Dear Kent Police,

IN your recent refusal to disclose information, about range licensing and other matters, you revealed that Force Pro Standards were examining issues (You deem to fall under the subject category "Vexatious") between 2007 and 2009.

What documents were sent to Pro Standards ?

(1) In 2006 Chief constable Mike FULLER was directly challenged by a High Court Statement of Truth. Challenging him to sign that investigations have properly established that there were no acts or plans in Kent, or Kent based, that would "Weaken or tend to weaken the ability of the Realm to resist or attack an enemy", The defining elements of obligations on all subjects to report to a Justice.

(2) This was a straightforward challenge in a case of issuing action against another Chief constable. It was a challenge to declare that matters are "Vexatious" and then for him to face cross examination on oath after a mandatory Common Law Information of Treason was laid against him with Kent Justices.

(3) At some point a copy of the CL INformation was sent to the Mayor of London to oppose Mr FULLER being recommended to the Queen to be Met Commissioner. Boris JOHNSON copied this on to the Met Police Authority. I am pleased to say that the issue never arose as Mr FULLER was dropped off the short list.

(4) The fact remains that Mr FULLER was put exactly to the issue. YES or NO. Sign to say there was no treason. And the fact is he would not sign.

(5) In 2007 my MP sent my report, re Unreliability and sabotage of emergency backup generator systems, to the Home Secretary. I copied this to KENT POLICE AUTHORITY who ten years before had called on Chief constable PHILLIPS for inquiry and report on this and other subjects.

(6) In your recent claims in response to FOI request are you revealing that Kent POlice Authority had given a copy of that report to Mr FULLER and that he had charged Pro Standards with a duty of examining the issues ?

(7) In 2009 new evidence emerged as a result of the press expose' of James SHORTT as bogus former SAS. Initially Kent Police HQ required a response to be made by area Commander Chief Supt HOGBEN. When no such inquiry took place I issued a Judicial Review application.

(8) Did the Royal Courts of Justice in fact stamp and serve on Chief constable his file copy before someone stole the remaining two files (Judge and Claimant copies) from the Registry of RCJ. Did your Force Pro Standards have a copy of the High Court file in 2009 when you now reveal they were indeed examining matters ?

(9) In 2009 at a time you now admit Pro Standards were examining matters why was there a failure to interview and take statements from witnesses identified to Mr HOGBEN. Witnesses to the presence of unlawful sub-machine guns in use at the 6th Thanet Gun Range. Two witnesses who each independently said that off duty Kent Police were involved in paramilitary live fire training at that range. Why refuse to interview witnesses ?

In essence I am asking what documents were Pro Standards examining between 2007 and 2009. And if the matters had already been deemed vexatious by the extensive inquiries you claim occurred before 2007 .. why were Pro Standards re-examining matters for two years in secret ?

I should point out that the first body to state that Kent Police SHOULD disclose the range licensing and firearms cert history was the HOME OFFICE. Presumably you are claiming that both the HOME OFFICE and tetd Det Ch Supt BIDDIS were also indulging vexatious matters ???

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Kent Police,

It is quite simple. You are being asked to verify that your Professional Standards Dept was examining my report, sent to Home Secretary by my MP in 2007 concerning sabotage and unreliability of emergenmcy backup generators, between 2007 and 2009.

IE In the period when a Common Law Information of Treason was laid naming then Chief constable FULLER and copying the Information to Mayor of London to oppose FULLER being made Met Commissioner.

In the period when James SHORTT was exposed as bogus ex SAS a matter resulting in me seeking Judicial Review of Mike FULLER's decision to suppress all related inquiry in Kent. In the period when the Judicial Review file was stolen from the Registry of Royal Courts of Justice and thuis never accessed a Judge.

What documents were Pro Standards examining between 2007 and 2009 ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

Thank you for asking Professional Standards to provide the information.

In the case before Thanet County Court Daniel O'LEARY v Chief constable there was a Directions Hearing on 27th September 2011.

The Judge has directed parties to disclose witness statements and documents to each other.

Dan's statement now filed with Court and served on Chief constable solicitors mentions this matter. It mentions that Chief constable/Pro Standards have still not given formal response refusing or accepting crime complaints of Perjury, Conspiracy and against Proceeds of Crime law alleged against the case officer in charge of the David O'LEARY Decd murder inquiry.

The fact is you broke FOI law by not responding at all within the time period. Then you delayed response till after the Directions Hearing had sat.

Your Chief constable had been asked to give formal decisions, about the crime complaints against police, before the Directions Hearing sat.

In 2009 your force similarly delayed responding to IPCC complaint beyond the statutory period and thus delayed response until after the First Directions Hearing sat 3rd February 2009.

I assume that Professional Standards will respond on this forum so that the information and the exchanges remain on this site as public record. I don't want delayed off the record response from your Pro Standards Dept. They are accused in the case mentioned of lying to IPCC. Now that the Judge has ordered witness statements to be exchanged the question is will police officer sworn testimony align with what Pro Standards told IPCC or not ?

I want this on this site as public record because, unlike your force it seems, I have nothing to hide or deny.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Giovanni CACCIACARRO PSE 57427,

You are correct that I want the exchange on a public website.

You should know, from Force Professional Standards, that HM Coroner Thanet released transcripts of evidence in the David O'LEARY Decd murder case. These documents are subject to HM Coroner embargo to be used only in the process of Thanet County Court and to support crime complaint and complaint to IPCC.

It follows that I am unable to pursue their contents or arguments based thereon in a public forum.

However it was the right thing to do to point out to you that the matters are subject of a statement of truth filed sub judice at Thanet County Court.

It remains a straightforward question. Which documents (Documents you referred to in your FOI response earlier) were being examined by Force Pro Standards from 2007 to 2009. The questions is not an extrapolation, a conflation or a conspiracy theory. You introduced the fact and I asked you to detail it. What documents were being examined by Force Pro Standards from 2007 to 2009. You introduced the fact, news to me, on this forum and now you are indulging ad hominem fallacy to try to justify refusing to explain it.

Was it the report I drew up in 2007 that my MP submitted to Home Secretary ? The same report that Dr WEIGHTMAN Head of HSE Nuclear Inspectorate recently called on me for a copy to consider in his post Japan tsunami review of UK nuclear security and safety provisions and safeguards ??

I don't know if you noticed but you have just reversed Kent Police position. Your response to FOI was first to break the law by failing to acknowledge. On receipt of a reminder after 28 days had elapsed your position was that Force Pro Standards would answer me and the Legal Services would not. But when you learned I want the answer on the record on this public forum you changed position to refuse to answer.

It is easy to bandy meaningless fllacy like "Conspiracvy theory" and "Conflate". But the facts are not at all helpful to your position if ever required to back your rhetoric up.

FACT MOD Minister letter verified that James SHORTT at Deal Barracks had no Crown Authority.

FACT 6th Thanet Gun Range was only ever planning consented for .22 rifle range.

FACT evidence did verify that the allegations of sabotage are associated with the Deal Barracks security history and paramilitary actiovity in TA 1987 matters. I had to obtain and supply your force this evidence.

FACT my warnings on Deal Barracks should have been acted upon.

FACT My warnings re IRA targetting mains electricity distribution were reported to MOD and MI5 over your heads. As 1996 later proved I was right to give those warnings.

So that represents two serious IRA attacks in which my warnings were proven correct and your force opinions proven to be dangerously inept and wrong.

If you were confident of making your case against me in a Court then why didn't Mike FULLER stand up like a patriot and face me before Justices when I laid a mandatory Information of Treason against him ?

The fact is he was given his moment of truth in 2006. Sign to say no treason (By sabotage) occurred in Kent. He refused to sign. So please do not seek to portray on a public forum (with absolutely no substance to your position) any other position.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card