Monday 14 October 2013

Brian Pead and Richard Fulcher ... two men who uncovered corruption in their local authority, the police and the judicial system.

We reproduce below a 76-page letter of complaint against the Police which draws attention to the crimes perpetrated against them and Robert Ecclestone, 61, and his elderly mother, Violet Ecclestone, 93. Both Robert and his mother had more than £1.5million worth of antiques stolen from their home. Robert is not allowed to live in his own house because David Clack, an officer from the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, stole the items under the guise of "clearing the house". The Ecclestones are avid collectors - not hoarders!

Poor Violet is currently being held against her will in an old people's home. When she pops her clogs, the Council will force Robert to sell the family home to pay for her keep in the home - even though she doesn't want to live there!

Now read on ... these crimes are against INNOCENT people whom the police and judiciary should be protecting, not SHAFTING.

Dear Safer Neighbourhoods Team, HUNSTANTON, Norfolk:

AN OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO NORFOLK CONSTABULARY

REPORTING CRIMES: DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS, ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS AGAINST NAMED PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES

Please see below the Particulars of the Offences which need to be recorded by Norfolk Constabulary and thoroughly and robustly investigated to the CRIMINAL STANDARD.

Perverting the course of justice
The Offence
3. 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:
·         does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
·         which has a tendency to pervert and
·         which is intended to pervert
·         the course of public justice.
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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).




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:









SAMANTHA RAINBIRD, Investigator with E.ON Energy Suppliers


PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES


Perverting the Course of Justice

Samantha RAINBIRD, between 01 July 2013 and 25 September 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 she:

(i)                 contacted King’s Police officers before any crime had been committed
(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of E.ON yet provided no such identification
(iii)             provided false information to police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences
(iv)             provided false information to Leonard Richard Fulcher and Brian Pead
(v)               conspired with others to falsely imprison Brian Pead
(vi)             conspired with others to cause actual bodily harm to Brian Pead
(vii)           conspired with others to harass Brian Pead
(viii)         conspired with others to create a false and malicious witness statement
(ix)             created a false and malicious witness statement
(x)               caused criminal damage to a gate at Ramblewood Farm
(xi)             caused criminal damage to a car belonging to E.ON
(xii)           failed to report an accident she had caused
(xiii)         failed to report careless driving
(xiv)         failed to provide an evidential specimen
(xv)           failed to give permission for a laboratory test


No comments:

Post a Comment