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