Seeking Justice for All

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.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131128-0002.htm#13112867000360

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

(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

(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;

(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

(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:

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10544657.Dave_McLuckie_jailed_for_eight_months_for_perverting_the_course_of_justice/

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10503978.Judge_in_court_accused_of_perverting_course_of_justice_in_Huhne_case/

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/solicitor-faces-jail-perverting-course-1841076

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

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.

Seeking Justice for All

Thursday, 23 January 2014

Government fails to act on Article 3 Official Complaint

Friday, 29 November 2013

Home Secretary Theresa May called to account

Richard Fulcher and Fenland District Council Corruption