Silent Circle

"As some of you have heard the Silent Circle Cafe is set to close at its current location, after a recent court case. Concerned about many of the rumours and speculation about our possible involvement in this situation we thought it was time to set the record straight".

The Silent Circle has already closed and is keen to correct further statements and assertions made by the Alexanders regarding their "possible" involvement in the closure of the Silent Circle at Cherhill, Wiltshire.

"Firstly, the recent court case pertaining to the cafe was bought solely by the freeholder of the property, Mrs Caroline Parkin. We wish to make it absolutely clear that we had nothing whatsoever to do with bringing this case against Charles Mallet. Anything you hear to the contrary is completely untrue".

The court case was indeed brought by the site owner Ms Caroline Parkins. It has never been suggested or implied by the Silent Circle or anyone else that the Alexanders had brought the case to court.

However, it is a matter of fact that the Alexanders, together with their long time "assistant" Michael Glickman, had everything to do with the demise of the Silent Circle café at its premises at Cherhill.

Since the winter of 2005 these individuals have engaged in a systematic and aggressive campaign to damage, ridicule, discredit and undermine the Silent Circle / Charles Mallett.

Below are excerpts from a July 2006 e-mail sent by the Alexanders to organisers of the xxxxx conference.

"Please keep this to yourself, but I would like you to have some idea of the situation at the café. I thought I had better put you straight as some people are getting the wrong end of the stick.

Charles was recently sued by an ex employee for wrongful dismissal. Disgraceful behaviour by Charles by the way.

Michael Glickman has also been treated very badly by Charles, but that's another story. Perhaps you may wish to give Michael a call some time?

This may come as a shock to you, but everything is true. It has been a very upsetting time for us."

Up until receipt of that e-mail the xxxxx had contracted Silent Circle to cater for their 2006 xxxxxxxxxx conference. After the e-mail was received, the contract was cancelled by the xxxxx. Yet the statements in that email were entirely untrue.
Due to this attack on the Silent Circle, the café took multilateral legal advice and the following communication was sent to the Alexanders from the Silent Circle lawyer:

"We have been provided with a copy of an e-mail that you sent on or around 1st July 2006. That e-mail made allegations about our client that are untrue and that were intended to, or were likely to lower him in the estimation of his peers, who included the recipients of the e-mail.

These allegations were untrue and clearly defamatory, and in so far as made maliciously also amount to actionable malicious falsehood".

For his part, Michael Glickman then made a point of phoning everyone he knew, explaining how wronged the Alexanders and he had been, how Charles had not paid his staff, how Charles had disappeared out of the country with all the Silent Circle monies, and how generally disgusted he was with the behaviour of Charles, and why they should not use the Silent Circle because of his management.

"The court action had become necessary because Charles Mallet simply did not have a lawful tenancy for the building, and despite repeated requests by the landlady for him to vacate the property, he had refused to go - for a period of approximately 18 months. As the landlady found she could not compel him to leave by any other means, she found herself with no other option but to take him to court to regain possession of her property".

Unstated here is the observation that for the Alexanders and Glickman the court case had become personally desirable, due to the fact that, back in the Winter of 2005, the Silent Circle had removed them from their respective positions as rent handlers and merchandise suppliers to the café.

Karen Alexander would later go to court as a witness and make misleading statements there, in support of attempts to remove the Silent Circle from its legitimate home.

The Silent Circle was correct to refuse to move from its premises. There was a clear and well understood verbal agreement in place between Parkins and Mallett regarding all details of the tenancy. Thus, the position of the Silent Circle was a lawful one, and as such had the full protection laid out in the provisions of the landlord and tenant act.

"Mrs Parkin did not want Charles as a tenant. It is as straight forward as that. When he rented the property in 2002 he had left without giving proper notice to Caroline Parkin, and had left owing the landlady money. Although there were some mitigating circumstances, and Charles eventually repaid the money he owed, the experience had been an unhappy one for the landlady. She therefore did not want him back as a tenant. She did not consider him a good tenant".

Ms Parkins entered into negotiations with the Silent Circle / Charles Mallett in late 2003. She fully understood what had transpired during the summer of 2002. with regard to the previous season's issues.

By the start of 2004 there was firm verbal agreement in place with site owner Parkins for the Silent Circle to be re-established at its original 2002 home at Cherhill, Wiltshire.

On May 5th 2004, Charles Mallett and his then business partner Richard Salter met the site owner Parkins and her partner Paul Barnett at the home of Michael Glickman, who had been a long term "friend" of Parkins. Mallett Salter and Parkins made a full verbal agreement at this meeting to go ahead with the new Silent Circle project.

Mallett, Salter, Barnett and Parkins then went on to the café site for the handover of possession of the property, only to find when they arrived that the previous tenant Louise Bernard was still very much in place. Obviously possession of the premises could not be taken in these circumstances. The deal was put on hold.

"In the spring of 2005 Steve and I secured a tenancy for the cafe building. Charles was not a signatory. However, with Charles, we arranged how best we might get a crop circle cafe re-opened at the site. The tenancy was initially only for the summer and was to be reviewed in September 2006, with no guarantee that the tenancy would be renewed or extended. However, we all hoped that if we proved good tenants and that there was enough business that we could secure a longer lease".

In the spring of 2005 the Alexanders unexpectedly inserted themselves into the cafe situation by contacting Parkins directly, even though they knew a deal was already done regarding the cafe site.

The subsequent arrangement between the Alexanders and Silent Circle was simple: the payment of rent for the occupation of the site was to be transited to Parkins via themselves. This was understood and agreed before the café re-opened in early July 2005.

At that time, there was no mention at all by the Alexanders or Parkins that there was any type of formal tenancy agreement between those two parties. Then - over two years later, in the winter of 2007, just a few weeks before the court case - a previously unreferenced "tenancy agreement" between the Alexanders and Parkins was produced.

At no time have the Alexanders had any ownership or control of Silent Circle, nor have they been in any way responsible for any payments for utilities, salaries, non-domestic rates or any other business overheads.

Rent for the café, from summer 2005 until April 2006, was paid from Charles to Parkins via the Alexanders, who continued to act as intermediaries as per the ongoing arrangement. It was clearly understood by all parties at the outset that these payments represented rent from Silent Circle to Parkins. But in court a different picture was presented. Parkins said she was "led to believe" that Mallett was working for the Alexanders. During the court case Karen Alexander admitted to the court that she had actually told Parkins that Charles Mallett was an "employee" of theirs. Which begs the question as to why would an employee be paying the employer?

Worse was to come: with specific regard to the monthly rent cheques she had received from Silent Circle, Karen Alexander was asked by the district judge to explain what the money was for. She described it as a "consultancy fee".

This is a bizarre claim, especially from a tax point of view. Consultants generally have to bill their client in order to get paid. Mallett was never billed by Karen Alexander for her supposed consultancy services, and has no paperwork that supports her claim that he was paying her a monthly sum for this reason. It is clear that the "consultancy fee" statement was a distortion of the facts, since the Alexanders knew very well that these payments were for the direct rental of the café. Why would the Silent Circle feel the need to "consult" the Alexanders?

In addition, site owner Parkins, whilst under oath, claimed to have forgotten all meetings, correspondence, conversations and other communications she had ever had with Mallett since 2002.

Large concessions were made for the Alexanders while the rent-transiting arrangement was active between them and Mallett. They were given very beneficial wall space to exhibit their material, and exclusive rights to sell aerial photography at the café. However, after a short time what could be described as "rules" started to be introduced: first the Alexanders did not want the Crop Circle Connector or their DVDs at the café. They had fallen out with them and so the Alexanders were blocking CCC at every possible turn, until the Silent Circle was able to step in and resolve the dispute. Then, selling books by Andy Thomas became an issue. There had been a major problem with the Glastonbury Symposium some time earlier that had ended up with the Alexanders leaving the conference management team, and so material by their former colleague Thomas was now to be blocked. Likewise, the book "Beyond 2012" by Geoff Stray was also barred, because it was published by Andy Thomas's company.
Then there was an issue over Lucy Pringle's photography. This is a very long story; suffice to say the Lucy Pringle product range never even made the café shelves.

"In September 2006 the landlady decided she needed more time to think about a further lease, so we continued to occupy the building until she had made her decision. By December 2006 Charles had decided to take a three month trip out of the country. He left the cafe to be run by staff and a close personal friend who lived locally. However, within a week we were receiving phone calls from one of the cafe staff to say there was a serious problem and that she could no longer continue to work at the cafe, she told us that she would have to close the cafe. We were horrified."

The Alexanders have never had any occupancy or control of the café at Cherhill at any time.

Due to the fact that there was an independent and operational business (Silent Circle) on the site it is hard to see how the Alexanders "continued" to occupy the building.

Charles Mallett had arranged a nine-week trip abroad at the start of the summer 2005, and not as a snap, air-headed decision in the winter of 2005, as implied by the Alexanders.

A member of the Silent Circle staff was put in the trusted position by Charles Mallett of looking after the day-to-day running of the café as it ticked over for the winter. Meanwhile, Mallet's partner was noted as being the sole point of contact for café staff, suppliers and other parties, and was well able to deal with any unexpected events that might crop up. All suppliers, including the Alexanders, were made well aware of this key contact point should any issues arise during Mallet's absence.

Within days of Mallet's departure for Brazil, the Alexanders travelled to the Silent Circle from their home in Hampshire, totally bypassing the acknowledged contact point, and instead questioned staff, changed stock around and generally behaved as if they owned the place.

From a ditch in the Jungle 10,000 miles from home, it was very difficult for Mallett to get any clear understanding of what was going on back home, so closing the cafe seemed the only sensible option at the time.

"The closure of the cafe directly concerned us because as legal tenants we would be personally responsible for the security of the building and we lived 80 miles away."

But how could they be personally responsible for a building's security situation when living 80 miles away - and when they did not actually hold keys for that building?

"At this point, April 2006, with no other options, Steve and I ended our involvement with the cafe and we relinquished the tenancy. Since then we have left Charles to sort out his situation for himself and to get on with running the café."

At this point in 2006 there had never been any suggestion that there was any sort of formal tenancy between the Alexanders and Parkins for the use of the café site. It was well understood by all at that time that their arrangement was loose and verbal.

"We decided that no good would come of continuing to argue and that it was better if we put the whole episode behind us, which we did. We have assiduously ensured that we have had nothing to do with the cafe for well over a year." After our tenancy ended the landlady contacted Charles on several occasions to ask him to leave.
He refused, sending her letters back unopened."

Not a single mail item was returned to Parkins by Mallett, unopened or otherwise.

"Hoping to help the situation, she instructed her solicitor to write to Charles to offer him a one year tenancy. This would have formalised his occupancy of the property. Inexplicably, Charles declined her offer."

"Inexplicably" would not be the appropriate word. Silent Circle responded promptly to this offer. According to legal advice taken by Silent Circle, this particular agreement was hardly a viable tenancy document, since the prime condition of the offer was that for it to be acceptable to the landlord, certain clauses (standard in such an agreement) were to be considered null and void. Since the clauses thus selected were those which protected the tenant's rights, it was hardly surprising that this offer - as set out- was declined.

"Just to be clear; the court case was nothing whatsoever to do with disagreements between Charles and ourselves, despite persistent rumours to the contrary. The case was brought by the landlady to secure possession of her property from unauthorised occupation. It was entirely centred on whether or not Charles had a tenancy for the building and therefore a right to occupy it. The court ruled only on the matter of the tenancy and did not rule in any way on the situation between Charles and ourselves. The court ruled that Charles did not have a tenancy and was therefore occupying the site unlawfully. It awarded possession of the property back to the landlady."

The court case and the subsequent verdict was a by-product of the issues surrounding problems with the Alexanders and the Silent Circle. The case for the claimant was largely based on the testimony of the sole witness - Karen Alexander.

"We realise there will be a lot of impassioned feeling about the closure of the cafe, a lot of general disappointment about the loss of a meeting place, and the rumour mill will be rife with recriminations and muddying misinformation. But we would ask that people try to see through some of this and take on board the facts".

"After all the work we put into getting the place reopened, no one is more sorry than us to see it end like this."

"We lost more than most when Charles unilaterally ended our involvement in the café"

Translation: The Alexanders lost a commercial outlet because of their own behaviour.

"We have put this experience behind us now and have moved on. We will not be making any further comment about the cafe in the future. END."

All documents, letters and other papers referred to in the above commentary are available for discretionary physical examination on request.

From Suzanne Taylor, Executive Producer of the feature documentary, "CROP CIRCLES: Quest for Truth," and Producer/Director of the forthcoming feature documentary, "Walking in Circles."

I want to add something to what has been written in order to overturn Karen's claim about not being involved in the closing of the cafe. She said, "We wish to make it absolutely clear that we had nothing whatsoever to do with bringing this case against Charles Mallet, "and," Just to be clear; the court case was nothing whatsoever to do with disagreements between Charles and ourselves," and, "...no one is more sorry than us to see it end like this."

Based on personal experience, I know all of that is untrue.

While Charles had been out of the country in the winter of 2006, the Alexanders had removed Lucy's calendars from display at the café. These manipulations, along with the lies they told about Charles that were being circulated, which I got a personal dose of from them and from Michael Glickman, resulted in Charles removing the Alexanders' products from the café when Charles returned in April of 2006.

I had a personal interest in the success of the cafe since I had responded to Karen's request for help before it opened in 2005. She called me to ask for a loan, and, on her vouching for Charles, whom I didn't know and who she said would do a bang-up job, I sent her a check. It was a several thousand dollar loan to her -- for which, despite my repeated requests, she never gave me the loan paper she promised.

Although Karen was legally responsible to repay me, it was my understanding, confirmed by Charles as I got to know him, that he would repay me himself if all went well with the business - a risk I had been willing to assume to do a service to the circle community. Then, since the café was doing well, I didn't agonize over not having Karen's loan paper and awaited repayment by Charles, which should have taken place this coming summer based on how well the café was doing.

When the Alexanders sent out an email saying they wouldn't have merchandise at the cafe anymore, I called Karen to see what had happened? She gave me a dossier about Charles turning out to be so reprehensible that he had to be removed from the café, and she brainstormed with me about how I could help in that process. So much for "no involvement!"

During the summer of 2006, when I was in England after that phone conversation with Karen, I made an extensive investigation of the charges Karen and Michael had made against Charles, and discovered they were groundless. At that time, I warned Karen that if Charles was removed, whereby he wouldn't have a business that could pay me back; she would owe me my money. Now, she refuses, telling me repayment is up to Charles. An added atrocity is that in attempting to get her to take responsibility for the loan, I elicited her wrath. It was expressed, for one instance, in an $8,000 hold-up price tag she and Steve put on a couple of seconds of footage that I thought I needed for a new documentary about the circles that I'm making.

In addition to the indignity to Charles that has been perpetrated and the hardship Karen and Steve have created for the crop circle world, it is disappointing to see how little consciousness the Alexanders maintain about serving the circles. In fact, my outside hope would be that in this privileged world, where we are lucky enough to recognize the miraculous, some other miracle would occur in the way of a new beginning, where everyone in the contentious inner circle of crop circle work would drop their animosities and would cooperate with each other.

FYI, my film, now called "Walking in Circles," is days away from completion, and I am looking to distribution. I can't make a DVD of it if it will show in theaters, and there's no decision about that yet. In the meantime, here's an 11-minute promo for it: http://www.mightycompanions.org/cropcircles/trailer/cc.html (the title has changed to "Walking in Circles"). When there is a website, hopefully it can be a cyberspace café where we come together to serve this great otherness that seems to love us more than we love each other.

Suzanne Taylor
suzanne@mightycompanions.org