Government fails to act on Article 3 Official Complaint

The following people made an official complaint to HM Government on 31 December 2013:

(Leonard) Richard Fulcher
Karen Fulcher
William Freeman
Robert Ecclestone
Violet Ecclestone
John Gawthorp
Elaine Gawthorp.


The above people sent a 76-page document to the National Crime Agency naming many corrupt police constables, lawyers, barristers, judges, Local Authority officers and Fenland District Council, who are all guilty of crimes including misconduct in public office, perverting the course of public justice and other criminal offences.

Naming and shaming:

District Judge Barry Rutland
District Judge Martyn Royall
Barrister Timothy Williams
Solicitor James Morgan (Hayes & Storr)
Solicitor Gordon Dean
Solicitor Jonathan Eales
all 39 Fenland District Councillors
all Norfolk County Councillors
Nick Daubney, Leader of the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Northwest Norfolk
Cathy Twist, Lambeth officer
Barry Gilhooly, Lambeth officer
Dominic Bell, the most corrupt barrister on the planet
Angela Shaw (leslie Franks) a corrupt solicitor
Phyllis Dunipace, OBE, a hugely corrupt former head of children's services in Lambeth
Clare Cobbold, a corrupt council officer at Lambeth

and many, many more. In fact, there is talk in the village that Henry Bellingham 's chauffeur is a convicted paedophile.

Do write to me at Richard Fulcher, Ramblewood Farm, Cliffe-en-Howe Road, Pott Row, Norfolk PE32 1BY if you have further news.

Kind regards ....

Richard

Richard Fulcher and Brian Pead - victims of a miscarriage of justice

Dear Henry

As you know, you mentioned in your previous email to us that you would be willing to help mediate with Fenland in order to draw a line under the ever-increasing problem.

As you will know, we have not heard back from you at present, so thought it wise to provide you with an update on the Fenland situation.

1)      Fenland District Council

In January of this year, a Judge in Cambridgeshire dismissed Fenland’s claim to strike out our Judgment against them in the sum of £270k.

As you will know, their claim is for burning down our barn (some £18k), a mere trifling sum in the context, apart from the idiocy involved in that claim, which we believe is being made vexatiously and which is, in itself, an abuse of process.

The following chronology may be helpful to you:

Date	Court	Comments
08 November 2012	Northampton County	Default Judgment obtained in the sum of £270k No defence; no acknowledgement to original claim No set aside requested after default judgment obtained
January 2013	Cambridge County	FDC muddy waters; bring their own claim for £18k; application to strike out Judgment Application dismissed Put on multi-track to be heard 23/24 October 2013; trial bundles to be in no later than 7 days before
	KL County	Lead case (Fulchers) replaced with FDC becoming lead case unilaterally transferred to Norwich County
04 September 2013	KL County	Richard (but not Karen) Fulcher illegally made bankrupt by DJ Barry Rutland on the same day he had the Judgment for £270k in his hand in the FDC case and he transferred the case re FDC from KL County to Norwich County [information corroborated by the Court]
17 October 2013		no trial bundle received from FDC
23/24 October 2013	Norwich County	trial vacated by FDC;
31 October 2013		the Fulchers issue a Statutory Demand against FDC
18 November 2013		E.ON finally admit Z meter not on farm and send a bill against the K meter. This renders the bankruptcy a nullity. The debt is transferred from the Z meter to the K meter – another fraudulent move by E.ON
21 November 2013		Richard Fulcher calls the Court; is told that the Hearing of 23/24 October had been vacated because he is “bankrupt”; RF informs the Court in a taped conversation that (i)                 he is not bankrupt (ii)               that the Judge in that matter has had a private criminal prosecution [pcp] taken out against hum (iii)             that the Chief Executive of FDC has also had a pcp taken out against him, (iv)             that he, Richard Fulcher, has made an official complaint to Government that his Article 3 rights (and those of his wife) are being breached and that an Official Investigation must be initiated forthwith. RF asked to put this in writing for tomorrow’s Hearing
22 November 2013	Norwich County	Hearing of Application to Strike Out original Judgment of 08/11/12
All of the Court dates above, except the original Judgment, are an abuse of process by FDC and their lawyers, Weightmans, in a scurrilous attempt to further pervert the course of justice and cover up arson (a criminal act) by an FDC officer. The entire FDC Council Body is in Contempt of Court for refusing to comply with the bona fide Judgment of 08 November 2012.

 

As you will see from the above, there is little doubt that someone is pulling strings in this matter to ensure that Karen and I are not paid out by FDC. We are reliably informed that FDC are accruing a compounded debt of some £141 on a daily basis, let alone digging themselves into a much deeper hole.

FYI, Karen has now issued a Letter Before Claim against FDC in her own right. After seeking further legal advice, we were told that SHE has a huge claim against FDC in her own right, since she was badly affected by those and subsequent events. She is currently under the doctor for the emotional distress that these combined proceedings have caused. We have been told that her claim is in the region of £0.5-1million for the stress, distress, loss of her property and the continued harassment of her by FDC.

Since you have been asked by us to mediate, after you offered your services, you might like to inform all of the councillors of this new claim against them.

On the subject of claims, we were told by a friend in the village that the reason FDC are sitting on our money is so that they want to prevent us from bringing claims against the perpetrators of crimes against us. Do you think there is any truth in that?

2)      The Planners

We are also being ill-treated by the Planners, who keep moving the date for that Hearing, and who are threatening to throw us off the land we have farmed since 2005. As previously explained to you, at all times Karen and I have farmed here in Pott Row by following Government guidelines with respect to farming and also to planning. The Borough Council have agreed that there is a need for an agricultural worker(s) on the land because of the animals. Now, after illegally making me (but not Karen) bankrupt, the Planners are trying to claim that the farm is not viable. This is nonsense. Hence our calling for a complete investigation into all matters relating to us.

3)      Invitation to the Farm

You continue to be invited to the farm to see for yourself the enormous improvements we have made to the land since it was used as a scrapyard for cars and lorries. We have also been responsible for a significant reduction in crime due to the large number of thefts that were occurring when we initially arrived.

We do hope that you can offer practical solutions to the FDC and the Planning problems, since the time for mere words has long since passed.

4)      Home Secretary and Article 3 – Right to an Investigation

Karen has asked me to remind you that we have written to the Home Secretary informing her that our Article 3 Rights are consistently being abused and that we have insisted upon an Official Investigation. The Law states that an investigation must take place ‘expeditiously’, but to date we have not even heard back from Mrs May. Can you please write to her on our behalf and also on Brian Freeman’s behalf and ask her why we have not been contacted to assist in the investigation, which forms part of the redress available to us (and Brian) when the State has persecuted its citizens.

5)      Brian Freeman

Karen and I wanted you to see the following email, so that you can be in doubt that Brian, just like me, is the victim of a miscarriage of justice which the State continues to persecute him for.

EMAIL FROM HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER

ALASDAIR PALMER,

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Alasdair Palmer <alasdair.palmer@telegraph.co.uk>

August 20, 2012

to Brian Pead <brianpead@googlemail.com>

Dear Brian,

First, I must apologise for taking so long to get back to you. I have a lot of excuses, but none of them are any good, so the best thing I can do is just say sorry.

 Second, I found your material extremely interesting. It is clear to me that you were indeed the victim of an injustice, as you maintain. The trouble is: I have been unable to interest the editor. As I am sure you know, it is enormously difficult to get people fired up about cases of alleged paedophilia which turn out to be based on nothing, or mistakes or inventions. The "no smoke without fire" principle, though fallacious, has a very strong hold on people, including many newspaper editors. I do not say that the editor does not accept you are innocent: I merely report that he does not think the story will interest the newspaper's readers.

 I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. I can't remember whether or not you contacted the solicitor Chris Saltrese, who specialises in these cases and has an impressive record in over-turning wrong convictions in cases of alleged sexual offences involving minors. If you have not done so, you should, because he may be able to help you.

 Thank you again for sharing your material with me.

With best wishes,

Alasdair

As you know, Brian was unlawfully arrested at Ramblewood Farm on 1^st August 2013 and mistreated in handcuffs, in the police van to the PIC and then pulled out of his cell at 4.30am to give an interview about criminal damage to the car allegedly being driven by E.ON meter readers, but who were no doubt undercover police. He was charged with criminal damage 5 hours AFTER I had called 999 and reported criminal damage to my farm gate through the reckless driving of the female in the car as they made a hasty retreat, having been asked to provide, but failing to do so, identification.

Whilst in his cell, the police also charged him with obstructing a police officer in his duty, by saying his name is Brian Freeman, which it is. I have seen his Statutory Declaration and his new driving licence in the name of Brian Freeman and Brian offered to show the police this when he was arrested, but they didn’t bother to accept his invitation.

Then he was charged with failing to report his whereabouts to the Police, but I have a tape recording which proves he told Police exactly where he was living and they said “We have no issues with not knowing where you live.”

Karen and I have seen all the police evidence against Brian in his trial at Southwark Crown Court for the alleged incitement of a child who did not exist. No victim. No CAD Report. No record of the trial. No Unique Reference Numbers on evidence. No witnesses against him.Then, when he complained to Scotland Yard about police corruption, they created three new offences against him including the alleged witness intimidation of his 12 year old grand -daughter (who has never been a witness in any trial or Hearing),. Whilst being kept in prison unlawfully for 7 weeks, he was taken out one morning and found guilty of the harassment of his daughter and grand-children when there was no evidence against him, no witnesses against him, no trial bundle and clearly no case. It was all done to try to psychologically destroy a man who has blown the whistle on child grooming. I will arrange for a copy of FROM HILLSBOROUGH TO LAMBETH to be sent to you, so that you can have all the facts of his innocence. As you know, you have received a copy of FRAMED! which also highlights the corrupt trial at Southwark.

To be honest, Henry, the Government has persecuted Brian even more than Karen and me and it’s all wrong. He is a constituent of yours, and as such needs protection from the State’s agencies, since they continue to interfere with his basic inalienable rights.

Brian has told me that if he is not re-united with his daughter and grand-children by this Christmas, he has arranged for a full expose on his cases and trials and the abuse of children to be made. You have a son, so I am sure you can understand how he feels.

Karen and I are inviting you to meet with Brian at our farm so that he can lay all the evidence before you.

6)      Brian and Lambeth Council

On 16 July 2013, I attended the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London when Master Yoxall attempted to hear 5 cases against Brian brought about by Lambeth Council. They tried to obtain a permanent gagging order on him. Then they claimed that HE was harassing THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. In short, Yoxall did NOT hear the 5 cases.

We reported him to the National Crime Agency on 13 October 2013 for fraud and misconduct in public office.

On 14 November, Brian learnt that his £5m claim against Lambeth for wrongful dismissal had been struck out on the basis that it had ‘no merit’. I have read the 100-page Particulars of Claim and it’s certain that the claim is meritorious. As a barrister, you are invited to read it. If the Claim had no merit, why did Lambeth seek to:

(i)                 Imprison him (but not co-author Michael Bird) for alleged contempt of court?

(ii)               Seek to ban the book FROM HILLSBOROUGH TO LAMBETH?

(iii)             Take down the website <lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com> which was hosted outside of the Jurisdiction of England & Wales?

(iv)             Take down the website www.allaroundjustice.com?

Alex Passman, an award-winning employment lawyer, had told Brian in writing that he had been “set up by Lambeth” and that comment was posted on the LambethChildAbuseAndCoverUp website. If an award-winning employment lawyer had seen that Brian had been “set up” why did his meritorious claim against Lambeth Council get struck out? It is obvious to all those who have seen the paperwork and the book that his claim is genuine. 

7)      RIPA and communications

Through a number of tests, it has become obvious to Karen and me that our communications are being intercepted. By communications, we refer to telephone calls, internet, regular mail and email. Brian is using this address as a postal address and his communications are also being interfered with. In particular, he wrote to Kenny Dalglish, a Director of Liverpool FC, and that communication was intercepted. Please write to Mr Dalglish to check that he did not receive Brian’s letter to him about a post that was uploaded to the Liverpool FC website calling Brian a “convicted sex offender”. He is nothing of the sort.

Karen and I are asking you to write to the Home Secretary about our communications. We have to know if anyone has asked for a RIPA notice on us and on Brian and whether it (they) have been granted.

8)      Stephen Bett

As you will probably know, Mr Bett was on the BBC last week about how he is going to hold the Acting Chief Constable of Norfolk accountable for his actions and those deployed by him. Could you kindly write to him and ask why he is failing to hold the ACC accountable for his persistent refusal to provide the CAD reports for 10 July 2012, 14 August 2012, and two CAD reports for 01 August 2013?

Please also see (9) below.

9)      Private Criminal Prosecutions

We have initiated a number of private criminal prosecutions at the Kings Lynn Magistrates Court.

Without fail, these have all been returned to us without recourse to law.

As you will know, the law allows private citizens to bring private criminal prosecutions and Karen and I and Brian want to do this. We write to the Court with details of those we wish to prosecute, and ask for a date to lay information before Magistrates, but they fail to uphold legal process. Since we have a common law right to prosecute those who have done us harm, can you please write to the Court and ask why our prosecutions are not being dealt with in accordance with the law. We are bringing these Prosecutions under Rule 7.2 of the Criminal Procedures Rules (Crim.P.R.), so it’s not as if we are acting outside of the law (unlike those who have transgressed against us).

10)  Brian at Norwich Crown Court

I went with Brian to the Court last Thursday. He politely asked the Judge (HOLT) if he was acting on his Oath of Office, and the Judge threatened to send him to prison for asking that question! Can you believe it! We would be grateful if you write to the Judge and ask him why he felt he had the authority to act in that way, because he clearly does not. He has the authority to act according to law, but not outside the law. (Those are not my words, but those of Lord Denning.) If he acts outside of the law he is acting outside of his jurisdiction and any decision he/she makes is void ab initio. We’re sure you know all this any way, as a barrister, but we are learning a lot about the law now, too, after we were completely naive before.

11)  Void orders

Speaking of void orders, both Brian and I have informed the Court system that all of its orders against us are void ab initio. That means Brian’s for alleged incitement and the alleged harassment of his daughter and grand-daughter and also mine for the alleged Threats to Kill and the alleged Harassment of Amanda Nudds. On that issue, can you please write to James Morgan and obtain a copy of the telephone conversation I had with Amanda on 14 August 2012? I know that Solicitors record all their calls (for obvious reasons) so we’d appreciate a copy of that conversation.

12)  Brian’s daughter and grand-daughter

 Karen and I have taken a great interest in Brian’s trials, since it is obvious that they are fabricated. In January 2012, he was forced to act as his own barrister and he won his case for an alleged breach of the sexual offences order illegally obtained against him. The case was dropped after a day and a half because the Judge stated on the record that the police had lied and fabricated evidence against him.

Can you kindly write to Brian’s daughter, Sorrel Birch, of 14 Melville Road, Sidcup, Kent DA14 4LX and verify – for the record- that she has never brought a prosecution against her own father?  And that her daughter, Emily Birch, has also not brought a prosecution against her grand-father?

13)  The CPS

Can you also please write to the Director of Public Prosecutions and ask why they have broken their Code for Prosecutors in bringing the bogus cases against Brian (all three current cases) and against me?

Only today I have received information that I am being taken to Court for an alleged Road Traffic Accident which I have never had. It is clearly another distraction created by someone who wants to keep me and Karen busy fighting to clear our names when we really should be fighting those who have committed crimes against us.

Henry, this persecution of me and Karen and Brian must stop now. The Conservatives in Fenland are in potential disarray over their handling of our Judgment legally obtained against them, and the Conservatives in Norfolk are decreasing in numbers on the full Council body in favour of UKIP. All these matters cannot be helping because if nothing else, the taxpayers of both Counties will want to know – and have a right to know – why so many funds and people have been allocated to bringing false claims against Karen, me and Brian.

We understand that there a number of letters you will need to write. Please provide copies of all correspondence for our records.

We look forward to your response.

Regards

Karen and Richard

Kenny Dalglish, Brian Pead and Liverpool Football Club

Mr K.M. Dalglish

Director

Liverpool Football Club

Anfield Road

Liverpool

L4 0TH

10 October 2013

Dear Mr Dalglish,

AN OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO KENNY DALGLISH OF LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB

Firstly, All Around Justice would like to extend its congratulations to you on your appointment as a Director of Liverpool Football Club. This organisation is aware not only of your exploits as a player and manager, but also as an ambassador of the club during the dark days of Hillsborough.

All Around Justice is a small, privately-funded organisation which seeks to overturn miscarriages of justice and to defend the most vulnerable members of society, including a 91 year old woman who was unlawfully evicted from her home by the Council, whose officers also stole more than £1.5m of her antiques and other possessions.

The purpose of this letter is to draw your attention to the plight of an innocent man who may, or may not, be known to you. You are asked to respond as a Liverpool FC Director (with the responsibilities that that role entails), as a human being and as a man who steered the football club through its dark days of Hillsborough and the two decades of police corruption that followed.

The man we wish to bring to your attention is Brian Pead, author of several books on the entire history of Liverpool FC from 1892. He has, in fact, met you on several occasions and you have kindly signed copies of his books for him. Brian has had various forewords to his books written by Billy Liddell, Bob Paisley and Tommy Smith, and undertaken book signing sessions with Mr Smith. He owns the world’s largest private collection of match reports on Liverpool FC.

In 2005, he took on the role as Head Teacher of a Pupil Referral Unit in Lambeth, London. The role provided educational and emotional support to disadvantaged pupils aged between 14 and 16. Brian’s management of the Unit was highly regarded by counselling psychologists with King’s College in London and the pupil referral unit was regarded by them as being “the best in London.”

In November 2006, Brian had cause to dismiss a female South African teacher who was guilty of child grooming, racism and bullying. At this point in his life, Brian was aged 53 and had no criminal record whatsoever and he had never had any allegations made against him in his entire career, including a quarter of a century in teaching.

However, just 3 weeks after dismissing the teacher (who had not been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau), Brian was unlawfully suspended by Lambeth Council officers and not even told the reasons why he was being dismissed—which is an unlawful act in itself.

In April 2007, Brian was replaced as a Head Teacher, despite the fact that he had not even been interviewed regarding his suspension.

On 31 July 2007, Brian was unlawfully dismissed by Lambeth Council.

Between September 2007 and May 2008, Brian was researching into child abuse on a social networking website known as Faceparty.com. He had uncovered an illegal sting operation being used by the police and drew this to their attention. The police then turned his investigation into their illegal activities on to him.

In December 2009, at Southwark Crown Court, Brian was found guilty of a charge of inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual relations. There never was a victim—no such person existed. Brian had   incited no-one. The Police had entirely fabricated the charge. The jury at his unlawful trial had not been sworn in. More than 125 exhibits were not shown in court. Key witnesses as to the fact of Brian’s innocence had not been called. The Court was told that the IT manager of Faceparty had emigrated to Australia whereas he was, in fact, still residing in London. The Court was never told about a computer  belonging to a friend of Brian’s being seized unlawfully by the Police and evidence of Brian’s innocence being wiped off the hard drive by the Police.

The purpose of this Open Letter to you is not to re-live the corrupt trial because that can be found in the enclosed copy of Framed!

Before drawing your attention to how this impacts upon Liverpool Football Club, All Around Justice is compelled to inform you that Brian was sent to prison in September 2011 for the alleged witness intimidation of his 12 year old grand-daughter, who has never been a witness in any trial or Hearing.

Brian was unlawfully held on remand in Belmarsh Prison—a Category ‘A’ prison which was designed to house terrorists and murderers. Notwithstanding that abuse of his human rights, he was continually transferred between Belmarsh and Wandsworth Prisons every 3-4 days in an attempt to (a) psychologically de-stabilise him and (b) prevent friends and family from visiting or contacting him.

This action by agencies of the Government is a clear breach of his Article 3 Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998—‘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 of the rights conferred on citizens by the European Court of Human 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'.

As if all this were not bad enough, Brian was taken one morning from Belmarsh Prison directly to Bexley Magistrates’ Court where he was unlawfully found guilty of the harassment of his daughter and grand-daughter when neither had ever made complaints against him, neither had made a statement against him and neither appeared as witnesses against him. Nor had he ever been charged with harassment, and nor was there a CAD report reporting harassment. There was no Trial bundle.

It had all been an elaborate scam by the Police in order to prevent Brian from communicating with his daughter and pointing out the corruption by the police and judiciary and also to turn Brian’s attention away from exposing the child abuse he uncovered within Lambeth Council.

In March 2013, Brian was unlawfully jailed at Pentonville Prison for a month for alleged Contempt of Court regarding the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth in yet another move to silence him. The book is the subject of a banning order against it.

Furthermore, on 16 July 2013, Lambeth Council employed a highly regarded human rights lawyer (normally advocating free speech) to seek a permanent gagging order on Brian Pead, a man who—at the age of 10 had become mesmerised by the psychological management skills of Bill Shankly and who, at the age of 14, set about the task of uncovering the result of every match played by Liverpool FC from 1892. Three years earlier, the Police had sought a permanent search warrant on his house. Needless to say, neither application was granted but it demonstrates the level of threat that Brian’s research poses to the corrupt police and judiciary.

On 01 August 2013, Brian was arrested by armed police on a friend’s farm when he was offering legal assistance to that friend (also the victim of police and judicial corruption). Brian was charged with criminal damage, even though no evidence of criminal damage has been brought forward.

Whilst in police custody, Brian’s computer was removed—the second time that a computer he had used had been unlawfully removed. The Police are refusing to give it back. On that computer are the names of corrupt police constables, barristers and judges. The offences they are guilty of range from breaches of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to Perverting the Course of Justice to Perjury.

Brian informs All Around Justice that he holds you in high esteem, not for your exploits as a player or manager of Liverpool Football Club, but for the dignified way in which you conducted yourself during the Hillsborough tragedy. You will know, of course, about the Hillsborough Independent Panel and the large number of documents which were created by corrupt officers. Brian has been just such a victim. He was in attendance on 15 April 1989 and saw for himself the mismanagement of high-ranking police officers, who then sought, as you will know, to defame the dead and the dying.

The specific relevance to Liverpool Football Club

Brian’s website <lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com> drew attention to the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth and it gained a number of followers. The book itself drew attention to Brian’s unlawful dismissal by Lambeth which was corroborated by pupils, parents and staff. This differed significantly from the ̔official’ Lambeth Council version, of course, just as the accounts by genuine members of the public at Hillsborough differed from the ̔official’ police accounts (which, in any event, had been doctored by the police as has become evident.)

This followed the unlawful removal by the authorities of the www.allaroundjustice.com website which was created to highlight the police and judicial corruption.

The book from Hillsborough to Lambeth drew attention to police corruption between 1989 and 2013 and Andy Burnham, MP sent a letter commending Brian on his ‘search for justice’ and stating that he “read the book with great interest”.  The same Andy Burnham who helped expose corruption in the Hillsborough tragedy.

Between 1 November 2012 and 7 January 2013, Liverpool Football Club was negligent by allowing defamatory statements to be made about Mr Brian Pead, an author and supporter of Liverpool FC for 50 years.

Liverpool FC allowed a Police constable to post the following comments on its website: “...Convicted Sex offender Brian Pead associating himself with Hillsborough Families...”

It was several hours before the offending post was removed, but in search engines that offending post still remains. Liverpool Football Club is liable for allowing such a defamatory post to be uploaded to its website.

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. As matters now stand, Liverpool FC is complicit in these human rights abuses.

Liverpool Football Club’s responsibilities

It is customary for corporations and companies to deny all responsibility for their wrong-doings: Hillsborough is a prime example. However, All Around Justice will not allow Liverpool FC to abrogate its responsibilities in this matter. The Human Rights of Brian Pead, his daughter and innocent grand-children are being breached by the Club, which had a duty to ensure that defamatory posts could not be uploaded to its website.

It is usual, of course, for major corporations (and even individuals) to allow comments posted by members of the public to be held in a secure ‘holding area’ (i.e. not published directly on to the internet). These comments are then carefully scrutinised and monitored and either uploaded for the world to see via the   medium of the internet, or not uploaded and/ or discarded in a safe manner with no harm caused to any Party (in this case Brian Pead).

Liverpool FC is therefore guilty of negligence, although All Around Jsutice believes that it will deny all responsibility. That being the case, AAJ reserves the right to publicise Liverpool FC’s collusion with police corruption. We believe that this will create significant negative publicity for the Club which will undoubtedly, in our opinion, militate against the goodwill engendered by way of the Hillsborough Disaster and the police corruption highlighted in the Report which is in the public domain.

Furthermore, since Brian Pead’s work highlights police and judicial corruption and in exposing child abuse in its many forms, it could be said that Liverpool FC is complicit in covering up child abuse by aiding and abetting such a cover up.

As a lifelong Liverpool fan for half a century, Brian has informed AAJ that he wishes—wherever possible—to avoid litigation. He is of the belief that this breach of his human rights and this defamation can be resolved through constructive, mature dialogue with all parties sitting ̔round the table’. As a qualified therapist, Brian is always amenable to talking issues through before resorting to litigation.

AAJ is therefore requesting that you Chair such a meeting, since we believe that you will be fair–minded and a valid ambassador for the good name of Liverpool Football Club, as well as being able to call upon your experience of Hillsborough.

AAJ believes that it would be helpful to provide you with what might be properly regarded as 'agenda items' for such a meeting:

By way of remedy for the negligent acts and breaches of duty of care by Liverpool Football Club, Mr Pead is seeking the following:

• a full and unreserved apology on the Liverpool Football Club website to be published in perpetuity

• the terminology to be approved by Mr Pead and his advisors

• a full and unreserved apology in the Liverpool Football Club matchday programme for the remainder of this season [2012-13 and all of next season 2013-14]

• the terminology to be approved by Mr Pead and his advisors

• a donation to the families of Hillsborough

• compensation for psychological injury [payable to the families of the Hillsborough tragedy]

• aggravated damages [payable to the families of the Hillsborough tragedy]

• compensation for Mr Pead’s time in dealing with this matter [payable to the families of the    Hillsborough tragedy]

• all disbursements and travel expenses met by Liverpool FC

It is hoped that you will respond positively to our legitimate and reasonable requests for justice. You, perhaps more than anyone else currently at Liverpool FC, will know that the Sun newspaper ran a headline entitled THE TRUTH many years before it ran the headline THE REAL TRUTH.

Mr Dalglish, All Around Justice—just like the Hillsborough families—will not rest until THE REAL TRUTH about Brian Pead is put into the public domain.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Fulcher

All Around Justice

01485 601516

Enclosures:                  

Manuscript of Framed!                                                                       

Screenshots from <www.brianpeadisinnocent.com>

Screenshot from Liverpool FC website                      

Screenshots from <lambethchildabuseandcoverup.com>

Letter from Andy Burnham dated 30 November 2012                     

Richard Fulcher, part 13

PUBLICATION OF FROM HILLSBOROUGH TO LAMBETH

12 November 2012

1.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Brian Pead co-wrote a book entitled from Hillsborough to Lambeth with Michael Bird and that it was officially published on 12 October 2012 by Invenire Press.

2.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the book exposed unlawful activity in Lambeth Council which included the wrongful dismissal of Brian Pead and the exposure of child abuse in Lambeth, which went unreported by Council officers.

3.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that former pupils at the Pupil Referral Unit run by Brian Pead (known as the Open Learning Centre for Vocational Studies) have stated that the book is an accurate record of events.

4.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that parents of former pupils at the Pupil Referral Unit run by Brian Pead have stated that the book is an accurate record of events.

5.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the book was offered for sale on www.Amazon.com

6.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the book was unlawfully removed from that website by the authorities.

BRIAN PEAD’S CLAIM –v- LAMBETH COUNCIL

8 January 2013

7.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Brian Pead initiated a claim against Lambeth Council on the following grounds: The Tort of Negligence; Defamation; Unlawful dismissal; Breaches of Employment Law; Breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998; Breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; Breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998; Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice; Breaches of the Theft Act 1968; Breaches of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, Misconduct in Public Office, Perverting the Course of Justice; Perjury, Fraudulent Misrepresentation.

8.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Mr Pead’s claim against Lambeth Council and its officers consisted of more than 100 pages of incontrovertible evidence of negligence and other torts and even crimes.

9.            From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the claim is a genuine claim based on bona fide evidence, including the witness statements of former pupils and parents of former pupils, together with a statement made by an Employment Law specialist, Alex Passman.

DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST BRIAN PEAD

January 2013

10.       On 10 January 2013, Brian Pead and Michael Bird received a letter from Pinsent Masons, a law firm purporting to represent Lambeth Council and its officers.

11.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Pinsent Masons failed to provide a Form of Authority (or Instruction) which would prove that Cathy Twist and Phyllis Dunipace had, in fact, instructed Pinsent Masons to act on their behalf.

12.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that this evidence does not exist. Disclosure was sought – disclosure has been rejected.

13.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Pinsent Masons failed to inform the publishers, Invenire Press, that they were bringing a claim of Defamation and in such instances it is my belief that the Publisher, not the Author, will be the recipient of any law suit against it.

14.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that this was a ruse by the authorities to create a reason to later send Mr Pead to prison for Contempt of Court.

15.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the letter threatened legal action against both authors for defamation against Cathy Twist (an officer of Lambeth Council) and Phyllis Dunipace, OBE (a former Head of Children’s Services in Lambeth).

16.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the authors strenuously denied the allegation of defamation.

17.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Michael Bird wanted a trial at the High Court before a jury on the grounds of Defamation.

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOLS IN DEFAMATION CASE

January 2013

18.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Pinsent Masons breached all the rules of pre-action protocol in cases of Defamation.

19.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Brian Pead brought this to the attention of Pinsent Masons, as is required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

20.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that Brian Pead discussed this with Michael Bird.

21.       From evidence that I have seen, I believe that the two authors agreed that Brian would inform Pinsent Masons of their breaches of pre-action protocols.

Richard Fulcher, part 10

CHARTER CHAMBERS

26 November 2009

1.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Pead attended the offices of Dominic Bell on 26 November 2009.

2.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Bell convinced Mr Pead to enter a Defence Statement which consisted of just 6 (six) one-line paragraphs in defence of two criminal trials after Mr pead had written 114 pages in his defence.

3.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Angela Shaw (then of AA Mirsons) was complicit in allowing such a poor defence statement to be entered into court.

4.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Pead was too ill to attend trial because he was missing his daughter and his grand-children.

5.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Bell forced his client to attend the trial when his client was not in a fit state emotionally to attend the trial.

6.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Angela Shaw was present when counsel forced his client to attend the trial.

7.            I believe that this makes her complicit in perverting the course of justice.

8.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Bell deliberately entered a short defence (to TWO criminal trials) into court in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

9.            From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Pead actually wrote more than 114 pages in his defence but that neither Miss Shaw nor Mr Bell used that material that their client had given to them.

10.       From evidence that I have seen I believe that Mr Geoffrey Bacon has stated that DC Julia Godfrey and DS Jason Tunn unlawfully seized a computer from his bedroom on 31 July 2008.

11.       I believe from evidence that I have seen that Neil Guest, a barrister, is also from Charter Chambers and that the Chambers is in itself acting inappropriately and perverting the course of justice in criminal trials.

12.       I am calling for a thorough and robust investigation into the activities of Charter Chambers to the criminal standard.

SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT –

December 2009

13.       From contributing as an author to the book entitled FRAMED!, I have seen a significant amount of evidence which shows that Brian Pead was innocent of the charge of Incitement against a female under the age of 16 who did not even exist.

14.       From a thorough examination of the evidence in the case, I now make the following statements:

15.       It is my belief that Dominic Bell (of 1 Inner Temple Lane Chambers and formerly of Charter chambers) conspired and perverted the course of justice.

16.       I believe that he deceived the Court.

17.       I believe that he deceived his Client.

18.       I believe that Mr Bell failed to adduce more than 125 exhibits which would have demonstrated his client’s innocence.

19.       I believe that Mr Bell failed to call key witnesses as to fact.

20.       One such key witness was Geoffrey Bacon, a man of great integrity and who had been cleared by the Home office to work in police, royal and government institutions.

21.       I believe that the prosecutor, Timothy Forster (Furnival Chambers), was complicit in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and that he did, in fact, pervert the course of justice.

22.       I believe that the following police officers in the case committed perjury, perverted the course of justice, embarked upon a course of conduct that amounts to misconduct in public office and made false representations: DC Julia Godfrey, DS Jason Tunn, DC Rebecca Hall, PC Jane Sargeant, DC Robbie and DS Saib.

23.       I believe that Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith perverted the course of justice by pretending that there was a trial on 23 December 2009 (after the legal term had finished); that he put a jury under duress, that he allowed a jury not to be sworn in in accordance with the law, that he failed to allow the defendant to adduce evidence into court showing demonstrable police corruption.

24.       I believe that Nicola Noone of Off Centre Counselling Service in Hackney perverted the course of justice at the trial.

25.       I believe that Maya Walker of  Off Centre Counselling Service in Hackney perverted the course of justice by failing to provide evidence to the court that she had attended staff training on the topic of child sexual abuse taken by Brian Pead in his role as a counsellor with Off Centre.

26.       I believe that Angela Shaw, a solicitor of AA Mirsons (now of Leslie Franks), conspired to pervert the course of justice and that she did pervert the course of justice.

27.       I believe that the email sent to Brian Pead by Alasdair Palmer of the Daily Telegraph on 20 August 2012 is a bona fide copy. The email states: “...It is clear to me that you were indeed the victim of an injustice...”

28.       I believe that the Affidavit of Michael Bird – a witness at the trial and also a member of the public during the trial – is a true account of the unlawful trial.

29.       I believe that Mr Bell subsequently harassed Mr Pead in June and July 2013 by calling his personal mobile when he had never been provided with the number.

30.       I also believe that Mr Bell was intimidating a prospective witness against him when he called Mr Pead on his mobile phone.