Friday 29 November 2013

Home Secretary Theresa May called to account


29 November 2013

Theresa May, MP
Home Secretary
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

Dear Mrs May,

An open letter:    OFFICIAL COMPLAINT re ABUSE OF ARTICLE 3, ECHR

You will recall that All Around Justice wrote to you on 21 October 2013, more than a month ago. The Government was put on notice that it had breached the Article 3 Rights of Richard Fulcher, Karen Fulcher, Brian Pead, Violet Ecclestone and Robert Ecclestone.

All Around Justice has not yet had the courtesy of a reply. Please remedy this.
Furthermore, can you confirm that the Government has initiated an immediate investigation into these matters?

As you were informed, the involvement of victims of breaches of Article 3 must form part of the investigation, yet none of the aforementioned has been contacted.  Please remedy this.

The National Crime Agency—whose genesis was built around an ethos of “rooting out corruption” - appears to actually be adding to the corruption by (a) not responding and (b) causing the further arrests of some of the aforementioned.
For your further information, the entire Council Body at Fenland District Council is in Contempt of Court by    failing to comply with a bona fide Court Judgment gained by the Fulchers on 08 November 2012. Would you kindly write to the Councillors (jointly and severally) and inform them that they are (a) bringing the Conservative Party into disrepute by blatantly disregarding the Law of the land and (b) that they are jointly and severally liable for Contempt of Court and perverting the course of public justice?

Yours sincerely


All Around Justice

Richard Fulcher and Fenland District Council Corruption

Dear Mr Bett,


As you will know, I first made official complaints to your Office a week ago today. In that time, neither I nor my wife has been contacted so that we can discuss our complaints with senior officers and, as you will know, I was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned yesterday, my wife was told to "Fuck off" by an unprofessional police constable (please obtain his name and we will issue a further formal complaint)and nothing has been done to apprehend those who have perpetrated crimes against us.


No wonder there was a debate in the House of Lords yesterday with regard to the lack of trust that the public has in the police. 

I am appalled at the lack of direct action by your Office and the appalling way in which my wife was treated yesterday by those purporting to be professional constables. They were clearly not acting on their Oath of Office: 
I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.


Please find enclosed (below) a copy of a Private Criminal Prosecution that Karen and I are taking out against all Fenland District Councillors (jointly and severally). As a former Councillor yourself, you will know that Karen and I are right when we hold the council body jointly and severally liable and section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006, reinforces our right to take such action against FDC.

Also please find below a similar prosecution against James Morgan, partner, Hayes & Storr. Karen and I expect him to be arrested for perverting the course of public justice, amongst other crimes that he has perpetrated against us.


Now that you have been given notice of the crimes perpetrated against us, you are obligated through your Office to (i) report such crimes to Norfolk Constabulary and (ii) ensure that the crimes are duly prosecuted according to the law. 


You are also hereby duly informed that ALL FDC councillors are accused of Contempt of Court by refusing to comply with the bona fide Court Judgment issued in our favour by Northampton County Court on 08 November 2012 and which has never been set aside.


Karen and I expect to hear from you by no later than 02 December 2013 that action has been taken against the perpetrators of crimes against us, including (but not exclusively) all of the FDC Councillors.


Furthermore, it is our belief that Karen and I have been subjected to (and continue to be subjected to) unwarranted intrusions into our private life through the unlawful use of the Regulatory Powers of Investigations Act 2000. Please write to the Home Secretary to ask for strict proof of evidence that no such RIPA powers have been used against us, or our friend, William Brian Freeman, or Robert and Violet Ecclestone. 


Yours sincerely,
LRV Fulcher


DATED 25 NOVEMBER 2013


IN THE KING’S LYNN MAGISTRATES’ COURT


BETWEEN:


LEONARD RICHARD FULCHER
Prosecutor

-v-


ALAN MELTON
Defendant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.      The Prosecutor is Leonard Richard Fulcher of Ramblewood Farm, Cliffe-en-Howe Road, Pott Row, Norfolk PE32 1BY.

2.      The Prosecutor is bringing this Prosecution under Rule 7.2 of the Criminal Procedures Rules (Crim.P.R.)

3.      It is intended that, upon receipt by the Magistrates (acting on their Oath of Office in this matter) of this written Prosecution, they will issue a Warrant for the arrest of Mr Alan Melton, of 20 St Martins Road, Chatteris, Cambs, PE16 6JF, under charges of:

(a)    conspiring to Pervert the Course of Public Justice
(b)   perverting the Course of Public Justice
(c)    fraud by false representation (contrary to s.2 Fraud Act 2006)
(d)   fraud by failing to disclose information (contrary to s.3 Fraud Act 2006)
(e)    fraud by abuse of position (contrary to s.4 Fraud Act 2006)
(f)    misconduct in public office

4.      The Prosecutor expects to be informed of Alan Melton’s arrest and expects to receive a copy of the Arrest Warrant for his records.

5.      This Prosecution is laid before the Magistrates at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court under Rule 7.2(2) Crim. P.R.

6.      This Indictment reads:  COUNT ONE and COUNT TWO
Alan MELTON, a Fenland District Councillor, on a day or days between 01 January 2006 and 25 November 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that he:

(i)                 deceived the body corporate of Fenland District Council by not providing it with all of the relevant information he had received in the matter of Leonard Richard Fulcher –v- Fenland District Council
(ii)               deceived the body corporate of Fenland District Council by claiming that a bona fide Set Aside had been achieved against a court judgment dated 08 November 2012 in the matter of Leonard Richard Fulcher –v- Fenland District Council
(iii)             deceived Leonard Richard Fulcher by failing to notify him that the Council had allegedly applied for an injunction Hearing
(iv)             allowed the Council’s solicitors to deceive a Court by deliberately adducing false documents into Court
(v)               provided false information to Weightmans
(vi)             failed to notify the Council’s insurers, Zurich, that the insurance cover was invalid because the Fulchers’ barn was burnt down in a clear act of arson by Alan Millard
(vii)           failed to notify taxpayers that the Council had undertaken legal action against the Fulchers without insurance and that it exposed the taxpayer to unnecessary risk (itself a breach of s.1 of the Fraud Act 2006)
(viii)         failed to inform the police that one of the Council’s officers [Alan Millard] had committed a criminal offence of arson
(ix)             failed to take account of incontrovertible evidence that the Council had caused significant Torts against the Fulchers
(x)               failed to inform fellow Councillors (jointly and severally) that the Council was continuing to cause Torts against the Fulchers on a daily basis
(xi)             deceived the High Court Enforcer’s Office [by attempting to claim that a bona fide set aside had been obtained when no such set aside was obtained nor could have been obtained through due legal process]
(xii)           failed to provide full Disclosure to Leonard Fulcher when requested to
(xiii)         deceived the Birmingham High Court by withholding evidence from it
(xiv)         deceived the Birmingham High Court by attempting to pass off unlawful Court documents as bona fide court documents
(xv)           conspired with others (namely each member of Fenland District Council, jointly and severally) to pervert the course of public justice and act in contempt of court by failing to pay the Fulchers against a lawful Judgment they had obtained at Northampton County Court on 08 November 2012
(xvi)         sought to mislead the Court by commencing an action or pleading a defence which he knew to be false and which is a Contempt of Court (Lord v. Thornton (1614) 2 Bulstr. 67; R. v. Weisz, ex p. Hector Macdonald Ltd [1951] 2 K.B. 611
(xvii)       failed to notify the Council members (jointly and severally) that the actions by the Council were in breach of Article 3, 6, and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
(xviii)     failed to notify the body corporate (jointly and severally) that each member is guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly (s.12 of the Fraud Act 2006)


COUNT THREE
Fraud by false representation
Alan Melton, between the day of 01 January 2006 and 25 November 2013, dishonestly and intending thereby to make a gain for himself or another, made representations to Leonard Fulcher which was and which he knew was or might be untrue or misleading, namely that the Court Judgment awarded to Leonard Fulcher in the sum of £270,075 had been Set Aside when no such legal Set Aside had been achieved, and in allowing documents to be entered into Norwich County Court by District Judge Barry Rutland on 04 September 2013 which he knew were fraudulent, in breach of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

COUNT FOUR
Fraud by failing to disclose information
Alan Melton, between the day of 01 January 2013 and 25 November 2013, dishonestly and intending thereby to make a gain for himself or another, failed to disclose information which he was under a legal duty to disclose, namely to provide bona fideevidence of a Court Judgment being Set Aside when it had not been set aside and to provide full disclosure in the matter ofLeonard Richard Fulcher –v- Fenland District Council as required by law, in breach of Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.


COUNT FIVE
Fraud by abuse of position
Alan Melton, between the day of 01 January 2006 and 25 November 2013, dishonestly and intending thereby to make a gain for himself or another, abused his position as Leader of Fenland District Council, in which he was expected to safeguard the Court’s interests and the Council’s interests and act in the manner befitting a Councillor and Officer of the Court, in breach of Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.


Section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006 provides that where an offence against the Act was committed by a body corporate, but was carried out with the “consent or connivance” of any director, manager, secretary or officer of the body – or any person purporting to be such – then that person, as well as the body itself, is liable.

COUNT SIX
Misconduct in Public Office
Alan Melton, between the day of 01 January 2006 and 25 November 2013, dishonestly and intending thereby to make a gain for himself or another, wilfully neglected to fulfil his duty as a Councillor, and wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification.


7.      This written information is deemed as having been ‘laid down’ because it has been received in the Court office. (R. –v-Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Hill [1983] 1 AC 238)

8.      No standard form has to be used; all that matters is that the document sent to the Magistrates’ Court contains the essential elements of an information (R. –v-  Kennet Justices ex parte Humphrey and Wyatt [1993] Crim. LR 787)

9.      The Prosecutor believes that he had described the offences in ordinary language (Rule 7.3.(1)(a)(i) Crim.P.R.

10.  The Prosecutor has identified the legislation that creates it R.7.3(1)(a)(ii) Crim. P.R

11.  The information contains particulars of the conduct constituting the commission of the offences as to make clear what the Prosecutor alleges against the Defendant.

12.  In deciding whether or not to issue a warrant, the magistrate or clerk should ensure that

(a)    an offence known to law is alleged
(b)   it is not out of time
(c)    the court has jurisdiction
(d)   the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute (R. –v- Gateshead Justices ex parte Tesco Stores Ltd. [1981] QB 470 at 478)

13.  There is no obligation upon a Magistrate or Clerk to make any enquiries before issuing a warrant.

14.  In respect of anyone appearing before the magistrates’ Court on an indictable only offence, the Magistrates’ Court must immediately transfer the case to the Crown Court (s.51(1) Crime and Disorder Act 1998).

15.  The evidential test  The Prosecutor, Leonard Fulcher, relies on a number of pieces of evidence to underpin this prosecution. This evidence is reliable; it can be used in a court of law; it is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction:

(a)    Letters, emails, memoranda, text messages or any other written communication (in whatsoever format) between Alan Melton and all other Councillors; Council officers; Council employees; Zurich Insurance; the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire; the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk; DJ Barry Rutland; Weightmans; E.ON; Parry & Company; Timothy Williams (Fenners Chambers), Kenneth Bush Solicitors; Hayes & Storr Solicitors; G. Moore Demolition; Cambridgeshire Constabulary; Norfolk Constabulary; Cambridgeshire County Council; Norfolk County Council; Cambridgeshire Fire Service; Henry Bellingham, MP;
(b)   Letters, emails, memoranda, text messages or any other written communication (in whatsoever format) between the Prosecutor and David Cameron, MP; Nick Clegg, MP; Nigel Farage, MEP; Kenneth Bush Solicitors; Hayes & Storr Solicitors; Gordon Dean Solicitors;
(c)    letters between the Prosecutor and the High Court Enforcer’s office
(d)   telephone recordings between the Prosecutor and the High Court Enforcer’s office
(e)    all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Prosecutor and Kenneth Bush Solicitors
(f)    all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Prosecutor and Hayes and Storr Solicitors
(g)   all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Prosecutor and Gordon Dean Solicitors
(h)   all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Prosecutor and Norwich County Court in this matter
(i)     all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Norwich County Court and Gordon Dean Solicitors in this matter
(j)     all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Norwich County Court and Weightmans Solicitors, acting on behalf of Fenland District Council in this matter
(k)   judgment in the matter of Leonard Fulcher –v- Fenland District Council
(l)     all communications (in whatsoever format) between the Prosecutor and Northampton County Court in this matter
(m) all photographs taken by the prosecutor and/ or his associates in this matter
(n)   all Witness Statements obtained by the Prosecutor in this matter


16.  The public interest test  It is evident that the public interest test is met because it is in the public interest for elected Councillors and Officers of the Court to be held accountable, otherwise the public will lose faith in the credibility of the justice system.

17.  Notwithstanding [16] above, it is imperative that Councillors and Officers of the Court who are prepared to compromise the integrity of the legal system through their own unlawful machinations are removed from the system in order to maintain the integrity of the legal system per se and the political system per se.

18.  Perverting the course of justice
            The Offence
            Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:
(a) does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
(b)   which has a tendency to pervert and
(c)    which is intended to pervert
(d)   the course of public justice.
            The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word ‘pervert’ can mean ‘alter’ but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done “without more” might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).
            Intention is not the same as motive. (However, the motive of the suspect is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached.) The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.
            Where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested (Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762).

19.  The Prosecutor believes that he has sufficient evidence to prove an allegation of ‘perverting the course of public justice’ and ‘misconduct in public office’ and that a conviction to the criminal standard before a jury is achievable.

20.  The Prosecutor believes that he has complied with, and met, Rule 7.3(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Rules by describing the offences in ordinary language.

21.  The Prosecutor believes that he has complied with, and met, Rule 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Rules by identifying the legislation that created the offences.

22.  The Prosecutor believes that he has complied with, and met, Rule 7.3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules by providing sufficient particulars of the conduct constituting the commission of the offences as to make clear what the Prosecutor alleges against the Defendant.


SIGNED and WITNESSED

JAMES MORGAN, Partner, Hayes and Storr Solicitors, Norfolk

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

JAMES MORGAN, a Solicitor and Partner of Hayes & Storr, on a day between 09 July and 16 August 2012, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that he:

i.                    arranged for the arrest of Mr Richard Fulcher, a farmer
ii.                  conspired with a member of staff [Amanda Nudds] to bring false claims against Mr Fulcher
iii.                arranged for a member of his staff [Amanda Nudds] to commit perjury on 13 March 2013 at Norwich Magistrates’ Court
iv.                conspired with Anissa Hallworth [a Partner of Hayes & Storr] to bring spurious allegations against Mr Fulcher of Threats to Kill and Harassment
v.                  brought about spurious allegations after Mr Fulcher had complained about the way his civil complaint against Fenland District Council was being handled by Hayes & Storr
vi.                informed the Executive Committee of the Conservative Association that Mr Fulcher would be arrested ‘later that day’
vii.              gave false information to Norfolk Constabulary about alleged threats to kill by Mr Fulcher
viii.            delayed for almost two years in bringing a legitimate claim by Mr Fulcher against Fenland District Council
ix.                deliberately failed to bring a claim despite being instructed to do so by his client
x.                  conspired with Eastern Counties Finance to create fraudulent documents relating to loans
xi.                conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss Mr Fulcher’s application to strike out a bogus claim brought by E.ON on a stolen meter which does not exist on the farm
xii.              conspired with HHJ Nicholas Coleman to find Mr Fulcher guilty in his Appeal to Norwich Crown Court
xiii.            conspired with George Sorrell of Credence Law Group to fail to produce a Defence Statement and seek full Disclosure from the Crown
xiv.            conspired with Gavin Cowe of FisherCowe to fail to produce a Defence Statement and seek full Disclosure from the Crown
xv.              conspired with Magistrates at Norwich Magistrates’ Court to find Mr Guilty of Threats to Kill and Harassment where no evidence existed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of such crimes
xvi.            conspired with Jonathan Eales of Kenneth Bush Solicitors to make unfounded allegations against Mr Fulcher
xvii.          conspired with Gordon Dean Solicitors to further delay Mr Fulcher’s claim against Fenland District Council
xviii.        conspired with Gordon Dean to further delay Mr Fulcher’s claim against Fenland District Council by applying for an illegal Set Aside on a bona fide court Judgment
xix.            conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to create illegal Set Aside documents to appear as if they were bona fide documents from the Court in order to prevent Mr Fulcher from obtaining the £270,000 awarded to him in a Court Judgment against Fenland District Council and thereafter unlawfully attempting to make Mr Fulcher bankrupt
xx.              conspired with Kirby & Haslam to bring about a bogus money claim
xxi.            conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to arrest Mr Fulcher, bring false allegations against him, allow armed police on to his farm on 01 August 2013 where the unlawful arrest of Brian Pead was made for criminal damage, AFTER Mr Fulcher had telephoned the police to report criminal damage by operatives claiming to be from the electricity company E.ON
xxii.          conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have Trading Standards bring unfounded allegations of animal cruelty against Mr Fulcher
xxiii.        conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have officers from Norfolk Constabulary accompany council officers from Trading Standards whenever they visited Ramblewood Farm
xxiv.        conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have Trading Standards and Norfolk Constabulary harass Mr and Mrs Fulcher with numerous unwarranted visits to Ramblewood Farm without the consent of the owners
xxv.          conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss photographic evidence of theft of a meter at his farm during the hearing to strike out E.ON’s fraudulent claim held at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013 (Claim number: 3KL00178)
xxvi.        conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss bona fide evidence of false representation by E.ON during the hearing to strike out held at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013 (Claim number: 3KL00178) in that E.ON entered into Court demonstrably false evidence of an alleged debt owed by Mr Fulcher for the consumption of electricity on a meter which does not exist on the farm
xxvii.      conspired with HHJ Nicholas Coleman of Norwich Crown Court to disallow witnesses as to fact and crucial disclosure in preliminary proceedings before a criminal Appeal against conviction of Threats to Kill and Harassment
xxviii.    conspired with Stephen Bett in order that Norfolk Constabulary did not report any crimes perpetrated AGAINST Mr L.R.V. Fulcher
xxix.        conspired with Stephen Bett in order that Norfolk Constabulary did not report any crimes perpetrated AGAINST Mrs K.A. Fulcher

We refer you to precedents in these matters:







From: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk <OPCCN@norfolk.pnn.police.uk>
To: "'fulcher121@btinternet.com'" <fulcher121@btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, 22 November 2013, 16:58
Subject: RE: AN OPEN LETTER TO STEPHEN BETT

SENT ON BEHALF OF STEPHEN BETT, POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR NORFOLK

Dear Mr Fulcher,

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email sent earlier today.

The matter is receiving our attention. 

Yours sincerely

Stephen Bett
Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk

========================================================================
Kerrie Wright
PA to Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner & Mark Stokes, Chief Executive
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk

t: 01953 424455    f: 01953 424462  ||  w: www.norfolk-pcc.gov.uk

Follow us on: Twitter  |  Facebook  | Google+


From: LEONARD FULCHER [mailto:fulcher121@btinternet.com]
Sent: 22 November 2013 08:34
To: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO STEPHEN BETT

Dear Mr Bett,

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR NORFOLK

Last week you appeared on national television informing the public at large that you are going to hold the Assistant Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary to account for his decisions and those deployed by him.

Please find attached an Open Letter of Complaint to Norfolk Constabulary which has not even received an acknowledgement from the Acting Chief Constable.

Mr Simon Bailey needs to be held account for the human rights abuses and criminal acts perpetrated against me and my wife, Brian Freeman and Robert and Violet Ecclestone. He also needs to be held account for his failure to provide full disclosure in all matters relating to me and my wife, and in particular why he has failed to provide disclosure around the Computer-Aided Despatch (CAD) reports dated 10 July 2012, 14 August 2012 and two on 01 August 2013. Please ensure that you hold him accountable and that either (I) the CAD reports are disclosed in full to me or (ii) an acknowledgment that they do not exist. 

TAKE NOTICE THAT the above-named persons have made a formal Complaint to Her Majesty's Government of significant breaches of their Article 3 Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and that an investigation must now take place with immediate effect.  

For your information, I have also attached a document entitled "Corruption, Cover-up, Arson and Intrigue".
                
My wife and I look forward to your prompt response.

This e-mail carries a disclaimer.

Thursday 21 November 2013

OPEN LETTER TO KEITH BRISTOW, NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY



Keith Bristow
Director-General
National Crime Agency
1-7 Old Queen Street
LONDON
SW1H 9HP

10 October 2013
Dear Mr Bristow,

AN OPEN EXPRESS COMPLAINT TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY

DISCLAIMER
This Open Express Complaint has been sent to Keith Bristow, Director-General of the National Crime Agency, in his capacity as a Police Constable and that, by continuing to read this document, he is acting on his Oath of Office and that, by not continuing to read further, he is making a declaration that he is not prepared to act on his Oath of Office.
His Oath of Office reads:
I, Keith Bristow, of the National Crime Agency, do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully and according to law.
For the avoidance of doubt, the human rights referred to in the Oath are indefeasible human rights which are not capable of being annulled or made void. These are the fundamental human rights of all human beings, including the people named in this letter.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY
Firstly, All Around Justice would like to extend its congratulations to you on your appointment as the first Director-General of the National Crime Agency (hereinafter “the NCA”).  This organisation had been tracking the emergence of the NCA from its genesis to its launch on 07 October 2013 and fully supports the remit of the NCA.
All Around Justice has also noted your curriculum vitae and in particular makes reference to your work around   public protection, criminal use of firearms and as a director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Your experience will be a valuable tool when you consider the enclosed document entitled An Open Letter of       Complaint to Norfolk Constabulary.
All Around Justice draws your attention to crimes perpetrated against Mr & Mrs Fulcher, Brian Pead, Albert Ecclestone, Violet Ecclestone and Robert Ecclestone which are highlighted in the damning document which was sworn before a bona fide solicitor and stands as a true record. There are a number of other similar documents which outline the corruption uncovered by the people named above.


It can be seen from the enclosed document that the Norfolk Constabulary is guilty of failing to record or   investigate crimes, intimidation of innocent victims of crime, and failing to report its own constables who are guilty of crimes including assault and perverting the course of justice.

All Around Justice notes that in your role as Director-General of the NCA, you have the remit to command a Constabulary to act upon your instructions and this organisation is requesting that the people who have perpetrated crimes whilst in positions of power or whilst in public office will be brought to account by the NCA.

All Around Justice refers, for example, to the lead article in Monday’s Independent newspaper in which you stated “...We will have a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption. We’re going to put the public first in everything that we do...”  Those words, we hope, are not mere rhetoric.

The current position with regard to Richard Fulcher, an innocent man accused of Threats to Kill and     Harassment only after he called into question his solicitor’s handling of a civil claim against Fenland       District Council who committed arson by unlawfully burning down his barns, is that he is being treated abysmally (as is his wife) in that several civil claims are being brought against him when no legitimate claims exist, and his Appeal against Conviction was recently mis-handled by a corrupt judge (this           organisation uses the word advisedly) who refused to allow him to call witnesses as to fact and also        refused him full disclosure when full disclosure would show Mr Fulcher’s innocence.

It is evident that the legal process is being unlawfully and corruptly manipulated in order to maintain a  label of ‘guilt’ against Mr Fulcher in an attempt to (a) further disrupt his life and (b) prevent him from standing as a local counsellor again. The impact of local authority, judicial and police corruption against Mr Fulcher has had a deleterious impact upon him and his wife, who is receiving medical attention for stress caused by police harassment and a malicious prosecution against her husband and his good name.

These human rights abuses must cease forthwith and those responsible for crimes against the        Fulchers must be held accountable and they must face criminal charges.

The current position with regard to Violet Ecclestone, aged 91, is that she is being illegally imprisoned in an old people’s home against her will because she is being prevented from living in her own home (which she owns outright) through the corrupt activities of her local borough council.
Her son, Robert Ecclestone, 61, is also prevented from living in his own home because of fraudulent court documents which bear no Court Seal nor a signature of a Judge.
These human rights abuses must cease forthwith and those responsible for crimes against the        Ecclestones must be held accountable and they must face criminal charges.

The current position with regard to Brian Pead is that he informed King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court on    Friday 04 October 2013 that both the Crown Prosecution Service and Norfolk police constables were guilty of perverting the course of justice when he was charged with criminal damage. The Magistrates were informed that a husband and wife team of police constables were working together—which is in itself an unlawful act— and that Mr Pead had been arrested by armed police constables who had attended a meter reading of a meter which does not exist on  Ramblewood Farm. It is this organisation’s belief that the two trespassers—who claimed to be working for E.ON—were, in fact, undercover police constables. No doubt you will investigate this to the criminal standard because it is evident that corruption—which you have publicly stated you wish to eradicate—is at play in this matter.

Furthermore, Mr Pead was harassed by two police constables at his home on Sunday 06 October 2013 claiming that they had jurisdiction to enter the property and enter his bedroom. The constables were allegedly from the Public Protection Unit, but they have failed to provide photo evidence. This organisation is aware that the police have often employed tactics including using the names of dead children, so we cannot be certain if the names they are using are bona fide.


For the avoidance of doubt, on 01 August 2013, Mr Pead was charged with an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2006 in that he failed to provide his current address to Norfolk Police. Mr Pead is not a sex offender. He was unlawfully convicted of inciting a child in a corrupt trial at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 when a Jury was not sworn in, more than 125 exhibits were not adduced in Court, and key witnesses to police corruption were not called.

Furthermore, there never was a victim—no person had been incited. Mr Pead had been unlawfully    arrested, charged and convicted only after he had uncovered child grooming, racism and harassment whilst employed as a Head Teacher at Lambeth Council in 2005-7. His unlawful dismissal was the subject of a book entitled from Hillsborough to Lambeth, and that book is currently the subject of an      unlawful banning order from the High Court.

The accompanying website, <lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com> was taken down by the authorities in a corrupt move.  We use the word ‘corrupt’ advisedly because the website was hosted in Slovakia,   outside of the jurisdiction of England & Wales.

Mr Pead’s trial at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 is the subject of a book entitled Framed!.  Some commentators have suggested that that book, too, will also be banned by the authorities.

On 27 January 2010, the Metropolitan Police Service took Mr Pead to Court and sought a permanent search warrant on his house.

On 16 July 2013, Caroline Addy of One Brick Court, represented Lambeth Council in an attempt to seek a permanent gagging order against Mr Pead. It is evident that Mr Pead has been “set up” in order to      prevent him from exposing corruption and child grooming and also to defame him through the use of          disinformation, similar to that employed by the police at Hillsborough and elsewhere.

In 2008-2009 Mr Pead’s daughter, Sorrel Birch, was told by Bexley Police and Bexley Social Services that if she had any further contact with her father, she would have her children removed.

On 01 November 2011, Mr Pead was taken from Belmarsh Prison (where he was unlawfully held on the charge of the witness intimidation of his 12 year old grand-daughter, Emily Birch, when she had never been a witness in any trial or hearing whatsoever) to Bexley Magistrates’ Court when he was found ‘guilty’ of the alleged harassment of his daughter and grand-daughter even though neither had made a statement alleging harassment and neither had attended the court. The case was held in camera, and is thus wholly illegal in itself. The unlawful incarceration of Mr Pead was a bullying tactic employed by corrupt police officers, local authority and court officials.

Mr Pead is not a sex offender. That label has been used against him by corrupt police and local authority officers in an effort to cover their own corrupt activities.

On 27 January 2010, Mr Pead was made the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order by Southwark Crown Court, but it was made illegally and is thus void ab initio.

This organisation believes that you will be conversant with the legislation around void orders, but in the event that you are not, further information can be obtained from The Middleton Private Trust, Educational Division, c/o Ramblewood Farm at the address below.   

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Pead is an innocent man and the State’s unwarranted interference in his life—and of those he cares about—is a direct breach of his (and their) Article 3 Rights         conferred upon him by the Human Rights Act 1998 and of his (and their) indefeasible human rights.

These human rights abuses must cease forthwith and those responsible for crimes against Brian Pead must be held accountable and they must face criminal charges.


This organisation believes that you will be conversant with the legislation around Article 3, but in the event that you are not, further information can be obtained from The Middleton Private Trust, Educational Division,c/o Ramblewood Farm at the address below.   

However, it is necessary for All Around Justice to provide you with a précis of Article 3, since we believe that it is of fundamental import to your role:

Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights
‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

Article 3 is an absolute right; there are no possible derogations. Many ECHR rights can be over-ridden (i.e. derogated) in the public interest (e.g. in time of war, where there is a threat to public safety and so on); not so with Article 3. There is no possible excuse or justification for a breach of Article 3 along the lines of, for example, ‘an aggressive cross-examination of a rape victim is part of the adversarial system of justice and is in the public interest’. The ECHR cases below show that under Article 3, the government has:

1. a positive obligation to protect people from inhuman and degrading treatment (i.e. not just a negative obligation not to inflict inhuman and degrading treatment), including inhuman and degrading treatment by state officials and private persons (i.e. people who are not state officials);
2. a duty to carry out effective and independent (in practical terms) official investigations into allegations or indications of such treatment;
3. a duty to carry out such investigations in response to complaints or where no complaint is made but where there are sufficiently clear indications of inhuman and degrading treatment;
4. a duty to carry out such investigations with ‘promptness and reasonable expedition’;
5. a duty to carry out investigations that are capable of identifying and punishing those responsible (i.e. an official investigation which is not allowed to allocate blame – a common tactic – does not fulfil the government’s legal obligations under Article 3);
6. a duty to allow the victim ‘to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another’.

For the avoidance of doubt, All Around Justice is calling upon the National Crime Agency to fulfil its duty and legal obligations to thoroughly investigate the crimes which have been perpetrated against Mr & Mrs Fulcher, Albert Ecclestone, Violet Ecclestone, Robert Ecclestone and Brian Pead. These crimes—both historical and current—were perpetrated in breach of their Article 3 (and other) rights.

Article 3 of the Convention gives rise to a positive obligation to conduct an official investigation (see     Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3290, § 102). Such a positive obligation cannot be considered in principle to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 151). Thus, the authorities have an obligation to take action as soon as an official complaint has been lodged. Even in the absence of an express complaint, an investigation should be undertaken if there are other sufficiently clear indications that torture or ill-treatment might have occurred. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. A prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in       preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. Tolerance by the authorities      towards such acts cannot but undermine public confidence in the principle of lawfulness and the State’s maintenance of the rule of law.

DECLARATION
By making this express complaint, the Complainants have been placed by the State in fear of reprisals from the judiciary, local authorities and the police.

The Complainants fear for their lives, their wellbeing and their liberty, having been assaulted, having had three properties destroyed by fire and having been unlawfully incarcerated.

If anything should happen to the Complainants, their families or friends because of these Facts of Truth being made public, they have appointed three former Army and RAF officers to expose all the evidence they have gathered in these matters.

The Complainants shall now devote the rest of their lives to exposing miscarriages of justice and           corruption and look forward to participating effectively in the investigation in one form or another. 

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Richard Vernon Fulcher                                                                                           
William B. Freeman                                                                                                                             
Robert Ecclestone
Violet Ecclestone


Enclosure:               AN OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT AGAINST NORFOLK CONSTABULARY
                                REPORTING CRIMES: DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS, ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS AGAINST NAMED                                                          PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES