Barry Hunt
Dorset Rate Payer

In the Public Interest
The Plight of Barry Hunt

Dorset Police, Dorset Police Authority, & Dorset County Councils Legal Department started and Illegal
Liable Action (ULTRA VIRES) on behalf of an individual Police Officer named Andrew Culley. This is at the
expense of the Dorset Rate / Tax Payers, we shall be showing those responsible for approving such an
action, and details of the Masonic Involvement in this case, along with supporting documented evidence.
You can see how the Dorset Authorities spent over £42,000 of Rate Payers money to obtail a £6,000 judgement.

The Audit Commision should carry out a Best Value inspection of Dorset Police Authority
under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999, but The District auditor does not agree,

We Wonder Why?

Barry Hunt of Weymouth, alleges that PC Andrew Culley, (A Freemason of, lodge 8025 'Trinity' Weymouth)
gave perjured evidence to frame Mr. Hunt on a motoring offense. The case was heard by KH Barnes,
(Magistrate, Chairman of the Magistrates Committee & Provincial Grand Master of Dorset Freemasonry,
Mother Lodge 7873 Vindellis Portland) Mr Hunt and others, allege that Barnes committed a criminal offense
of Misconduct in Public Office by not standing himself down.

Instead, he continued to hear the case knowing that he was in breach of Magistrate Court rules and knowing
that it was a breach of natural justice considering that Barnes and Culley knew each other through Freemasonry.
As such the conviction against Mr. Hunt is unsafe, this case has also been sent to the criminal cases
review commission, headed by Brother Sir Frederick Crawford, one of the most Senior
Masons in the UK. As you can Imagine the CCRC dismissed Mr. Hunts allegations,
and didn't even address the issue of Freemasonry.To see Brother Crawfords Masonic
Credentials, regestered in one of their books, Click Here

If PC Culley wanted to test a libel or defamation action, he should have funded his own solicitors, it is an
ILLEGAL (ULTRA VIRES) use of rate payers money to mount this action. We shall be showing those elected
members on the Police Authority, who along with the Chief Constable and Clerk to the Authority,
authorized spending Dorset Rate Payers Money on this action. No wonder it is said that
Dorset Police and council Officers are Arrogant. They Can Afford To Be...
...You the Rate payer are Paying!

What triggered the action against Mr Hunt, was after he lobbiedIan Bruce MP who was then South Dorset Constituency Glory Hunter at the time, another man in Bolton wrote to Bruce voicing his concerns. Instead of dealing with these serious matters, Mr Bruce sent a letter to the New Chief Constable Jane Stitchbury (AKA Mrs Campbell) starting Dear Jane... and stating that Bruce is keen to see legal or other action taken against these two gentlemen. The only action that can be taken is that which is legal and falls within the law, we question the mentality of MR BRUCE?
To see a copy of this initiating letter : Click Here

Dorset County Councils Legal Department Settled the Original Proceedings against Mr Hunt, in the Weymouth District Regestary, we thought a laible actioncan only be heard in the High Court in front of a Jury. It was entirely improper to hear the civil case of defamation. This case was heard in THE HIGH COURT in London. Once it had been moved out of Dorset, where a dishonest county councils legal department thought that The Network would be able to deal with this in Dorsets usual fashion. To see evidence of this Click Here.

Some elected members were not happy with what was being bought to their attention, and insisted that the councils
legal department to discontinue this action. But arrogant members of the police authority including the chairman
Peter Jones, approved of a Local firm of Solicitors taking over the case that the Council had started. They agreed
to fund PC Culleys action for deformation in the High Court. However they were told at a very early stage
that they were suing an impecunious person, as Mr Hunt has no money. He lives in a house that is
owned by his sister, and when he is employed, he works as a welder. They have no hope of
recovering any of the money that they spent on this action. The Police Authority originally
set aside £20,000 of Dorset Rate Payer Money to fund this civil claim.
Click here to view the Evidence

However we have minutes of a Police Authority meeting, where the Clerk Peter Harvey reported to
members that the case was going over budget. In fact the case so far has cost £42,750.00, this
is the amount that the local solicitors should be paid by either PC Culley or the Police Authority,
whoever instructed them, as they are going to have great difficulty getting any
money from Mr Hunt. To view their bill of Costs - Click here!

In fact the Police Authority authorised spending over £42,000 to get a judgement in
favour of PC Culley for £6,000. This was really good, Best Value for Money policy that the
Police authority are obliged to have under the Local Government Act. This becomes
even more obsered because they were told at an early stage that Mr Hunt is an
impercunious person, who lives in a house owned by his sister.

Mr Hunts case went before the Queens Bench Division of the High Court in London.
The Judge Eadie directed that there should be no jury, due to the fact that Mr Hunts Lawyers
had filed an admittence to Mr Hunt handing out leaflets that PC Culley claimes to contain
a laible or deformation. However Mr Hunt claims that although he admits to handing out
leaflets, no jury has decided if the leaflets actually contain a liable or deformation,
and he was denied the right to test this in front of a jury. The Judge ruled that
Mr Hunt had an indefensable position and therefore dismissed the jury.

Mr Hunt believed that he had grounds for an appeal, or even to take the case
to the European Court in Strausberg. The judgement against Mr Hunt
included that an article is published in the press stating that
PC Culley had been vindicated.

Our reporters were in court for the Hunt Case, and will be following
the case carefully. We do know that one Statement of Truth was
submitted to the court bundle, claiming that there had been a
common law Criminal Offence of Making a False Statement
to the Court, in the form of a Dorset Police Report.

We do not understand how official confidential police reports ended up
in a private civil action, especially reports naming people who were not
parties in the action. It is believed that the disclosure of these confidential
reports are a Criminal Offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
The lawyers that represented PC Culley were Lester Aldridge of Oxford Rd, Bournemouth,
put confidentiial police reports and documents into the court bundle, that they had illeagally
misused this highly sensitive information. Contary to Section 55 and 56 of the Data Protection Act.
Judge Eadie ignored these criminal offenses reported to him, and did not remove Lester Aldridge
from the case or order in an outside force to investigate the serious allegations. Instead he
continued the case against Mr Hunt, we wonder why? These criminal offenses are now
before the Data Comissioner for investigation and prosecution. Mr Hunt wrote to his MP
Jim Knight of Dulux Whitewash Fame, reporting the Criminal Offences in the course
of these proceedings. On the 24th December Richard Thomas, Information Comissioner
wrote to Dulux Jim, confirming that IT APPEARS THAT AN OFFENCE MAY HAVE BEEN
COMITTED UNDER THE TREMS OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998, accordingly
the file has been passed to the investigations department for consideration of further action.
To See the Evidence Click Here!
Mr Hunt wrote to the Information Commissioner requesting him to declare that neither he nor
any other members of his investigations team are Masons, or have Masinic Links. He has not
replied, we wonder why? Mr Hunt then wrote to Dulux Jim on the 16th March 2003, detailing the
above, and asking Jim why he has not replied either to previous letters sent to him.

Mr Hunt made application for leave to appeal, however Lord Justice Simon Brown refused leave
to appeal. Click here To View . He is vice president of the Court of Appeal Civil Division.
The Head of the Appeal court Judges is Lord Justice Millet, a Leading Freemason, who has recently
been made the Grand Master of the Newly Formed Grand Metropolitan Lodge of London, amongst
other lodges he is also a member of Chancery Lodge. Details of this will follow.

Cullys solicitors, Lester Aldridge and Co would normally be paid for their Barristers Fees and his retainer
in advance of the hearing and after it, most solicitors would also expect to be paid at the time of taking the
case and at various stages as the case progresses. Unless this case is an exception to the rule, that
means either Culley or the Police Authority have been paying them. If they are waiting to finally
get their money from Mr Hunt, they are going to have a LONG WAIT. Mr Hunt wrote to them
on 18/11/2002 stating much of the above. To See The Letter - Click here To View
We understand that the case is now being prepared to go to the European Court
of Human Rights, for breaches of Article 10 and 6 of the European Convention,
as well as an aleged on going course of Misconduct by the various
British Authorities.

Due to the way Lester Aldridge and Co, the Dorset Authorities, and the Costings Court
have acted, Mr Hunt now has an appeal against the costs due to be heard. If
nothing else, the dorset authorities are going to have to pay more Rate Payers
Money in legal representation at this appeal. Are the people authorising this
stupid, malliscious, or vindictive?

In the costings hearing the cost draughts man
Phillip Parsons referred to a document. Mr Hunt requested sight of this and was refused.
However because Parsons referred to it in the proceedings in front of witnesses, Mr Hunt
made an application to the High Court for disclosure of this document. Not only has
this cost the Dorset Rate Payers a further £1704.57 for Parsons to attend the hearing,
on 17th November 2003 it went before Master J Simon Supreme cost court judge.
In the course of those proceedings, Mr Hunt made the allegation that Parsons had
put in a perjured witness statement before the judge, and was committing an offence that
would be contrary to the 1911 Perjury Act. The Judge J Simon said that he is not interested
in the perjury, we wonder why? Somebody should tell Lord Archer, it appears the
Judge in that case was defiantly interested, why the disparity?
Master Simon refused to make an order for disclosure, and told Mr Hunt that all of this will be
dealt with in the appeal. This will be heard sometime in 2004, no doubt costing even more
Dorset Rate Payers money, of which Lester Aldridge are the beneficiaries.
To see the statement Mr Hunt states amounts to perjury CLICK HERE

The latest european court ruling in the McDonalds liable case, where a litigant in person,
with no lawyer representing him against a large organization should have legal aid. This will
stop the draconian antics of Dorset Police, and judges like the one that refused to allow Barry
Hunt to present evidence of perjury to a jury, and hand down a perverse judgment. Mr Hunt is
now looking to take this case to The European Court as it is on all fours with the McDonalds liable case.

*COMING SOON - THE EVIDENCE MR HUNT WAS
NOT ALLOWED TO PUT BEFORE A JURY*

The Police Authority and the County Council started the laible action against Mr Hunt,
it is said because the words Freemanonary have been used, as opposed to
other cases featured on this site, where similar allegations are made
against more senior Police Officers for not telling the truth & general
dishonesty in legal proceedings, this amounts to misconduct in public office.
Obviously the Truth Hurts.

*WATCH THIS SPACE - PLENTY MORE TO COME*