About us

My photo
Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose. Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion. SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Monday, 16 March 2009

John West writes to Michael Zuckerman

As I write these words John West’s kangaroo court is taking place in London. In a total disregard for justice Jeffrey Titford has been allowed to use UKIP's disciplinary rules to intimidate a man who may be called to give evidence against him in a court of law.

It is Jeffrey Titford and Stuart 'Gollom' Gulleford - Titford’s odious sidekick- who should be brought before a disciplinary panel for witness intimidation.

Titford should also be suspended from UKIP as it has now been confirmed that he is under investigation by OLAF. See GLW’s blog for confirmation of this undoubted fact: LINK

Here is Mr West’s last email to M. Zuckerman. I have no doubt that it will be ignored by UKIP's corrupt leadership:

Subject: RE: Derek Clark & Disciplinary Hearing

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:28:01 +0000

Dear Mr Zuckerman,

Your last email is unacceptable.

1. As a member of the NEC Derek Clark is the subject of complaints to the ICO and the Police. I am also taking legal action against UKIP over the MEP selection process and the Youtube leak.

Mr Clark could very well be called as a defendant in this case.

Derek Clark has an interest to declare and cannot be considered impartial.

2. Para 1.6 of the Disciplinary Rules states that no-one can sit on the panel where there is a close connection between them and the complainant or respondent.Derek Clark is an MEP and so is the complainant. This is a close enough connection to disqualify a member of the panel but apparently not enough to disqualify the chairman!

3. At no point have you stated which rules you are following and why or whether the NEC were consulted in choosing Clark as replacement chairman.

4. Neil Thomson of OLAF has confirmed that I can expect to be called as a prosecution witness if OLAF decides to proceed with the complaint against Jeffrey Titford. Mr Titford is aware that OLAF is looking into the case and yet he is still using UKIP's complaints process to intimidate a potential prosecution witness. As a solicitor you must realise that intimidation of a potential prosecution witness is a very serious matter.

5. Despite claiming to have removed yourself from the disciplinary process you have continued to send me emails about this matter. Under the Discipline Rules 1.3 and 1.4 it is clear that you should have handed over the conduct of the case to another member of the Discipline Panel. I would remind you that I put you on notice on two occasions that you were the subject of a complaint to the SRA. Despite this you declined to remove yourself from the process.

I am sorry Mr Zuckerman but once you withdraw from the proceedings you cannot continue to arrange the hearing and the paperwork . You can`t have your cake and eat it!

As a solicitor you should know that justice must be seen to be done. In this case justice is not being seen to be done.

I put you on notice that I will be making a formal complaint to the SRA about your role in this affair.

I will be also speaking to my solicitor with a view to taking further legal action against UKIP over this issue.

Yours sincerely,
John West

For more information see: LINK

No comments: