Criminal Conspiracy
Corruption & Cover Up
">Justice for ALL
For Latest Update 11 January 2007 -
go to bottom of page
O V E R V I E W
This report serves to highlight the criminal financial and emotional abuse suffered by Marjorie Evelyn Mary Wills (MEMW)
and her son Robert James Wills (RJW)
The death of MEMW on 19th October 2002 was a direct consequence of the criminal actions of Oxfordshire County Council Social Services Care Management Department Banbury (OCCSSCMDB).
They conspired with Cynthia Baldwin (CB), a distant relative of MEMW by marriage, Queen Stockford (QS), a sister of MEMW and solicitors Alfred Truman (AT) to submit a fraudulent application to the Public Guardianship Office in order to obtain an order from the Court of Protection (CoP) to use monies, the responsibility of RJW by way of Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA), purportedly to pay for private nursing and care costs. OCCSSCMDB and AT knew they were acting AGAINST THE WISHES and best interests of MEMW and RJW; and, contrary to statute law which states that if the patient has continuing NHS care needs it is the responsibility of the Health Authority to pay for the patients care needs regardless of the patients financial situation.
The Horton hospital, Banbury failed to heed RJW’s warnings, about the criminality of those involved. The hospital were negligent in that they failed to investigate or reply to RJW’s letters informing them of the problems, theft of pension and emotional abuse, that had previously been committed. The hospital must have been aware of the arrangements being made to ABDUCT MEMW coordinated by OCCSSCMDB.
All of them callously facilitated the ABDUCTION of MEMW on 20th July 2002 from her hospital bed being fully aware that it was AGAINST THE WISHES and best interests of MEMW and RJW. MEMW was suffering from Alzheimer’s dementia, ovarian cancer, and was partially paralysed from the third stroke in six months and unable to feed herself; she could not walk, was bedridden and generally in an extremely poor state of health.
At no time was RJW informed of these actions; this is contrary to statute law, which states that the NEXT OF KIN – RJW must be informed before any application to the CoP is made.
For the period 20th July to 10th October 2002 RJW was unaware of the circumstances of MEMW other than he suspected she was in a nursing home in the Norwich area. Yet despite many written requests of and complaints to various local and national government authorities MEMW’s exact whereabouts were not revealed.
On 10th October, RJW received a note dated 09th October from AT saying “We are instructed to advise you that Mrs Wills suffered a serious stroke late last evening.” On undertaking further investigation, it became clear that MEMW had in fact suffered a stroke on 05th October and not on 08th October, as CB’s solicitors, AT, had made out. Further, when RJW was finally given the details of the institution where MEMW was incarcerated, the manager there told him that CB had instructed the manager NOT to send MEMW to hospital. This was in effect consigning MEMW to death. RJW IMMEDIATELY gave instructions for MEMW to be admitted to hospital. The institution, recognising RJW’s authority, complied…but too late, MEMW, emaciated and looking like a victim from a Nazi concentration camp from months of neglect, never regained consciousness from her comatose state.
The Norwich hospital doctors were not aware of the circumstances surrounding MEMW’s abduction, abuse and incarceration in an establishment ‘Sunny Croft’ which did not have the facilities for someone requiring medical treatment and specialised care. They could not have read MEMW’s historical medical notes otherwise they would have been aware of the Alzheimer’s Dementia, ovarian cancer, previous strokes and other infections and problems and the arrangements that had been made in December 2001, with Dr Simon Winner of the John Radcliffe hospital Oxford, to admit MEMW to his palliative care facility, when the illness progressed to the acute stages. This would have increased their workload considerably, which is why it was easier to put the cause of death, from what was obvious, as ‘stroke’ and ‘pneumonia’.
If you were to read the Medical records, as RJW has, it is clear and confirms what is stated in letters and documents. The report ‘OVERVIEW’ highlights the areas where investigations are needed.
There has been no investigation by anyone probably for some or all of the following reasons.
1. It is not their direct responsibility.
2. MEMW was and RJW is not VIP’s.
3. Some of the statutory authorities involved are the one’s who would suffer as a result.
RJW has been refused access to records from the Public Guardianship Office/ Court of Protection, no reason being given other than a spurious one. This confirms what RJW has been told, that the submissions to them by Alfred Truman and their ‘friends’, May to October 2002 were fraudulent. RJW contacted PGO immediately he was aware of their direct involvement, July 2002, but despite long conversations and correspondence, they chose to ignore the truth. They had the opportunity to correct the criminal actions by Alfred Truman but failed to do so. Their ref: L2/11042145 Mr M A McGovern, Archway Tower, 2 Junction Road, London, N19 5SZ. Alfred Truman have no authority in this matter; they are criminals who have consistently tried to make money out of the situation and to date have stolen or have control of c.Ł50k.
Similarly, in July 2002, Oxfordshire County Council, Chief Executive, Richard Shaw, was made aware. He did not reply, choosing to cover-up the matter by ignoring it.
The police were informed of the abduction at the time in July 2002 and contacted continually to November. They said they would investigate and RJW was told by Inspector Stuart Haveron, HQ Kidlington, that an Inspector Haveron, female Bicester ex Mrs Stuart Haveron would contact him, but she failed to do so. No investigation has been made.
As this entire matter has been one in which some statutory authorities have acted criminally and they have not been brought to justice RJW has initiated an action at the European Court of Human Rights, reference ECHR-PEO, CO/dp, 19335/03.
It is important to understand the role of the financial institutions in this matter.
Both Nationwide Building Society (Nbs) and Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) have behaved in a way that has greatly contributed to the misery of the situation.
Nbs were instructed in June 2000 to close the account due to the poor rate of interest being applied. They refused, giving no reason, and despite repeated instructions still refused even when served with the EPA and a solicitor’s letter. It has been slowly realised that Nbs, Bicester branch, have an ‘unhealthy’ relationship with the other parties in this matter which clearly compromises their position as a professional financial institution in relation to MEMW’s affairs. They accepted unauthorised and criminal instructions from the other parties, which stopped RJW from using MEMW’s investment to benefit her at a time, when her health was failing.
HSBC likewise; but to a less severe extent in that the funds there were only being used to pay day to day normal living expenses; contributed. They, for almost twelve months, on two separate occasions, failed to honour cheques or direct debits to creditors causing chaos in the administration of MEMW AND RJW’s affairs with the subsequent stress caused between MEMW and RJW being a contributory factor.
BOTH Nbs and HSBC SHOULD FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES!
ROB J WILLS
11 Hemingway Drive
BICESTER
Oxfordshire
OX26 2FY
C H R O N O L O G Y
DECEMBER 1999
21st Tuesday 12.30 – RJW telephoned MEMW. It transpired during conversation that MEMW had health problems – her legs were ulcerous and she had pain in her hips. Despite strenuous urgings from RJW, MEMW was reluctant to see the general practitioner Dr Aled Rowlands (AR).
12.46 – RJW telephoned AR re concerns with MEMW health.
22nd Wednesday 13.00 – RJW telephoned AR.
23rd Thursday 20.38 & 20.48 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
24th Friday 10.59 – RJW telephoned AR; NO ACTION? ULTIMATUM GIVEN.
28th Tuesday 15.12 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
JANUARY 2000
02nd Sunday 20.35 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
06th Thursday 20.02 & 20.12 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
13th Thursday 21.33 – RJW telephoned MEMW; Alison Jaycock district nurse (AJdn) visited MEMW, treatment to legs, monitor three times weekly.
14th Friday 16.00 – AJdn visited MEMW; comment from neighbour Margaret Tovey (MT) that MEMW was confused and muddled with medication in dossett box.
16th Sunday 18.36 – RJW telephoned MEMW. Prior to this MT had telephoned RJW to discuss AJdn visit and also commented on how difficult it was for MT to continue to assist MEMW with domestic chores due to MT’s own domestic situation and MEMW’s agitated disposition. ( Unreasonable and abnormal behaviour; towards anyone who is trying to help and especially a close family member, such as next of kin, regular visitor or a 24/7 carer; is a common symptom of Alzheimer’s Dementia. At this time, RJW was not aware nor had any personal experience of the condition. )
17th Monday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW.
18th Tuesday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW.
19th Wednesday 14.09 – RJW telephoned MEMW. 16.10 – RJW telephoned AR.
20th Thursday 10.45 – AJdn visited MEMW. 20.41 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
21st Friday ?time – AJdn and AR visited MEMW.
22nd Saturday 18.00, 18.20 & 18.34 – RJW telephoned MEMW. Long and detailed discussion took place regarding alternatives for MEMW’s future treatment and care. MEMW was emphatically opposed to going into institutional care or accepting strangers coming in daily to help. MEMW did accept, albeit reluctantly, that the current situation, MEMW looking after herself, was unsustainable. RJW and MEMW agreed they should pool resources and share the same household. Neither MEMW nor RJW had a property ideal for this so the decision as to where and when was not finalised.
24th Monday 10.00 – AJdn visited MEMW. 18.11 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
26th Wednesday 09.20 – AJdn visited MEMW; pills in dossett box for the previous night’s dose had not been taken. 18.50 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
28th Friday 09.07 – RJW telephoned MEMW. 10.05 – AJdn visited MEMW.
31st Monday 10.30 – AJdn visited MEMW; problems with medication. Dossett box emptied and pills put back in into respective boxes. [This would be typical of MEMW attempting to hide the memory problem (Alzheimer’s) as there could not then be a simple check to see if medication had been taken.] 19.49 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
FEBRUARY 2000
02nd Wednesday 11.30 – AJdn visited MEMW. 20.30 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
04th Friday 15.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
06th Sunday 13.25 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
08th Tuesday 19.36 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
11th Friday 13.44 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
13th Sunday 14.04 & 15.20 – RJW telephoned MEMW. 20.30 – RJW telephoned MT to inform her of RJW visit to Bicester on Sunday 20th February.
16th Wednesday 20.02 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
18th Friday 10.46 & 17.00 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
19th Saturday 18.29 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
20th Sunday 10.51 & 14.25 – RJW telephoned MEMW. RJW travel to Bicester.
21st Monday &
22nd Tuesday – RJW and MEMW in discussion about the future. Decision made that RJW will move to Bicester to look after MEMW.
14.30 – RJW returned to West Country. 16.20 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
23rd Wednesday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW. 15.36 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
24th.Thursday 12.30 – AJdn visited MEMW; Zimmer frame supplied.
21.00 & 21.13 – RJW telephoned MEMW
26th Saturday 17.59 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
28th Monday 12.00 – AJdn visited MEMW.
29th Tuesday 16.00 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
MARCH 2000
02nd Thursday 12.15 – AJdn visited MEMW. 12.59 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
03rd Friday 12.29 & 14.29 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
06th Monday 11.40 – AJdn visited MEMW; fall in the garden and unable to get up for 30 minutes on Sunday. Dn advised that help around the home was a possibility but MEMW was adamant she did not want any help.
17.44 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
08th Wednesday 16.37 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
09th Thursday 11.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
11th Saturday 14.10 & 14.12 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
13th Monday 12.25 – dn visited MEMW.
14th Tuesday 21.11 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
16th Thursday 21.00 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
19th Sunday 13.50 – RJW telephoned MEMW. 16.40 – RJW telephoned MT.
20th Monday 11.15 – dn visited MEMW; deterioration in condition. (This was probably the result of lack of treatment over the past seven days – NEGLECT!)
23rd Thursday ?time – dn visited MEMW.
27th Monday 10.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
29th Wednesday – RJW travel to Bicester.
30th Thursday 12.20 – AJdn visited MEMW, falls several times since Monday.
31st Friday – RJW return to West Country.
APRIL 2000
06th Thursday 10.35 – AJdn visited MEMW.
10th Monday – RJW travel to Bicester. 12.05 – AJdn visited MEMW.
11th Tuesday – RJW return to West Country.
13th Thursday 12.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
17th Monday 11.15 – AJdn visited MEMW.
20th Thursday 11.15 – dn visited MEMW.
25th Tuesday 11.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
27th Thursday ?time – dn visited MEMW.
MAY 2000
02nd Tuesday 10.50 – AJdn visited MEMW; referral to Dermatology Dept.
04th Thursday 12.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
08th Monday 16.00 – AJdn visited MEMW; fall in town on Friday.
11th Thursday 11.35 – AJdn visited MEMW; complains of severe pains in feet at night.
15th Monday 11.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
18th Thursday 14.20 – AJdn and AR visited MEMW; referral to Vascular Dept.
21st Sunday 20.06 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
22nd Monday 11.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
25th Thursday 16.15 – AJdn visited MEMW.
27th Saturday 09.15 – AJdn visited MEMW; still complaining of severe pain.
29th Monday 10.00 – dn visited MEMW; complains of pain.
31st Wednesday 12.00 – dn visited MEMW.
JUNE 2000
02nd Friday 15.30 – AJdn visited MEMW; pain persists.
03rd Saturday – MEMW admitted to John Radcliffe Hospital (JR).
12th Monday 19.35 – RJW telephoned MT; discussion of MEMW treatment in hospital.
14th Wednesday 19.35 – RJW telephoned MT; MEMW home from JR.
19.38 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
15th Thursday 15.15 – AJdn visited MEMW; Angiogram shows blockage in left leg. Sympathectomy in 1-2 weeks. Night visit from community service person and morning visit from MT to ensure medication taken.
16th Friday 18.15 – RJW telephoned MT. 18.30 – RJW telephoned MEMW.
18th Sunday 07.52 – RJW telephoned AR; no answerphone, so no message left.
19th Monday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW; MT telephoned dn as MEMW had taken too many pills on Saturday so did not have any for Sunday. Left leg swollen and had bled. Out patient appointment Monday 26th with surgeon Miss Hands.
20th Tuesday – RJW arrives to live in Bicester.
21st Wednesday ?time – dn visited MEMW.
22nd Thursday ?time – dn visited MEMW.
26th Monday pm – MEMW to JR. RJW letter to Miss Hands re MEMW health.
28th Wednesday 11.50 – AJdn visited MEMW; bandaging from hospital too tight.
15.10 – AJdn visited MEMW; AR to visit on Friday. Admission to JR asap.
30th Friday 15.00 – AJdn & AR visited MEMW; dn visits to be 3 times a week.
JULY 2000
03rd Monday 11.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
04th Tuesday 15.00 – Pam Sheppard telephoned RJW to cancel community service persons. 17.00 – RJW discovered no pills in dossett box, MEMW does not know why?
05th Wednesday 11.45 – AJdn visited MEMW. RJW note to AJdn re report of situation to date and reminder to AJdn to chase up admission to JR for MEMW.
07th Friday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW; admission to JR due on Monday next.
10th Monday 09.10 – Hospital nurse telephoned. 09.30 – Hospital doctor telephoned.
12.00 – MEMW to JR. 18.15 – RJW telephoned JR to check on MEMW.
11th Tuesday 11.00 – RJW telephoned AJdn answerphone. 18.22 – RJW telephoned JR.
14th Friday pm – MEMW home from JR. AJdn note phone message 01865 221802. (Without reference to RJW, arrangements made for consultant in old age psychology Rupert McShane (RM) to visit MEMW at 15.00; he cancelled.)
17th Monday 10.30 – dn visited MEMW; uncertainty with medication as no written instruction given to RJW by JR. 15.00 – RM visited MEMW.
19th Wednesday 11.20 – dn visited MEMW. Dn seemed to be unaware of RJW permanent residence (RJW diary 18th booking at Bicester College for 1 year.)
21st Friday ?time – dn visited MEMW. 15.55 – RJW telephoned dn.
24th Monday 12.50 – AJdn visited MEMW; NHS chaos with supply of medication.
25th Tuesday 11.30 – RJW visited Nationwide; actually met at 11.50.
26th Wednesday 10.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
28th Friday 11.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
31st Monday 11.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
AUGUST 2000
02nd Wednesday 09.45 – AJdn visited MEMW. 11.15 – RJW visited solicitor Stephen Neasham (SN) re Enduring Power of Attorney.
04th Friday 09.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
07th Monday 11.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
09th Wednesday 15.35 – AJdn visited MEMW.
11th Friday 10.40 – AJdn visited MEMW.
13th Sunday 16.17 – RJW telephoned potential buyer of Bernina sewing machine.
14th Monday 11.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
15th Tuesday 09.30 – MEMW to JR to see Consultant, no change.
16th Wednesday 09.45 – RJW transport MEMW to QS (Weekly) for day visit.
15.30 – AJdn visited MEMW. 22.00 – RJW collect MEMWfrom QS.
21st Monday 16.03 – RJW telephoned (OCCSSCMDB).
22nd Tuesday 14.00 – Carol Fry (CF,OCCSSCMDB) visited MEMW and RJW.
23rd Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 –MEMW at QS.
25th Friday 11.55 – AJdn visited MEMW. Why no visit since 16th?
27th Sunday 11.25 – AJdn visited MEMW.
30th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 –MEMW at QS. 12.10 – AJdn visited MEMW.
SEPTEMBER 2000
01st Friday 09.30 – CB and her family visited MEMW. 10.50 – AJdn visited MEMW.
04th Monday 12.05 – AJdn visited MEMW; CF and AJdn had ‘assessed’ and referred to Kay Hargreaves (KH) Occupational Therapist (OT). MEMW refused any equipment saying she could manage. She could NOT!
06th Wednesday 16.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
07th Thursday 15.00 – CF visited MEMW and RJW.
08th Friday 11.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
12th Tuesday 09.15 – MEMW to JR. Dr Miss Hands. Angioplasty within 4 weeks.
13th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. 11.00 – AJdn visited MEMW.
15th Friday 12.00 – AJdn visited MEMW; JR had used dressing which caused pain.
18th Monday 11.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
20th Wednesday 09.45 – MEMW at QS. 11.05 – AJdn visited MEMW.
22.00 & 23.15 – RJW visited to collect MEMW, stayed at QS overnight.
22nd Friday 15.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
25th Monday 12.35 – AJdn visited MEMW.
27th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. 12.25 – AJdn visited MEMW.
29th Friday 10.50 – AJdn visited MEMW.
OCTOBER 2000
02nd Monday 12.10 – AJdn visited MEMW.
04th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. 11.55 – AJdn visited MEMW.
06th Friday 15.15 – AJdn visited MEMW.
09th Monday 10.30 – MEMW hair. 10.35 – AJdn visited MEMW. 11.17 – RJW tel. dentist.
10th Tuesday 10.35 – RJW & MEMW to bank. 11.05 – MEMW dentist.
11th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. ? time – AJdn visited MEMW.
13th Friday 10.30 & 15.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
16th Monday 14.50 – AJdn visited MEMW.
18th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. 15.00 – AJdn visited MEMW.
20th Friday 11.00 – AJdn visited MEMW.
23rd Monday 12.30 – AJdn visited MEMW. OT visit tomorrow, did not.
25th Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. 11.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
*** PENSION*** - MEMW pension had since June been cashed by RJW but unbeknown to RJW, OCCSSCMDB had taken control and were giving it to QS who until June 2001 stole c. Ł1,000 of it, the rest being deposited in HSBC ACCOUNT but not spent Essential household expenses, such as utility bills, were not paid, thereby causing distressing problems between RJW & MEMW, as creditors sought settlement. This was a deliberate action by OCCSSCMDB & QS designed to cause a rift between MEMW & RJW.
26th Thursday 10.40 to 11.50 – Sue Peach OT (Spot) visited MEMW. Appointment was 10.00.
27th Friday 11.40 – AJdn visited MEMW. 13.00 – AJdn and AR increase morphine.
30th Monday 14.00 – AR visited MEMW. ? dn.
31st Tuesday 11.30 – RJW & MEMW to dentist.
NOVEMBER 2000
01st Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. ?dn.
03rd Friday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW.
06th Monday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW. JR on 15th
08th Wednesday 09.30 to 22.00 – MEMW at QS. 14.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
10th Friday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW.
13th Monday ?time – AJdn visited MEMW.
14th Tuesday 11.00 to 11.40 – CF, and David Godfrey (DG) OCCSSCMDB visited RJW and MEMW. *** SEE FILE***
15th Wednesday 14.15 – MEMW to JR.
17th Friday 17.30 – MEMW home from JR.
18th Saturday 08.30 – MEMW awake in pain after 12 hours asleep.
20th Monday ?time – dn visited MEMW; only aspirin prescribed by hospital.
21st Tuesday ?time – dn visited MEMW.
22nd Wednesday 09.45 to 22.00 – MEMW to QS. ?time – dn visited MEMW.
24th Thursday ?time – AR & dn visited MEMW.
27th Monday 14.00 – MEMW to Bicester Community Hospital (BCH). **ASSESSMENT**
DECEMBER2000
05th Tuesday 10.30 – Spot visited RJW; to make assessment of house..
07th Thursday ?time – MEMW home from BCH.
11th Monday ?time – dn visited MEMW. 12.40 – KH tel. Dr Currie?
13th Wednesday ?time – dn visited MEMW. Due to problems, RJW stopped taking MEMW to QS. MT started transporting 10.00 to 18.15 weekly.
15th Friday 12.00 – RJW meeting with RM at Montgomery House surgery, he was so late arriving RJW had returned home.
18th Monday 12.35 – AJdn visited MEMW.
20th Wednesday ? visit to QS.
21st Thursday 11.20 – AJdn visited MEMW; had lost purse and depressed re life.
27th Wednesday 12.15 – AJdn visited MEMW.
JANUARY 2001
02nd Tuesday 12.15 – AJdn visited MEMW; missed outpatients appointment, no transport arrived, dn to rearrange.
05th Friday 12.15 – AJdn visited MEMW.
08th Monday 11.45 – AJdn visited MEMW. 14.00 – RJW met Julie Evans (JE) solicitor.
10th Wednesday 12.00 – DG & RM+student meet RJW, hostile to caring at home.
12th Friday 12.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
15th Monday 12.15 – AJdn visited MEMW; urinary tract infection.
17th Wednesday 12.05 – AJdn visited MEMW.
19th Friday c.14.30 – AJdn visited MEMW.
22nd Monday 14.35 – AJdn visited MEMW.
26th Friday 16.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
29th Monday 15.20 – AJdn visited MEMW.
30th Tuesday 10.00 – MEMW due at day centre (dc), refused to go. 11.00 – RJW met JE.
FEBRUARY 2001
01st Thursday 17.39 – Tel Caroline MEMW hair.
02nd Friday 11.10 – AJdn visited MEMW.
05th Monday 12.10 – AJdn visited MEMW.
06th Tuesday 10.00 – MEMW visited dc with RJW for look around to 11.00.
09th Friday 19.30 – Tel carer 01869 324408 (Crossroads?).
12th Monday 12.00 – RJW met SN.
13th Tuesday 09.00 – MEMW to JR; out patients from 02 Jan, but stayed in. why???
14th Wednesday 14.00 – DG called at home. why??? 21.33 – Tel Caroline MEMW hair.
15th Thursday 11.45 – AJdn visited MEMW; ULCER HEALED???
16th Friday 10.15 – MEMW to BJ Conway optician, she refused to have sight test.
DEMENTIA SCORING SYSTEM COMMENCED.
19th Monday 11.35 – dn visited MEMW; complains of pain from fall, but refuses to see AR. 12.30 – RJW tel GP Andrew Gibson (AG) appoint Fri but not with AG.
20th Tuesday 09.45 – MEMW due at dc, refused to go. 10.40 – RJW tel 242808 dc.
21st Wednesday 11.54 – RJW tel 01993 706392 April Skupien (AS).
22nd Thursday 15.20 – AJdn visited MEMW; examination reveals nothing, still in pain.
NIGHT – MEMW on floor in bedroom after fall. OK, pulled blankets and pillow from bed. Agitated when RJW suggested calling AR.
23rd Friday 11.10 – (11.30 to 12.00) RJW visited GP re MEMW dementia.
26th Monday 11.40 – AJdn visited MEMW; no obvious ill effects, back easing.
MARCH 2001
01st Thursday 11.20 – AJdn visited MEMW; refused AR being called.
02nd Friday 10.00 – April Skupien (AS) visited; ***SEE FILE***
05th Monday 12.10 – dn visited MEMW; pain, to liaise with AR.
07th Wednesday ??? visited by AR at QS?? Ibuprofen. X-Ray at BCH
08th Thursday 11.25 – AJdn visited MEMW.
09th Friday 10.45 – RJW transport MEMW to BCH for x-ray.
12th Monday 14.25 – dn visited MEMW.
15th Thursday 15.30 – dn visited MEMW.
22nd Thursday 12.30 – AJdn visited MEMW; leg worse (neglected for one week).
24th Saturday 14.23 – Tel 321770?
26th Monday 12.35 – AJdn visited MEMW.
29th Thursday 10.35 – dn visited MEMW; ibuprofen not effective.
APRIL 2001
02nd Monday 15.00 – AJdn visited MEMW.
05th Thursday 15.50 – AJdn visited MEMW.
09th Monday 12.30 – AJdn visited MEMW; treatment changed.
11th Wednesday 16.15 – RJW deliver paperwork to SN.?????????????
12th Thursday 12.13 to 15.20 – RJW six tel calls to solicitors. 15.45 – AJdn visited MEMW.
16th Monday 15.50 – AJdn visited MEMW.
17th Tuesday 14.00 – RJW meet Edward Bradley (EB) solicitor.
19th Thursday 10.00 – RJW to Oxford court. 12.10 – AJdn visited MEMW.
MEDICAL RECORDS cease, discovery by AJdn that RJW had copied them, COVER-UP!!
20th Friday 15.30 – POLICE, Sgt Shaer/Cook. 16.17 – RJW tel SN secretary.
17.25 – RJW tel Mervyn Phipps 01793 656121 Nationwide BS fraud dept.
17.28 – RJW tel Sgt Shaer, to call back.
DISCOVERY by RJW of CLOSURE of MEMW SAVINGS A/C with NATIONWIDE BS.
21st Saturday 09.36 & 09.47 – RJW tel Nationwide BS. 10.02 – RJW tel Bicester police.
10.19 – RJW tel SN. 10.37 – RJW tel 01865 311111? + other calls and doctor at JR for PRESCRIPTION for TRANQUILISERS for MEMW.
27th Friday TRANQUILISERS stopped and removed by AR.
MAY2001
01st Tuesday 12.40 – RM visit with RJW to 13.00; MEMW to 13.30. (Appointment 11.00!)
02nd Wednesday 15.00 – RJW with SN to 15.30.
04th Friday 09.45 to 11.30 – RJW at Oxford Court, eviction hearing SEE FILE.
08th Tuesday 16.00 – AJdn unannounced visit to take MEMW to BCH where it transpired all sorts of interrogation took place to satisfy the eviction proceedings to continue.
17th Thursday 13.30 – MEMW home from BCH.
21st Monday 13.45 – Molly Hathaway (Mime), MEMW adopted sister, funeral. Sally & Patsy, Mime daughters explained the evil attitude QS has towards adopted people, that is THEY ARE NON PEOPLE IN TERMS OF BEING FAMILY. This is when every thing fell into place regarding QS poisoning of MEMW towards RJW. QS AFTER MEMW ESTATE.
26th Saturday 10.00 – DSS Ms S Pill visited SEE FILE.
JUNE 2001
02nd Saturday 12.00 – MEMW to QS. In readiness for RJW to be forcibly evicted…but
08th Friday 16.00 – MEMW returned home.
UPDATE: August 2006
Corruption and Bureaucracy
I have been fighting for survival since Mum's murder in October 2002.
The powerful institutions have refused to investigate and the lawyers, Alfred Truman, tried to instigate a criminal action against me for some sort of fraud with my mother's will; but the police never charged me, due to there being no case to answer.
Alfred Truman conned my mother into signing documents, which she couldn't have understood, due to her dementia; BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED! Why? - The authorities are corrupt and have a lot to cover up.
I have been waiting for a civil court ruling since February 2006 on my mother's will, to which I was always the sole or main beneficiary, but Alfred Truman continue to act against my mother's wishes by instigating their own claim to the estate.
Appellant’s notice For Court use only
(All appeals except small claims Appeal Court Ref. No.
track appeals) Date filed
Notes for guidance are available which
will help you complete this form. Please
read them carefully before you complete SEAL
each section.
BM30077
Claim or Case no.
Robert James Wills
Name(s) of the Defendant(s) Respondent(s)
David Oxford Coxall, John Howard Davis Meakin, Shamsher Singh Pangu (Alfred Truman Solicitors)
Details of the party appealing (‘The Appellant’)
Robert James Wills
Address (including postcode)
|
11 Hemingway Drive BICESTER Oxfordshire OX26 2FY |
|
Tel No. |
01869 242832 |
|
|
Fax |
None | |
|
|
E-mail |
robjwills@gmail.com | |
|
|
|
|
Details of the Respondent to the appeal
Name
David Oxford Coxall, John Howard Davis Meakin, Shamsher Singh Pangu
Address (including postcode)
|
Alfred Truman Solicitors 5 Sheep Street BICESTER Oxfordshire OX26 6JB |
|
Tel No. |
01869 252761 |
|
|
Fax |
01869 246619 | |
|
|
E-mail |
alfred@trumans.co.uk | |
|
|
|
|
Details of any additional parties (if any) are attached No
N161 Appellant’s notice (07.06) HMCS
Section 1 Details claiction 2 Details of the appeal
From which court is the appeal being brought? High Court District Registry at
Birmingham.
What is the name of the Judge whose decision you want to appeal?
HH Judge Alastair Norris QC.
What is the status of the Judge whose decision you want to appeal?
High Court Judge or Deputy.
What is the date of the decision you wish to appeal?
1. Judgment and Order 30 November 2006.
2. Order 19 December 2006
To which track, if any, was the claim or case allocated?
Not allocated to a track.
Nature of the decision you wish to appeal
Final? decision.
Are you legally represented?
No.
Are you, the Appellant, in receipt of a Legal Aid Certificate?
or a Community Legal Service Fund (CLSF) certificate?
No.
Is the respondent legally represented?
Yes.
The respondent’s solicitor’s address (including postcode)
Alfred Truman Solicitors
5 Sheep Street
BICESTER
Oxfordshire
OX26 6JB
Tel No. 01869 252761
Fax 01869 246619
E-mail alfred@trumans.co.uk
DX Unknown
Ref. Unknown
Do you need permission to appeal? Has permission to appeal been granted?
Yes No.
I Robert James Wills the Appellant seek permission to appeal.
Please set out the Order (or part of the Order) you wish to appeal
1. The Judgment and Order of 30 November 2006.
2. Order 19 December 2006
Does your appeal include any issues arising from the Human Rights Act 1998?
Yes.
Are you asking for a stay of execution of any Judgment against you? Part A of Section 8
Yes.
Have you lodged this notice with the court within 21 days of the date on which the Judge made the
decision you wish to appeal?
Yes.
I am asking the appeal court to:-
(i) Set aside the Order which I am appealing.
(ii) Order a new trial.
(iii) Refer this matter to the Serious Fraud Office for a full investigation.
I apply for a stay of execution because:
It will not be possible to reverse the consequences of enforcing the Judgment and Order due to:
(i) the probable death of the Appellant caused by the destitution and homelessness created.
(ii) the loss of necessary resources to mount a challenge.
I apply for an extension of time for filing my appeal notice because (set out the reasons for the delay You must also set out in Section 9 what steps you have taken since the decision you are appealing).
Yes.
In support of my application(s) in Section 8, I wish to rely upon the following evidence:
The Appellant is aged 53, physically disabled in constant pain and suffers from frequent chest and respiratory infections. The Appellant was the former carer and next of kin of the deceased Mrs Marjorie Evelyn Mary Wills.
The Appellant has no legal training and no access to office resources.
The Appellant has read the Judgment and believes it to be flawed in that it has failed to address many pertinent issues. The Judgment contains statements of fact that are totally untrue and contradict established facts from previous hearings and agreed documents. The opinions in the Judgment are based on a false premise, therefore invalidating it.
The Judgment fails to account for the payments to the Respondent’s ‘expert’ witnesses or promises to other witnesses to benefit from the will.
The Judgment does not identify which of the many versions of the Respondent’s will it favours or question that the Respondents will be the main beneficiaries.
The Judgment fails to question the complexity of the Respondent’s will, which is incomprehensible to anyone other than a lawyer and impossible to understand for someone suffering from Alzheimers Dementia.
The Judgment fails to give sufficient weight to the evidence of the only independent expert witness, Mr (Doctor of Medicine) Winner.
The Judgment states, paragraph 2, ‘Before trial “capacity” had ceased to be an issue’. When and how? This was not agreed by the Appellant.
The Judgment fails to question or examine the volte-face of the Respondents will against the previous and subsequent wills favouring the Appellant.
The Judgment fails to address the actual undue influence, false allegations of theft by the Appellant upon Mrs MEM Wills, consistently forced upon Mrs MEM Wills by the Respondents and their witnesses for months before their will was signed.
The Judgment fails to address the theft of Mrs MEM Wills pensions and savings by the Respondents and their witnesses, some of which was recovered after police action.
The Judgment fails to address the inadequate medical treatment or the behavioural effects on the sufferer of Alzheimers Dementia.
The Appellant only received a copy of the 30 November Judgment on the 12 December 2006.
The Appellant only received a copy of the 30 November Order on the 14 December 2006.
The Appellant does not have a copy of the 19 December Order.
The Appellant believes it is unreasonable for the court system to expect the Appellant to prepare grounds for appeal from a 43 page Judgment within 21 days or continue with the legal advice and representation given that the legal aid certificate does not cover an Appellant’s Notice before the permission for appeal is allowed.
The Appellant’s solicitors were:
Lyons Davidson
Victoria House
51 Victoria Street
BRISTOL BS1 6AD
Telephone 0117 9046000 DXNo. 7834 Bristol Ref:KTR/GR60/318075/2
(The Appellant’s original solicitor David Wheeler is no longer with the firm and Kate Ryan is now the contact, direct dial 0117 9042391.)
Statement of Truth
The appellant Robert James Wills believes that the facts stated in this section are true.
Signed
R J Wills Appellant
Insufficient Time to continue from this point 02 January 2007
There are hundreds of documents to be produced which are currently with the Appellants previous solicitors and courts.
two additional copies of your appellant’s notice for the appeal court;
one copy of your appellant’s notice for each of the respondents;
one copy of your skeleton argument for each copy of the appellant’s notice that is filed;
a sealed (stamped by the court) copy of the Order being appealed;
a copy of any Order giving or refusing permission to appeal, together with a copy of the judge’s reasons for allowing or refusing permission to appeal;
any witness statements or affidavits in support of any application included in the appellant’s notice;
a copy of the Order allocating the case to a track (if any); and
a copy of the legal aid or CLSF certificate (if legally represented).
A bundle of documents for the appeal hearing containing copies of all the papers listed below:-
a sealed copy (stamped by the court) of your appellant’s notice;
a sealed copy (stamped by the court) of the Order being appealed;
a copy of any Order giving or refusing permission to appeal, together with a copy of the judge’s reasons for allowing or refusing permission to appeal;
any affidavit or witness statement filed in support of any application included in the appellant’s notice;
a copy of the skeleton argument;
a transcript or note of Judgment, and in cases where permission to appeal was given by the lower court or is not required those parts of any transcript of evidence which are directly relevant to any question at issue on the appeal;
the claim form and statements of case (where relevant to the subject of the appeal);
any application notice (or case management documentation) relevant to the subject of the appeal;
in cases where the decision appealed was itself made on appeal (eg from district judge to circuit judge), the first Order, the reasons given and the appellant’s notice used to appeal from that Order;
in the case of judicial review or a statutory appeal, the original decision which was the subject of the
application to the lower court;
in cases where the appeal is from a Tribunal, a copy of the Tribunal’s reasons for the decision, a copy of the decision reviewed by the Tribunal and the reasons for the original decision and any document filed with the Tribunal setting out the grounds of appeal from that decision;
any other documents which are necessary to enable the appeal court to reach a decision; and
such other documents as the court may direct.
To support your appeal you should file with this notice all relevant documents listed below. To show which documents you are filing, please tick the appropriate boxes.
If you do not have a document that you intend to use to support your appeal complete the box over the page.
Reasons why you have not supplied a document and date when you expect it to be available:-
Signed Appellant(’s Solicitor)
Title of document and reason not supplied Date when it will be supplied
11 January 2007
Sadly, the authorities are not willing to accept the above as it does not conform with their systems. The following explains the next stage.
'I am sure that the Court (could) offer you assistance regarding the application for a stay of the Order. This application will mean that the Order will be stayed until the outcome of your application for leave to appeal.'
To cut a long story short there are no less than 16 e-mails today between three courts and RJW trying to obtain documents and forms. 1516 hours - The court authorities confirm the forms are being sent.
Contact:
STOP the abuse of a Citizen's Human Rights to Justice by the Legal System of England's failure to allow an Individual to present their case to a Court on the grounds that submissions by a litigant in person are not compliant with the bureaucracy of ‘THE SYSTEM'.
Justice – a new approach
By Lord Falconer Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Introduction
On 9 May 2007 the Ministry of Justice comes into existence.
It exists for one purpose only – to improve the justice system for the public.
Our objectives
• We will promote justice: by ensuring that there are fair, effective and proportionate ways of resolving disputes,
We will promote justice
We should be proud of living in a modern, thriving, liberal democracy. The success, prosperity and stability of the
Justice and the rule of law are the foundations of any democracy and are necessary prerequisites for a society that is fair and free. Promoting justice strengthens fairness and equality in our institutions and our society. This means we must be relentless in making sure that the most marginalised, vulnerable and disadvantaged in society are treated with fairness.
Promoting justice is important if we are to provide and protect a fundamental constitutional right of effective access to an impartial court or tribunal to decide upon legal rights and obligations. This must be one of the core functions of the state.
The justice system is one of the mechanisms by which we establish the boundaries of acceptable behaviour: right and wrong. It casts the shadow of the law. The knowledge and existence of an effective and accessible justice system ensures, in the last resort, that most rights or contracts are fulfilled and obligations to others respected without the need for legal action or intervention from the state. And it ensures that, when these boundaries are breached, there is a means by which the citizen and the state can seek redress and then see it delivered.
We will promote justice by:
• ensuring that our justice system is accessible and effective, respected and understood;
• continuing to modernise the institutions and systems that serve the justice system;
• putting in practice the principles of justice and respect for the rule of law throughout all public services and institutions;
• setting standards for equality and fairness, and ensuring that the justice system is reflective of the communities it serves;
15
We will provide access to justice for all
An effective justice system is not just about the courts and the judges: it concerns the extent to which the public has access to that system. Access depends on understanding one’s rights and knowing how to go about enforcing them. Too many people still do not know where to turn, or are too confused, intimidated or indeed frightened to access the justice system. This is often the case for the people in the greatest need.
Access to justice means making sure that people, and particularly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society, are able to get the help, advice and support that they need. Often early, quick and easily understood information on debt, welfare or housing can prevent problems spiralling out of control.
Since the Attlee government introduced legal aid nearly 60 years ago, it has provided millions of people with advice, support and representation – many of whom would have been otherwise denied access to justice because they could not have afforded to pay. F
Free access to justice for those who need legal aid is as integral to the Welfare State as the NHS or state education. Our legal aid system is the best funded in the world, but we must ensure that the system is sustainable for the future and that it continues to provide protection for the most vulnerable.
This means reforming the way that legal aid is provided in order that expensive criminal cases do not draw invaluable support away from civil or family aid, where it is often needed most.
16
To deny access is to deny justice. This is why we will:
• provide access to advice, at the point of need and at the earliest possible opportunity, to help people resolve their disputes earlier;
We will increase confidence in the justice system
No matter where people come into contact with the justice system, it is vital that the system inspires confidence. It is a key priority for the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the public see that the delivery of justice is fair, open, accessible and accountable. These principles apply to the structure, the processes and to the culture of the new department.
We will improve confidence in justice by ensuring that the system delivers outcomes for the public and not the professions. We will do this by putting the needs and expectations of the public, especially victims and witnesses, at the heart of everything we do. Confidence will increase when the experience of justice improves. Central here is making sure that the justice system connects with communities.
I have the utmost belief in the quality, the integrity and the ability of the courts, and in those who work in them, from the judges onwards: they are all committed to working day after day to deliver justice.
But they know that courts can, and do, appear remote, that people believe the courts don’t understand their problems and have no adequate comprehension of some of the issues faced by the communities they are there to serve.
In terms of criminal justice particularly, there is a sense that courts are removed, attitudinally and physically, from the problems faced by communities, and that the courts do not properly appreciate the nature of or the harm caused by some of the crime and anti-social behaviour they are there to help combat.
When they do, the cases they are concerned with seem only to reach court months – all too often many, many months – after the offences they are dealing with have occurred.
And when they do, the practices of the court, the way the court does its business, can be daunting: everyone else seems to know what’s going on, everyone else seems to know what they’re doing, but victims and witnesses, or families and children, seem often to receive only limited information and support. We must ensure that people have the confidence to come forward, and are helped through the process.
If justice is to be done it must be seen to be done. This is in part through courts becoming more visible in communities. It is also through courts becoming more transparent in how they operate, so that that the public are able to better
19