Sturdy or Wobbly?

Grandma B’s carer has just sent this e-mail to York Outer’s MP Julian Sturdy outing him.

Will he reply or will he exercise his right to silence?

Don’t need three guesses, do we?

*****
——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Official Corruption in North Yorkshire
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:29:06 +0100
From: Peter Hofschröer
To: Julian Sturdy <julian@juliansturdy.co.uk>
CC: HENNIKER-HEATON, Julia, ‘BAYLEY, Hugh’, BOWGETT, Denise, WELLS, Margaret, julian.smith.mp@parliament.uk, MORRIS, Ann, Public Admin Committee

Dear Mr Sturdy,

You are one of the MPs with a constituency in North Yorkshire and one of the two MPs covering the City of York.

More than one year has passed since I first raised my concerns about the rampant corruption in the authorities in North Yorkshire – North Yorkshire Police, the City of York Council, North Yorkshire Police Authority, North Yorkshire County Council, etc., etc.

You are aware the Mr Timothy Hicks FCA, the fraud investigator working on this case, has now amassed sufficient evidence to have every chief officer of North Yorkshire Police, the entire senior management of the City of York Council, all senior social workers, the Lord Mayor of York, councillors of North Yorkshire County Council, senior officials of North Yorkshire Police Authority, the IPCC, ward councillors of York, etc., etc., charged, arrested and hopefully jailed for the serious criminal offences they have committed.

Like all other MPs covering North Yorkshire, you have chosen to ignore my correspondence and not do you job by calling for a full, open and public enquiry into this scandal. This endemic corruption does not appear to cause you any concern. One wonders why.

As such, I have been forced to go elsewhere to find support for my request and am pleased to say that Lord Maginnis, who is well known for his abhorrence of official corruption, has taken up this case and is now asking questions in Parliament. He is pressing the Prime Minister to instigate an enquiry in to the official corruption you seem so determined to ignore.

Below is an e-mail outlining parts of the case showing how the officials mentioned are acting in common purpose to systematically defraud the vulnerable.

Despite full knowledge of this case for more than ONE YEAR, you have done NOTHING to stop these SERIOUS CRIMES being committed against your constituents.

May I ask why?

Is it the case that you are a corrupt MP taking a rake-off from this racket?

If that is not the case, please state so. Your rebuttal, along with the substantial documentation supporting this allegation will then be posted on Grandma B’s blog:

https://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/

Your call!

Yours sincerely,
Peter Hofschröer

*****

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: FW: RE: Hofschroer case. Inspector Moreton fraud and corruption investigation (Crime Number 12110014573) (Interpol Reference 4C/4326686/10) (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011) (OPG Reference 2250548)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:32:53 +0100
From: Fraud Investigator
To: ‘Nicholas Long’ <nicholas.long@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>

Dear Commissioner Long,

INSPECTOR MORETON CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION

I am writing to you because our normal contact Ms Reed is on holiday and there have been a number of important developments in the case:

  1. Peter Hofschröer has now obtained Mrs Barbara Hofschroer’s file from the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) with a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act. This has revealed important fresh evidence which proves conclusively that Inspector Moreton of North Yorkshire Police (NYP) was acting in common purpose with Robert Hofschroer in the offences of fraud and theft committed against Mrs Barbara Hofschroer.  This has now allowed me to precisely reconstruct how Inspector Moreton organised a 500,000 Euro international criminal fraud against an old age pensioner and her carer.
  2. Following on from your meeting with Lord Maginnis and Mr Donald Crawford, Mr Crawford -who is a senior barrister now retired- has now reviewed all the evidence and concluded that there is enough for a successful prosecution for fraud by abuse of position within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006.

I wish therefore to formally notify you of these developments to establish that you were fully aware of developments in the case and had the opportunity to intervene and re-open the IPCC investigation.  I would like to start by recording the full history of this case in the light of the new evidence.

How Inspector Moreton organized a major international fraud against an old age pensioner and her carer

The start of this fraud occurred when Robert Hofschroer (who is a social worker employed by a City of York Council (CYC) funded charity in York) and his children Martin and Diane Hofschroer persuaded Barbara Hofschroer (mother) , husband Paul and brother 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 and that they could remain in their homes for as long as they wanted.  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.  This being a classic case of fraud by abuse of position within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006.

In 2008 on his way to from Austria during one of his visits to his parents in York, Peter met with me and asked my advice.  I established that the savings were held in a joint account and could be transferred from it to Robert Hofschroer on the basis of one signature by Paul Hofschroer, who was by this time not fully aware of the consequences of his actions.  I expressed concern that Robert Hofschroer could put a transfer form in front of Paul Hofschroer at any time and without understanding the implications of his actions he could sign it and transfer all of Paul and Barbara’s savings to Paul, which would be contrary to their interests and could leave them destitute.  I recommended that:

a)     He obtain power of attorney over his parents.

b)    That he discuss the situation with Barbara and with her consent transfer the funds out of the joint account, so that Paul -who was vulnerable and could be manipulated or deceived easily- could not be deceived into signing over their savings to Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer.

In May 2008, following aggressive demands for their savings which were held in a joint account, Barbara Hofschröer became concerned that Robert Hofschröer and his family would persuade Paul Hofschröer 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 done of her own free will before Peter had Power of Attorney over Barbara and her late husband Paul.  Peter duly applied for power of attorney over his parents and then became their full time carer from about mid 2008 onwards.

When he learned of the transfer, Robert Hofschroer then made an allegations to the police of theft and abuse against Peter Hofschroer, because Barbara had transferred his parents funds out of their joint account.  On the 25th of September 2008,  WPC 1827 Lisa Farringdon investigated these allegations.  In a most commendable investigation, WPC Farringdon 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 Farringdon’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.  I attach a copy of her evidence to the IPCC.

I also attach the evidence of PCs Brocken and Crossan of the abuse and harassment that Mrs Barbara Hofschroer suffered from Robert Diane and Martin Hofschroer on the day her husband Paul died, which was typical of the treatment they both received before Peter Hofschroer took over their care from them.

Peter reported the abuse and incidents of harassment to the Police and Council under the joint NYP and CYC safeguarding policy.  However, CYC would not take action against their own Social Workers and Inspector Moreton contravened your force policy to take over the investigation, even though he is not a member of the specialist force protecting vulnerable persons unit which should have handled the safeguarding investigation.  Inspector Moreton then withheld the attached police evidence, the evidence of Peter and Barbara Hofschroer and other evidence of abuse and crime from the joint CYC/NYP investigation to ensure it would clear Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer of all charges of fraud, harassment and abuse.

As a result of the OPG file being released it has emerged that Robert Hofschroer made other complaints to his colleagues in CYC and to the Office of the Public Guardian asking for Peter Hofschröer’s powers of attorney to be transferred to him on the basis that Peter was abusing his mother.

When Mrs Hofschroer was taken ill while on holiday with Peter in Austria, necessitating an extension of her stay while she recovered, this presented Inspector Moreton and Robert Hofschroer with a perfect opportunity to seize the house and sell it fraudulently while she was ill abroad, which they took full advantage of.  Inspector Moreton 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 their house empty so that Robert could occupy it and sell it.  The warning was issued by PC 1974 Homburg but was unsigned and undated.  Peter Hofschroer denies ever sending Mr Bednarski an e mail and denies distributing the leaflet you provided, which he has never seen before.

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 and this indicates to me that Homburg does not know anything about the harassment warning and it is in fact a forged document.  Correspondence with the IPCC has subsequently confirmed that neither the IPCC or NYP can provide the e-mails, the leaflet does not constitute harassment, may be forged and the IPCC and NYP cannot say how it came into their possession.  In short, the harassment warning is completely unsupported by evidence, hence the reason why Superintendent Winward would not sign it.  As you are aware, I have asked yourself, Ms Reed, ACC Cross, Mr Read, Mr Lemon, Superintendent Winward, Mr Dennis, Ms Terry, Detective Inspector Ellis, Commissioner Long, Ms Read, County Councillor Kenyon and numerous others to provide the e mails mentioned in the PC Homburg harassment warning but they have never been provided.  It is alleged that they have not been provided because they do not exist and NYP will not admit this, because to do so will result in the arrest of Inspector Moreton.  Subsequently the harassment warning from PC 1974 Homburg 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 Diane and Martin Hofschroer.  Clearly an unsatisfactory and bizarre situation.

Inspector Moreton then had police officers make enquiries on behalf of Robert Hofschroer to confirm her house was empty and once they ascertained this, Robert Hofschroer entered the house, changed the locks -thus making Mrs Hofschroer and her son Peter homeless- and started clearing the house of their property.  Although this is an offence of theft, when called by neighbours who had seen him removing their property, police officers under the orders of Inspector Moreton just stood by and watched while they did this.  Subsequently Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer contravened the transfer agreement and tried to sell the house against the will of Peter and Barbara.

It has now emerged that on the same day that Robert Hofschroer seized the house and changed the locks, in what was clearly a coordinated, pre-meditated and very well planned joint operation, Inspector Moreton made application to the Office of the Public Guardian supporting Robert’s request to have the Power of Attorney transferred from Peter Hofschroer (the man that PC Farrington 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 (see attached statement to the IPCC).  In order to ensure this was within the OPG’s remit, he concocted the allegation that the transfer had taken place in May 2009 (i.e. after Peter had taken power of attorney and therefore within the OPG’s remit) when in fact he and Robert both knew it had occurred in may 2008 before Peter had power of attorney and therefore outside the remit of the OPG.   (Please see attached documents).  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.

In summary, the OPG file has now revealed the following new evidence of corruption:

1. On the same day that Robert and Martin Hofschröer seized Mrs Hofschröer’s home and locked her out, Inspector Moreton telephoned the OPG at the request of Robert Hofschröer in what was clearly a coordinated pre-planned joint operation and alleged that Peter Hofschröer had abused his mother and transferred funds to himself, which are the same false allegations that had been investigated by WPC Farringdon eighteen months earlier and found to be false.

2. In the same telephone conversation with the OPG, 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, so that it would be within the remit of the OPG and this would then justify conducting an OPG investigation into an allegation of abuse by Peter in his capacity as an Attorney and removing his Power of Attorney.

3. 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.  Fortunately the OPG did not pursue the investigation, otherwise Robert Hofschröer and his family would have succeeded in fraudulently selling Barbara’s home, rendered her homeless and left her in exile in Austria, thanks to Inspector Moreton’s assistance.

4. 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.

5. North Yorkshire Police are unable to provide a crime number for Inspector Moreton’s investigation of the alleged transfer in 2009 or confirm who authorised the correspondence with the OPG.  This is obviously because Inspector Moreton was operating on his own, outside the supervision of the NYP chain of command, acting on behalf of Robert Hofschroer not NYP.

When I complained to the Council about Robert Hofschroer entering Barbara’s home, changing the locks and withholding a key, Robert Hofschröer’s fellow social worker Mrs Cath Murray of York Council, knowing that the Council, Inspector Moreton and Robert Hofschroer had applied for the powers of attorney to be transferred from Peter to Robert, refused to initiate a safeguarding conference on the basis that her colleague Robert had assured her that he had sent his mother a key although this was a falsehood, and asserted that Mrs Hofschroer had made herself voluntarily homeless because she had contravened the terms of the transfer agreement.  Councillor Tracey-Simpson Laing supported her in this.  The information that the Council and Police had supported Robert Hofschröer’s application for the powers of attorney to be transferred from Peter to Robert was withheld from your investigation and also from the investigation of the Local Government Ombudsman.

Protection of Inspector Moreton from arrest by corrupt police officers within North Yorkshire Police

In addition to the core offences of fraud and theft, it is alleged that senior officers of North Yorkshire Police have conspired to protect Inspector Moreton from arrest:

1. Chief Constable Maxwell is refusing to follow the recommendation of yourself or that of the Local Government Ombudsman that the case should be re-opened immediately.

2. When it became clear that Peter had succeeded in using his power of attorney to prevent Robert from selling the house and making Barbara homeless, Robert claimed that he house had been burgled and property stolen, to conceal the fact that he had himself removed the missing  property.  I went to the house and using the SOCO report and an inspection was able to show that the missing property had been stolen by Robert Hofschroer, as alleged by the neighbours who saw him removing it.  However, NYP are refusing to release the report of their investigation into the alleged burglary.

3. In December 2010 Mr Steve Read who is a civilian working in the NYP complaints investigation department requested the arrest of Peter Hofschroer at the request of Robert Hofschroer over concocted bogus allegations that he had abused his mother, kidnapped her and had been making offensive telephone calls to York Council and Police Officers.  ACC Cross of NYP has confirmed that NYP is not investigating allegations of offensive telephone calls and the Austrian investigation confirmed that the other allegations were also completely without evidential foundation.   Mr Read has no responsibility for welfare issues or investigating criminal offences other than those committed by Police officers of NYP, but has responsibility for liaising with the IPCC and Home Office over this case.  It is alleged that Mr Read decided to request Peter Hofschroer’s arrest to remove Peter Hofschroer and prevent any further Parliamentary enquiries from Lord Maginnis.  Had he succeeded, Barbara Hofschroer would have been left stranded in Austria without care, Robert Hofschroer would have been free to sell the house and Peter Hofschroer would have been prevented from giving evidence in Austria against Robert Hofschroer’s son and daughter concerning a similar property fraud in Austria.

4. When Lord Maginnis took up the case Detective Inspector Ellis and others claimed that the Interpol arrest request was a simple welfare visit.  When we obtained the document under the Austrian Freedom of Information Act it was quite clear that it makes false allegations of serious crime and abuse against Peter Hofschroer and requests that he is arrested in Austria under Austrian law.

5. I have forwarded all of the evidence from the OPG file to North Yorkshire Police on the 20th of October, but on the 14th of November 2011 Deputy Chief Constable Madgwick wrote to me denying this, obviously to protect Inspector Moreton from arrest.

6. The force solicitor Mr Simon Dennis is refusing to acknowledge or respond to Freedom of Information requests, to deny me information that Mrs Hofschroer is entitled to, in order to inhibit my investigation.

7. Chief Constable Maxwell is routinely ignoring correspondence in order to evade responding to enquiries that will produce more evidence of corruption in his force.

8. Chief Constable Maxwell is withholding the file “Problem solving Hofschreor.doc” that was sent to the OPG to assist in getting the powers of attorney transferred from me, obviously to prevent the release of evidence that will incriminate Inspector Moreton.

9. In the course of the cover-up to protect Inspector Moreton, Peter Hofschroer -whom all parties including NYP constables and her Doctor accept is a good carer of Barbara Hofschroer- has been accused 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 and a social worker, and abusing his mother, that all of these allegations have been fully investigated and found to be false.

There have now been seven separate independent investigations into this case and all of them have criticised the way that NYP and/or York Council have handled the case in one way or another.  The evidence of crime by Inspector Moreton and cover up by other officers is now irrefutable.

I would therefore request that you re-open the IPCC investigation into allegations against Inspector Moreton for conspiracy to defraud, harassment, misuse of public office and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. on the basis of fresh evidence from the OPG.  If you are unwilling to do this, I would ask that you ask that the case is transferred to another IPCC Commissioner, on the basis that your close working relationship with Mr Steve Read and your previously stated position constitute conflicts of interest, given that you have previously commended Mr Read to Lord Maginnnis as someone that you think of highly.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

******

Leave a comment

1 Comment

  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: