IPCC CORRUPTION

Rebbeca

Rebecca Reed. This pervert covers up for the many kiddie diddlers and granny abusers in the police.

 

The Fraud Investigator has just sent this e-mail to Rebecca Reed, one of the criminals running the organisation laughably known as the “Independent” Police Complaints Commission. Working for the IPCC, Ms Reed obviously lacks any sense of decency, morality or integrity and is a known, habitual liar.

If you want to know more about her, do go to, http://twitpic.com/3so1cx/full

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: RE: Inspector Moreton and Mr Steve Read fraud and police corruption investigation (Crime Number 12110014573) (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011) (OPG reference 2250548)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:30:52 +0100
From: Fraud Investigator
To: ‘Rebecca Reed’ <rebecca.reed@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
CC:

Dear Ms Reed,

 Thank you for your e mail today (attached),  I confirm that Mr Long did use the term “intolerable” to describe me.  Please see the final paragraph of his e mail dated 09.06.11.  I would further observe that there have now been ten investigations or reviews into this case, all of which have found failings in the way it has been handled by the Council and the Police, and support my view that the case has to be re-opened.  These are:

  1.  The Council’s own independent investigation which found that Mr Mark Bednarski the council social worker who is a close friend of Robert Hofschröer’s made false allegations of serious criminal offences against Peter Hofschroer, for which he was disciplined.  He has subsequently made further false allegations against Peter Hofschroer.
  2. The IPCC investigation found that the request to arrest Peter Hofschroer through Interpol was made not by a Police Officer but by Mr Steve Read who is a civilian working for the complaints investigation department of NYP with no power to order such an arrest or investigation.  Commissioner Long (very helpfully) also called for the safeguarding investigation to be reopened.
  3. The Austrian State Police investigation found that the same allegations made to the OPG against Peter Hofschroer by Robert Hofschroer, City of York Council and NYP of abuse, kidnapping, holding his mother against her will and preventing contact with her family were all false.Mrs Hofschröer’s Doctor confirmed that the allegations of abuse and neglect made against Peter Hofschroer by North Yorkshire Police and by his brother were false.
  4. Assistant Chief Constable Sue Cross of North Yorkshire Police has confirmed that Councillor Tracey Simpson-Laing’s allegation that she had reported a series of offensive telephone calls from someone connected to the Hofschroer case -presumably Peter Hofschroer- to the police were false.
  5. Following comments by myself that the investigation into the burglary at Mrs Hofschröer’s home was unsatisfactory, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police ordered that the investigation should be re-opened for the third time.  The report on this is now being unlawfully withheld, presumably to avoid implicating police officers in misconduct.
  6. Following application to the Office of the Public Guardian by Mr Robert Hofschroer, City of York Council and Inspector Moreton to have the powers of attorney transferred from Peter Hofschroer to Robert Hofschroer, the OPG investigated, were unconvinced and refused to make the transfer.
  7. My own investigation has found evidence of serious failings in the process applied to this case.  In my view this is sufficiently serious to warrant criminal charges.
  8. My findings have been independently reviewed by the eminent barrister Mr Donald Crawford who I think Mr Long has met and he has also separately expressed legal opinion that there is sufficient evidence to pass to the CPS for a prosecution.
  9. The CPS have confirmed that evidence should have been taken from Mrs Hofschroer and Mr Hofschroer.  This has therefore effectively QUASHED the findings of the joint safeguarding conference issued by York Council and also the findings of the IPCC.

Obviously this must be embarrassing for Mr Long and yourself.  Please can you assure him that although I find his personal remarks about me offensive, I fully understand his annoyance, which is obviously caused by the fact that I am systematically revealing a major police corruption scandal that the IPCC has tried to conceal.  This is not my first corruption investigation and I understand that when you are exposing corruption you have to be persistent and steel yourself to hear hard and unfair things about yourself.  With regard to his complaints about the volume of correspondence from me I would ask him to consider that if the IPCC had conducted a competent investigation, there would be no need for me to correspond and I would now be a dim and unpleasant memory that served only to give him the occasional nightmare.

Concerning point 2 above and Mr Steve Read’s part in the Interpol arrest request, I would like to again emphasise the facts, which are undisputed.  These are:

1.  The IPCC report confirms that Mr Read initiated the Interpol request.

2.  Mr Read alleged that Peter Hofschroer had been making offensive telephone calls to Police Officers and members of City of York Council, which North Yorkshire Police have subsequently confirmed was a lie.

3.  All of the other allegations made by Mr Read in the Interpol request of kidnapping, abusing his mother and holding her incommunicado from her relatives and friends against her will in a house that was unsuitable for her were also established as completely false by the Austrian State Police investigation and her Doctor.

4.  Mr Read made his request on behalf of Robert Hofschroer, the man that entered her home, changed the locks and withheld a key, thereby making her homeless and then tried to sell her home fraudulently while she was seriously ill abroad.

5.  Mr Read’s justification for requesting an Interpol investigation was that Robert Hofschroer wanted to be in contact with his mother Barbara.  This was again a lie.  The Austrian State Police investigation and Barbara both confirmed that Peter Hofschroer was not preventing contact, it was simply the case that Robert Hofschroer had not bothered contacting his mother which was his choice.  Robert Hofschroer has chosen not to speak to Barbara Hofschroer since the day her husband died in January 2009.  Since the Interpol investigation which established he could ring her, write to her or visit her whenever he wanted, he has continued to isolate her from her great grandson and to ignore her.  In short, his alleged desire to speak to the lady he was abusing was a lie used by Mr Read and Robert Hofschroer to justify trying to have Peter Hofschroer arrested.

6.  North Yorkshire Police force policy requires that Interpol requests are only initiated by police officers.  Mr Read is a civilian working in complaints investigation with no responsibility for criminal investigations into kidnapping or welfare requests.  He therefore has no more power to initiate an Interpol operation than a traffic warden, someone that works in the police canteen or indeed someone that walked into a police station off the street.

Therefore it is clear that the IPCC have now confirmed that Mr Long’s close colleague Mr Read abused his position as a civilian in North Yorkshire Police Headquarters to unlawfully initiate an Interpol arrest operation against Peter Hofschroer for kidnapping, which was entirely based on falsehood issued on behalf of the man that was trying to defraud Mrs Hofschroer of her home and which he had no authority to initiate.  Mr Long does not apparently dispute the outcome of the Austrian investigation that Mr Read’s allegations to the Austrian police via SOCA and Interpol were based entirely on falsehood, that he had no authority to initiate the Interpol request, that he contravened force policy or that his actions were unlawful.  In summary therefore a civilian in Force Headquarters with no authority to initiate an Interpol enquiry contravened force policy and unlawfully initiated an Interpol arrest operation for kidnapping, which was entirely based on complete falsehood at the request of a man with a history of making false allegations of criminal offences known to be pursuing a campaign of harassment and trying to fraudulently sell her home and make her homeless and this causes Commissioner Long no concern at all!

Further, perhaps you should also consider the way that Mr Long has at the same time ignored the overwhelming evidence of Inspector Moreton’s corruption.  In particular the same Mr Bednarski that was found to have made false allegations of criminal offences against Mr Hofschroer by the Council, allegedly made the complaint which was used by Inspector Moreton to justify issuing a harassment warning threatening Mr Hofschroer with arrest for issuing offensive e mails and a leaflet.  This was the key event in this fraud and it was alleged that Inspector Moreton issued it to intimidate Peer Hofschroer into staying in Austria, so that his mother’s house would be left vacant and available for Robert Hofschroer to seize and then sell fraudulently.  However:

  1.  The leaflet you have provided does not constitute evidence of harassment of Mr Bednarski, Peter Hofschroer denies ever seeing it before, it is alleged to be forged and you cannot say how it came into the possession of North Yorkshire Police, so it is evidentially worthless.
  2. You cannot provide the e mails mentioned in the harassment warning, obviously because they never existed and were concocted by Inspector Moreton to assist in the fraud, but have scrupulously evaded admitting that they do not exist.  There is in fact no evidence that Mr Bednarski ever even made a complaint about e mails.
  3. When I went to Fulford Road Police Station at the invitation of Inspector Moreton to see the alleged e mails, Superintendent Winward refused to release the e mails, refused to sign the harassment warning, refused to ask PC Homburg to sign the harassment warning, would not confirm if Homburg new anything about the harassment warning and refused to confirm if the e mails existed, on the basis that I had not made application to the legal Department although I had in fact done this (Ref 2246.10 Ms Elizabeth Terry dated 02.02.10) and she would neither confirm or deny the existence of evidence to support the harassment warning.  The conclusion is inescapable that the e mails which play a critical part in an international criminal fraud do not exist and the harassment warning Mr Long is supporting is bogus.
  4. You are aware that on the same day that Robert Hofschroer seized the house and changed the locks, in what was clearly a coordinated well planned joint operation, Inspector Moreton made application to the Office of the Public Guardian to have the Power of Attorney transferred from Peter Hofschroer (the man that PC Farrington, the Austrian State Police, her neighbours, her lawyer and her Doctor confirmed was a good carer of Barbara Hofschroer) to Robert Hofschroer (the man alleged by constables to have abused Barbara Hofschroer and who tried to make her homeless and destroy all of her possessions) on the basis of the false allegations of fraud made against Peter Hofschröer by Robert Hofschroer that had already been investigated and found to be false by PC Farrington eighteen months before.  Had Inspector Moreton succeeded in having power of attorney transferred to Robert Hofschroer on the basis of another concocted false allegation unsupported by any evidence, he would have had complete legal control over Barbara’s assets and there is no doubt that Robert Hofschroer would then have been free to sell her home fraudulently.  Fortunately the OPG refused to execute his request and therefore using Peter’s power of attorney over his mother, we were able to prevent Robert Hofschroer from selling the house and destroying all her possessions.  I have asked that Commissioner Long respond to my concerns over this, but predictably, instead of opening up the investigation again he ignored this new evidence.

I think it is obvious that the harassment warning is bogus.  However, Commissioner Long’s refusal to act on the evidence of corruption (detailed in my e mail of the 2nd of January below), his obvious close relationship with Mr Read, coupled with his offensive personal remarks about me because I am a Christian trying to return a seriously ill old age pensioner to her home so she can live there in peace and safety for the rest of her days, indicate that he is not sufficiently detached to conduct this investigation.  I would therefore request that it is turned over to another Commissioner and re-opened completely, on the basis of conflict of interest.

Finally, as background material, please also find attached some internet articles on the Docherty case that I understand you were involved in.  Interestingly, both cases involve allegations of abuse of the harassment act to conceal a failure of the police to investigate a serious offence and to justify arresting an innocent member of the public.  I understand from press reports that you are the IPCC investigator that originally cleared the police of misconduct, but that the case has now gone to court and a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police has been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.  I hope this is of interest to you.  Again this indicates to me that there is a lack of competence in the IPCC in investigating this type of case.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

—-

From: Fraud Investigator
Sent: lundi 2 janvier 2012 00:12
To: Chief Constable Maxwell
Subject: Inspector Moreton and Mr Steve Read fraud and police corruption investigation (Crime Number 12110014573) (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011) (OPG reference 2250548)

Dear Chief Constable Maxwell,

Further to the Guardian article I forwarded to you, I write in response to the letter dated 12 December 2011 from Mr Steve Read (attached) which is written in response to my e mail of the 4th of December, (also attached).

The situation is that Inspector Colin Moreton (Retired) of your force is accused of organising an international criminal fraud against old age pensioner Mrs Barbara Hofschroer (who is British) and her son and carer, Mr Peter Hofschroer (who has dual nationality), in conjunction with other members of her family, (this is detailed below in APPENDIX A) and Mr Steve Read who is a civilian on your staff and Detective Superintendent Galloway who is the Director of your Force Intelligence Bureau are accused of assisting Inspector Moreton in this fraud by trying to have Peter Hofschroer arrested in Austria, to prevent him from giving evidence in the UK and to assist in a similar property fraud in Austria.  (This is detailed below in APPENDIX B).  In response to these grave allegations:

  1. You have appointed Mr Steve Read as the investigating officer into a crime that he is himself accused of committing.
  2. In his letter Mr Steve Read asserts that the Crown Prosecution Service requires witness statements from Barbara Hofschroer and Peter Hofschroer and that these can only be given in the UK, and has refused to accept statements from Austria.  However, he is aware that Mrs Hofschroer is currently very ill in Austria and cannot travel to the UK.  The British Consulate in Graz Austria has confirmed there is a standard procedure for witnesses to submit statements from there and the Crown Prosecution Service have now confirmed that they have not specified any requirement for the Hofschroer’s to return to the UK to submit their statements.  It therefore appears that Mr Read has invented an additional restriction on the Hofschroer’s to prevent them from giving evidence which may lead to his arrest.
  3. On the basis that I have acted as the Hofschroer’s representative in all correspondence with North Yorkshire Police and conducted the burglary investigation, I have asked to come to the UK to submit a statement of evidence on the case and this has been dismissed out of hand by your force as having no evidential worth, although this is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine and they can only do this when they see my statement.  It therefore appears that your force has again invented an additional restriction to prevent evidence being submitted which may lead to the arrest of corrupt police officers.
  4. You are refusing to accept the recommendation of the IPCC and the Independent Local Government Ombudsman that the case should be completely re-opened, refusing to release the report on the burglary at Mrs Hofschröer’s home to Mrs Hofschroer, Mr Dennis of your legal services department is refusing to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests for information that Mrs Hofschroer is entitled to see and which could help in my investigation and you are also refusing to follow standard police procedure, Home Office and ACPO guidelines to request an investigation by an outside force.

I have already indicated to you that because Mr Read is himself accused of corruption, it is inappropriate and unethical for me to correspond with him and it is unacceptable for you to forward my correspondence to him.  You may be interested to know that I have participated in a number of criminal investigations in my career and I find a situation where I am corresponding with a man accused of serious criminal offences about arrangements for witnesses to give evidence against him, at the request of the Chief Constable bizarre and completely unacceptable.

There have now been eight separate independent investigations or reviews into this case which have all criticised the way the case has been handled in one way or another.  In the latest disaster to unfold for your force as a result of my investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service have confirmed that in order to ascertain if criminal offices have occurred and conduct a satisfactory investigation it was essential that witness statements were taken from Peter and Barbara Hofschroer.  As you are aware, this has never been done and consequently, the CPS ruling has effectively QUASHED the findings of Moreton’s investigation that you are supporting.  In the course of the cover-up to protect Inspector Moreton, your force has accused Peter Hofschroer -whom all parties including NYP constables, Austrian Police, neighbours, her lawyer, Doctor and myself accept is a good carer of Barbara- has been accused of variously of fraud, theft, assault, use of insulting words and behaviour, making obscene telephone calls to Police officers and Councillors, cross border kidnapping, holding his mother against her will, harassment of his brother, police officers and a social worker, and abusing his mother.  All of the allegations made by Mr Read, DS Galloway and Inspector Moreton have been fully investigated and found to be false.  As a result, this case has now involved in one way or another City of York Council, the Local Government Ombudsman, SOCA, Interpol, GCHQ, the Austrian State Police, the IPCC, the North Yorkshire Police Authority, the Metropolitan Police, the City of London Police, the Home Office, Foreign Office, British Embassy in Vienna, British Consulate in Graz, Home Secretary, Lord Henley, the CPS, ACPO, the Austrian Foreign Ministry and there have been questions asked in the Houses of Parliament.  To resolve this I would request that you:

a)     Suspend Mr Read immediately from all further involvement in the investigation of a crime that he is accused of committing, in accordance with normal police practice and ACPO guidelines.

b)     Implement the recommendations of myself, the IPCC and the Local Government Ombudsman, and re-open the case.

c)      Call in another force to conduct the investigation in accordance with normal police practice.

d)     Release the offensive e mails that your force alleges that Peter Hofschroer sent to Mr Bednarski, (see below) or admit the blatantly obvious which is that they do not exist and that this allegation was concocted by Inspector Moreton to provide an excuse to threaten Mr Hofschroer with arrest and keep him out of the UK.

e)      Release the results of the burglary investigation which Mrs Hofschroer has a right to see.

f)       Order Mr Dennis of your staff to respond to my Freedom of Information requests and release the NYP document “Problem Solving Hofschroer.doc” sent by Inspector Moreton to the OPG to assist in the fraud and suspend Mr Dennis from any further involvement in the case.

g)     Confirm arrangements for me to come to York and submit my evidence against Inspector Moreton, Mr Read and other officers of your force.

h)     Suspend DS Galloway from all further duties as Director of Force Intelligence, to prevent any further abuse of this sensitive position.

I look forward to your response in due course.
 

APPENDIX A:  THE ORIGINAL FRAUD AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF INSPECTOR MORETON.

 

Background

Essentially in this case it is alleged that a) Mr Robert Hofschroer who is a social worker and a corrupt police officer -Inspector Colin Moreton of North Yorkshire Police- acting in a joint criminal operation organised an International criminal property fraud against his mother Mrs Barbara Hofschroer and her other son and carer Peter Hofschroer, in which they were defrauded of their homes in York and Austria worth about 500,000 Euros.  It is further alleged that b) when this blatant fraud by abuse of position was exposed, officers of North Yorkshire Police closed ranks behind Inspector Moreton and Mr Read to initiate a high level cover-up to protect them from arrest and imprisonment.

The fraud

The start of this fraud occurred when Robert Hofschroer and his children Martin and Diane Hofschroer persuaded Barbara, husband Paul and son Peter Hofschroer to sign over their houses to them (total value approximately 500,000 Euros) while they were caring for them, in return for promises of providing care in their old age.  However, as soon as Paul and Barbara Hofschröer’s health failed, -having deceived them into transferring legal ownership of their homes- Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer abandoned them and made aggressive demands for their savings, necessitating the return of their son Peter from Austria to protect them and look after them.  Evidence from Constables Brocken and Crossan confirms that Mrs Hofschroer suffered abuse from Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer.

In May 2008, following aggressive demands to hand over their savings which were held in a joint account, Barbara Hofschröer became concerned that Robert Hofschröer and his family would persuade Paul Hofschröer –who was ill and confused- to transfer their savings to him, or deceive him into signing a transfer document, so she transferred Barbara and Paul Hofschröer’s savings from a joint account to Peter’s account to prevent Robert from accessing them.  This was before Peter had Power of Attorney over Barbara and her late husband Paul, and done of Barbara’s own free will.  On 25th September 2008,  WPC 1827 Lisa Farrington investigated allegations by Robert and Diane Hofschröer that Peter Hofschröer had stolen Paul and Barbara Hofschröer’s savings.  In a most commendable investigation, WPC Farrington confirmed that there was no evidence of fraud, abuse or neglect and that Mrs Hofschröer was clean and in good order, happy in Peter’s care and happy with his management of her finances and the transfer. WPC Farrington’s conclusions have subsequently been confirmed by the Austrian Police, the Local Government Ombudsman, her doctor and her solicitor.  Peter Hofschröer has asked me to confirm again that Mrs Hofschröer’s savings remain completely intact and were only moved from the joint account to prevent them being taken by Robert Hofschröer and his family, at the request of his mother Barbara.

Peter reported the abuse to the Police and Council under the joint NYP and City of York Council (CYC) safeguarding policy.  However in September 2009, it appears that Inspector Moreton seized control over the situation by contravening NYP force policy to take over the investigation, even though he is not a member of the specialist force protecting vulnerable persons unit which should handle safeguarding investigations.  At this point it appears that Inspector Moreton was running the fraud and it is possible that Robert Hofschroer was acting under duress.  Inspector Moreton then withheld police evidence, the evidence of Peter and Barbara Hofschroer and other evidence of abuse and crime from the joint CYC/NYP investigation, did not interview or take statements from Peter and Barbara and did not examine the documentation, to ensure the safeguarding investigation would clear Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer of all charges of fraud, harassment and abuse, leaving them free to seize and sell her house in due course.

In December 2009, Mrs Hofschroer was taken ill while on holiday with Peter in Austria, necessitating an extension of her stay while she recovered.  Inspector Moreton had police enquiries made on behalf of Robert Hofschroer to confirm her home was empty and then confirmed the house was empty to Robert Hofschroer.  He then issued a bogus harassment warning threatening to arrest Peter Hofschröer for harassing Mr Mark Bednarski, – who is a friend of Robert Hofschröer’s and has a history of making false allegations of criminal offences against Peter Hofschröer – by issuing an offensive leaflet and e-mails.  This was issued to ensure that Peter was deterred from returning to the UK, thus leaving Brabara’s home empty so that Robert could occupy it and sell it.  The warning was issued by PC 1974 Homburg but was unsigned and undated.  When I interviewed Superintendent Winward at York Police Station in July 2011 she refused to sign it and also refused to summon PC Homburg to sign it.  This indicates to me that Homburg may not know anything about the harassment warning and it may be a forged document.  Correspondence with the IPCC has subsequently confirmed that NYP are unable to provide the e-mails, the leaflet does not constitute harassment, is forged and North Yorkshire Police cannot say how it came into their possession.  Thirty two requests have been made to see the e mails, but you will not release them or admit that they do not exist, in order to prevent the arrest of Inspector Moreton.

Having received confirmation from Inspector Moreton that the house was empty, on the 22nd February 2010, Robert and Martin Hofschröer unlawfully entered Barbara Hofschroer’s home, changed the locks and withheld a key from Barbara Hofschroer, thus making her homeless.  The same day they were observed by neighbours removing Barbara’s property from the house.  The neighbours dialled 999 and asked for the police and when they arrived, officers under the command of Inspector Moreton looked on and watched as they stole her property, but did not arrest Robert and Martin Hofschroer for theft.  Subsequently Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer indicated they wanted to sell Barbara’s home fraudulently this being an offence of fraud within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006.  Fortunately, Peter acting under his Powers of Attorney which was granted on the 4th of February 2009 was able to prevent the sale and prevented the house from being sold, although they still have possession.

The application to the office of the Public Guardian by Inspector Moreton to have control over Mrs Hofschroer’s assets passed from Peter Hofschroer to Robert Hofschroer

On the same day that Robert Hofschroer seized the house and changed the locks, in what was clearly a coordinated very well planned joint operation, Inspector Moreton made application to the Office of the Public Guardian on behalf of North Yorkshire Police to have the Power of Attorney transferred from Peter Hofschroer (the man that PC Farrington, neighbours, her solicitor the Austrian State Police, myself and her Doctor confirmed was a good carer of Barbara Hofschroer) to Robert Hofschroer (the man alleged by your constables to have abused Barbara Hofschroer and who tried to make her homeless and destroy all of her possessions) on the basis of the false allegations of fraud made against Peter Hofschröer by Robert Hofschroer that had already been investigated and found to be false by PC Farrington eighteen months before.

Inspector Moreton also telephoned the OPG at the request of Robert Hofschröer and made the same allegations verbally.  According to the notes by the OPG case officer Inspector Moreton lied and fabricated evidence by falsifying the date of the transfer from the actual date of May 2008 to May 2009, i.e. after Peter had Powers of Attorney over his mother, so that it would be within the remit of the OPG and justify conducting an OPG investigation into an allegation of abuse by Peter in his capacity as an Attorney and removing his Power of Attorney.

Other than the investigation by WPC Farringdon, no police enquiries were made with Peter Hofschröer to ascertain the facts and it is clear from the documents provided by the OPG that the purpose of this call and the allegations made by Robert Hofschröer was to initiate an OPG investigation and have Peter’s Powers of Attorney withdrawn from him, so that he would be unable to oppose the sale of the house.  The OPG notes show that he had also made enquiries into Peter Hofschröer’s banking arrangements on behalf of Robert Hofschroer, even though this investigation had been closed eighteen months before.

North Yorkshire Police have refused to comment on this or to confirm a crime number or who authorised the request to the OPG.  It therefore appears that this was again unauthorised.  Fortunately the OPG refused to execute his request and therefore using Peter’s power of attorney over his mother, we were able to prevent Robert Hofschroer from selling the house and destroying all of his mother’s possessions.   As you are aware, I have sent extracts from the OPG file which contains irrefutable evidence of Inspector Moreton’s involvement in the fraud to you, but Deputy Chief Constable Madgwick simply wrote back on the 14th of November denying that I had sent it to him, thereby corruptly suppressing evidence and denying the CPS access to it.  NYP are also refusing to release the document “Problem Solving Hofschroer” document sent by Morton to the OPG, or to forward the OPG evidence to the CPS, although it is conclusive evidence of crime by Inspector Moreton.

The alleged burglary

Subsequently Robert claimed that he house had been burgled and property stolen.  It is alleged he did this to conceal the fact that he had himself removed the missing  property as reported by neighbours on the 22nd February 2010.  My own investigation and the SOCOs comments showed that it was an inside job.  Although the evidence of this was submitted to you, North Yorkshire Police will not release the report of the burglary investigation, again to protect Inspector Moreton

Summary

The five key events in the attempt to sell Mrs Hofschroer’s house fraudulently and make her homeless, and then to seize her carer’s house in Austria are specified below.  Inspector Moreton and Mr Read are is implicated in all of them:

  1. The issue to Peter Hofschroer of a threat to arrest him contained in an unsigned “Harassment Warning” from Inspector Moreton on behalf of a friend of Robert Hofschroer while Peter and Barbara were on holiday in Austria in December 2009, for allegedly issuing a leaflet and e mails alleged to be offensive, to intimidate him into staying in Austria so the house would be empty and vulnerable to seizure.  Peter Hofschroer denies this allegation and my investigation has ascertained that the leaflet does not in fact constitute an act of harassment and the e mails do not exist.  When I interviewed Superintendent Winward at York Police Station in July 2011 she refused to sign the harassment warning, or obtain any officer from her station to sign it and I can only conclude this is because she knows that the document is unsupported by any evidence and did not want to incriminate herself.  However, although about thirty two requests to see the e mails have been sent to Chief Constable Maxwell and his officers, he has not responded to them and will not admit that the emails do not exist, because to do so would confirm that Inspector Moreton concocted the allegation and inevitably lead to his arrest.
  2. The seizure of the house on the 22nd of February 2010, which was a closely coordinated well planned joint operation with Inspector Moreton.  First he had police officers make enquiries on behalf of Robert Hofschroer to confirm her house was empty some days previously. On the same day the house was seized, Inspector Moreton applied to the Office of the Public Guardian for Robert Hofschroer to have control over Barbara’s assets, on the basis of a concocted allegation of fraud that had been investigated eighteen months earlier and found to be false. Knowing that Inspector Moreton had ensured the house was empty and applied for him to have control over all of Barbara’s assets, Robert Hofschroer changed the locks, made his mother homeless and started clearing the house of Barbara and Peter’s possessions, prior to selling it.  It is suspected that Inspector Moreton ordered the Police officers attending the incident not to make any arrests over the theft of Mrs Hofschroer’s possessions, which they watched.
  3. In January 2011 shortly after Mr David Niven had prevented Robert Hofschroer from selling Mrs Hofschroer’s house, he reported a burglary there.  I have visited the house and it was obvious from my own observations, the evidence of neighbours and the SOCO report that it was an inside job.  It appears to me that when he realized that he would not be able to sell his mother’s home and that when Peter and Barbara returned he could be prosecuted for theft of her possessions, Robert Hofschroer faked a burglary there to provide an explanation for the missing electronic equipment he had been seen removing from Barbara’s home, while your officers looked on.  I asked for the burglary to be investigated in July 2011, but you are suppressing evidence by not releasing the results of the investigation,  obviously because it will incriminate Robert Hofschroer and thereby implicate Inspector Moreton.
  4. Subsequently the harassment warning from Inspector Moreton was provided to Robert Hofschroer by Inspector Moreton and entered into court in Austria, as the principal evidence of bad character against Peter Hofschroer, to justify confirming the transfer of his house in Austria to relatives of Robert Hofschroer.
  5. In January 2011 Mr Steve Read supported Inspector Moreton’s attempt to influence the outcome of the civil trial in Austria, by requesting the arrest of Peter Hofschroer in Austria (See Appendix B below), on the basis of allegations which were subsequently found to be completely false.  Had Mr Read succeeded, more evidence of peer Hofschroer’s alleged bad character would have been submitted to the Court, he would have prevented Peter Hofschroer from giving evidence, the transfer would have gone through unchallenged and Robert Hofschroer’s family would have made a profit of about 250,000 Euros.

APPENDIX B:  THE INTERPOL ARREST OPERATION IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL FRAUD AGAINST AN OLD AGE PENSIONER.

  1. The IPCC have confirmed that in December 2010 Mr Steve Read who is a civilian working in NYP complaints investigation department requested the arrest of Peter Hofschroer by the Austrian State Police via SOCA and Interpol.
  2. Mr Read is a civilian with no responsibility for welfare issues or investigating criminal offences other than those committed by Police officers of NYP, he had no authority to initiate an international kidnapping operation and so he clearly abused his position and authority.
  3. Mr Read requested Mr Hofschroer’s arrest over allegations that he was the subject of an investigation for making offensive telephone calls to York Council and Police Officers.  ACC Cross has confirmed that NYP is not in fact investigating allegations of offensive telephone calls and it appears that Mr Read lied and concocted a false allegation to justify having Peter Hofschroer arrested.
  4. Mr Read also alleged that Peter Hofschroer had abused his own mother, was preventing contact with her family and holding her against her will in his home in Austria.  The attached translation of the Austrian investigation confirmed that the other allegations were also completely without evidential foundation.
  5. Mr Read’s request was passed to Detective Superintendent Ray Galloway who heads the North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence Bureau and is also thought to be the head of North Yorkshire Police Special Branch.  DS Galloway should have known straight away that the Interpol arrest request was unauthorized and should not have been initiated.  This is because:

a)     Ds Galloway knows that Mr Steve Read is a civilian and not authorised to initiate arrest operations.

b)    There was no crime number or evidence to support the allegations of obscene telephone calls and ACC Cross has subsequently confirmed that this was a false allegation without substance.

c)     There was no crime number or evidence to support the allegation that Mrs Hofschroer was being held against her will and being abused in Peter Hofschroer’s home in Austria.  The Austrian State Police have subsequently confirmed that this was a false allegation.

d)    There was no evidence that members of Mrs Hofschroer’s family had made any effort to visit or telephone her.  Since the Interpol arrest request and confirmation that they could have contact with Mrs Hofschroer whenever they wanted, they have not made any effort to telephone her, visit or contact her.

In short, the Interpol request was bogus and unauthorized and DS Galloway should never have processed it to SOCA.  As a result of the Interpol operation initiated unlawfully by Mr Read and DS Galloway, Barbra was separated from her carer and questioned by armed Austrian police about a kidnapping investigation.  She was terrified by the thought of Peter being arrested and being left without care and afraid to return to the UK.  Fortunately the Austrian Police investigation was meticulous and highly commendable and confirmed that the allegations made against Peter by DS Galloway and Mr Read were groundless and they refused to take any further action.

  1. At the time there was a civil court case in Austria concerning the transfer of Peter Hofschroer’s house to Robert Hofschroer’s children, in which evidence from Inspector Moreton on NYP headed paper was submitted supporting their allegations that Peter Hofschroer was an undesirable character and their claim to Peter Hofschroer’s house.  Mr Read also supported Inspector Moreton’s attempt to influence the court by unlawfully requesting the arrest of Peter Hofschroer.  Had Mr Read succeeded, he would have prevented Peter Hofschroer from giving evidence, the arrest would have been seen as further proof of his bad character and convince the court to confirm the transfer.  Mr Read has responsibility for liaising with the IPCC and Home Office over this case.  It is further alleged that Mr Read decided to request Peter Hofschroer’s arrest to protect Inspector Moreton by removing Peter Hofschroer and thereby preventing any further Parliamentary enquiries from Lord Maginnis.
  2. Subsequently Detective Inspector Ellis of North Yorkshire Police and officers of SOCA claimed that the Interpol arrest request was a simple welfare enquiry, when in fact it makes allegations of serious crime, is classified “RESTRICTED” which confirms it relates to crime (Welfare enquiries are classified “NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED”).
  3. It is further suspected that on the basis that Peter Hofschroer has been alleged to have held his mother against her will DS Galloway has put Peter Hofschroer on the GCHQ watch list, although your force will not comment on this.

Summary

It appears that DS Galloway improperly initiated an intelligence operation in a friendly neutral country, to use their police to arrest a foreign citizen in order to protect a corrupt police officer and pervert the course of civil proceedings there and assist in a fraud.  Although it is unclear what his motivation was for this, whether he was trying to protect a friend or has been offered an inducement it is clear that his participation in this case blatantly demonstrates bad judgment and that he is unfit for any employment in an area as sensitive as intelligence.

 *****

Would it not be appropriate for North Yorkshire Police to change the strap-line on their website to: “Every one of them a criminal?” When are they all going to be arrested?

Anyway the correspondence has continued, with Rebecca Reed telling ever more lies. What does one expect from an IPCC investigator?

*****
——– Original Message ——–

Subject:

RE: Inspector Moreton and Mr Steve Read fraud and police corruption investigation (Crime Number 12110014573) (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011) (OPG reference 2250548)

Date:

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:03:35 +0100

From:

Rebecca Reed <rebecca.reed@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>

To:

Fraud Investigator

Dear Mr Hicks,


With respect to point 1, you have had the IPCC’s position on this numerous times and I will not be repeating it.

 With respect to point 2, this has also been fully examined by the police complaints system and we will not be commenting further.

 Yours sincerely,  

Rebecca Reed
Senior Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region
Tel: 01924 811532
Fax: 0207 166 3836

*****

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:

RE: Inspector Moreton and Mr Steve Read fraud and police corruption investigation (Crime Number 12110014573) (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011) (OPG reference 2250548)

Date:

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:18:04 +0100

From:

Fraud Investigator

To:

‘Nicholas Long’ <nicholas.long@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>

Dear Ms Reed,

Thank you for the prompt response to my e mail, written on behalf of Mr Long, (attached). 

With respect to point 1 you are a liar.  I have never had any satisfactory response from anyone including yourself and Commissioner Long on why the IPCC and the Police are unable to produce the alleged e mails that have been used as a justification to threaten Mr Peter Hofschroer with arrest.  If this is not the case, then please can you confirm what the IPCC’s position is.

With respect to point 2 I agree that this has been fully examined by the police complaints system.  The IPCC conclusion was that a civilian in Force Headquarters with no authority to initiate an Interpol enquiry contravened force policy and unlawfully initiated an Interpol arrest operation for kidnapping against Mrs Hofschroer’s carer Peter –thereby leaving her stranded in a foreign country without any care- which was entirely based on complete falsehood, at the request of a man with a history of making false allegations of criminal offences known to be pursuing a campaign of harassment against Mrs Hofschroer and trying to fraudulently sell her home and make her homeless and this causes Commissioner Long no concern at all!  Clearly his judgment is unsound or he has an ulterior motive.

 The conclusion is inescapable that:

 1.      The unsigned and undated harassment warning -which no police officer will now sign- was concocted by the corrupt police officer Inspector Colin Moreton, to intimidate Peter and Barbara Hofschroer into staying out of the UK so Barbara Hofschroer’s house would remain empty and could be seized and sold fraudulently, thereby making a fraudulent gain of about 200,000 GBP for Inspector Moreton and Mr Robert Hofschroer and leaving Mrs Hofschroer homeless and stranded abroad.

 2.      Mr Long’s conclusions on the IPCC investigation into his close associate Mr Read are perverse and he has allowed his personal feelings to affect his judgment.  Although fresh and irrefutable evidence of Inspector Moreton’s corruption has been provided to him and the eminent barrister Mr Donald Crawford whom he has met has expressed the legal opinion that there is enough evidence to arrest Inspector Moreton, Commissioner Long has ignored this and refused to respond to correspondence. 

 I therefore repeat my request for Mr Long to ask for an internal review of his conduct of this investigation by another IPCC Commissioner in accordance with normal practice.

 I note that you have not commented on the “intolerable” question and now apparently concede that Mr Long and yourself have abused your positions to indulge in personally offensive attacks on me, by describing me as “excessive” and “intolerable” and I am glad that at least this matter is resolved.

 Please can I have a response from Mr Long or yourself on my request for an independent review by return.

 I hope you have a nice day and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 ****

It will be interesting to see what she says. She and Long are facing CRIMINAL charges for their role in the fraud of an 83 year-old invalid.


Leave a comment

3 Comments

  1. government as corrupted the police people can;t trust now something as to be dun we can’t go on living like this people do have live and cover up and corruption not my part of life some 1 as to take the chop in government for all this cover up disgusting and barbaric

    Reply
  2. i have now been order in to the police station so got my solicitor and i have evidence that the g.m.c is corrupted and all they do is lie i have the g.m.c on my phone saying my court case will end soon the next day the same man called to say the was no court case what court case r you going on about this case of my as been stoped at the top some 1 in government as put the stop on my case 4 yr back at the start of my fight for justices i got a e/mail saying dont look to far but M.P ANDREW LANSLEY had you case covered up this is disgusting i cant get justices off the N.H.S me looking after my little boy and been put on death row after doctor walk free from the corrupted g.m.c uk

    Reply
  1. GRANDMA B UPDATE 11 MARCH 13 | The MUSA CASE, MAURICE KIRK, NORMAN SCARTH, THE BAYLIS FAMILY, THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE – VICTIMS OF THE STATE…this site is being interfered with – pls check the archives on the right for relavent past article

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: