THE EUSTON TRUST

The 'Euston Trust' is a 'heritage' group set up 4 years ago by terence ewing and keith hammerton to make 'objections' to planning applications around the UK. Terence ewing is a Vexatious Litigant who was banned by the High Courts in 1990,  from taking legal action against anyone before receiving permission to do so. To get around this ban mr ewing has used other peoples names to start vexatious legal proceedings.

As exposed in the Sunday Times newspaper ewing is also a convicted and imprisoned fraudster. His Euston Trust co-founder keith hammerton as reported by Surrey Police is a convicted and imprisoned child sex abuser. Another member of this group was also imprisoned.

Alleged bribes have also been involved between contractors and the euston trust. Its membership is very unclear.

Mr ewing is also on the committee of a Camden based borough wide tenants group named the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) and it would be no surprise to find other casp committee members belonging to this so-called 'trust'.

Mr ewing attempted last year in a number of casp committee meetings, to get the 'euston trust' incorporated unto casp (casp minutes). Since Jan 07 the casp committee minutes have been withheld from its members (so much for transparency and accountability) ....... so who knows what is being conspired and agreed at casps monthly meetings at the town hall.

On the 27th April 2007 ewing on behalf of CASP, sent a email to a Camden community website, complaining about a letter published on it about the corrupt practices of a residents group. This groups name or its members names are not mentioned in the letter published on this site.

However, mr ewing demanded that the letter be taken off the site, and that 'payment' be given, he then makes threats of legal action if his demands are not met. Legal action he cannot take.

Mr ewing did implicate other casp committee members plus the tenant participation co-ordinator karen orr in this extortion attempt as he cc-ed them into the email.

Camden Council and Camden Police are aware of ewings latest attempt at extortion but are choosing to ignore it. For some sinister reason this appalling man is being protected by Camden Council and its employees as are his casp committee comrades.  

The POW Trust or 'People's Opportunity to Work Trust' is another group that  terence ewing has (still is? ) been involved in at a 'director' level:

Dec 2002 ewing represented the trust and a subsidiary of the trust in a legal challenge against a fine imposed by the Registrar of Companies for not sending in their annual report and accounts on time. The fine imposed was £100. (pow trust v registrar of companies)

The judge hearing the case concluded:

" I must express a degree of concern how far it can be proper that POW, a small charity, and its subsidiary, which in consequence of default in compliance have with Section 242(1) have been faced with penalties of �100 each, should undertake this disproportionately expensive and (at best) speculative litigation in an effort to avoid payment. Charity funds should not be placed at risk in this manner. This situation is aggravated by the fact that the decision to do so has been taken without any (or any qualified) legal advice. This is a matter for consideration by the Charity Commission"

This charity/private company was set up by Peter Sainsbury as 'a benevolent and social welfare society devoted to helping the socially excluded'.

This 'charity' was investigated by the Charity Commission into its financial affairs after accepting large sums of cash donated in foreign currency. Mr Sainsbury was previously convicted and imprisoned in 1990 for a £3m fraud. How they flock together.

The Telegraph - 3/1/04: Tony Martin charity is led by fraudster

I ask this question:

would YOU accept a convicted fraudster, who hangs around with other like minded reprobates, including child sex offenders and heroin dealers as representing YOU? 

____________-

Mr Ewing as you are on benefits, did you declare the £562.50 income (costs) for the  below work you did?

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE MITTING
Between:
____________________

Between:

 £100,000 is claimed as expenses. Mr Ewing has explained them to me, however, and only £200 is truly claimed as the only relevant expense: photocopying. In my view, even that is an over estimate.

I allow £100 under that head. Accordingly, I assess Mr Ewing's bill at £562.50.

I order that those costs be paid by the respondent, Mr Davis.

_______________________________

Mr Ewing,  I ask the three following questions in the private and public interest:

1) Does this recent private prosecution case that was instigated by yourself and to which you were awarded costs for your  'work', set a precendent of things to come?

2) Will you again be abusing the legal system to bring repeated and vexatious criminal claims against persons and to receive costs?

3) Should the good citizens of Camden and beyond be 'shaking in their boots'?