To: Eversheds Solicitors
Cc:
Ms K Worsey HE Policy & Funding Welsh Assembly Government
HEFCW / QAA
Secretary & Academic Registrar University of Wales Lampeter
Vice Chancellor University of Wales Lampeter
President University of Wales Lampeter – Please make sure he receives it!
Senior Vice Chancellor Federal University of Wales
Dr Medwin Hughes Principal, Senior Staff, & Governors - Trinity College Carmarthen
Who in my opinion have acted to conceal the corruption of?
Former Secretary and Academic Registrar Dr Thomas Roderick
Former Vice Chancellor Prof. Robert Pearce
Former Visitor Bishop Carl Cooper
Former Head of School Prof. David Austin
Former Head of Management and Examinations Officer Dr. Jill Venus
Lecturer Zed Zorichak
Others involved in the concealment are, Dr Lynn Williams General Secretary of the Federal University of Wales and former Senior Vice Chancellor Prof Anthony Chapman.
Against the interests of your client
The University of Wales Lampeter
Whose Council has been deceived concerning the conduct of the above officers and staff?
Re: The Non-Payment of Court Costs in the Public Interest.
Current Office Holders Have Made a Choice to Implicate Themselves in Corruption.
I refer to your demand for payment of £18,500 costs by the 12th of December 2008 or you will petition for bankruptcy for a second time. On the first occasion, you wasted charity funds by failing to turn up in order to play your usual mind games. You have confirmed that the first petition for bankruptcy had been concealed from the University Council who has no idea of what is going on and were told a pack of lies concerning the reasons for the initial court action.
Furthermore, you have repeatedly refused to answer any questions regarding the £10,000 in costs owed by the former Visitor Bishop Carl Cooper, a figure that has now risen to approximately £14,500. You and your client has also refused to answer questions concerning the payment of legal fees on behalf of Prof David Austin, and then there are the thousands of pounds spent on legal advice and unfounded threats of court action in the concealment of corruption. Your client has obviously lied to the auditors to that effect.
Therefore, you are invited to proceed with your petition for bankruptcy accordingly so I can include current post holders in the above list of corrupt officers and staff. Details will be included in my submission to the OIA as evidence for the need to name and shame corrupt Universities such as Lampeter. It will also be included in my complaint to the Charity Commission under the Charity Act 2006, which given the mountain of evidence is likely to take 12 months to complete, the results will be published and any criminal offences reported to the police.
If I have not already done so, my complaint to the Charity Commission will pave the way for another submission to the Visitor and a claim against your client. The consequences of which grow with the passage of time.
This is likely to effect the current review of Lampeter which given the circulation of my submissions to the OIA, puts the University of Wales Lampeter in danger of being declared a failed institution by the QAA. With regard to any merger of Lampeter with another University, any prospective partner will be informed of the situation so they are aware of what they are going to inherit. The people you ‘represent’ need to know they will not get away with it, nor will current office holders be able to continue with the concealment of my complaints with the use of bully boy tactics such as threats, intimidation, game playing, and fabricated accusations of malicious harassment etc., with the fraudulent use of charity funds.
I restate my opinion that Eversheds have acted like thugs to make unfounded threats of legal action, high court injunctions and requiring the signing of an undertaking never to tell the truth about the corruption at Lampeter ever again. The effect of this could leave a student just as debilitated and just as dead as if they had been beaten up down a dark alley. Furthermore, I have needed to tell Eversheds to refrain from making unfounded accusations, abusive comments, and to conduct themselves in a professional manner.
Corrupt officers and staff have with the assistance of Eversheds put every conceivable obstruction in the way of a remedy to my complaints and then hid behind the law with sickening self-righteousness and hypocrisy. You have confirmed that current post holders have chosen to be an accessory to this corruption and they can expect their conduct to be published to the internet to bring transparency to this situation. My court action was necessary to obtain absolute proof that both Eversheds and officers knew that there never was any plagiarism, and that the University Council who interests you should represent was deliberately deceived as to the concealment of corruption by officers and staff.
In my opinion, this corruption and your failure to safeguard the interests of your client will result in a loss to the University as a charitable company under the Charity Act 2006 for which you may also be liable. Therefore, you have a motive in making my complaints go away, in order to conceal your own involvement in this matter. This raises questions as to the impartiality of the advice you are currently offering to your ‘client’.
Regarding all this nonsense about plagiarism, I suggest current post holders actually look at the absurdity of Zed Zorichak’s fabricated results. That they are fabricated is not an issue of high-flown academic judgement; it is a statement of absolute fact blatantly obvious to a child. From this comes the obvious conclusion that the response to my other complaints was also a contrived pack of lies, as was the invented accusation of malicious harassment by Prof David Austin, it was a pathetic attempt to conceal the fact he deliberately flouted procedures. A statement of fact admitted by your client.
As another example of just how low your ‘client’ can sink, it will emerge that members of staff have been implicated in the concealment of corruption without their knowledge or consent. They have been used as fictitious witnesses, and had actions and comments attributed to them which are obvious lies, for these reasons their names have been withheld, but they will be informed in due course.
While both staff and students have supported my campaign for an inquiry via my website, the failure of the University to address these issues has led to a small number of people including students? Sending abusive emails with regard to the facts published to my web site at www.lamp-post.info. Following yet another failure of procedure and management that required the intervention of the educational internet service provider JANET, Lampeter has been forced to deal with a complaint to that effect.
Your client is required to tell the truth to the student concerned and confirm that the comments on my website are based on facts that Lampeter has attempted to conceal. My opinions are fair comment, made in the public interest, and are what a normal member of the public would say about this sort of corruption. Therefore, they cannot take legal action to have them removed.
Should your client make any defamatory statements concerning myself then I reserve my right to make a claim against them and individual officers accordingly, I will in any case take any action possible against the student concerned so they can find out the truth about the corruption at Lampeter the hard way. Your client should issue a warning to all students to this effect.
The Federal University will also be the subject of a related complaint under the Charity Act 2006, and as the degree awarding body they should know of the academic fraud that your client considers being amongst the highest standards in the (Welsh) university sector. To avoid this they may wish to address my complaint and hold their own inquiry into this matter. Therefore, you have my permission under the Data Protection Act 1998 subject to informing me of the details, to supply any evidence required including copies of Zed Zorichak’s fabricated plagiarism results. If you have destroyed the evidence or anyone else wants copies then I will supply them upon request.
The same applies to the University Council should they wish to hold an inquiry to find out what its officers have been concealing. I have acted in the public interest to expose the corruption at Lampeter, in the passage of time and within the constraints of the law, I have been vindicated by the QAA. I also expect to be fully vindicated by the Charity Commission who has no such restrictions. I have sent a copy of this memo to the President of the University Council to force some kind of ‘joined up’ corporate governance.
Contrary to claims of being committed to the highest standards, the treatment of student whistleblowers is evidence of institutionalised discrimination against the disadvantaged contrary to the requirements of the Charity Act 2006; you simply stitch them up with false accusations of plagiarism to get rid of them. However, in the current climate I think that is about to change.
If Trinity College want details or would like me to explain how complainants or disadvantaged students are eliminated, I would be happy to explain it to you. It is something you may wish to deal with before any merger. Details of my submission to the OIA can be found on my website.
