Richard Prokopanko (Director at Rio Tinto) in Sharon Singh legal scandal

Richard Prokopanko (a Director of Rio Tinto), and based in British Columbia Canada, has been implicated in a legal scandal according to the e-mail correspondence I have seen (below).  Doubts have been raised about the status of Sharon Singh when she resided in Australia:

Richard Prokopanko

From: Mr J Holland
Sent: December-19-11 11:01 PM
To: "Honourable Minister Shirley Bond", Shirley.Bond.MLA@leg.bc.ca
"Maria Dupuis OIPC:EX", mdupuis@oipc.bc.ca
Cc: info@bcorl.ca
QuestionsLobbying@ocl-cal.gc.ca
ajohnson@theprovince.com
lgrindlay@theprovince.com
Subject: Concerning un ethical registraion to the BC government.

20th December 2011.

The Attorney General:

The Hon S Bond.

Dear Madam

Ref: Richard Prokopanko and Sharon Singh..Rio Tinto registered lobbyists.

I wish to place before you several criminal and other unethical matters which Prokopanko has not seen fit to inform your Government about.

You may feel Prokopanko has committed a criminal offense and should be prosecuted.

Mr. Prokopanko has caused the registration of Ms Singh as a lobbyist to your Government and he has at all times been aware of the following:

1. Ms Singh’s arrest record for dishonesty in Australia.
     (** - see below)

Ms Singh was arrested in 2000 and placed before Australian Courts for using 4 different names to improperly gain employment here.

Now if that were all of Ms Singh’s peccadilloes I would not be writing to you today, however, Prokopanko is well aware that Ms Singh has a history working for members of a notorious organized crime group forming partnerships with Paul Reed and Don Campbell, and Benji Venimen all ex drug traffickers, Read and Venimen had convictions for manslaughter and murder, respectively here in Australia. Additionally Prokopanko was well aware that Ms Singh had improperly obtained a job with Rio Tinto Iron Ore in Perth, Western Australia by falsely claiming to be an Australian citizen when she wasn’t and she did not have a proper Australian visa to work in Australia, and in obtaing that emploment she was acting contrary to her earlier court appearances when she was warned not to try to work again without proper authority but perhaps a more pertinent complaint against Singh would be:

That she gained an improper registration to practice law in Australia using deceit, an offense for which she would face criminal prosecution here in Australia.

The way she did this was.

a) Not to inform the legal Practice Board in Western Australia that:

1) She did not have permission to work in Australia.

2) But she did inform the practice board that she had worked for the president of the Victorian Supreme Court, Maxwell J. when this was not the case and was most certainly untrue.

3) She did not tell the practice board she had an arrest record for using 4 false names to gain un lawful employment.

4) She did not tell the practice board that she had been fired for theft of dog biscuits at Sims supermarket.

5) She did not tell the practice board that she had ongoing relationships with several high profile notorious criminals.

I think these matters are serious enough in themselves to be put before you, but of course there is much more to be revealed regarding the character and ethics of both Singh and Prokopanko than these outlines above. I am sure however, prudent simple enquiries as to suitability to lobby your Government would be revealing and may well prevent an international embarrassment.

Regards,

Tony Holland
( former Victorian Government Prison Visitor).

I shall be only too happy to send to you court documents’ and other items proving any matters referred above, no doubt however your police department can be of some help in advising.
** Ms Singh was fired from her employment after being suspected of the theft of 6 bottles of Penfolds Grange wine (value $500/bottle) from paraplegic Ian Wolstenholm.


The Minister responsible, the Honourable Shirley Bond, has responded with the following reply:


From: "Honourable Minister Shirley Bond"
To: Mr J Holland
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:40 AM
Subject: RE: Concerning un ethical registraion to the BC government.

Dear Mr. Holland,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. As this is my constituency email address and your concern is related to the Attorney General ministry, your email will be forwarded to my Ministry email address. A staff member from the Ministry will be in contact with you as soon as possible.

Again, thank you for contacting me, your concerns are important to me.

Sincerely,
Shirley Bond, MLA
Prince George – Valemount

Public Safety and Solicitor General
Acting Attorney General

Tony Holland's biography is now available from this page.

Zatuliveter - Gordievsky lied to support paranoid MI5 numbskulls

Katya Zatuliveter has been cleared of the accusation of being a Russian spy. I couldn't see what other decision the Court could come to - at least it appeared to be obvious to me when I gave an interview to Voice of Russia last week.

One of the aspects that concerned me was that MI5 had acted unprofessionally in this case, particularly because of the paranoia that they seem to exhibit whenever a Russian is involved with a politician in Britain. Katya has stated the same view in her interview with the BBC, when she said that MI5 were 'unprofessional and paranoid'.

This institutional paranoia that permeates MI5 makes them see potential espionage activity from every Russian that arrives in the UK, and Katya says of MI5's attitude, that 'if you're Russian in this country you're a spy'.

So where does this leave our resident defector and chief MI5 ass-licker Oleg Gordievsky, who was so outspoken about the guilt of Miss Zatuliveter?

As early as October 2010 Gordievsky was condemning her as a Russian spy, in various British national daily newspapers. Gordievsky's views appear to have been used as major "evidence" against Katya. His sensationalist descriptions of Katya were circulated all around the world as some sort of exposure of her by a man who must know the truth in such situations - an ex-colonel in the KGB.

A very loquacious bird that talks a little too much for his own good

Well, after all the nonsense that Gordievsky has talked in the past year, I wonder why he is so silent today? It is all very well having a spokesperson to spread your lies all over the media, but when the truth is finally revealed, is it the parrot or the master who has bird shite all over their face?

We all know - because it is no secret that Gordievsky is a spokesperson for MI5 and MI6 - that he was put up to spreading the lies about Miss Zatuliveter. However, who is footing the bill for Gordievsky's incompetent and over-zealous attacks on Katya? Is it the British tax-payer who is supplying the money that makes Gordievsky talk, every time the British Intelligence Services need a bit of dirty propaganda splashed around the tabloids?

If British Intelligence are so incompetent, that they have to frame an innocent 26 year-old woman to create the illusion that they are great "spy-catchers", then what does this say about the organisation and the management of MI5?

Surely the Zatuliveter case clearly demonstrates what idiots we have supposedly protecting our National Security in Britain. MI5 must be the laughing stock of the intelligence world!

Katya Zatuliveter, Oleg Gordievsky & the Cambridge Parrot

Katya Zatuliveter has been in the news recently. I think she has been much maligned by the British Security Service (MI5) in order to gain some political advantage. I gave an interview a few days ago to the Voice of Russia radio station, to try to put the record straight.

Due to the limitations of a radio interview some parts of my interview had to be cut. For example, I talked about my Member of Parliament, Andrew Mackinlay MP:

Commentator: Do you know of other cases where Members of Parliament have been criticised for being connected to a Russian?

Michael John Smith: In 2008 my own MP, Andrew Mackinlay, was targeted in a smear campaign, simply because he had been having meetings with a Russian diplomat in the Houses of Parliament. Mr Mackinlay was a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, so it was not unusual for him to have meetings with foreign representatives. Unfortunately, the paranoia of MI5 came into action, and stories suddenly started appearing in the newspapers that Mr Mackinlay was involved in something sinister, and that espionage might be involved.

Commentator: Surely, just talking with a diplomat doesn’t amount to spying?

Michael John Smith: No, I agree, but I believe in Mr Mackinlay’s case he became a target because he had asked probing questions in Parliament about issues that embarrassed the Government. For example, he was concerned about Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq - he knew that Prime Minister Tony Blair had lied about the motives for the war. A smear campaign was an effective way to stop Mr Mackinlay causing embarrassment to the British Government and its Intelligence Services. Mr Mackinlay retired as an MP in 2010, but he did call for the British security services to be ‘brought under control’ for claiming there were too many Russian spies in the UK.

It seems that MI5 are acting more like Inspector Clouseau, rather than a sort of George Smiley character. However, Oleg Gordievsky, that ex-spy brought out at such occaisions to spread the disinformation, has not disappointed us this time. He claims that Katya was an important Russian spy.

David Rose the journalist, freely admitted that he was an agent of MI5 and MI6. It is good that he has declared his involvement in this disinformation of the news MI5 and MI6 want to circulate.

Corrupt Cop Detective Chief Superintendent Malcolm McLeod

Malcolm McLeod may present himself as an honest policeman, apparently now retired on a good pension, but the way he behaved in my case is thoroughly despicable. McLeod not only lied during his Police interviews following my arrest, but he was quite happy to present false evidence to the Court at my trial. I hope he ducked as he was swearing his oath, to avoid the bolts of lightning!

What false evidence did Malcolm McLeod produce? Well, for start he knew quite well that the so-called "ALARM" missile document was not only an obsolete document 8 years before I was arrested, but he deliberately engineered his Police investigation so that none of the 16 engineers listed on the circulation of that document were interviewed or called as witnesses to my trial. That document was presented as the main evidence against me. So, why do such a thing - unless you know that if these 16 people were called to give testimony then that will demolish your case? You dirty rat McLeod - you are just some trumped up loser - John Symonds told me how Special Branch officers are regarded as police who failed to make successful careers elsewhere.

McLeod also made the claim that I was given money from the KGB - listed elsewhere on my blog. McLeod gave personal testimony (under oath) in Court that he didn't have a clue where that money came from. Yet we had all the bank details that confirmed the dates, and from which banks that money had been withdrawn from. Well, the indications are that the money was issued from MI5 accounts, to implicate me in this sordid stitch-up! Why don't you come clean McLeod and just tell us what you know. The truth and nothing but the truth.

Leaks were made by the Police to the press to damage my defence case, and you know full well that the Sun and the Sunday Times were there ready to print the stories you wanted to get out into the public domain. With the recent evidence we have that News International was full of corruption, I can quite understand that there were bribes there waiting for you from Rupert Murdoch, or one of his cronies!

You also fabricated that false story about my tourist map, which I saved from my holiday in Oporto - you said it was linked to some invented KGB operation. Have you ever heard of any other KGB operation in Oporto? That story bears no relation to the later Mitrokhin Archive report, which I presume you were referring to, which talks about an operation in Lisbon some 200 miles down the coast, about 2 years later? So were you lying, or was Mitrokhin lying? I don't see why it is up to me to decide who is telling the truth there!

It was you, McLeod, who was involved in making that bogus telephone call to my home on the morning of my arrest. So if the name "Viktor" was the key name in your case against me, then why did you not produce the proof that this "Viktor" was in fact "Viktor Oshchenko". You never produced any evidence at my trial who this Viktor was? You heard Stella Rimington tell the Court, under oath, that MI5 had no evidence linking me with Oshchenko, so why did you make the claims you did - without proof! What a corrupt cop you really are! I hope you rot in hell !!!

Police, Phone Hacking, the Sun & Sunday Times

We are only just getting accustomed to the shocking news of what happened at the News of The World, and the phone hacking scandal. Hopefully Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks will be called to answer questions next week and reveal all that they know! Now we have the escalation of this saga to include the Sun and Sunday Times, as revealed in the story about Gordon Brown. It seems that there was a sort sickness at News International.

This new evidence goes to support the accusations I have made against these newspapers: about the Sun, and the Sunday Times. Just what was the relationship between these newspapers and the Police back in 1992/3? I guess it was the same as it was when the News of The World was offering bribes to the Police for information about stories.

Very soon after my arrest the Special Branch policeman in charge of my case, Detective Chief Superintendent Malcolm McLeod, had made suggestions to my wife that I had been ordered by the KGB to marry her as a cover for spying activities. This was a complete lie designed to give her a false view of me and our marriage, and clearly the Police cared nothing about my wife's feelings but just wanted her to turn against me and give them what evidence they could extract from her.

Then, following my conviction, we have this same story emerging in the Sun newspaper. It could only have come from the Police, who were the people who had invented this story. I blame Malcolm McLeod for passing this story to the Sun and he probably authorised the media to be given access to my wedding photographs, which had been seized as evidence by the Police searching my home and were in the possession of the Police.

The Sunday Times article was also clearly something that was leaked to them by a high level source, and aimed at damaging my Defence case. Its publication would also dissuade any potential witnesses from coming forward and becoming implicated in a major Official Secrets Act espionage trial. Again, I blame Malcolm McLeod for being involved in this corrupt association with News International newspapers.

I would have expected the Police to have acted fairly and left the decision about Justice to the courts. However, the leaking of personal information and false stories about me could only have been done with the deliberate intention of swaying the odds in favour of the Prosecution case. Which is exactly what happened. Not only did the Police act unfairly in what they did, they also acted unfairly in what they did not do.

As we learned today in the case of the phone hacking investigation, a lot was not done by the Police to identify the victims and the culprits in that case. No doubt the Police did not want to discover who was accepting bribes and just how deeply corrupt practices had developed between the Police and the Press. This lack of activity also went on in the investigation of my case - why did the Police not discover that the "ALARM" missile document became obsolete 8 years before my arrest, which allowed the CPS to present it as a document actually used on ALARM missiles deployed in the Gulf War of 1991 - which could not possibly be true!

Gaining convictions by avoiding investigating the key evidence is something the Police must be good at. Again, I blame Malcolm McLeod for this decision not to investigate the "ALARM" document - or at least, as head of the investigation he must have known the truth, but that would not have helped him to win in Court. It is easy for me to now understand how such processes work, and the corruption of the Press and the Police is there to be seen by those who really look for it.

News International bribe corrupt Police for crime evidence

News of the World may be dead, and in recent days we have become increasingly aware of the public's distaste about the total disregard of the News of The World's staff for individual privacy. News International has shown complete disrespect for the Law and is quite happy to act corruptly and bribe the Police.

The Sun newspaper published one of the photographs from my wedding day, on page 9 of its 19 November 1993 edition. How did the Sun get hold of a private photo, which was not in the public domain, and was in fact my personal copyright?

Sun Newspaper 19 November 1993

We now know that News International journalists would routinely bribe Police officers in order to obtain information about cases being investigated by the Police. It is clear that money must have changed hands at my home shortly after my arrest. Otherwise, how on earth would the Sun get hold of one of my private wedding photos, unless they had paid a corrupt cop to get access to it?

I have a list of all the Police officers who are were recorded as having access to my home in 1992. I expect one of those Police officers was paid a bribe to give the Sun my wedding photo. Perhaps I should publish this here. However, the details are already available elsewhere on the Internet. My friend John Alexander Symonds (the "Romeo Spy") has explained to me just how this culture of corruption is institutionally endemic within the Police organisation.

I could have considered this as a minor issue - perhaps - compared to the unfairness of the trial I had just experienced over the previous 7/8 weeks. However, the publication of this photo was instrumental in causing my wife to divorce me, and so I blame News International, and Rupert Murdoch in particular, for running an organisation that has this culture of ... "anything goes!" But then we must also consider that James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson also have a lot to answer for.

So, what should I do about the publication of my wedding photo, something which I never agreed to?

However, this was not the only abuse by the press after I was arrested. Many details about my wife and I were leaked and published to try to undermine my Defence before the case got to trial. For example, one of the worst things to happen involved another Rupert Murdoch newspaper - The Sunday Times. Only a month after my arrest all the Police claims against me were published in the Sunday Times on 6th September 1992. This was particularly damaging as many of those allegations were later dropped before my trial, but obviously the accuracy of these reports was not important to either the journalists, the newspapers or the Police!

Joanne Fraill - who is in contempt of Court?

Joanne Fraill has been sentenced to 8 months in prison for contempt of Court, by discussing the case in which she was a juror on FaceBook. How very noble and authoritarian it is for the judge to show no mercy to a woman such as this - what an example it makes to others that they must obey the rules and not flout the Law of the land!

But does this case not also demonstrate the traditional British hypocrisy that exists in our Establishment - how a judge will quite happily chastise the weak, while the strong go unpunished?

I commented in my last post about the case involving Mark Kennedy, in which the CPS deliberately concealed evidence in order to gain a conviction. What does that case say about the respect shown by the Crown Prosecution Service for the Judicial System?

I believe the Kennedy case demonstrated a blatant institutionalized contempt of Court, far more insidious than anything Joanne Fraill may have been guilty of. But will heads role at the CPS over the Kennedy case? Will anybody go to prison for that contempt of Court? I doubt it very much, because these guys probably went to the same public school, or meet in the same Lodge with their trousers leg rolled up. It is another world when you are on that side of the fence!

I have often complained that evidence was falsified at my own trial - I call that perverting the course of Justice, but the CPS were again responsible for that abuse. I accuse the CPS of contempt of Court for deliberately placing a false case before the jury, knowing that this would lead to my conviction. Luckily I have the ability to analysis what they did and have discovered the false evidence by my own efforts. To the discredit of the CPS - they have never acknowledged that they did anything wrong. Nobody will face charges for lying in Court or concealing evidence in my case. The CPS's unprofessional acts are ignored, and the evidence brushed under the carpet.

The CPS is further implicated in presenting false evidence to the jury in the trial of Daniel James. In trying to help Daniel I published parts of important witness statements, from witnesses that the Prosecution would not be calling because they would assist the Defence case. Shortly after this act I was warned that I was in contempt of Court, and that both I and Daniel could be prosecuted. Apparently my publication of these witness statements was put to the judge in the case. However, I stood firm and decided not to remove the post from my blog, and it is still there to this day.

Why do you think I was not prosecuted for contempt of Court? I can only conclude that raising this issue would have brought the whole basis for the case against Daniel into the open. I would certainly have used in my Defence that Daniel was being unfairly tried, and this would have raised serious doubts about the evidence against him. Also, the way Daniel was being tried in a Civilian Court, when he had requested a Court Martial.

Just as I always thought, "Justice" is manipulated to support those with the power in our country. The small guy only wins when he has the evidence to embarrass the wig wearing class of judges and barristers.

CPS concealed evidence in Mark Kennedy Case

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concealed evidence in the Mark Kennedy case, involving the plan to shut down the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottingham in 2009. This was discussed on the BBC2 Newsnight programme tonight and on the BBC website today. Mark Kennedy was in fact an undercover police agent pretending to act as an environmental campaigner.

It seems unbelievable that the CPS would behave in such a way by concealing evidence, as this is tantamount to perverting the course of Justice. But it is clear that the CPS was planning to convict the environmental activists involved, despite knowing that their organisation (the CPS) was withholding key evidence, as explained in the Guardian newspaper - many thanks to Paul Lewis and Rob Evans!! The Police knew all about the plans concerning the power station, because they had a recording of the meeting at the Iona Primary School where the campaigners met on Easter Monday 2009.

This may be big news to those naive enough to believe that the CPS is acting in the interests of Justice. But to people like myself this is simply confirmation that the CPS exists to convict those targeted by Government agencies as undesirable.

In August 1992, just days following my arrest for espionage, it was brought to the attention of the CPS that the key document in my case had been made obsolete in 1984. I only discovered this in 2007, despite efforts to prevent this information becoming known to myself and my Member of Parliament Andrew Mackinlay. The CPS had therefore concealed this evidence for many years, and they conspired to present an alternative story to the jury at my trial in October 1993, when it was claimed that that the document had in fact been used on British ALARM missiles deployed in the Gulf War of 1991.

This evidence that an obsolete document from 1984 was used to produce ALARM missiles in the early 1990s is plainly false, but the CPS cleverly used Professor Meirion Francis Lewis, an MoD scientist from Malvern, to claim that the document had been used on ALARM missiles during that war. He explained to the jury that the missile was vital to protecting the lives of British servicemen, and that the obsolete 1984 document would have enabled Iraqis to jam the missile and prevent it from working.

Perhaps many people will say: "that is OK, it doesn't matter as long as the guilty are convicted". However, this was the main evidence used at my trial to identify that I had handled sensitive material, and so it was crucial to my Defence that I had not dealt with military secrets at the time of my arrest. If a real expert had been called to give evidence at my trial, then it would have been made clear to the jury that the document could not have been used on ALARM missiles in the 1991 Gulf War.

The CPS chose to call a non-expert at my trial - Professor Lewis - and they used him to make false assertions about that document. I would call this perverting the course of Justice, and I would say that Professor Lewis knowingly committed perjury when he made his claims in Court. Will anybody listen to this? Is the CPS above the Law? Perhaps all those who know the truth at the CPS are merely liars and conspirators.

All I know is that the CPS acted unprofessionally in my case, and this Mark Kennedy case shows they also acted unprofessionally in that case as well. How many cases does it take to prove that the CPS in unprofessional?

Professor Christopher Andrew squawks more rubbish

Professor Christopher Andrew, otherwise know as "The Cambridge Parrot", has just made another podcast on behalf of MI5 to be disseminated as serious comment via The National Archives website.

The parrot brags in this podcast about his role as being the official historian for MI5 - what a pretty boy he is. However, the deception of Christopher Andrew's work is that he conveniently removed all references from his "official" MI5 history in relation to my case on the issue of Portugal and Oporto, which proved to be the most important evidence at my trial in 1993. The conclusion to be drawn is that Dame Stella Rimington fabricated that evidence in order to secure my conviction, and now the parrot has removed it from the archives on the orders of his MI5 handlers. I have always found that protection against embarrassment is a key modus operandi of MI5's approach, and the parrot proves again what a useful servant he is in their cause.

Well, Prof Andrew can squawk all he likes about his references to KV file numbers, because we now know that all he is doing is putting out the version of propaganda that MI5 and MI6 are keen to get into the public domain. This is their version of the "jigsaw" that they so often speak about.

Yet again, Andrew repeats the fictitious story about Roger Hollis having been a Soviet agent - but why not acknowledge the testimony of John Alexander Symonds, who has clearly stated in his own writings that the real Soviet mole within MI5 around that time was its other Director General, Sir Howard Smith. It was not surprising that Smith was removed from office when John Symonds returned to the UK from Moscow. Who pulled the strings then I wonder? James Callaghan was mentioned at the time.

I guess we will never hear the real story of MI5, until we are all dead in a couple of hundred years time. The truth is really too uncomfortable for those at Thames House, and that other lot just up the river in Vauxhall.