Councillor Kenyon-Miller: Councillor Fox’s response

Councillor Kenyon-Miller:  Councillor Fox’s response

•  – a report by TIM HICKS on the non-responsiveness of Scarborough Bully Council.
  

~

Background

In my recent article Jane Kenyon Miller:  Tom Fox to decide, I narrated the extraordinary saga of Belvedere Computers inc. and its CFO and Agent for Service of Process, Councillor Jane Kenyon-Miller; the Portfolio holder for Finance of Scarborough Borough Council.

Briefly, according to information obtained from the US authorities under the Revenue and Taxation Code 19543 and the Public Records Act Government Code Section 6250 et seq., Belvedere Computers Inc was suspended for non-payment of taxes.

Scarborough Borough Councillor Jane Kenyon-Miller, her husband, Newby & Scalby Councillor Mr Thomas William Kenyon-Miller and her stepson Mr Andrew George William Miller (Thomas William Miller’s son) all remain officers of the company and remain responsible for its operation and service of process at the address they last gave in the United States, which was 851 Hinckley Road, Burlingame, California, although they no longer live there.

Councillor Kenyon-Miller must be aware that she is registered for service of documents at a false address; she has made no attempt to notify the US authorities of her current address, indicating that she is unlawfully evading her responsibilities as CFO to prevent any possibility of service of process. The company has no assets so far as I can ascertain, has also not made its annual returns, submitted accounts or paid its return fees etc. etc.  As a result of Councillor Kenyon Miller’s failure to perform her duties for many years, the company owes the United States Government thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes and fees. Neither Councillor has revealed their interest in Belvedere Computers Inc in their Registers of Interests – a criminal offence under the Localism Act 2011.

When she was a County Councillor, Councillor Kenyon-Miller confirmed that she is the Jane Margaret Kenyon that was CFO of Belvedere Computers Inc, but denied she now has no connection to Belvedere Computers Inc to NYCC Monitoring Officer Ms Carole Dunn.  This has been confirmed by the United States authorities to be a lie.

In order to rectify this situation and bring the company back to good standing, all Councillor Kenyon-Miller has to do is submit all of the outstanding tax returns, annual accounts and annual returns, pay off the amount of $93,720 the Californian authorities have estimated Belvedere Computers Inc owes, and all of the additional fines, penalties, associated interest and the costs of the investigation. Now (ignoring the possibility of criminal prosecution under state and federal law) I cannot estimate how much these would be, but it would seem to me that it would certainly push the costs well into six figures, particularly if you take into account the legal and accounting fees to agree the liability and submit the annual returns and accounts.

Clearly it is morally wrong and completely unacceptable for Scarborough Borough Council’s Portfolio Holder for Finance & Legal Services, who has responsibility for collecting local authority taxes and summonsing people to court for non-payment on behalf of Scarborough Borough Council, should be a person who herself owes many thousands of pounds in unpaid local government taxes to another authority and is illegally evading service of process.  This cannot stand.  To address these concerns in the public interest, on the 22nd of May 2014, I wrote to Scarborough Borough Council leader, Councillor Tom Fox, notifying him of these allegations and asking Councillor Fox to:

1. Interview Councillor Kenyon-Miller formally and ascertain her response to these allegations.

2. Direct Councillor Kenyon-Miller to immediately:

• Notify the California Secretary of State’s Office formally of her address for service of process.
• Apply for a Certificate of Revivor to return Belvedere Computers Inc to good standing.
• Submit the accounts and tax returns she has a duty to provide, and pay the taxes, fines and penalties imposed.

3. Suspend Councillor Kenyon-Miller as Portfolio Holder for Finance, Procurement & Legal until such time as this matter has been resolved, in accordance with normal procedure in such matters.

4. Direct Mrs Dixon to immediately correct the Registers of Interests of Councillor Jane Kenyon-Miller and Councillor Thomas Kenyon-Miller to reflect their positions as Officers of Belvedere Computers Inc, so the Council’s reputation is protected, and it is quarantined from this situation.

5. Direct the Legal Department to initiate a Standards investigation into the conduct of Councillor Jane Kenyon-Miller, Councillor Thomas William Kenyon-Miller and Mrs Lisa Dixon over this matter.

I have now had Councillor Fox’s response:

Councillor Fox’s response

Mrs Lisa Dixon: Fit for purpose or not?

On the 24^th of May 2014 and again on the 6^th of June I e mailed the Council’s monitoring officer Mrs Lisa Dixon and asked her to acknowledge my complaint.  I have now received her response:

Yes, that’s right.  She has also ignored the correspondence, same as Councillor Fox.

But wait a minute, isn’t this the same Mrs Lisa Dixon that wrote to all Councillors following the failed attempt by Scarborough Borough Council Legal Department to have Nigel Ward arrested for benefit fraud, assuring them that:

“The Council regularly receives allegations concerning  ……. fraud from a variety of sources including from the general public. Since these allegations relate to potential criminal activity, the Council treats all such allegations very seriously. Consequently they are subject to strict procedures concerning investigation.”

But an allegation of tax fraud and criminal offences under the Localism Act 2011 have been made against Mrs Dixon’s boss, Councillor Kenyon-Miller.  So why has this not been acknowledged and investigated in accordance with the Council’s “strict procedures”?  Well if the allegation concerns her boss Councillor Kenyon-Miller, this fine principled statement of policy by Mrs Dixon seems not to apply.

Surely this cannot mean that Mrs Dixon is refusing to apply the law of the land and Council procedures evenly to all and sundry, without fear or favour, in order to protect her boss by arranging a cover up!  Because if this is the case, it would be a deeply corrupt act which would render Mrs Dixon unfit to hold public office.  Consider Mrs Dixon’s history and that of her boss Councillor Kenyon-Miller.

• When I first wrote about Belvedere Computers Inc, in July 2012 I was threatened with arrest for harassment at the request of Councillor Kenyon-Miller, (who was at that time the Chair of the Police Authority) by Detective Superintendent Heather Pearson, who is a corrupt police officer that is obviously in Councillor Kenyon-Miler’s pocket.

• Detective Superintendent Pearson then wrote to me threatening me with civil action over alleged inaccuracies in my article which she was unable to specify and demanding that I take down all my articles from the internet, including the one that mentioned Councillor Kenyon’s employment by Belvedere Computers Inc

• In October 2013 another corrupt police officer Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick who is in Councillor Kenyon-Miller’s pocket wrote to me again, threatening to arrest me for harassing Councillor Kenyon-Miller and confirming that a file on me had been sent to the CPS.  Even though the United States authorities have confirmed that the allegations of crime I have made against Councillor Kenyon-Miller are entirely accurate.  So what is the Deputy Chief Constable doing leading an investigation into a harassment complaint normally managed by a Constable in which he is threatening me with arrest on behalf of someone that has committed serious financial crime.

• In March 2013 Mrs Dixon wrote to the Real Whitby Internet Service Provider falsely alleging that Real Whitby had libelled Councillors and committed criminal offences and demanding that the website be “terminated”.

• Mrs Dixon also wrote to Nigel Ward (who is a pensioner in bad health) falsely alleging that he had libelled Councillors, committed criminal offences and was preventing the Council from carrying out its functions.  She went on to threaten him with civil action for defamation and criminal prosecution.  When asked what she was complaining of, she was unable to specify any inaccuracy and the police took no action, proving that this allegation was also false and that Mrs Dixon had lied.

• Mrs Dixon also wrote to Tim Thorne falsely alleging that he had libelled Councillors, committed criminal offences and was preventing the Council from carrying out its functions.  She went on to threaten him with civil action for defamation and criminal prosecution.  When asked what she was complaining of, she was unable to specify any inaccuracy and the police took no action, proving that this allegation was also false and that Mrs Dixon had lied.

• Mrs Dixon also wrote to myself falsely alleging that he had libelled Councillors, committed criminal offences and was preventing the Council from carrying out its functions.  She went on to threaten him with civil action for defamation and criminal prosecution.  When asked what she was complaining of, she was unable to specify any inaccuracy and the police took no action, proving that this allegation was also false and that Mrs Dixon had lied.

• Mrs Dixon also wrote to Glenn Kilpatrick falsely alleging that he had libelled Councillors, committed criminal offences and was preventing the Council from carrying out its functions.  She went on to threaten him with civil action for defamation and criminal prosecution.  When asked what she was complaining of, she was unable to specify any inaccuracy and the police took no action, proving that this allegation was also false and that Mrs Dixon had lied.

• In April 2013 Mrs Dixon wrote a Press Release to Whitby Town Council in which she lied stating that the Council had not tried to terminate Real Whitby.

• When it was pointed out to Mrs Dixon that her press release contained falsehood, she did not deny this, she just stated “The press release is not withdrawn”.  In other words, the colour is black because that is what colour Mrs Dixon is painting it.

• Mrs Dixon received the runner up in the Private Eye legal Bully of 2013 award.

• IN 2014 Mrs Dixon wrote a Press Release to the BBC in which she lied stating that the Council had not tried to terminate Real Whitby.  Predictably she was shown to have lied on the BBC in front of four hundred thousand of people.  BBC interview here

• Mrs Dixon described Real Whitby as “Malicious, harmful, abusive, inaccurate, misleading and defamatory” in a press release to the BBC, again without being able to provide one single instance to support her allegations.  The BBC investigated every allegation we have made and found them to be accurate.

• Whilst Mrs Dixon was quite happy to pass the most offensive comments about Real Whitby in a press statement.  Neither Mrs Dixon or Councillor Kenyon-Miller had the personal courage, honesty or courage of their convictions to appear on the BBC and be questioned about their allegations, in the way that Tim Thorne, Nigel and I did.  Presumably because they knew the allegations they were making were without substance and would not stand up to scrutiny and investigation by the BBC, so they evaded the possibility of being shown to have lied on the BBC by refusing to be interviewed..

• Councillor Kenyon-Miller and Mrs Dixon have supressed or ignored legitimate complaints about Councillor Kenyon-Miller and her employment by Belvedere Computers Inc..

• Nigel Ward was the subject of a blatantly ridiculous allegation of benefit fraud which Mrs Dixon must have known was without substance, but which was nevertheless passed onto the DWP for a fraud investigation, causing needless distress and alarm to an old age pensioner in poor health.

• Mrs Dixon subsequently disseminated an e mail to all councillors, (which she would have known would be circulated beyond the original distribution and would become the subject of gossip) stating that Nigel Ward had been investigated for benefit fraud, but did not state that he had co-operated fully with the DWP investigation and been completely cleared.

• Mrs Dixon has received irrefutable evidence that Councillor Kenyon Miller has committed a criminal offence under the Localism Act 2011 by not recording her interest in Belvedere Computers Inc and a formal complaint about the same.  Yet she has taken no action against her boss Councillor Kenyon-Miller.

• Mrs Dixon is aware that the Register of Councillor Kenyon-Miller’s interests is incomplete.  However should the register be corrected and Councillor Kenyon-Miller’s interest in Belvedere Computers Inc be entered, it would link her to the debts of Belvedere Computers debts and could be given in evidence against Councillor Kenyon.  Mrs Dixon has made no attempt to correct the register and enter Councillor Kenyon-Miller’s interest in Belvedere Computers Inc on the register, although this has been requested.  This is contrary to her duty as monitoring officer, but of course entirely in the best interests of her boss Councillor Kenyon-Miller.

It is obvious that the Legal Department of Scarborough Council is completely out of control and no longer serves the interests of electorate or the Council.  As a result of the corrupt antics of Mrs Dixon and Councillor Kenyon-Miller, the Legal Department is now perceived locally as ignoring the public interest to act in Councillor Kenyon-Miller’s personal interests.  As a result, the Legal Department has become the subject of national and  local pressridicule.

I have already asked for Councillor Kenyon-miller to be relieved of her portfolio for Legal and Finance on the grounds of conflict of interest, misconduct and abuse of the influence that this office gives her over the Legal Department.  She is a corrupting influence on the Legal Department and her continued presence in this office serves only to bring disgrace on the Council, the Department and the people that work in it.  This evidently does not concern Councillor Fox or Mrs Dixon, because they are both ignoring my correspondence.

So I ask the reader to consider if an unscrupulous bully that lies as glibly and unconscionably as Mrs Dixon, is a fit person to be the Council’s monitoring officer, or even to be employed by the Council in the public service in any capacity, having brought so much disrepute on the Council and behaved in such a despicable, arrogant and dishonest way.  In my view Mrs Dixon is unfit for office and should go.

Mrs Dixon, Scarborough Borough Council and Councillor Kenyon were given the opportunity to comment on this article, but declined to do so.