4 - Ostrich Syndrome
These crimes have been reported in two countries to 4 primary police departments – the UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission and 2 other police review bodies – The Crown Prosecutor -- 6 Cabinet Ministers – to Alberta & Canadian Human Rights Commissions -- by myself to a key assistant of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and by a Member of Parliament to then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In some cases (like Hazel Blears) specific lies stand out to prove involvement in the cover-up conspiracy -- But, in most cases it’s just buck passing
(ostrich disease) but so much of it. Review the correspondence in Canada and the UK and note that – dozens of people who had responsibilities for dealing with this issue have passed the buck.
A More Detailed Review of the Cover-Up Conspiracy
The preceding overview of cover-up on Pages 31
to
35 was highly
summarized and is 5 pages long. This next topic covers the same
ground, but this time in much
more detail
(11 additional pages
that prove cover-up; or alternatively go to Chapter 5).
Some of the 3rd party evidence available to verify cover-up is documentary, and on the internet. The following information (and referenced URL links), on pages 36 to 46, are for those who want to kick the tire and review “what some of the documentary evidence of cover-up conspiracy is” in much more detail.
Section A - EVIDENCE OF
A CENTRALLY COORDINATED COVER-UP
CONSPIRACY – ROLE OF
CABINET MINISTER HAZEL BLEARS
(Almost entirely based on letters sent by
Ministers and Police Authorities to MPs
– Letters referred to
in
the narrative of
Section A can be made available as evidence; On appropriate
letterhead, signed by
the Minister, etc. A selection of these letters can be viewed by clicking again on this URL:
Section B - THE POLICE REPORT
(The Police Report and other evidence referred to
in
section B can be viewed by clicking here
http://tinyurl.com/ZerzetsenMancPoliceCover-up Note that Police were not allowed to contact any witnesses to the threats, or investigate any of the cover up conspiracy
evidence at all)
Section C - THE CROOKED JUDGE – ASSISTING AN MI5/6
SMEAR CAMPAIGN
(The Approved Transcript of
the Court Hearings
and
the other documentary
evidence referred
to can be made available)
A – Evidence of a Centrally Coordinated Cover-Up
Conspiracy – Role of Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears
###### (This narrative clearly proves cover-up in UK by Minister Hazel Blears and Police again and again. The narrative is a chronological story entirely based on letters (to/from Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Police, Police Review Bodies, etc) copies of which are attached to this Paper. Read the narrative first; then check any items you want back to the original letters by clicking on the file http://tinyurl.com/ZerzetsenUKGovCover-up ) ## ##########
On 26th Oct 2004 my wife and I met with PC Bowman of the Didsbury Police and made a complaint regarding four years of criminal intimidation and death
threats. We discussed the intimidation, and left Mr. Bowman with written and other evidence relating to our complaint and a covering letter that summarizes it all (see my covering letter to police dated Oct 25th 2004). The following week we returned to the police and were told that they would not investigate since the evidence was circumstantial. We were also told that Mr. Bowman had tried hard to get an investigation approved but had been overruled by a Police Inspector.
I then wrote to the Home Secretary, copying the President ICAEW and my then MP, the Rt. Hon Keith Bradley (my letter dated Nov 6th 2004). Mr. Bradley offered to intervene and approached The Home Secretary personally on my behalf and was told that the matter was “under investigation” by the Home Office and he told me so in writing (Mr. Bradley’s letters to me dated Nov 24, Dec 6, 2004 & Jan 11, 2005). This lie told to Mr. Bradley by the Home Secretary’s Office was the first Home Office lie, since as subsequent events show the matter was never being investigated at
all, but instead was being covered up. Mr. Bradley’s staff continued to chase the Home Office finding, as they told me, great difficulty
on this matter. My telephone line was clearly being tapped by the intelligence
services – as I was even being intimidated just for pushing this issue with Mr.
Bradley’s office on the telephone.
Finally Minister Hazel Blears dismissed my complaint on the untruthful grounds that I had never been to the police in the first place (Minister Blears letter to Mr. Bradley Mar 16 2005). This was clearly contradictory to the facts,
as the Police accept, and to the Home Office’s previously stated
position. Nobody bothered to check the accuracy of this untruthful excuse for
dismissing my complaint by either calling me or PC Bowman. Ms. Blears
letter was dated 16 March 2005 and I was again intimidated on the same day to STOP (stop complaining, further proof of complicity between the Home Office / intelligence services and the crime gangs).
As a follow up, my eldest son in Birmingham was then intimidated with death threats in front of independent witnesses. He reported this to the Kings Norton
Police who recorded the threats, took notes, issued a crime number, and began to investigate. The following night a car was smashed into my flat in Manchester. This investigation was also stopped and the police have never returned any of our follow up calls.
Mr. John Leech MP then passed a letter headed “Death Threats & Serious Criminal Intimidation – Minister Hazel Blears MP – Cover up by the Home Office” (letter dated June 15 2005) onto the Prime Minister. Mr. Leech confirmed by letter to me (dated 25 July 2005) that the Prime Minister had now received the letter. Minister Blears replied on behalf of the Prime Minister on July 12 2005 to John Leech MP with the same old canard – she said that I had never been to the police, and she ducked the questions in Mr. Leech’s letter relating to the cover up conspiracy.
In the meanwhile (August 2005) Mr. John Leech MP personally contacted the Didsbury, Manchester Police and confirmed that I had in
fact met with them. Indeed I subsequently confirmed this at a more recent meeting, and that the Police still have in their possession the detailed 57-page typewritten
complaint that my wife and I had handed them back on 26th Oct 2004.
Meanwhile my eldest son (in Birmingham) is now getting threatened with a helicopter hovering low over his house in the middle of the night and shining a spotlight on his bedroom window. The reason the intelligence services are concerned about him is that he was intimidated in front of independent witnesses and the death threats are also recorded.
On 8th Nov 2005, Mr. John Leech MP forwarded to the Home Secretary a letter drafted by me on Oct 14th 2005 that is headed “ RTM Russell – Intimidation & Death Threats/Cover up in the Home Office / Letter to the Prime Minister/ Minister Hazel Blears / Gross Abuse of my Human Rights”. Minister Blears’ reply of 18 November 2005 now stated that I had actually reported these incidents to the police in the first place, and that they had investigated them. Please note that the Minister is now for the 1st time admitting that I had gone to the police a year earlier, whereas previously Minister Blears was stating that I had never gone to the police at all. However she is now introducing a new lie, stating that the police had in fact investigated whereas previously she (and the police) had agreed that no investigation had taken place. Indeed the Home Office had known for a year that the purpose of my complaint to the Home Office was that the police had never been allowed to investigate.
Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears (on letters she sent to Messrs. Bradley & Leech
MP) was also now stating that my complaint was a civil matter. This despite the fact that, in the letters she was replying to, serious criminal offences
were described – death threat calls, vehicles driven at me, intimidation of my
daughter and eldest son, myself shot with a pellet fired from a gun, laser attacks, prowlers. Minister Blears is a lawyer. Lawyers surely know the difference between civil and criminal law
One may be interested in discovering which of the alternative written
statements
from the Home Office / Minister Hazel Blears is the truth; since their written positions all contradict each other. I am sorry to say that the answer is that they are all lies.
So far in date order of events, the record of correspondence from the Home
Office can be summarized as follows:
----------- Their letters stated----------------------------------------------------------------
26/10/04 – re Police -- Russell did meet Police / Police did not
investigate
06/12/04 – from Home Office – / HO
is investigating
16/03/05 – From Minister Blears – Russell did not
meet police HO is not investigating & police did not
investigate.
12/07/05 – From Minister Blears – Russell did not meet police HO is not
investigating & police did not investigate
18/11/05 – From Minister Blears – Russell did meet police / Police did investigate
Note: Same information – 5 different answers – only the first one is true.
On 9th December 2005, Mr. John Leech MP referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission – Mr. Gavin Forward “Casework Manager”. I added further information by letter to the IPCC on Dec 17 2005. Mr. Forward passed it on to the Manchester Police Internal Affairs and it seems to have been bounced around between various Chief Superintendents and Superintendents and back and forward to the IPCC with nothing happening. Subsequently I received a letter from the IPCC stating that the matter is still being considered – though nobody has actually done anything at all (this was only window dressing pretence because John Leech MP was pushing them).
On the Evening of 19th April 2006 I met with Detective Sergeant Mark Hudson
in
the Didsbury police station and we made a 2 ¾ hour videotape (takes up two tapes) of my evidence. Mr. Hudson took 17 pages of notes and indicated
that we would turn it into a statement. Afterwards I advised Sergeant Hudson that he would never be allowed to pursue this as the criminals involved are above the law in England. The Sergeant indicated that they would follow the evidence no matter where it led. Despite a reminder telephone call from me I did not hear from him, or from any other policeman,
or from the IPCC again.
After much pressing by Members of Parliament, the Police issued a report on
22 June 2007 that was drafted by Detective Chief Inspector H Harrison. The police had not interviewed or contacted a single witness, and had had no personal contact with me since my meeting with Sergeant Hudson on 19
April 2006. See The Police Report click here~~
The UK government / intelligence services’ cover up continues. The police must know who impeded their investigation; since they know who stopped them from investigating properly.
Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears, Intelligence Services certainly know who the criminals they are protecting from justice are, since they would not be orchestrating a cover up conspiracy otherwise. All the Home Office / UK Government are doing is lying and covering it up to protect the criminals – a clear signal that these criminals are above the law in England.
Letters from Ministers, Officials, and Police referred to above can be made available on appropriate official letterhead with the appropriate signatures. An abbreviated selection of these letters is included in the attachments previously referred to.
B – The Police Report
On 22 June 2007 a Police Report was issued in the name of Detective Chief Inspector H Harrison (with whom I had never had any contact). The detectives I have had contact with did not write or sign the report. The report
accepts that some intimidation has taken place, but is otherwise inconclusive.
The Police Report and my comments are available. There are considerable and easily proven irregularities in the report – the police simply weren’t allowed to investigate properly. Part of my complaint (re cover up – see Section B) related to Hazel Blears who had Ministerial responsibility for policing and MI5.
As the report shows, not one single witness was contacted by the police in 18 months of pretend investigation and my computer (there had been considerable destructive downloads sent) was never examined by them. How can one investigate properly if one doesn’t contact any witnesses?
According to the police report, the only person (other than myself) interviewed by the police in this matter was the Group Chief Executive of Grosvenor, who denied involvement (I had never accused him personally).
As the report shows, the police misrepresented my complaint to minimize it.
95% of the complaint is not referred to in their report, including most of the intimidation and all of the cover up evidence (to protect Cabinet Ministers – Hazel Blears had ministerial responsibility for policing and MI5!). This
extreme misrepresentation of my complaint is provable, as my complaint was detailed on the videotape that I made with Sergeant Hudson, and also provided by me to the police in writing and by a Member of Parliament to the IPCC in writing. These letters are available, as is the police report. How can one investigate properly if one starts by misrepresenting the complaint so that most of it isn’t dealt with?
I had told Sergeant Hudson, after we had made the videotape, that the police would never be allowed to investigate my complaint properly and it seems I was right.
Basically, read the Police Report – Note that in 18 months of investigation not one single witness was contacted. Isn’t this odd. Compare the police
report to the written complaint and note that 95% of the complaint (including all the cover up evidence) is not referred to in the report and not
investigated. The police were not allowed to investigate properly
Click here to view http://tinyurl.com/ZerzetsenMancPoliceCover-up The Police Report with my comments, which I sent to the Police Chief Inspector, is available.
C – The Crooked English Judge – Assisting an MI5 smear campaign
Ultimately they took the opportunity of a debt issue, that I have, to get a
part-time Judge to dishonestly question my sanity, presumably so they could quote it (to lend an appearance of credibility to an MI5 deception campaign - see "Chapter 3: The Big Lie Strategy"). It is not the debt issue that is important, but the Judge’s dishonest smear tactics.
After I had reported the intimidation to the police and had heard from a Minister that an investigation was in progress, I thought my problems were over and borrowed some money to get myself back on my feet. When the government cover up started and it was clear that my problems were not over, I stopped servicing the debt, advised the bank, explaining the issue in writing, and they went along with me. On December 17th 2005 I wrote the IPCC providing additional evidence that shows intelligence service involvement in the threats and cover up. Immediately the bank foreclosed on the loan (too close in date to be coincidental). I decided to defend my
position, pleading the legal defense of the common law doctrine of frustration
of contract, citing threats and cover up by the civil authority as reasons.
The Judge adjourned the 1st hearing (5/6/06) after noting that defense
evidence filed in court had disappeared. So far quite fair. But it changed in the 2nd hearing (2/8/06). The Judge moved quickly to judgment without
examining the evidence at
all (stating “I’m not going to let you have a soapbox”). He accused me at length in
the Judgment of having a mental issue (this accusation was never made in the actual hearings).
No comments:
Post a Comment