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
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.
