is being overlooked here that any human cell tissue contained in the vaccine could cause the vaccine recipient’s immune system to turn on its own health human cell tissue in an autoimmune response. Biases that involve psychological denial and a desire to ignore danger may be the greatest danger of all in scientific procedure.

 

The BBC then addresses arguments against a CoViD-19 vaccine, questioning why we need one at all if the chances of dying from the virus are so slim. A meme shared by people who oppose vaccination put the recovery rate at 99.97%, suggested getting CoViD-19 is a safer option than taking a vaccine.
The BBC argues that the figure referred to in the meme as the “recovery rate” is incorrect. About 99.0% of people who catch CoViD-19 survive, says Jason Oke, senior statistician at the University of Oxford. Around 100 in 10,000 will die, far higher than three in 10,000, as suggested in the meme. This translates as a 1.0% death rate. Does a 1.0% death rate justify mass worldwide vaccination? Why is it being hyped so strongly? When there have been similar death rates related to other illnesses, what makes CoViD-19 so special that vaccination is being pushed at never-before-seen levels? There’s got to be an agenda here that our political and health authorities are not revealing. There has to be a reason they are pushing the vaccine agenda so strongly, when there really isn’t a need. The fact that they are being so secretive about it should give us all cause for concern.

 

In all fairness, Mr. Oke does make a valid point when defending the numbers. He argues that “in all cases the risks very much depend on age and do not take into account short and long-term morbidity from CoViD-19.” It does not just come down to an issue of survival. For every person who dies, there are also those who survive, but often with long-lasting health effects.

This can contribute to a health service overburdened with CoViD-19 patients, competing with a hospital’s limited resources to treat patients with other illnesses and injuries. Concentrating on the overall death rate, or breaking down the taking of a vaccine to an individual act, misses the point of vaccinations, argues Professor Liam Smeeth of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It should be seen as an effort by society to protect others, he says.

Mr. Oke’s point about vaccines being a means of safeguarding public health might be valid if it were true. However, there are plenty of studies showing that vaccines do damage people’s health and should never be recommended unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, that is not the case in most health scenarios. In most cases they are unnecessary. Whenever there is a case of medicine causing as much harm in the form of side effects and long-term health damage as the illnesses it was designed to protect people against, the wisdom of prescribing it should be questioned.

 

In October of 2019, a “germ game,” similar to a war game, called Event 201 was held at the behest of the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and hosted by John Hopkins University, an institution known to conduct gain-of-function research on disease germs in order to weaponize them ostensibly for learning how to defend against such agents. What was the scenario of Event 201? A pandemic outbreak of a coronavirus which would spread ‘virally’, as the saying goes, and kill a predicted 65 million people. The simulation was held only two months before the event it rehearsed for actually transpired. In the year since the outbreak, the globalists have attempted to enforce nearly every plan outlined during Event 201, including using social media to censor or restrict any news or information outside of the establishment approved narrative. Brandon Smith, “Is the Globalist “Reset” Failing? The Elites May Have Overplayed Their Hand,” Alt-Market.us, December 9.2020, https://alt-market.us/is-the-globalist-reset-failing-the-elites-may-have-overplayed-their-hand/

Unfortunately, we are being cajoled into not questioning any of the official narrative, and being accused of criminality for daring to do exercise our democratic right of free speech. It seems we have made no progress as a society since the days of Socrates. We should remember that, for his act of questioning the standards and beliefs of his society, he was accused of the crime of corrupting the youth, and when convicted, faced execution by drinking poison hemlock. In our case, the situation is more tragic. We may be poisoned not for asking questions, but for being forbidden to ask any. Flora Carmichael and Jack Goodman, “Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, ‘altered DNA’ and more,” December 2, 2020, bbc.com/news/54893437

Check out my Bill Gates’ video: “Microsoft Gates’ Limp Needle Will Never Fly” https://www.shakesaspear.com/bill-gates/microsoft-gates-limp-noodle-will-never-fly/#t=4

Diary of the Incidents of Harassment of Paul & Barbara Hofschröer

Diary of the Incidents of Harassment of Paul & Barbara Hofschröer and their carer Peter Hofschröer by Robert, Diane & Martin Hofschröer, North Yorkshire Police & the City of York Council

 

hofschroer-report-14.08.20

 

Harassment_Diary_26 & 29 combined

 

 

No Date Time Description of Incident Witnesses / Documents Comments
1 Background Paul and Barbara Hofschröer lived at 74 Rosedale Avenue, York.  They have two children Robert and Peter. Robert has two children, Diane and Martin, who all live in Acomb, York, close to Paul and Barbara Hofschröer.  Peter lives in Austria.

 

In 2007, Robert fraudulently deceived Barbara and Paul into transferring ownership of their house to Robert, Diane and Martin on the basis that:

1. Peter lived far away and could not look after them in their old age, whilst they lived very close to the parental home in 74 Rosedale Avenue, and would look after them in their old age.

2. Barbara and Paul would be allowed to live in it for the rest of their lives or until the house was no longer suitable for them.

3. Diane and Martin would hold 25% of the house each in trust for Peter.

 

This was recognised in the License Agreement transferring the property, which included a clause requiring the house to be sold to pay for sheltered accommodation should any future decline in Paul’s and Barbara’s health require this.

 

Diane and Martin convinced Peter to transfer his house in Austria to them on the basis that they would hold it in trust for Peter.

74 Rosedale Avenue is currently worth about £200,000 in today’s market.

 

Transfer, Licence
2 April 2008 Paul was admitted into hospital seriously ill. The hospital staff said it would be necessary for Paul to go into a care home. Robert and Diane refused to allow him to do so and insisted Barbara should look after him at home.  This was because they did not want to depreciate the estate with care costs. Barbara, Peter Neglect

 

Breach of the agreement by which the house was transferred to them

3 ??.04.2008 Peter heard his father Paul is seriously ill and had been taken to hospital and drives to York.  When he arrives there from his home in Austria, he is shocked to find his mother Barbara’s minor leg injury has become very serious due to neglect by Robert.

 

It is clear to Peter that Robert and his family have abandoned his parents so he stays for a month until Barbara is well enough to be left alone, then returns home.

Medical records Neglect

 

 

 

 

 

Breach of the agreement by which the house was transferred to them

4 18.05.2008 12.00 Robert asks Barbara to disclose the whereabouts of her savings. She refuses. Robert e-mails Peter that day with the same question. Barbara.

 

e-mail

Financial abuse

Beginning of campaign by Robert to obtain his parents’ savings by deception and harassment

5 25.05.2008 12.00 Robert asks Barbara to disclose the whereabouts of her savings. She again refuses. Robert e-mails Peter that day with the same question. Barbara.

 

e-mail

Financial abuse
6 22.06.2008 20.00 Peter returns from Austria, as Paul is due to be sent home from hospital the next day after 7 weeks of serious illness.

 

Barbara contacts Robert and his family and asks them to come around to discuss how Paul is now going to be cared for.  Robert, his wife Shirley and daughter Diane attend meeting in Rosedale Avenue. They refused to discuss the subject and their only offer of help was to tell Barbara she should not run around after her bed-ridden incontinent 87 year old husband of sixty years. The family were unable to come to an agreement on how to care for Paul. Barbara told them to leave. On her way out, Diane called Barbara a “stupid old bitch”.

 

At this point, it was clear that Robert and his family were not going to look after Paul and Barbara and Peter knows Barbara cannot cope, so he became their full-time carer.

Peter, Barbara. Peter becomes full time carer

 

Verbal and emotional abuse. Robert, Shirley and Diane had reneged on the agreement to look after Paul and Barbara, which was a Breach of trust.

Emotional abuse

 

Robert & family take no further part in their care and have effectively abandoned Barbara and Paul at this point.

7 22.06.2008 20.00 By deceiving Paul & Barbara into transferring the house to them on the basis that

1. They would look after them in their old age and then abandoning them as soon as they needed care;

2. They could live in the house for as long as they wanted to, then trying to sell the house while Barbara was abroad;

Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer committed an offence of Fraud under sections 2 and 4 of the Fraud Act, 2006.

Serious Criminal Offence of defrauding his parents of property worth approximately £200,000
8 29.06.2008 Peter informs Robert that Paul has had a relapse and as readmitted to hospital seriously ill. Robert does not acknowledge this. Neither Robert nor his family visit Paul or Barbara. e-mail Emotional abuse and neglect
9 07.07.2008 Robert sends Barbara a letter threatening legal action if she does not hand over her savings. Letter Financial abuse

 

10 07.07.2008 Robert’s demand for his Mother (who was a confused and frightened 79 year old) to hand over her life savings to him under threat of legal action was a serious criminal offence of Making an Unwarranted Demand with Menaces. In this context, it is very significant that Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer have never given any justification as to what claim he has against his mother’s savings, or why she should hand them over to him, or what he wants to do with them when he gets them. Letter Demanding money with menaces
11 11.07.2008 Diane sends abusive e-mail to Peter, stating she wished Peter would return to Austria. e-mail Harassment of Barbara’s carer to make him leave and abandon control of the savings to Robert, Diane and Martin.  1
12 ??.08.2008 It is clear to Peter that his parents home 74 Rosedale Avenue, which has only one toilet upstairs is completely unsuitable for the needs of his parents, who are both incontinent and they need to move. Peter finds suitable sheltered accommodation for his parents at Fairfax Court and after discussion wit his parents, puts 74 Rosedale Avenue on the market to finance the purchase of the flat. The flat is half way between Robert’s house and Diane’s house and Peter is still hoping they will play a role in the care of Paul and Barbara. Robert contacts Halifax estate agents without reference to his parents to block the sale of house, thereby preventing the financing of suitable sheltered accommodation for Peter and Barbara. Letter on file at Halifax Financial and emotional abuse

 

Breach of Contract

 

Breach of Trust

13 28.08.2008 Peter sends Robert e-mail requesting he visit Paul and Barbara to discuss the situation.  Robert initially refuses to attend. e-mail
14 03.09.2008 20.00 Robert, Diane and Martin visit Rosedale Avenue to discuss the housing problem. Robert avoids eye-contact and covers his face with his hand. He states that all the conversation should be directed through Diane. Robert demands to know where Mum has her savings. Diane is abusive, screaming that she hates Peter. She is so agitated she broke the chair she was sitting on. They nevertheless agree to let the sale of the house go ahead. Peter puts the house on the market again. Peter, Barbara Financial, verbal and emotional abuse

 

Harassment of Barbara’s carer to make him leave and abandon control of the savings to Robert, Diane and Martin 2

15 ??.09.2008 Robert again contacts Halifax and blocks the sale of Rosedale Avenue without consulting his parents. Barbara is very upset, as neither she nor Paul can cope with the stairs any more, the toilet facilities were inadequate and she was looking forward to moving to the sheltered flat at Fairfax Court that she had viewed and considered suitable. Letter on file at Halifax Financial and emotional abuse

 

Breach of Contract

 

Breach of Trust

 

Neglect

16 15.09.2008 Barbara phones Diane to ask why the sale has been blocked.  Diane states they would only allow the house to be sold once they had access to the savings. Diane repeatedly screams “We want to know where you money is!” Barbara, Peter

 

e-mail of complaint to Diane

Harassment by Diane

 

Continuation of campaign by Robert, Diane and Martin to obtain Paul and Barbara’s savings

 

17 19.09.2008 Diane phones Rosedale Avenue and shouts at Peter telling him to:  “F**k off out of England!” Peter Harassment of Barbara’s carer to make him leave and abandon control of the savings to Robert, Diane and Martin. 3

Criminal Offence of use of insulting Words and Behaviour

18 20.09.2008 Diane phones again, but hangs up when Peter answers. Peter
19 21.09.2008 Peter e-mails PC Graham Cooper to ask for advice on dealing with the fraud and harassment. e-mail
20 22.09.2008 Barbara phones Martin (grandson) in an attempt to resolve the dispute. He demands she hands over her savings to Robert. Barbara, Peter Financial, abuse.

 

Continuation of campaign by Robert, Diane and Martin to obtain Paul and Barbara’s savings

21 24.09.2008 PC Cooper replies stating the fraud is a civil matter and the harassment, as it is coming from the family is not “straightforward”. e-mail Breach of duty
22 25.09.2008 Robert and Diane allege to the Police Peter has stolen his parents’ life savings. PC 1827 Lisa Farringdon investigates and immediately establishes the accusation is false, that Mrs Hofschröer is well cared for by Peter and “in good order”. Peter is exonerated.

 

Police fail to arrest Robert Hofschröer for wasting Police time.

Peter, Barbara

 

PC Farringdon

Harassment of Barbara’s carer to make him leave and abandon control of the savings to Robert, Diane and Martin. 4

 

 

23 02.10.2008 Becky Wilkinson of York Social Services visits Rosedale Avenue, informs Peter and Barbara there is a case of abuse to investigate. Peter suggests mediation to resolve the dispute. Becky agrees to organise this. Peter and Barbara Peter tries to obtain amicable resolution
24 04.10.2008 Mum phones Diane to ask for date of her great-grandson’s birthday.  Diane continually shouts at Barbara and hangs up, shouting “I never, never, never want to talk to you again”, while banging on the table. Contact with Barbara’s great-grandson is cut off permanently, causing Barbara considerable distress. Peter and Barbara

 

e-mail

Verbal and emotional abuse

 

Emotional blackmail

25 17.10.2008 PC 867 Victoria Lowery meets with Peter and agrees to warn Robert and Diane about the abuse. PC 867 Lowery

Peter

26 06.11.2008 Mark Bednarski of York Social Services visits Rosedale Avenue and agrees to arrange mediation. He did not reveal that his line manager Sophie Tweed had already decided against this. Barbara and Peter

 

Mark Bednarski

27 12.11.2008 Mark Bednarski meets Robert. Fax
28 14.11.2008 Mark Bednarski cancels application for sheltered housing without informing Paul, Barbara or Peter. Social Services file

Correspondence with CYC

Mark Bednarski

Neglect
29 15.11.2008 Peter asks Mark Bednarski for news on the mediation. e-mail Peter is still trying to obtain amicable resolution
30 19.11.2008 Mark Bednarski replies, stating that Social Services will not be organising mediation, as this affair is not their problem. e-mail Neglect
31 21.11.2008 Mark Bednarski sends a series of e-mails requesting Robert should have unsupervised access to Paul and Barbara for his first visit for several months. Peter was concerned at this request because Robert and his family abandoned Paul and Barbara months before and had previously been verbally insulting and abusive them, which caused them great distress. e-mails Neglect
32 28.11.2008 Mark Bednarski visits Rosedale Avenue without an appointment and asks for Robert to have unsupervised access to Paul and Barbara, which Peter refused to consent to because of Robert’s history of being verbally abusive to his parents. Mark Bednarski initially refused to leave when asked. He kicks the front door on his way out and tries to regain access by constantly ringing the bell. He only leaves when Peter says he will call the Police.

 

Mark Bednarski is a martial arts expert.

Peter and Barbara are completely clear that that no force or insult was offered to Mark Bednarski. Harassment of Peter by Mark Bednarski

 

Common assault by Mark Bednarski

33 28.11.2008 Peter Hofschröer makes formal complaint about Mark Bednarski to his line manager Sophie Tweed. Sophie Tweed later transpires to be a Director of a bankrupt company and is not an employee of York Council, but was just doing some temporary work there. e-mail
34 04.12.2008 Sophie Tweed responds aggressively and falsely alleges Peter assaulted and used insulting words and behaviour against Mark Bednarski. She illegally blocks the Stage 1 investigation of Peter’s complaint requested at (33). CYC subsequently investigates Bednarski’s allegations and establishes they were unfounded. CYC then withdraws the letter and apologises for it, but decline to take any action against Mark Bednarski or Sophie Tweed. Bednarski withheld the information that he is a martial arts expert from CYC investigation. Letter Harassment of Barbara’s carer

 

35 ??.12.2008 Court grants Peter Lasting Power of Attorney over Paul. Peter’s position as sole carer and Guardian is recognised by the Court.
36 23.12.2008 Anne Bygrave writes to Peter claiming different social workers have been allocated to the case. However, the record shows inappropriate e-mail contacts between Mark Bednarski, Sophie Tweed and Robert Hofschröer in January 2009, discussing how York Social Services could help Robert have Peter’s Power of Attorney withdrawn from him and passed to Robert. e-mail

 

Social Services file

Mark Bednarski and Sophie Tweed try to assist Robert to obtain control over Barbara and her savings, at a time when they knew Robert was the subject of allegations of abuse and had abandoned her.
37 23.12.2008 Copies of this e-mail correspondence were sent to Anne Bygrave, Ralph Edwards and Anne Tidd by Mark Bednarski.  These matters had nothing to do with York Council or improving the care of Barbara and Paul. Robert Hofschröer is closely associated with York Council because he is runs the York Deaf Society, which is a Council funded organisation for deaf people in York. In this respect, York Social Services have exceeded their authority and appear to be trying to assist Robert in forcing out Peter, so that he can continue his campaign to obtain his parents’ savings.

 

e-mail

 

Social Services file

Continuation of campaign by Robert, Diane and Martin to obtain Paul and Barbara’s savings.
38 25.12.2008

 

Christmas Day

12.00 Robert, Diane, her boyfriend Kevin, and Martin arrive outside 74 Rosedale Avenue at the time they know Xmas lunch is being served and demand entry. Peter refuses entry at Barbara’s request. Diane shouts abuse through the letter box and rings the doorbell repeatedly. The 999 call operator remarks on the noise she is causing. Robert bangs on window. Police are called to remove them. Only when a Police officer shows them a request to leave signed by Barbara in the Police officer’s notebook would they go. The Police later claim that Peter ran out of the house and caused a breach of the peace and that they interviewed his neighbours, who supported their claim. The neighbours are willing to go to court to refute this claim.

 

Emergency Doctor is called to see Paul.

Peter, Barbara

 

999 operator

 

Recording of 999 call

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctor

Harassment of Paul, Barbara and Peter by Robert & family

 

Breach of the Peace

 

Use of insulting words and behaviour

 

1st false allegation by NYP against Peter Hofschröer

 

 

Paul is very distressed by incident.

39 02.01.2009 09.00 Dr Bush visits Paul. He informs Barbara and Peter that Paul has only days to live. Peter immediately e-mails Robert notifying him of the Doctor’s opinion and inviting him to visit his father and make his peace with him. Robert does not attend. Dr Bush

Peter, Barbara

e-mail

Despite everything, Peter decently offers Robert an opportunity to see his Father for the last time.
40 03.01.2009 04.00

 

 

 

 

10.00

Paul dies. Peter and Barbara have been up all night at his bedside.  Peter and Barbara are exhausted having had many nights of lost sleep tending to him and emotional stress from his obvious terminal decline.

 

Robert, Diane and Martin arrive with a Police escort.  [Police have no reason to be there, given that Peter invited Robert to see his father.]  Robert forces his way in and pushes Barbara, who was just walking out of the living room. Peter stands between them to prevent him from injuring her. PC Brocken pushes Peter out of the way and threatens to arrest him. On the female Police officer’s signal, Diane and Martin charge into the house against Peter’s expressed wishes. WPC Lowery takes Barbara into the living room, but returns to the dining room on hearing Diane, Martin and Robert shouting. Robert leaves the house, brandishes his fist at Barbara and Peter, saying “I’ll get you”, being a threat to do violence to Barbara and Peter which Peter believes could have been fatal to is mother.  Diane and Martin follow him out, having called Barbara a “wicked woman” and a “wicked witch”. They did not let Barbara explain what had happened to Paul, did not enquire, did not express any condolences or sympathies to Barbara on Paul’s death and other than make threats and bawl abuse, said nothing else.

 

Both Constables subsequently allege that Robert and Martin abused Barbara in written evidence to the IPCC

 

As a result of this, Barbara no longer wishes to have anything further to do with Diane and Martin.

 

Death Certificate

Doctor Bush

 

 

 

Peter and Barbara

 

Police report states Diane and Martin were told to stay in the car and they disobeyed Police directions not to enter the house. Police report confirms there was shouting.  Clearly this behaviour showed no respect for Paul or the feelings of Barbara and Peter.

 

 

 

 

 

Common assault

 

2nd false allegation by NYP

 

Police fail to arrest Robert Hofschröer for common assault.

 

Police fail to arrest Diane and Martin Hofschröer for obstructing a Police Officer in the Execution of his Duty.

 

Verbal and emotional abuse.

 

Threatening behaviour

 

Use of insulting words and behaviour

 

END OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BARBARA, DIANE AND MARTIN

41 07.01.2009 10.30 Peter and Barbara go to York Registry Office to register Paul’s death. Robert leaves his work at Council premises, stands outside the office window, raises his fist and says, “I’m going to get you”, being a threat to do violence to Peter. Peter was in fear for his life. The Registrar dialled 999 and asked Police to attend. Fortunately Barbara was in the car and did not witness this. PC Jonathan Mansell attends, has a full report given to him by the Registrar, but does not arrest Robert.

 

Peter

 

Registrar

 

999 call operator

 

 

Recording of 999 call

 

PC Mansell

Common assault

Breach of the Peace

Threatening Behaviour

Harassment of Barbara’s carer by Robert on Council property to make him leave and abandon control of the savings to Robert, Diane and Martin 5

 

Police again fail to arrest Robert Hofschröer

 

Neglect of Duty

42 17.01.2009 12.00 Paul’s funeral. Robert and family attend against Barbara’s wishes. The priest talks to Robert and his family expressing his hope there can be reconciliation.  Robert, Diane and Martin ignore Peter and Barbara, do not speak to them and do not even offer their condolences. Priest, funeral guests Emotional abuse
43 19.01.2009 20.00 Robert attempts to gain entry to 74 Rosedale Avenue without prior agreement and against Barbara’s wishes, using a spare key.  Peter reports this to the Police, but they do not respond.

 

Following the events of 3 January, this frightens Barbara.

Barbara, Peter Harassment of Barbara by Robert

 

Neglect of Duty

44 04.02.2009 Peter gets Lasting Power of Attorney for Barbara. LPA Court recognises Peter as sole carer of Barbara
45 Robert is seen regularly driving past Rosedale Avenue, which is out of his way and where he has no cause to be. He slows down at No. 74.  Barbara is again frightened, as she fears a repeat of the events of 3 January.  Subsequently Robert confirms he has been monitoring their movements. Peter  – report to Police Harassment of Barbara by Robert

 

 

46 January – June 2009 74 Rosedale Avenue has no toilet on the ground floor.  Family solicitor attempts to arrange meeting between Barbara and Robert to discuss the alterations necessary to make Barbara’s house suitable for a disabled person with continence problems. Robert first agrees, Peter obtains an estimate for the works to put install a ground floor toilet where the kitchen is currently, then build an extension for a new kitchen and a conservatory which came to £80,000.  Robert then drags out discussion then refuses to go ahead with it. Peter e-mailed Robert on 28 January. Robert’s response was to have his solicitor send Peter a threatening letter, to which Barbara’s solicitor replied. Robert agreed to let the alterations go ahead on 5 March. He then failed to respond to requests to meet to discuss this (see 55). Correspondence with solicitor Emotional abuse

 

Complete lack of care for the living conditions of Barbara by Robert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47 18.06.2009 Jane Roberts of Social Services gives confidential medical information on Barbara to Robert after Barbara had explicitly denied York Social Services permission to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CYC refuses to give Barbara a copy of this letter.

Letter Breach of Data Protection Act.

 

Harassment of Barbara by Robert

 

Breach of Trust

 

Breach of Medical Confidentiality

 

Breach of Freedom of Information Act

48 03.07.2009 CYC holds a Safeguarding Meeting on Barbara without her or Peter’s knowledge. Those present include PC Graham Cooper, Caroline Ablett, Mike Hodgkiss and Glen McCluster. They find no abuse is taking place, but agree to meet again in September 2009. Record of Event – supplied by OPG
49 03.07.2009 CYC’s Senior Solicitor Glen McClusker writes to Peter threatening unspecified legal action because Peter complained about their handling of this case.  Peter carries on complaining.  No legal action is initiated against Peter by CYC because Peter has not committed any offence. Harassment of Peter by CYC

 

 

50 17.07.2009 Inspector Moreton acknowledges Peter’s complaint about Bednarski and Tweed, stating he will reply the following week. e-mail
51 17.07.2009 Peter replies to Moreton giving more information and asking if there are grounds to press criminal charges against officers of CYC. Moreton replies on 20.07.2009 (see below) e-mail
52 19.07.2009 Peter takes Barbara away for a holiday to help her recover from her fear and distress. They visit family and friends in Germany and Austria, visit Tim Hicks in Luxembourg, then stay for a while in Peter’s former home in Austria before returning.  Barbara enjoys this and expresses the hope that they can do this regularly.
53 20.07.2009 Moreton replies to Peter’s complaints, stating “I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds to consider a criminal investigation.” e-mail Refusal to take action against Robert Hofschröer although his actions are contrary to the Fraud Act
54 30.07.2009 Emma Evans of CYC Housing suspends Barbara’s application for sheltered housing without telling her, because she is away from home on holiday. e-mail Denial of Service
55 03.08.2009 Robert refuses to allow alterations to go ahead to Rosedale Avenue to put in a ground floor toilet on the basis of the report illegally supplied to him by York Social Services, which he asserts, states her accommodation is adequate.

 

CYC refuses to supply a copy of this document.

Letter Harassment of Barbara by Robert

Emotional Abuse

Neglect

Breach of Data Protection Act

56 06.08.2009 Kay Robinson writes to Barbara, refusing to supply documents missing from Barbara’s Social Services file e-mail Breach of Freedom of Information Act
57 15.08.2009 Inspector Moreton finally responds, but evades the issues raised on the basis that it is a “family dispute” e-mail Refusal to take action against Robert Hofschröer although his actions are contrary to the Fraud Act
58 16.08.2009 Peter responds to Moreton outlining the criminal offences he believes officers of CYC have committed. e-mail
59 20.08.2009 Peter provides Moreton with further evidence that officers of CYC are acting in common purpose with Robert to defraud Barbara. Moreton does not respond. e-mail Refusal to take action against Robert Hofschröer although his actions are contrary to the Fraud Act
60 07.09.2009 Mike Hodgkiss of CYC writes to Peter refusing to put the Harassment Diary of Peter and Barbara’s evidence before the Safeguarding Conference to prevent any members of CYC being criticised by the conference.  “Conference will not be dealing with the previous safeguarding investigation or the allegations involving officers of CYC.”  Subsequently, Mr Hodgkiss admitted that there had been no previous safeguarding conference and that he had lied to withhold evidence from the safeguarding investigation into allegations of criminal offences against Robert Hofschröer. e-mail Refusal to take action against Robert Hofschröer although his actions are contrary to the Fraud Act and CYC and NYC Safeguarding Policy
61 08.09.2009 Peter sends Harassment Diary to Moreton, cc to Chief Constable, asking why Moreton is refusing to put it before the investigation. e-mails
62 09.09.2009 Bill Hodson of CYC refuses to undertake OT assessment the ascertain Barbara’s current mobility problems e-mail Bill Hodson Denial of Service
63 09.09.2009 Bill Hodson of CYC refuses to hold a Case Conference e-mail Bill Hodson Refusal to take action against Robert Hofschröer although his actions are contrary to the Fraud Act, CYC and NYC Safeguarding Policy
64 09.09.2009 Bill Hodson of CYC refuses to give assurances that no further breaches of Barbara’s confidentiality will take place. e-mail Bill Hodson
65 09.09.2009 Bill Hodson of CYC refuses to confirm that Peter Hofschröer is Barbara’s carer e-mail Bill Hodson
66 10.09.2009 CYC cancel safeguarding case conference at last minute due to “sickness”. The social workers “off sick” answer e-mails. e-mails
67 24.09.2009 CYC agree to hold a joint safeguarding conference with NYP to determine if Mrs Hofschröer is being abused by their colleague Robert Hofschröer.

 

Mike Hodgkiss of CYC writes to Peter refusing to allow Barbara or Peter to give evidence in person to the conference or to put their written evidence in the form of a Harassment Diary before the Safeguarding Conference because he alleged that it covered ground covered in a previous conference.  This is contrary to CYC policy which states that all information relating to the case should be considered to have a complete picture (P32) and “The alleged victims views should be heard” (P40) Subsequently, Mr Hodgkiss admitted that there had been no previous safeguarding conference.

 

The meeting then concluded that:

 

1.  There was no evidence to support the allegations of abuse, because the Harassment Diary was not put before the meeting, nor was the evidence of the Registrar, 999 operators or the two constables that attended the 3 January 2009 incident above.

2. That Robert Hofschröer owned 74 Rosedale Avenue, which is factually incorrect and contrary to law.

3. The transfer of the house was a civil matter, which is factually incorrect and contrary to law joint CYC and NYC safeguarding policy.

4. The allegations of harassment were not commented on which is contrary to joint CYC and NYC safeguarding policy.

5. The allegations of demanding money with menaces were not commented on which is contrary to joint CYC and NYC safeguarding policy.

Case Conference Minutes Refusal to take action against Robert Hofschröer although his actions are contrary to the Fraud Act and CYC and NYC Safeguarding Policy.

 

Attempting to pervert the course of justice.

68 25.10.2009 CYC complaints officer does not reply to request to forward the contact details of the person to whom complaints about CYC staff should be sent, in order to conceal acts of illegality and harassment by CYC staff. e-mail Denial of service
69 26.10.2009 19.00 PC Cooper attempts to stop Peter and Barbara handing out a leaflet at a public meeting, at the request of Labour Party activists or Councillor Simpson-Laing. He admits no criminal offence has taken place, but claims as the leaflet is allegedly defamatory, it should not be distributed. Peter, Barbara, PC Cooper, other police officers and attendees at Ward Committee Meeting. Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Police

 

Abuse of Office

 

70 01.11.2009 20.00 Two Police officers, one male and one female, call at 74 Rosedale Avenue. They ring the doorbell for 15 minutes, waking up Barbara, who is unwell, then bang on the door. They then withdraw to their car outside the house and remain there for five minutes. The Police did not phone beforehand to state they were coming and did not explain why there were there. Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Police

 

 

71 02.11.2009 Peter complains to Moreton about the previous harassment incident. Moreton informs Peter that he is the subject of an unspecified harassment warning. Peter asks who the complainant is and is told it is Robert, Diane and Martin. e-mail Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Police acting unlawfully under the instruction of Inspector Moreton

 

72 02.11.2009 NYP issue Harassment Warning to Peter for allegedly harassing Robert and his family by exercising his right to free speech by circulating a leaflet critical of the Police, Robert and Diane. The warning is not warranted, as Peter was exercising his right to free speech. e-mail Harassment of Peter by Inspector Moreton

Abuse of Office

 

2nd false allegation issued by NYC against Peter

73 04.11.2009 Peter complains to Moreton about the officers attending on 01.11.2009. Moreton does not reply. e-mail
74 08.11.2009 Peter complains to Moreton about the incident on 26.10.2009. Moreton does not reply. e-mail
75 30.11.2009 Ms Cath Murray writes to Tim Hicks stating “The council considers that the transfer of the property at 74 Rosedale Avenue was a private matter and therefore will not be commenting on this issue,” although transfers of property are indicators of abuse according to Council safeguarding policy.
76 December 2009 Peter takes Barbara away for another short holiday of one month as before. Meets Tim Hicks in Luxembourg and then stays for a while in his former home in Austria.  Barbara is taken ill, necessitating an extension of their stay.
77 09.12.2009 Moreton issues Harassment Warning to Peter for allegedly harassing the discredited martial arts expert and former employee of CYC Mark Bednarski, by distributing e-mails and “literature”. The warning is not valid, as it has not been signed or dated and Inspector Moreton cannot produce:

1. A witness statement,

2. Signed complaint,

3. e-mails or “literature”

Neither is it warranted, as there are no grounds for issuing it.  Mark Bednarski left the employment of CYC in September 2009 and so any e-mails or literature used by Bednarski to support his complaint are stolen property.  Further, his complaint is malicious because all correspondence related to his job at CYC, he had left CYC two or three months earlier and is no longer receiving any e-mails from Peter Hofschröer

Harassment of Peter by Inspector Moreton

 

Abuse of Office

 

3rd false allegation issued by NYC against Peter

78 10.12.2009 Peter asks Moreton to provide the e-mails, literature and signed complaint by Bednarski that triggered the harassment warning.  Moreton does not reply, presumably because they do not exist. (1) e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
79 14.12.2009 York Social Services Department hold a meeting with Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschröer at which they are told they are exonerated of all allegations of abuse and that CYC regards Peter as the abuser and reported him to the Office of the Public Guardian making false allegations against him to attempt to have his Powers of Attorney revoked. CYC informs them Barbara’s Day Club has reported she is in Austria. Robert & Co inform CYC of their intention of gaining entry to Barbara’s house on Xmas Day with a police escort. Ombudsman’s report, copy of CYC Minutes supplied by OPG
80 21.12.2009 Peter chases Moreton for a reply on the Bednarski Harassment Warning. Moreton does not reply. (2) e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
81 22.12.2009 Cath Murray of CYC refuses to process Peter’s request for information on Mark Bednarski’s latest false allegation.

 

Peter makes formal complaint, which is rejected.

e-mails Denial of Service
82 03.01.2010 Tim Hicks writes to WPCs Lowery, Crossan and PCs Mansell and Brocken asking them to explain inconsistencies in the evidence they gave to the IPCC. They do not respond. e-mails Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
83 17.01.2010 Peter chases Moreton again for a reply to his request for the evidence of harassment of Bednarski. Moreton again does not reply. (3) e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
84 24.01.2010 Peter chases Moreton again for a reply to his request for the evidence of harassment of Bednarski and states if he gets no reply, he will take it as read that Moreton has fabricated the allegation. Moreton exercises his right to silence and does not reply. (4) e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
85 24.01.2010 Tim Hicks contacts WPCs Lowery, Crossan and PCs Mansell and Brocken asking them to reply to his enquiry of 03.01.2010. They do not respond. e-mails Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
86 07.02.2010 Tim Hicks e-mails ACC Sue Cross concerning failures in the NYP investigation into the Hofschröer fraud case and she ignores his e-mails. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
87 12.02.2010 16.30 Police officers call and interview next door’s children, who are minors, to try to ascertain the whereabouts of Peter and Barbara, who are on holiday, on orders from Inspector Moreton.
88 14.02.2010 18.30 On orders from Inspector Moreton, Police officers again knock on 74 Rosedale Avenue with no lawful reason to find out if Barbara and Peter are living in 74 Rosedale Avenue and when they were last seen there.
89 15.02.2010 Robert Hofschröer sends Peter and Barbara an e-mail confirming that he knows they are not currently in 74 Rosedale Avenue and threatening to enter 74 Rosedale Avenue in their absence. Inspector Moreton is copied in on this e-mail. Harassment of Barbara & Peter

Emotional abuse

90 18.02.2010 Robert sends Peter and Barbara a further e-mail stating his intention to unlawfully enter 74 Rosedale Avenue. He confirms he has been watching their movements. Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert

Emotional Abuse

91 22.02.2010 09.30 Robert enters 74 Rosedale Avenue unlawfully in violation of the Licence Agreement by getting a locksmith to cut a duplicate key.  He then changes the locks, to prevent Barbara and Peter returning.  Neighbours see Robert and Martin removing property form the house and call the Police.  The Police are called by neighbours, but refuse to act. Robert and Martin leave after ½ hour. Neighbours Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert

 

Breach of Licence Agreement

92 22.02.2010 Robert e-mails Peter informing him he has entered 74 Rosedale Avenue and makes false statements about the condition of the house (neighbours had photographed it the day before) and false allegations of neglect against her carer Peter, which were offensive to Barbara. e-mail Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert

Breach of Licence Agreement

93 22.02.2010 Tim Hicks e-mails ACC Sue Cross concerning failures in the NYP investigation into the Hofschröer fraud case and she ignores his e-mails. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
94 23.02.2010 Tim Hicks e-mails ACC Sue Cross concerning failures in the NYP investigation into the Hofschröer fraud case and she ignores his e-mails. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
95 24.02.2010 Robert e-mails Peter asking to know when Barbara is coming home and stating “Contrary to what you may think, I assure you we have no intention of seizing and selling our property and making mum homeless”, although that is exactly what he subsequently went on to do. Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert
96 24.02.2010 21.10 Robert is seen inside 74 Rosedale Avenue in the living room and Barbara’s bedroom, searching the house. He is also seen removing her property from 74 Rosedale Avenue.  Alison Lowton e-mails and states the Council’s position is that Robert Hofschröer owns the property and is entitled to change the locks, although this is contrary to the Licence Agreement and law. Neighbours and Police Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert

 

Breach of Licence Agreement

Theft

97 24.02.2010 Alison Lowton asserts that Robert Hofschröer owns the property and has a right to change the locks on 74 Rosedale Avenue, although in fact this is contrary to the Licence to occupy and contrary to law. e-mail
98 26.02.2010 Robert again e-mails Peter asking to know when Barbara is coming home. e-mail Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert
99 26.02.2009 Alison Lowton asserts that the changing of the locks and fraudulent transfer of 74 Rosedale avenue are “private matters” and that the council will not get involved in, although this is contrary to Council safeguarding policy e-mail
100 02.03.2010 Alison Lowton writes to Tim Hicks stating that he transfer of the home is a private matter and accepting Robert’s assurances that he has sent a key.
101 08.03.2010 Robert again e-mails Peter asking to know when Barbara is coming home and mentioning how Barbara’s great-grandson, -whom he has withdrawn contact from because Barbara will not hand over control of her savings to him, is developing.  This is deeply distressing to Barbara, who misses Matthias and does not like being reminded that she can’t see him. This constitutes taunting. e-mail Harassment of Barbara & Peter by Robert

 

 

 

Emotional abuse

102 15.03.2010 Inspector Moreton e-mails Peter confirming that his officers were acting on Robert’s behalf on 12 and 14 February 2010. e-mail Abuse of office
103 25.05.2010 CYC has York Magistrates Court issue summons for alleged non-payment of Council Tax. CYC subsequently retracted the summons on the basis that they had not responded adequately to correspondence.

 

Letter from Rebecca Stanley of CYC. Summons. Harassment of Barbara by CYC

Abuse of office

 

Abuse of process

104 14.06.2010 Peter commences proceedings against Diane and Martin for the return of his house in Austria.
105 20.06.2010 Tim Hicks e-mails ACC Sue Cross concerning failures in the NYP investigation into the Hofschröer fraud case and she ignores his e-mails. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
106 21.06.2010 Tim Hicks e-mails ACC Sue Cross concerning failures in the NYP investigation into the Hofschröer fraud case and she ignores his e-mails. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
107 22.06.2010 CYC sends Barbara a further letter threatening action against her for non-payment of Council Tax. Letter from Ian Floyd of CYC Harassment of Barbara by CYC

 

108 27.06.2010 Mr Hicks writes to Superintendent Winward asking to see the “literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski harassment allegations.  She does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
109 15.07.2010 CYC confirm that no Council Tax was due and that although Peter Hofschröer had contacted them several times to resolve this, his correspondence had been ignored by CYC. CYC then refund an overpayment of Council Tax. Letter from Pauline Stuchfield of CYC Harassment of Barbara by CYC

 

110 13.08.2010 Wedlake Saint write to Chief Constable Maxwell asking to see the “literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski harassment allegations. He does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
111 26.08.2010 A number of Peter’s e-mail accounts are hacked and confidential information from them is sent to Robert. The password is one that CYC knew and the addresses hacked partly ones only used to communicate with CYC. Peter’s data is then downloaded to another server. e-mail from Robert to Pat Yates, e-mails from ISPs
112 31.08.2010 Peter’s solicitor writes to Moreton asking him to provide the e-mails, literature and signed complaint by Bednarski that triggered the Harassment Warning.  Moreton does not reply, presumably because they do not exist. (5) Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
113 03.09.2010 Peter reports to NYC that his e-mail accounts have been unlawfully hacked. NYC does not respond.
114 ??.09.2010 Two Police officers question Nigel Bowling (neighbour) in York, asking him to confirm if Peter and Barbara are at home again.  Inspector Moreton has Peter’s e-mail address and to help the Police, Tim Hicks has already confirmed to Superintendent Winward that Peter and Barbara are in Austria and has offered to put the Police in contact with Peter if they need to speak to him, so this enquiry is a complete waste of Police time, distressing to Barbara and Peter, and an irritation for the neighbours. Tel con Harassment
115 ??.09.2010 Two CID officers question young daughter of neighbours, who is a minor, doing so without the permission of their parents, asking about Peter & Barbara’s whereabouts and if their parents are in contact with them by phone and / or e-mail.  Inspector Moreton has Peter’s e-mail address, and to help the Police, Tim Hicks has already confirmed to Superintendent Winward that Peter and Barbara are in Austria and has offered to put the Police in contact with Peter if they need to speak to him, so this enquiry is a complete waste of Police time, distressing to Barbara and Peter, and an irritation for the neighbours. Tel con Harassment
116 ??.09.2010 Two CID officers call on Peter Chaplin (neighbour).  He declines to answer their questions asking about Peter & Barbara’s whereabouts.  Inspector Moreton has Peter’s e-mail address and to help the Police, Tim Hicks has already confirmed to Superintendent Winward that Peter and Barbara are in Austria and has offered to put the Police in contact with Peter if they need to speak to them, so this enquiry is a complete waste of Police time, distressing to Barbara and Peter, and an irritation for the neighbours. Tel con Harassment
117 17.09.2010 Wedlake Saint write to Chief Constable Maxwell asking to see the “literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski harassment allegations. He does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
118 17.09.2010 Peter’s solicitor writes to Chief Constable Maxwell asking him to cease this harassment and offers to put the Police in contact with Peter if they need to speak to him. Letter
119 22.09.2010 Two CID officers question Angela Bowling (neighbour), asking about Peter & Barbara’s whereabouts and if she is in contact by phone and / or e-mail. Inspector Moreton has Peter’s e-mail address and to help the Police, Tim Hicks had already confirmed to Superintendent Winward, and Peter’s solicitor had confirmed to the Chief Constable that Peter and Barbara are in Austria. He had also offered to put the Police in contact with Peter if they need to speak to him, so this enquiry is a complete waste of Police time, distressing to Barbara and Peter, and an irritation for the neighbours. Tel con Harassment
120 22.09.2010 Tim Hicks sends IPCC reports containing allegations of abuse against Robert Hofschröer by two police constables to Cath Murray, who ignores them. e-mail
121 26.09.2010 Tim Hicks writes to Superintendent Winward asking to see the “literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski Harassment allegations. She does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
122 27.09.2010 Tim Hicks writes to Superintendent Winward asking to see the “literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski Harassment allegations. She does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
123 27.09.2010 DC 1561 Bullock of York CID writes to Tim Hicks confirming that York CID want to contact Peter to arrest him concerning an unspecified complaint. e-mail
124 28.09.2010 17.54 One of Peter’s e-mail accounts is hacked again. The password used is one that is on his PC in York, which suggests that Robert has now accessed Peter’s hard disk from 74 Rosedale Avenue. Harassment

 

Theft

125 05.10.2010 Wedlake Saint writes to Chief Constable Maxwell asking to see the ‘literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski harassment allegations. He does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
126 08.10.2010 Inspector Ellis of York CID writes confirming they want to interview Peter Hofschröer under caution and will not arrest him if he reports for interview. e-mail
127 10.10.2010 Mr Hicks writes to Inspector Cain asking to see the “literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski Harassment allegations.  She does not provide them e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
128 11.10.2010 ACC (ret) Steve Read QPM writes to Messrs Wedlake Saint falsely accusing Mr T Hicks of abusing and threatening police officers in e-mails. Harassment of the investigating accountant
129 18.10.2010 Wedlake Saint writes to Chief Constable Maxwell asking to see the ‘literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski Harassment allegations.  He does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
130 21.10.2010 ACC (ret) Steve Read QPM writes to Messrs Wedlake Saint denying that he accused Mr Hicks of threatening Police officers and confirming that this allegation has not been made.  Mr Hicks subsequently makes a complaint against ACC (ret) Read
131 02.11.2010 Robert Hofschröer e-mails stating his intention to sell 74 Rosedale Avenue. Fraud
132 02.11.2010 Robert confirms he has stolen property belonging to Peter Hofschröer from 74 Rosedale Avenue. Letter to Peter and Barbara Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
133 04.11.2010 The Councils solicitor Mr Andrew Docherty writes describing Mr Hicks as “vexatious” e-mail Harassment of the investigating accountant.
134 09.11.2010 Wedlake Saint writes to Chief Constable Maxwell asking to see the ‘literature’, e-mails and signed complaint form that support the Bednarski harassment allegations. He does not provide them. e-mail Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police
135 12.11.2010 ACC Sue Cross writes to Wedlake Saint confirming that:

 

1.  She has raised a complaint against ACC (ret) Steve Read QPM.

 

2.  Will respond in due course on the Bednarski issue.

 

No further response is received.

 

 

 

 

 

Refusal to reply to conceal misconduct by Police

136 16.11.2010 Ms Cath Murray writes to Tim Hicks stating that if Mrs Hofschröer becomes homeless because she has breached the terms of her licence, then she could have made herself voluntarily homeless. e-mail Emotional abuse
137 18.11.2010 Cllr Simpson-Laing writes to Mr Hicks, confirming that she supports Ms Murray’s position that it is a private matter and comparing Barbara to couples that turn up from abroad with children misrepresenting themselves as homeless. e-mail Emotional abuse
138 19.11.2010 Solicitors acting on behalf of Barbara Hofschröer confirm that the transfer of the house is fraudulent and a criminal offence, not a civil matter and request a safeguarding conference.  Letter is not responded to. Letter
139 20.11.2010 Robert confirms he has stolen property belonging to Peter Hofschröer from 74 Rosedale Avenue. Letter to Wedlake Saint
140 22.11.2010 Barbara’s GP issues a Medical Certificate stated she is not fit to travel at present. Medical certificate
141 28.11.2010 At the request of Ms Murray, Peter writes asking for a key.  Robert Hofschröer does not send it.  Gives further confirmation that he did not send a key in February. e-mail
142 02.12.2010 Deadline for the sale of the house passes, with no action by the council.
143 07.12.2010 18.14 Councillor Simpson-Laing writes to Tim Hicks through the Council’s solicitor Mr Docherty alleging falsely that Peter has made personal attacks on her by e-mail for two years and cutting off correspondence.  She also alleges that she has received malicious telephone calls and informs Tim Hicks that she has informed the Police, the implication being that Tim Hicks has made the calls. e-mail Harassment of the investigating accountant.

Harassment of Peter

144 07.12.2010 20.52 Councillor Horton writes three hours later insulting Tim Hicks and accusing him and Peter of emotionally abusing Mrs Hofschröer e-mail Harassment of the investigating accountant Harassment of Peter
145 08.12.2010 Robert Hofschröer confirms he has re-decorated 74 Rosedale Avenue although this was without informing Barbara.  Presumably this was to make it ready for sale. letter Harassment of Barbara and Peter

 

Criminal damage

146 10.12.2010 Solicitors acting on behalf of Tim Hicks, Peter and Barbara write to Councillor Simpson-Laing and Councillor Horton cautioning them as to their future conduct. e-mail
147 13.12.2010 Robert has York Council report Peter to the DWP for benefit fraud. Peter’s benefits are cut off. York Council refuses to give sight of the documents under the DPA. DWP file, e-mails Harassment
148 15.12.2010 Barbara writes to Robert telling him how she is and mentioning her birthday party that was held in the local pub in Austria on 13 December 2010. Letter
149 10.01.2011 Christmas card for Barbara from Robert arrives, having been posted on 22 December 2010, too late to arrive in time. Robert mentions he is aware that Peter has “a problem with NY Police”. Card & envelope Harassment of Barbara
150 16.01.2011 Inspektor Haberl visits Barbara and Peter to interview them regarding a kidnapping allegation made by Robert and forwarded by NYC to the Austrian police for investigation via Special Branch, SOCA, Met Police and Interpol.

 

Inspektor Haberl specifically asks Barbara is she has been kidnapped. After questioning her and establishing all is well, he examines the house and sees that considerable work has been done to adapt the house for her.

 

Her GP confirms she is being well looked after.

 

This allegation too is shown to be false.

Interpol request

 

Austrian Police Report.

Harassment of Barbara and Peter

 

 

151 25.01.2011 Barbara writes to Robert complaining about the way he has set his ‘friends’ (the police) onto us without good reason. Letter
152 31.01.2011 Robert reports there has been a “burglary” at 74 Rosedale Avenue in which Peter’s computers, from which Robert had earlier downloaded the data, were stolen. Despite having been told not to go near the house again, Robert admits he has been going there regularly, in defiance of a threat to issue an injunction.

The police reports that Barbara’s kitchen apron has been shredded with a knife. This is a death threat to Barbara by Robert.

Letter Harassment of Barbara and Peter

 

Theft

 

Criminal damage

153 31.03.2011 A Mother’s Day card from Robert arrives in which he again makes abusive comments about Peter and denies having set the police on to his mother and brother. Card Harassment of Barbara and Peter
154 10.06.2011 Martin gives evidence in the civil case in Austria. He produces the bogus “Harassment Warning” as evidence of Peter’s bad character. Transcript of hearing. File of supporting documents. Attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 

Fraud

155 13.12.2011 Robert sends Barbara birthday card Harassment
156 19.12.2011 Robert sends Barbara Xmas card Harassment
157 21.06.2012 Police make further threat to arrest Peter based on complaints of harassment allegedly received from Robert, Diane, Martin and Mark Bednarski. The warning is not valid as it has not been properly served. Harassment
158 04.07.2012 Robert and family break into 74 Rosedale Avenue again and inform neighbours they are now accessing the house. e-mails from neighbours Harassment
159 05.07.2012 Neighbours report seeing Robert’s car outside 74 Rosedale Avenue e-mail from neighbours Harassment
160 18.07.2012 Neighbours report seeing Robert’s car outside 74 Rosedale Avenue on consecutive evenings. It appears he is residing there Photos Harassment
161 31.08.2012 Robert send Barbara a postcard in which he mentions nothing of the latest break-in, but acts as if nothing unusual has taken place Harassment
162 14.09.2012 Robert’s solicitors inform Penningtons that he and others will be entering 74 Rosedale Avenue to “redecorate” it again. They are either preparing the house for sale again or are making changes to suit the needs of the current occupiers. Fax from Harrowells Harassment

Criminal damage

163 09.10.2012 11.30 Robert phones Barbara via BT Text Relay and asks her when she is “coming back home”, knowing full well this is impossible, as he has locked her out. This caused Mum considerable distress. The call facilitator was Ben, the tel. no. +44 191 461 0397. The ref. no. 604936620 Complaint made by e-mail to BT Harassment
164 13.11.2012 NYP write to Peter informing him they will arrest and prosecute him (without good reason) should he return home. This would leave Barbara without her carer, which has caused her considerable distress, Letter from NYP Harassment
165 27.11.2012 Robert sends Barbara a letter with old photographs of the house and tells her how her great-grandson is. As Barbara has been locked out of her house and denied access to her great-grandson, she is very distressed by this. Letter from Robert Harassment
166 06.12.2012 Robert sends Barbara a birthday card and reminds her of the photos of the house he has locked her out of. Card from Robert Harassment
167 18.12.2012 Robert sends Barbara a Christmas card Card from Robert Harassment
168 21.12.2012 Robert refuses to extend Restriction on 74 Rosedale Avenue e-Mail from solicitors Harassment
169 02.01.2013 Faced with the prospect of an injunction, Robert, Diane and Martin agree at the last minute to an extension of the Restriction, but not after Barbara was forced to spend a substantial amount of

money preparing it. Barbara was so distraught, she has become badly ill and bed-ridden.

Harassment
170 25/02/13 Robert’s solicitors inform Barbara they expect her to pay half the costs of the work they have done on her house in preparation of their next attempt to fraudulently sell it Harassment
171 02.03.2013 Neighbours phone to say they have seen Robert and his family dispose of Barbara’s and her late husband’s possessions, including her husband’s ashes, in a skip outside her house. Barbara has again become very ill, her incontinence has been exacerbated and she has started having falls again. Harassment

Theft

Criminal Damage

172 04.03.2013 Robert sends Barbara a mother’s day card in which he taunts her about not being able to come home again. He includes two photos showing work he has done on the house – the kitchen and the outside wall, but does not send photos of the rest of the house, as this would show that he has stolen or disposed of all her and her late husband’s possessions. Harassment
173 22.04.2013 Robert sends Barbara a letter with photos of her garden, taunting her that she cannot come home. He does not send photos of the rest of the house, as this would show that he has stolen or disposed of all her and her late husband’s possessions. Harassment
174 05/07/13 Barbara’s lawyers obtain injunction in England to prevent Robert & Co from selling her house Court order
175 08.07.2013 Austrian State Prosecutor instructs psychiatrist to examine Peter on the basis of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence. No evidence has been produced and charges have not been pressed, but this unsupported allegation is used as an excuse to have Peter silenced by declaring him “mentally incapacitated”. Letter Harassment
176 11.07.2013 The District Court in Liezen, Austria, issues an order appointing an attorney to represent Peter in legal matters, with the explicit intention of stopping him from undertaking legal action to prevent the fraudulent sale of his mother’s house, which is contempt of court, a criminal offence. Court Order Harassment
177 15.07.2013 Dr Manfred Walzl, a court-appointed psychiatrist known to be a sexual deviant, who falsifies reports for money without examining the victim, wrote to her carer insisting he undergo a psychiatric examination clearly with the intent of declaring him “mentally incapacitated”. He required him to attend at a time and a place he knew it would be impossible for Peter to attend. Peter asks him for an appointment at a convenient time and place. Walzl agrees but does not come back to him on this. Walzl later lies about this, claiming that Peter refused to be examined. Letter Harassment
178 09.08.2013 A second psychiatrist, Dr Christina Gerhardter summonsed Peter to attend a psychiatric examination at a time and in a place the court knows to be inconvenient. Peter again asks for an appointment at a convenient time and place. He again does not get a reply. Gerhardter later lies about this, claiming that Peter refused to be examined. Court Summonds Harassment
179 13.08.2013 Walzl publishes a report declaring Peter to be “incurably paranoid” without ever having examined him. He attaches his invoice to the report. Letter Harassment
180 19.08.2013 Thomas Strausz, a court-appointed psychotherapist summonsed Peter to participate in a psychiatric examination at a time he knew to be inconvenient, harassed Peter at his front door knowing this, then later lied about this, claiming that Peter refused to be examined, when Peter had already offered to be examined at a convenient time. Letter Harassment
181 11.09.2013 Judge Monika Lackner of the District Court in Liezen issues a threat to break down front door and have Peter sectioned. Court Order Harassment
182 22.09.2013 Peter takes Barbara to a place of safety in Germany
183 25.09.2013 Strausz comes to Peter’s house and finds nobody is there. He considers breaking in, but decides not to. Harassment
184 27.09.2013 Strausz issues a report declaring Peter to be “paranoid” without ever having examined him. This report contains numerous errors of fact. For instance, one of the original reasons for declaring Peter to lack capacity was that he was “aggressive”. He is now being declared to be “paranoid” because he is a placid person. Report Harassment
185 13.10.2014 Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick of North Yorkshire Police apparently writes to Peter. The letter does not arrive. This letter appears to indicate that NYP has fabricated further allegations against Peter, possibly for “kidnapping” his mother by taking her to Germany to visit friends and family. Letter of 29.11.2013 Harassment
186 13.11.2013 Austrian court appoints attorney for Peter. This court order is void as proper service has not taken place. Letter Harassment
187 29.11.2014 Austrian police questions Barbara’s friends and neighbours in Austria in an attempt to find out where she is. Their statements indicate they have been illegally intercepting Peter’s communications. E-Mail from neighbours Harassment
188 29.11.2013 DCC Madgwick sends Peter a second letter, which arrived on 18 January 2014 (!) in which he indicates his intention to arrest Peter and remove Barbara from his care should they return to the UK. Letter Harassment
189 03.12.2013 Interpol Manchester request German police to locate Barbara. E-Mail Harassment
190 20.12.2013 Barbara and Peter give TV interview with Sonia Poulton in which the British and Austrian authorities are accused of collusion and corruption. https://vimeo.com/84524221
191 31.03.2013 German District Court orders the police to contact Barbara as she has been “kidnapped and brought to Germany against her will”. Harassment
192 01.04.2014 Barbara and Peter give radio interview in which the British and Austrian authorities are accused of collusion and corruption. http://wp.me/P1Nj7d-3j8
193 03.04.2014 Austrian police break into Peter’s house and plant child pornography. They also steal a number of items of value. Letter Harassment, theft
194 15.04.2014 Peter gives a follow up radio interview in which he names the Austrian police officers who planted the child pornography. http://www.shazizzradio.com/lesa-theriault.html
195 18.04.2014 Austrian police break into Peter’s house a second time and plant more child pornography. They steal Peter’s collection of antique weapons and other historical artefacts. Letter Harassment, theft
196 06.05.2014 Under Robert’s direction, German police unlawfully raid Barbara and Peter’s refuge, abduct Barbara, sedate her and let Robert take her back to York. Peter is assaulted, unlawfully imprisoned and then released without comment or charge. Abduction, theft, assault, harassment, unlawful imprisonment

   Chinese Cultural Revolution Comes to a Neighborhood Near Ya’ll

Chinese Cultural Revolution Comes to a Neighborhood Near Ya’ll

By Timothy Spearman

 

In 1966, when the Beatlemania Revolution was in full swing in the West, the Chinese Communist Party unleashed the rabid dog known as the Cultural Revolution. In China, high schools and universities were closed and students were sent off to work in the countryside to re-educate them in peasant values.

By comparison, look what happened in May 2017 Stateside at Evergreen State College in Olympia. Biology Professor Bret Weinstein was berated by dozens of students outside of his classroom for refusing to participate in an event in which white people were “invited” to leave campus for a day. If they were “invited,” then why was he being compelled and cajoled to leave? According to Professor Weinstein police told him to hold his classes off campus for safety considerations. Gee that sounds “inviting.” Things are “out of control at Evergreen,” Weinstein said. “Police told me protesters stopped cars yesterday, demanding information about occupants.” Interesting that he is referred to as “Mr.” Weinstein in the media reports, when it would be “Dr.” Weinstein if he were endorsing the fascist agenda.

In China, Mao thought it was important to keep the Chinese people in a permanent state of “revolutionary class struggle.” The students were expected to revolutionize the culture by destroying the “Four Olds” – old customs, old culture, old habits and old thinking.

In North America, the Four Olds are currently being discarded. The first to go was family and family values. This was quickly followed by our customs and culture. The current North American Revolution in the making is following the Communist Red China and Communist Red Russia playbook to the letter. It began under the Obama Administration, under the platform of “We Are Change,” hardly surprising given his ties in undergraduate days to the radical leftist Weathermen under the direction of Billy Ayers, his mentor at the time. It is now continuing under the cover of the Deep State.

We have recently seen the removal of a Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina. A statue of Lincoln has been defaced in Manhattan. Why would Antifa make such a Talibanesque move as that? Did he not sign the Emancipation Declaration and make the Abolition of slavery the central mission of his administration? Wouldn’t that make him a hero of the Left? Or is the aim of the American Cultural Revolution to destroy all “Old Culture”? They are even calling for a monument of Theodore Roosevelt in New York City to be removed.

In China in 1966, the CCP under Chairman Mao began attacking authors, scholars and ideological opponents of the Communist Party. Mao enforced his repression of cultural leaders by using the Red Guards, a force composed of millions of young people who had been taken from school to “re-education camps,” where they were subject to brainwashing and turned into zealots of the party faithful.

By comparison, have not professors like Robert O’Driscoll of the University of Toronto, Henry Makow, former professor of York University, and University of Toronto Professor, Jordon Peterson, been under attack for violating the tenets of political correctness? Peterson has protested strongly against the cultural revolution in Canada that requires him to use gender-neutral vocabulary that prevents him from using gender-specific terminology when delivering lectures on psychology. There have been calls for him to face discipline hearings and to be dismissed from the university. Yet the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

As chairman of the CCP, Mao had the authority to summarily remove people from the ruling party, and did so frequently. He believed there were hidden enemies of the communist revolution within the party who needed to be identified and removed. From 1966 to 1969, Mao purged many of the party’s top leaders from their positions.

In the U.S. under Donald Trump, the situation is reversed. Many of his party faithful are being pressured by the Deep State to abandon ship and leave him increasingly isolated so that, absent supporters and an inner vanguard, he will be vulnerable to impeachment and removal from office as planned since the day of his inauguration.

Mao used his Red Guard army and various other worker and peasant groups to terrorize millions of Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution. Intellectuals who did not subscribe to official party line were isolated for special treatment. Mao imprisoned thousands of intellectuals and forced millions to work with the peasants in the countryside under “re-education” programs.

Similarly, those who do not adopt the oppressive ideology of the state and the “political correctness” mandate that has been imposed on the entire West find themselves subject to the strictest discipline proceedings, where they are cast out of their job on to the street. This requires that they adopt gender-neutral vocabulary, and accept designations such as “same-sex marriage,” now re-designated “marriage equality.”

In addition, prepubescent children are being exposed to UN-mandated sex education influenced by the Kinsey Institute, which undertook scientifically-skewed studies in order to distort the sexual habits and proclivities of Americans. This would be considered child abuse if it were done at home, but as long as Big Brother oversees the outrage all is good. Meanwhile, the National Health Services are permitted to supply sex-altering drugs to children to make it easier to undergo sex changes at a later stage in their development.

The fact that the Cultural Revolution had such massive effects on Chinese society is largely due to use of political slogans used during the various cultural drives. For example, the slogan “to rebel is justified” became a unifying theme. In North America, to throw the baby out with the bath water has become the norm, so watch out for falling statues in New York Harbor.

 

 

The Charlottesville, Virginia Car Attack Staged

The Charlottesville, Virginia Car Attack Staged. We need to show the aerial evidence of this fake terror event by reporting on it and uploading it on as many forums as possible in the hope of preventing a race conflict in the United States and the impeachment of a duly elected president. This is an information war. We the citizens are in an information war with the Vatican-Jesuit and their worldwide intelligence network. They control the media. We control the alternative media. We are winning but we will only win if we all participate.

This video was provided by George Freund of www.conspiracy-cafe.com.

http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/44734760-planned-chaos-in-virginia-why-did-law-enforcement-stand-down-until-events-spiraled-out-of-control-

As Marshal McLuhan, the great University of Toronto professor said, Satan is the Prince of the Air (Ephesians 2:2) He controls the air and the airwaves. We have to turn the channel to alternative media like www.conspiracy-cafe.com and the Freedom Talk Radio Network.

EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Riots Staged To Bring In Martial Law, Ban Conservative Gatherings

David Icke Social Engineers Are Subjecting Children to Criminal Child Abuse

David Icke’s recent video accurately explains the current social engineering program designed to undermine human being’s sense of identity and being. It represents an ontological assault on our being at the physical, mental and spiritual levels. We have been subject to a biochemical attack through the foods we eat and the water we drink and the air that we breathe. This has altered our testosterone and estrogen levels in both men and women. Sperm counts have declined dramatically worldwide.

The new toy company Ken doll and the Human Ken Doll counterpart shows that we are subject to social engineering that is designed to alter the current generation’s sense of sexuality and self. One school is encouraging boys to wear skirts. There are pharmaceutical companies offering sex change drugs to children as young as 10 so that they can more easily undergo sex change procedures when they are older. Many people consider this to be child abuse. This will effect the children’s health and longevity. It is damaging the body they were born with by altering its entire physiology. Anyone that thinks this is not going to have an adverse affect on human health and longevity is not using their common sense.

Pre-pubescent children who are too young to understand sex or sexuality should not be subjected to this type of chemical assault. Even the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is endorsing the use of these sex change drugs for children. National Health Service? Since when? They are damaging the mental and physical health of children. And if they can harm children what could they do to the rest of us?

David Icke – The Transgender Takeover – AUGUST

 

 

"The File on the Tsar," by Anthony Summers & Tom Mangold


Was the DNA evidence ostensibly procured from the body parts recovered from the burial site in the Russian marsh near Ekaterinburg faked? Did the Romanovs fake their deaths and go into hiding? This is the question that still needs to be answered.
Dateline Archangel, August 25, 1918, a Polish officer just back from the area reported the Empress and her children alive at Verkotouri. Another report emerged from a British agent in “Peking” alleging that the Russian Royal Family was located at monastery between Ekaterinburg and Perm. The rumor was pooh-poohed by the British press: “Rumours like this kind are certain to get about from time to time.” This statement smacks of an obvious attempt to debunk. From Vladivostok a statement came from Sir Thomas Prescott now safely arrived from Ekaterinburg: “There is still the possibility of their having been taken north by the Bolsheviks to a retreat at Verkotouri. By Christmas 1918, an American Ambassador was to send a strange cable to Washington. Nelson Page, Ambassador to Rome sent a dispatch directly to the Secretary of State, “For your confidential information, I learned that in the highest quarters here it is believed that the Tsar and his family are all alive.”
Sir Charles Elliot, British High Commissioner in Siberia, sent correspondence to Britain, as the only visit made by a British diplomat to the scene of the alleged murder. He stated: “It will be seen that the statement by the Bolsheviks is the only evidence for the death of the Tsar…and it must be admitted that, since the Empress and her children, who are believed to be still alive, have totally disappeared; there’s nothing unreasonable in supposing the Tsar to be in the same case.” Sir Charles Elliot also made a statement to further substantiate this claim, “On July 17, a train with the blinds down left Ekaterinburg for an unknown destination, and it is believed that members of the Imperial Family were in it. It is the general opinion that the Empress, her son and four daughters were not murdered, but were dispatched on July 17 to the north or west. It seems probably that the Imperial Family were disguised before their removal.”
A military judge was the first investigator to visit the site. He was sacked for ignoring the murder room at the Ipatief House completely. He did however visit a place in the pine woods some 14 miles from the Ipatief House, following up on reports that the Imperial bodies had been disposed of there. Another investigator, a civilian visited the murder room in Ipatief House and did find bullet holes in the walls and blood stains. His boss, a General, wrote a scathing report about him, “If the first investigator was distinguished for laziness and apathy, the second demonstrated a complete absence of the more modest investigative talents and an absolute understanding of the investigator’s profession.” This was followed by the Generals own army men of the military investigative division, who were eventually dismissed for being, “intolerant, arrogant and inefficient.”
Nicholas Sokoloff became the third and last investigator selected as the new strong man who would get results. He was a dedicated anti-Bolshevik, who disguised himself as a tramp to gain entry into White Russian-held territory. He issued the Sokoloff Report and is today the standard text for accepting the assassination of the Imperial Family. He followed up on leads that led to the infamous mine. His report agrees with the statements made by the Bolsheviks regarding the fate of the Russian Royal Family. He believed that the bodies had been transported along the main road to a mine shaft, where the bodies were hacked to pieces, burned and then subjected to sulfuric acid to prevent identification. Sokoloff produced evidence like that of the finger found in the mine shaft, belonging to the Empress as he saw it. He found corsets matching in number the female members of the Royal Family. He also found bone fragments, but it was not proven at the time that they were those of the Royal Family. There was a piece of jewelry displaying the Maltese Cross, that was identified as belonging to the Tsarina and given to her as a present from her mother-in-law. A diamond was also found from a necklace belonging to the Tsarina. Sokoloff also found the carcass of a King Charles Spaniel said to belong to the Grand Duchess Anastasia.
He also inspected the murder room thoroughly and found bullets imbedded in the walls. The ballistics revealed they had come from a Mauser, a Browning and a Russian Nagon revolvers. He found a message written on the wall, which was a quote, “On that very night, Balthasar was murdered by his slaves.”

“The File on the Tsar,” by Anthony Summers & Tom Mangold

Was the DNA evidence ostensibly procured from the body parts recovered from the burial site in the Russian marsh near Ekaterinburg faked? Did the Romanovs fake their deaths and go into hiding? This is the question that still needs to be answered.

Dateline Archangel, August 25, 1918, a Polish officer just back from the area reported the Empress and her children alive at Verkotouri. Another report emerged from a British agent in “Peking” alleging that the Russian Royal Family was located at monastery between Ekaterinburg and Perm. The rumor was pooh-poohed by the British press: “Rumours like this kind are certain to get about from time to time.” This statement smacks of an obvious attempt to debunk. From Vladivostok a statement came from Sir Thomas Prescott now safely arrived from Ekaterinburg: “There is still the possibility of their having been taken north by the Bolsheviks to a retreat at Verkotouri. By Christmas 1918, an American Ambassador was to send a strange cable to Washington. Nelson Page, Ambassador to Rome sent a dispatch directly to the Secretary of State, “For your confidential information, I learned that in the highest quarters here it is believed that the Tsar and his family are all alive.”

Sir Charles Elliot, British High Commissioner in Siberia, sent correspondence to Britain, as the only visit made by a British diplomat to the scene of the alleged murder. He stated: “It will be seen that the statement by the Bolsheviks is the only evidence for the death of the Tsar…and it must be admitted that, since the Empress and her children, who are believed to be still alive, have totally disappeared; there’s nothing unreasonable in supposing the Tsar to be in the same case.” Sir Charles Elliot also made a statement to further substantiate this claim, “On July 17, a train with the blinds down left Ekaterinburg for an unknown destination, and it is believed that members of the Imperial Family were in it. It is the general opinion that the Empress, her son and four daughters were not murdered, but were dispatched on July 17 to the north or west. It seems probably that the Imperial Family were disguised before their removal.”

A military judge was the first investigator to visit the site. He was sacked for ignoring the murder room at the Ipatief House completely. He did however visit a place in the pine woods some 14 miles from the Ipatief House, following up on reports that the Imperial bodies had been disposed of there. Another investigator, a civilian visited the murder room in Ipatief House and did find bullet holes in the walls and blood stains. His boss, a General, wrote a scathing report about him, “If the first investigator was distinguished for laziness and apathy, the second demonstrated a complete absence of the more modest investigative talents and an absolute understanding of the investigator’s profession.” This was followed by the Generals own army men of the military investigative division, who were eventually dismissed for being, “intolerant, arrogant and inefficient.”

Nicholas Sokoloff became the third and last investigator selected as the new strong man who would get results. He was a dedicated anti-Bolshevik, who disguised himself as a tramp to gain entry into White Russian-held territory. He issued the Sokoloff Report and is today the standard text for accepting the assassination of the Imperial Family. He followed up on leads that led to the infamous mine. His report agrees with the statements made by the Bolsheviks regarding the fate of the Russian Royal Family. He believed that the bodies had been transported along the main road to a mine shaft, where the bodies were hacked to pieces, burned and then subjected to sulfuric acid to prevent identification. Sokoloff produced evidence like that of the finger found in the mine shaft, belonging to the Empress as he saw it. He found corsets matching in number the female members of the Royal Family. He also found bone fragments, but it was not proven at the time that they were those of the Royal Family. There was a piece of jewelry displaying the Maltese Cross, that was identified as belonging to the Tsarina and given to her as a present from her mother-in-law. A diamond was also found from a necklace belonging to the Tsarina. Sokoloff also found the carcass of a King Charles Spaniel said to belong to the Grand Duchess Anastasia.

He also inspected the murder room thoroughly and found bullets imbedded in the walls. The ballistics revealed they had come from a Mauser, a Browning and a Russian Nagon revolvers. He found a message written on the wall, which was a quote, “On that very night, Balthasar was murdered by his slaves.”

 Princess Di(e) Victim of Satanic Occult Ritual

 Princess Di(e) Victim of Satanic Occult Ritual

 

The lighted torch and pentacle star commemorating her death are located above the crash site on the hilltop of Pont de l’Alma, the site traditionally chosen by generations of Wicca adherents for the worship of the moon goddess Diana, who died 33 years, 9 months and 9 days after John F. Kennedy, whose death represented the killing of the sun god, Osiris. Pont de l’Alma hilltop marks the location of Diana’s memorial shrine, which features a monument consisting of a pentacle and lighted torch constructed out of solid Masonry.