SNU Terrified To Go To Trial! The Latest...
More SNU chicanery...
* * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Friends,
Sadly, the long-awaited High Court Trial here in Liverpool did not take place this week [12th & 13th November 2001]. The SNU have again successfully scuppered the trial.
If you will recall, the 2nd ground on which the Judge dismissed and dissolved their original injunction was on the basis that they failed to procure the permission of the Charity Commissioners for England & Wales (CC). The Union - strangely - argued that the case fell outside the provisions and definitions of the 1993 Charities Act. However, it was established in Court that the case did indeed need the permission of the CC. This means the High Court, or any Court has no jurisdiction in the case.
The SNU have had eight months to put this right but they have not bothered.
Why?
Because it is in their (short term) interest not to. They have cynically sat back and laughed at us over the last seven months knowing full well they were not going to apply for the necessary permission until the eleventh hour, thereby scuppering the trial!
In respect of this they cynically filed for an adjournment given that the CC need to legally authorise the case to proceed through the High Court..
The SNU have said that I have only just put this in my Amended Defence. Friends, you can't get a much bigger and more blatant lie than that!!
In reality, it formed the first 3 paragraphs of my original defence back in March and April 2001.
The SNU says that they have repeatedly requested the necessary permission from the CC but they have failed to obtain a reply.
Another blatant lie.
How do I know?
I know because I went to see the CC - who are based here in Liverpool - and who are actually dealing with this case. They were surprised because they had only just received the application from the SNU. (As much as I and my legal team thought).
Unlike the SNU, I am on good terms with the CC. Through me, they are also in receipt of all legal documents from both sides concerning the case. The SNU has submitted nothing of the case to the CC. I have been their only source of information. This is not good practice on the part of an allegedly 'democratic' Union and a registered charity. Suffice to say, these are now in the hands of the CC lawyers - and not before time.
What is clear to me is they are very annoyed at the SNU, and are seriously looking at revoking their status. Without doubt, they are galled that the Union should take me to Court without first seeking their sanction.
They have also read the SNU AGM Minutes from Conference 2001 and are scrutinising the disgraceful ("let's try it on") Motion 1 (M1) - this is the Motion where the SNU has removed the right of churches and centres to disaffiliate.
(As we know anyway) it may have to be revoked. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CC knew nothing of M1. Also, the chap who is dealing with the Waterloo case is the head of the Charity Support Division (complaints) and he further told me that he had written to the SNU several times asking them which meetings and documents they were referring to in the 2001 AGM minutes and in their circulars.
The CC know nothing about it! Again, the CC know of no such consultations, meetings or documents and are keen to get hold of Duncan and Charles' apocryphal circulars.
Direct CC quote; "Churches need not have charity status. It seems the SNU are pushing for churches to get charity status in order for the Union to keep their own."
It is a complex matter.
However, I decided upon legal advice that it was best to have gone along with the adjournment otherwise the case may have been "stayed" indefinitely, which is of course what the Union wants.
They will clearly be happy getting it "stayed" because there will be no High Court judgement.
They are clearly terrified about it all going to trial. They've left this tactic until now, knowing full well it would have to
be put off again.It is because they know they are most likely going to lose. I will tell you more as I get it.
BEWARE!! They have now bought themselves more time for added chicanery. The SNU are currently engaged in drafting further amendments to their Articles of Association, Memorandum, Bye Laws and Rules For All Churches, which will have the added affect of strengthening their powers over affiliated bodies and against your members' interests.
CC Quote: "When an organisation such as the Spiritualists' National Union is given such wide and diverse powers to intervene unchecked then there are bound to be abuses on their part."
Sadly, the rest I cannot tell you about - 'sub judice' and all that...
Sorry for the inconvenience but you are really only getting it as I get it. I have still another meeting with my solicitor and barrister and the CC to get through and I can assure you justice will prevail.
I thought I'd let you know ASAP.
Thank you for your support and encouragement.
Kevin.../
P.S.: I had to laugh the other day. I received a great e-m@il from my Internet friend from Kerry, Ireland. Upon informing him of the latest "shenanigans", he commented, "Why the dirty, stinking, filthy, thieving, lying cheats!!"
I'm inclined to agree, Kieran.