'Obsessive' Timothy Forster perverts course of justice

Timothy Forster

Misconduct in Public Office

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform his duty 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.

Perverting the Course of Justice

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 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 he:

1        deliberately ensured that a Defendant would be found guilty of a crime he knew the Defendant not to have committed, according to the Law

2        wilfully failed to call a Witness as to Fact [Geoffrey Bacon] in a criminal trial

3        wilfully failed to call Warwick Brown [IT Manager of Faceparty] to a criminal trial when he knew that Mr Brown’s testimony would exonerate his Client

4        deceived the Court by informing it that Warwick Brown had emigrated to Australia when, in fact, he was living in London

5        conspired with others to collapse a trial at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009 after he had informed the trial Judge that the Crown’s witnesses were “ready to go”

6        conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

7        harassed Brian Pead between January 2009 and September 2013

8        failed to adhere to the Criminal Procedure Rules around Disclosure

9        was admonished by the trial Judge for a lack of Disclosure

10    failed to report perjury by police officers and Nicola Noone to the trial judge

11    failed to report to the Court the illegal disposal of vital evidence by the CPS, the Police and a Crown Witness

12    failed to report to the Court demonstrable police entrapment : police as Agents Provocateurs

13    failed to point out to the Jury that a key Police statement was written one year after the Defendant’s arrest, and one year after the Defendant had made his own statement

14    failed to point out to the Jury that this Police statement differed greatly from the original Police statement made one year previously

15    failed to report Police perjury regarding the liquidation of a website to the attention of the Judge and Jury, despite having evidence of perjury

16    despite possessing knowledge and evidence to the contrary, failed to report Police misbehaviour (breaches of PACE) on a number of counts

17    failed to point out to the Judge and Jury that the three female witnesses in Indictment One did not make their statements until two weeks after their allegations so that the Police could manipulate this information and join it to the investigation by the Paedophile Unit

18    despite having evidence to the contrary, allowed false evidence to be entered into Court by the Police and Crown

19    failed to apply for the Trial to be halted despite knowing that the wrong evidence was in Court

20    allowed the Crown’s witnesses (including the Police) to answer questions with “I don’t know” or “I can’t be sure” or “I can’t remember” and did not continue with his questioning, but allowed a lack of clarity to permeate the Trial

21    failed to ask the Police what they did to investigate the fact that the Defendant used false mobile numbers when ‘communicating’ with the alleged ‘girl’

22    despite the Police stating on oath that they knew the numbers to be false, failed to cross-examine why they had brought this case to Court if they knew that the numbers were false and thus no charge of Incitement could hold up, since no-one with the intention of meeting with someone else would provide false mobile numbers

23    failed to request a copy of the website’s servers, which was necessary for a fair Trial

24    failed to request a copy of the Defendant’s computer hard drive at work which would have established the Defendant’s claim of innocence and provided a fair Trial

25    failed to report the demonstrable fact that a Crown witness committed Perjury

26    failed to act when informed by the Defendant that his computer at work had been illegally tampered with

27    failed to act when informed by the Defendant that his research materials at work had been removed from the office servers

28    failed to inform Scotland Yard’s Professional Standards Unit that evidence in this case had been tampered with, despite possessing knowledge that it had been tampered with

29    failed to adduce examples of evidence tampering into Court

30    failed to provide a copy of the Crown’s Joinder argument to the Defendant

31    has deliberately misled the Registrar in the Appeals Court – by making claims as if they were facts, despite compelling evidence to the contrary

32    failed to bring to the Court’s attention that the Jury was not sworn in

33    failed to contest the Judge’s duress towards the Jury

34    failed to bring to the Court’s attention that there was a significant breach of the Defendant’s Article 6 rights in that the case took 23 months to come to court, despite it not being a complex case

35    was guilty of Gross Prosecutorial Misbehaviour by deliberately collapsing the Trial for Exposure at Woolwich Crown Court in February 2009, thereby interfering with the Judicial Process and orchestrating that that Indictment was linked with Indictment Two at a separate court

36    deliberately dwelt on irrelevant material, giving it the appearance before a Jury of being relevant

37    failed to bring allegations of demonstrable Police misconduct to the Judge’s notice

38    failed to bring allegations of demonstrable Police misconduct to the notice of Scotland Yard’s Professional Standards Unit             

39    failed to inform the Defence that another key witness – the Arresting Officer in Indictment One – had mysteriously “moved away” and therefore could not attend the Trial to be placed under cross-examination

40    failed to comply with the Judge’s request for Disclosure around the ‘bankruptcy’ of the website

41    as a direct consequence of this failure to disclose, the Judge and the Jury were misled that the website was defunct: it is still operational and this is capable of belief by logging on to it

42    allowed the Police to commit Perjury in Court on a number of occasions

43    allowed the Police to enter into Court demonstrably false evidence, thus misleading the Judge and Jury

44    allowed a Crown Prosecution Witness (Nicola Noone) to perjure herself on oath and mislead the Judge and Jury

45    wrongly instructed the Jury – in his Closing Remarks – to “…ignore the facts of the case…” and to believe mere hearsay

46    during his Closing Remarks, introduced fresh allegations which had no merit whatsoever in fact, and no relation whatsoever to the case, save for the purpose of defaming the Defendant

Harassment

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and did cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead, to the police, to a Crown Court, and that, once such knowledge had come into his possession, he failed to report child grooming, racism, bullying, assault, false imprisonment, theft, and breaches of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did abuse his position as a Barrister and Officer of the Court in that he (and others) perpetrated a series of crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead during a corrupt trial at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009 and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead which he knew, or ought to have known, would cause him and his daughter and grand-children alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Fraud by false representation

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did make false representations and provide false documents to the Courts in relation to Brian Pead, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, failed to report the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that he knew that police officers had removed the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide criminal investigation and trial to take place contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

That Timothy Forster, a criminal barrister and prosecutor of Furnival Chambers, on dates between 01 January 2009 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes against Brian Pead and in allowing crimes to be perpetrated against Brian Pead. He extracted monies from the public purse in the form of Legal Aid and misappropriated those funds by running a prosecution which he knew to be contrary to law and in allowing others to participate in an unlawful trial and the cover-up of significant crimes and human rights abuses. 

Nicola Noone commits perjury - official!

NICOLA NOONE

Theft Act

Theft in breach of trust

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, conspired with others to steal from Brian Pead and that she and they did in fact steal property belonging to Brian Pead, namely counselling books, personal development books, psychology books, personal photographs of his daughter and grand-children, and various other items including computer files containing research materials valued together at approximately £500 pounds GB sterling. 

These thefts of property were taken with the intention of permanently depriving Brian Pead of property belonging to him.

These thefts were in breach of the trust placed in her/ them as an officer/s of the Council.

Misconduct in Public Office

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, wilfully neglected to perform her duty and wilfully misconducted herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

Perverting the Course of Justice

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 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)                 stole valuable property from Brian Pead

(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of Hackney Council and the charity Off Centre in conducting an unlawful employment investigation

(iii)             provided false information to a Disciplinary Hearing, and to police officers

(iv)             provided false information to Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to commit theft, abuse their position of trust, and falsely convict Mr Brian Pead

(vi)             conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(vii)           conspired with others to prevent witnesses attending a trial at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009

Harassment

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, did pursue a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead and did cause him alarm and distress contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Fraud by failing to disclose information

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, did commit fraud by deliberately failing to disclose documents to Brian Pead and to the Courts, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by abuse of position

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, did abuse her position in that she perpetrated a series of crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead and pursued a course of conduct amounting to the harassment of Brian Pead which she knew, or ought to have known, would cause him and his family alarm and distress, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Fraud by false representation

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, did make false representations and provide false documents to the Courts in relation to Brian Pead, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

Breaches of Computer Misuse Act 1990

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, did authorise the modification of the contents of a computer used by Brian Pead in that she authorised the removal of the contents of that computer’s hard drive, upon which were documents necessary for a bona fide criminal investigation to take place, contrary to section 3(1a) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Misuse of Public Funds

That Nicola NOONE, an Administrations Officer with the Hackney charity Off Centre, between 01 May 2008 and 25 September 2013, did misuse public funds in perpetrating crimes and human rights abuses against Brian Pead.

Perjury

        

That Nicola NOONE, having been lawfully sworn as a witness in a judicial proceeding, namely the trial of Brian Pead at Southwark Crown Court in December 2009, wilfully made a number of statements material in that proceeding which she knew to be false, and stated that she did not know that the Defendant was undertaking a counselling course or that he had taught on the subject of Child Sexual Abuse to staff at Off Centre and Sub19 when, as the Administrations and Human Resources Officer for the charity, she did know that he was undertaking a counselling course and that he had taught on the subject of Child Sexual Abuse, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911. 

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:

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

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

Richard Fulcher, part 17

1.            I then opened the locked electricity housing and showed the people claiming to be from E.ON the meter.

2.            This meter number was an entirely different meter number than the one on the bills my wife is receiving from E.ON. (The account was set up in her name).

3.            The female operative looked surprised and beckoned to her male counterpart.

4.            The female took a photograph of the meter with her mobile phone. I found this odd behaviour, just as I found it odd that neither operative had an HHT on which to record the meter reading.

5.            I believe that the operatives then checked the seals on the meter and found them not to have been tampered with.

6.             All of this scene was played out in front of the two armed police officers and one other (female) police officer. I understand that the female officer (WPC Girton) is married to one of the male officers. I believe it to be improper that two married police officers should be sent out on a job together and that this also makes the arrest unlawful.

7.             My friend appeared at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court on 2 August 2013 and he entered a plea of Not Guilty to causing criminal damage.

8.            I did not see the police take any photos of alleged damage to the car.

9.            I did not see the police take photos of the damage to my farm gate.

10.       On 4 August 2013, both my wife and I pressed criminal charges against the female driver for causing damage to the farm gate.

11.       On 28 August 2013, I sent an email to Katie Parry of Parry & Company, the solicitors alleging to represent E.ON in their fraudulent claim against me. (They had not claimed against my wife, but only me.)

12.        I sent this email at 10:02. It was entitled “NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AND CRIMINAL DAMAGE”.

13.       I copied all of the Directors of the E.ON Board (UK) into the email and I held them jointly and severally liable for their criminal actions.

14.       I ensured that all parties knew that the letter was an Open Letter and that I intended it to be shown to the world via the medium of the internet.

15.       In this email, I brought the fraudulent misrepresentation to the attention of all parties concerned, so that they would be in no doubt that if they went ahead with their criminal activities and continued to enter false documentation into Court, then the Hearing would be a nullity (because it would be based on fraud) but that they would held criminally liable for their actions, jointly and severally.

16.        In the same email, I also sought full disclosure, but this was denied me.

17.       In the same email, I asked for a report into the incident on the farm on 1 August 2013. This has not been sent to me to date.

18.       I believe that Ms Parry, Thomas Denash, the entire UK Board of Directors of E.ON, Judge Barry Rutland and Timothy Williams (Fenners Chambers, Cambridge) are all complicit in an unlawful and fraudulent Hearing at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013.

19.       I had witnesses present in the public gallery.

20.       On 06 September 2013, I received a number of telephone calls from the High Court Enforcer (hereinafter “the HCE”), whom I had instructed to collect the monies owed to me (£270k) in my Judgment against Fenland District Council. This Judgment is dated 7 November 2012.

21.       Officers from the HCE informed me that fraudulent documents had been provided to them by Council Officers from Fenland District Council, when the HCE had attended their offices on 03 and 04 September 2013.

22.       Officers from HCE told me that my Judgment was bona fide but that documents involving Gordon Dean (of Gordon Dean Solicitors, 16 Princes Street, Norwich, NR3 1AE) and Andrew Clarke (of Weightmans Solicitors, LLP) were clearly fraudulent.

23.       The officers from HCE advised me to contact the police and inform them that an investigation needs to take place because fraudulent documents had been entered into court and had been made to deceive the court and the HCE agency.

24.       On Friday 6 September 2013, I spoke with the High Court Enforcers office regarding my bona fide judgment against Fenland District Council. The HCE informed me that court documents allegedly involving District Judge Barry Rutland were bogus documents and that fraud had been perpetrated.

25.       On 07 September 2013, I reported the theft of a meter to Siemens, UK and I have asked them to investigate where the meter owned by that company has gone.

26.       In an email dated 10 September 2013, Siemens informed me that they had reported a stolen meter to E.ON.

27.       I, in turn, informed the local Safer Neighbourhood Team police about the stolen meter.

28.       In an email dated 10 September 2013, the HCE sent me a letter claiming that they had never said that the court documents were fraudulent. I believe that they had been “got at”.

29.       On 10 September 2013, I received an email from an Elliot Nason of Eastern Counties Finance (hereinafter “ECF”) in which he once again refused to meet to discuss the loan agreements with me.

30.       Mr Nason claims that there are 6 agreements. I believe from evidence that I have seen that Mr Nason and ECF are acting fraudulently and I have reported them to the police on 11 September 2013 under the Fraud Act 2006.

31.       Also on 11 September 2013, I reported District Judge Barry Rutland to the Office for Judicial Complaints and cited fraud, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice amongst other misdemeanours.

32.       Also on 11 September 2013, I reported Judge Nicholas Coleman to the Office for Judicial Complaints and cited fraud, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice amongst other misdemeanours. He had refused to seek full disclosure – particularly the CAD report – and he refused to allow me to call witnesses in a direct breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

33.       On 10 September 2013, I received a visit from two people purporting to be from the Official Receiver’s Office (hereinafter “the ORO”), but I had reason to doubt their credibility. After some initial research on these people, I still have reason to doubt their credibility.

34.       They had brought the police with them and PC 503 (Ben Clarke) from Hunstanton Police and WPC 1424 Whitmore from Dersingham Police came on to my property without lawful excuse.

35.       I was informed by the two people purporting to be from the ORO that District Judge Barry Rutland had issued a Bankruptcy Order and that “it stands”.)

36.       I informed the men from the ORO (if, indeed, they were) that I cannot be bankrupt because my assets outweigh my alleged liabilities, that I have not attended a bona fide Bankruptcy Petition hearing; that I have never signed any documents declaring that I am bankrupt and that DJ Rutland must have created the documents fraudulently, just as he had had a hand in fraudulent documents emanating from Norwich Courts (a fact initially corroborated by the HCE and subsequently denied.)

37.       I informed the two men from the ORO that they were acting ultra vires and that any Bankruptcy Order would be void ab initio.

38.       The two men left after around half an hour. The two police officers left around 15 minutes later.

39.       On 11 September 2013, I reported the two men from the ORO to the police for having perpetrated a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

40.       I have received email receipts from the police for every email that I have sent them.

41.       I have put my name to a book entitled FRAMED! which highlights judicial and police corruption.

42.       I believe that the allegations against me (of Threats to Kill and Harassment) arose because James Morgan (of Hayes and Storr Solicitors, King’s Lynn) did not want me to obtain a seat on the Borough Council of King’s Lynn.

43.       Hayes and Storr were supposed to be handling my legitimate claim against Fenland District Council, but they sat on my claim for two years. It was only when I brought their dilatory attitude to their attention that they initiated criminal charges against me.

44.       Upon my unlawful arrest for Threats to Kill (under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861), I was given a duty solicitor, Mr George Sorrell from Credence law. I believe he has connections with Hayes & Storr and Gavin Cowe of FisherCowe Solicitors.  

45.       Mr Sorrell failed to act on my behalf and I subsequently de-instructed him.

46.       When I instructed Gavin Cowe, he failed to obtain the CAD report and he failed to write a defence statement for me.

47.       Mr Cowe led me to believe that my case would be heard in the Crown Court, but it was heard in the Norwich Magistrates’ Court.

48.       Mr Cowe also failed to obtain the pocket notebooks of the arresting officers (armed police) in my arrest of 15 August 2013.

49.       My wife and I managed to obtain a bona fide judgment against FDC for more than £270,000 in November 2012, but they have still failed to pay me out.

50.       Having uncovered all of this corruption, I made contact with an investigative journalist and author.

51.       It is my belief that there should be a full and thorough investigation at the highest level into this corruption.

52.       The offences committed against me and my wife are getting out of proportion.

53.       I was due to attend the Norwich Crown Court on 13 September 2013, but under duress have had to decide not to attend because I cannot get a fair trial or Hearing in my Appeal in Norfolk or Cambridgeshire. Judge Nicholas Coleman has been reported to the OJC for failing to allow me witnesses, to obtain full disclosure and for significant breaches of my human rights and those of my wife.

54.       I still intend, however, to continue my Appeal against Conviction and Sentence, but have decided that it will have to be outside of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire and I want it to be heard in the Court of Appeal in London.

55.       I believe that writing this Affidavit and my part in publishing the book has put my wife and me at risk from reprisals.

56.       My wife and I fear for our lives, having had three properties destroyed by fire and I feel there is no point in asking for police protection as they are involved in most of the matters mentioned in this Affidavit.

57.       If anything should happen to me or my wife and family or my friends or property because of these Facts of Truth being made public, I have appointed three former Army and RAF officers to expose all the evidence we have gathered in these matters.

58.       I shall now devote the rest of my life to exposing miscarriages of justice upon the public and corruption as this is my destiny in life. 

59.       I believe that everything I have said in this Affidavit is true.