Brian Pead affidavit, part 2

1.             From evidence I have seen, I believe that Ms Cooper then claimed that the Fulchers had insufficient land for the number of animals on the farm. At this point I believe that they had approximately 25 acres, but Ms Cooper insisted that if they did not purchase more land, she would confiscate their animals and thereby shut down their farming operation, depriving them of employment and income and eventually their home.

2.            I believe that, as a direct consequence of Ms Cooper’s threats, and, acting under duress, the Fulchers purchased further parcels of land.

3.            Hayes and Storr (whom the Fulchers were still instructing at the time) recommended that they use a financial organisation known as Eastern Counties Finance Limited (hereinafter “ECF”).

4.            I believe that in a short period of time, the Fulchers purchased additional parcels of land with loans from ECF.

5.            I believe from the evidence I have seen that, although this appeared to placate Ms Cooper with regard to the room that the animals now had, she set about looking for further faults and, where none existed, invented them. On one occasion she claimed that a nail protruding from a piece of wood on a pig arc was “dangerous”. Mr Fulcher explained to her that there is not a farm in the world where a nail is not protruding somewhere and that any number of obstacles (such as barbed wire fences) can cause harm to animals. Mr Fulcher pointed out that he and his wife obviously try to eradicate danger to their livestock, but that they felt her demand for the removal of the nail was a petty point to draw attention to and officially note down. I believe from examining the evidence relating to Ms Cooper’s visits that her action was unreasonable when set against the standard of the “reasonable person” as defined by the Court.

6.            I believe that around this time, Ms Cooper’s visits became more frequent and more onerous for the Fulchers. She continued to bring police officers on to their private land despite the Fulchers always objecting to, or consenting to, their presence. I believe, however, that the police always refused to leave. I believe that this constitutes trespass and intimidation. I also believe that the actions of (i) Norfolk Trading Standards and (ii) Norfolk Constabulary are breaches of the Fulchers’ rights (particularly but not exclusively) at Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

7.            I believe that Mrs Fulcher’s health and well-being has seriously deteriorated as a direct consequence of the actions of (i) Norfolk County Council and (ii) Norfolk Constabulary. As a qualified counsellor I have noted a severe deterioration in her emotional well-being because of the on-going stress brought about by this series of events which appear to be disparate but which, upon a closer examination, now appear to be orchestrated at a high level because the number of apparent coincidences is far too high to be merely coincidental.

8.            I believe that amidst this intimidation from Norfolk County Council and Norfolk Constabulary, Mr Fulcher sought an immediate appeal of his unlawful conviction and de-instructed Mr Cowe, becoming an Appellant-in-Person.

9.            I believe that, as an Appellant-in-Person he is now running his own Appeal, but the CPS were continuing to fail to provide disclosure ahead of the Appeal Hearing scheduled for 13 September 2013.

                                         

10.       I believe that Mr Fulcher had issued Witness Summonses to James Morgan (of H&S) and to Sergeant Karen Faulkner (of Norfolk Constabulary) – both failed to reply.

11.       I believe that since neither intended witness replied to lawfully issued Summons, Mr Fulcher contacted Norwich Crown Court and asked them to issue a Witness Summons under the Criminal Procedure Rules.

12.       At one of the pre-Appeal Hearings, I met a person known to me as Leonard Richard Vernon Fulcher. I know that he prefers to be called Richard.

13.        We became friends. We realised within hours of meeting that we had both been the victims of gross miscarriages of justice and we resolved to work together to get our unlawful convictions quashed and to dedicate the rest of our lives to helping others receive justice where they, too, have been the victims of injustice.

14.       We decided to examine one another’s legal paperwork and we were both alarmed and distressed by the number of fraudulent documents in all our cases and by the obvious corruption that had taken place in our unlawful trials.

15.        From a close examination of each other’s legal documents, we both realised that there were often no Unique Reference Numbers (hereinafter “URN”) on the documents which purported to be official police documents.

16.       We also noticed that witness statements had not been signed or, where they were signed, they had not been witnessed as having been signed.

17.       I believe that Mr Fulcher saw a particular email from Alasdair Palmer of the Daily Telegraph, a human rights journalist, to Brian Pead in which Mr Palmer stated: “...It is obvious to me that you were the victim of a miscarriage of justice...”

18.       I agreed to work on the Fulchers’ behalf to assist them in getting Mr Fulcher’s unlawful conviction quashed and in achieving justice where clear injustices has been perpetrated by judges, barristers, solicitors, local authorities and Norfolk Constabulary.

19.       I believe that District Judge Barry Rutland perverted the course of justice on 04 September 2013, and that he is guilty of misconduct in public office and of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at King’s Lynn County Court.

20.        The nature of his conduct was that he attempted to hear two completely separate cases together, but he did, in fact, only hear one case (3KL00178).

21.       I believe that DJ Rutland conspired with Mr Timothy Williams of Fenners Chambers, Cambridge to pervert the course of justice and the course of justice was in fact perverted.

22.        From the evidence that I have seen, I believe that Ms. Kate Parry of Parry & Co. is also guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice in an Application to Strike Out heard at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013.

23.        From the evidence that I have seen, I believe that Mr Thomas Denash entered false evidence into court at that trial, and I believe that he deceived the court.

24.       From the evidence that I have seen, I believe that Kate Parry and Thomas Denash had been written to by the Fulchers and by the Middleton Private Trust and informed that they were deceiving the court, but they knowingly and recklessly continued so to do.

25.       I believe that Mr Fulcher wished to call witnesses to the hearing for Application to Strike Out, but E.ON failed to provide him with the names and contact details of two witnesses and thus deliberately perverted the course of justice.

26.       I believe that Mr Fulcher has named all 8 of the UK E.ON Board of Directors as conspiring to, and perverting, the course of justice and of pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment and I also believe that they need to answer charges to misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice.