Response to Henry Bellingham, MP

Darby Farm
115 Leziate Drove
Pott Row
King’s Lynn
PE32 1DE

27 December 2014

Henry Bellingham, MP
House of Commons

Dear Mr Bellingham,

I refer to your letter dated 18 December 2014 but not received by me until 24 December 2014.

Let me say straightaway that your letter contained a number of inaccurate statements which I will correct in this letter.

1. Thank you for posting a birthday card to my daughter, Sorrel Birch, and my granddaughter, Emily Birch, and Christmas cards to the entire family, including my son-in-law, Paul Birch, my granddaughter Lauren Birch, and also grandson, Joseph Birch.
2. As you will know, there is no lawful or legal reason why I should not have posted these myself, apart from the bogus Restraining Order put against me on 01 November 2011.
3. As you have been informed in various documentation I have sent to you and placed in your hands at Surgery meetings, I was unlawfully found guilty of the Harassment of my daughter and granddaughter Emily at Bexley Magistrates’ Court on 01 November 2011.
4. For the avoidance of doubt (and as we discussed on 09 October 2014 at your London Road surgery with witnesses present), you were informed that neither my daughter nor granddaughter had appeared in Court against me and neither had made statements against me.
5. You quite rightly stated that the decision of the Court was “clearly deeply flawed”. (This statement applicable to you was put in the Minutes I handed to your P.A. and which have not been rebutted. They therefore stand in law.)
6. As a barrister, you will know that the Magistrate made an error and in making an error, he went outside of the jurisdiction of the Court. I have previously referred you to the excellent work of Lord Denning who stated in his book The Discipline of Law that: “…(any tribunal, court or public authority) which falls into an error […] does exceed its jurisdiction and I am quite clear that at the same time it falls into an error of law too: for the simple reason that it has ‘not determined according to law’…”
7. Denning added: “…If it went wrong in law, it went outside the jurisdiction conferred on it. Its decision was therefore void. It had jurisdiction to decide or act rightly but no jurisdiction to decide or act wrongly…”
8. Furthermore, Lord Denning has stated: “…It is beyond doubt that, if a tribunal, court or public authority fails to observe the rules of natural justice, or is biased – its decision is a nullity and void; and it can be quashed on certiorari; or declared void by a declaration to that effect…”
9. As I have previously informed you (both verbally and in writing), there is no valid Restraining Order against me whatsoever.
10. Furthermore, Lord Denning also declared that any order of the Court which was clearly made in error has no legal standing and that it is void from the beginning.
11. As a barrister, you will know of this.
12. However, since the Police have an illegal propensity to arrest me on a whim (to deflect me away from my exposing their corrupt activities), I asked your PA if she would be kind enough to post the cards to my family members so that your office would act as a “go between” until the Police finally accept that they are acting outside of the Rule of Law by claiming that an unlawful Order of the Court is lawful.
13. For the avoidance of doubt, your office sent these cards on to my family when you were in full possession of the facts of the case about the unlawful Restraining Order.

The forthcoming case in the Inner London Crown Court listed for 12 January 2015
14. Despite your claims to the contrary, I believe that under the Rule of Law I had every right to call you as a witness since – as a barrister – you had clearly seen that the conviction obtained by the CPS on 01 November 2011 was “clearly deeply flawed”.
15. Although you claim – and have previously claimed – that politicians do not “interfere in the judicial process”, I point you in the direction of David Cameron and the case of Aysha King.
16. For the avoidance of doubt, the Washington Post wrote of the Aysha King affair: “…Even Prime Minister David Cameron entered the fray, coming down on the side of the Kings and calling for the prosecution to be dropped. “It’s important this little boy gets treatment & the love of his family,” Cameron tweeted on Tuesday, shortly before the Kings were released…”
17. How is it, then, that Mr Cameron has gone on the public record in respect of Aysha King needing the love and support of his family, but not my grandchildren?
18. How is it, then, that Mr Cameron called for the prosecution to be dropped and has not yet called for mine to be dropped?
19. His Honour Judge Mark Bishop has no legal authority to deny me any witness (including yourself) in the pursuance of Justice.
20. For the avoidance of doubt, I am informing you ahead of the act itself that HHJ Bishop has committed an error and you have an opportunity to write to him to ensure that a further miscarriage of Justice does not take place.
21. You declare on the one hand that MPs cannot interfere in the course of justice and then attempt to rebuke me for not informing you ahead of my issuing a witness summons seeking your attendance at Court.
22. For the avoidance of doubt, I did not contact you to warn you (as you state you would have liked) because it would have given you an unfair advantage that other witnesses did not have when I issued summonses against them. I feel certain that you would not have wished to have gained an unfair advantage simply because of your position as an elected representative of the people of Northwest Norfolk.

Constantly changing legal cases against me
23. You are right to state that you are concerned about the constantly changing cases against me and that as soon as you are “up to speed” on the situation, others come along.
24. You have been, of course, invited to write to the Director of Public Prosecutions and also to the Attorney General and to the Home Secretary about these matters, but I note that it is over a year since I first informed you of the situation and no letters have yet been written (that I have been privy to).
25. For the avoidance of doubt, I issued (along with others) an Official Complaint under Article 3 of ECHR against HM Government (which you are well aware of) and to date you have failed to act as an Intermediary between myself and the Home Secretary, as you offered almost 12 months ago.
26. For the avoidance of doubt, the Harassment case and the Impersonating a Barrister case have no legal merit and the CPS have been invited by me to withdraw, but they persist in their persecution.
27. You have been invited to write to the CPS to inquire as to the cost to the taxpayer of these farcical prosecutions.
28. For the avoidance of doubt, the CPS claims that I sent a card to the school attended by both of my granddaughters. This apparently caused my elder granddaughter “alarm and distress” but not the other.
29. This would be my granddaughter, Emily Birch, whom the Police used as a decoy in order to have me illegally imprisoned in September 2011 on a bogus charge of witness intimidation. For the record, Emily – then aged 12 – had never been a witness in any case (and I believe it to be true that she has not been a witness in any case since 2011.)
30. Should you wish to assure yourself that the previous statement is true, please write to my daughter (and copying me into the correspondence) asking her whether her eldest child has ever been a witness in any case.
31. Further for the avoidance of doubt, the elder granddaughter allegedly was so distraught that she had to be comforted by her Form Tutor (and her Head of Year would have been informed and also the Head Teacher.) This is normal school protocol.
32. The Crown further alleges that my granddaughter took the card home to my daughter and that my daughter told her to take it back to the school. This is a nonsensical narrative.
33. Nonetheless, it is obvious that any defence counsel would wish to call my daughter, my other granddaughter, the teacher, the Head of Year and the Head Teacher in order that justice could not only be done but also be seen to be done.
34. It is evident, therefore, that HHJ Bishop has acted outside of the law.
35. Furthermore, I inform you that the Crown has failed to provide full Disclosure in a further abuse of process.

The Impersonating a Barrister case
36. As a barrister, you will know that a barrister represents another person in a Court of law.
37. As a barrister you will know that a barrister wears a wig.
38. As a barrister you will know that a barrister wears a gown.
39. I have done none of these things.
40. Indeed, the most I have ever done is act as a McKenzie Friend for Richard Fulcher as you are aware since both he and I have written to you to inform you of this on several occasions.
41. Indeed, Mr Fulcher wrote to you on several occasions complaining about a District Judge Rutland, whom Mr Fulcher believed had declared him bankrupt without recourse to the Rule of Law.
42. You have been invited to write to the CPS to ask why it persists in wasting public funds on such nonsense.
43. (I am fully aware that these cases have been brought to:
(a) ghost me around the prison service (of which you are aware);
(b) cause me to remain on police bail indeterminately; and
(c) cause me to be a prisoner in my own home.)

Four miscarriages of justice
44. You make mention of these in your letter but appear to imply that you do not have sufficient information about them. I refute that implication because you have been furnished with a wealth of data on my cases including – but not limited to – documents; letters; information memoranda; the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth; the book FRAMED!; various PDF files and other such documentary evidence.
45. Indeed, with regard to the conviction for criminal damage against a car purportedly belonging to EON, I note that you have communicated with David Bird, a director of EON on behalf of Robert Ecclestone over a £500 bill, yet you have not communicated with Mr Bird over insisting that he provides proof of the people driving the car, that the car was owned by EON (as it claims) and other such basic information.
46. It is regrettable to note that you have taken the trouble to write about an erroneously-issued bill and yet when a man’s liberty is at stake you do not write.

Your Claim to Assist
47. On three separate occasions now you have claimed to be willing to assist me in my fight for justice. However, this appears to me mere empty rhetoric when set against the fact that you have not written to a single third party on my behalf since I first made you aware of my situation over 12 months ago.
48. For the avoidance of doubt, the Information Memorandum that you were provided with in May 2014 asked you to write to the following:
the Attorney General;
the Lord Chief Justice;
the Director of Public Prosecutions;
the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court;
the Independent Police Complaints Commission;
the Professional Standards Department at Scotland Yard;
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service;
Bexley Magistrates’ Court;
Southwark Crown Court;
Lambeth Council;
the Employment Appeals Tribunal;
Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll;
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon;
James Brokenshire MP;
James Duddridge MP;
the Home Secretary;
Bexley Social Services;
Detective Sergeant Stuart;
the University of Greenwich;
Kim Everett of the University of Greenwich;
Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty Human Rights;
the British Deposit Library;
the charity Off Centre in Hackney;
law firm Nelson Guest and Partners, Sidcup;
law firm AA Mirsons, London;
the Inner Temple;
law firm Charter Chambers, London;
law firm Brady, Eastwood, Pierce and Stewart, London;
law firm Jerman, Simpson, Pearson and Samuels, Southend-on-Sea;
law firm WellsBurcombe, West Drayton, Middlesex;
the Chambers of William Clegg QC, 2 Bedford Row, London;
law firm Pinsent Masons;
internet service provider UK2Net;
energy giant EON;
Kenny Dalglish;
Liverpool Football Club;
Foyles Books;
Downing Street Honours Committee;
Alex Passman, employment law specialist;
Alasdair Palmer, human rights journalist Daily Telegraph;
Simon Bailey, Chief Constable, Norfolk;
HM the Queen
49. For the avoidance of doubt, to date you have not written a single letter or asked a single question to ensure justice for me.
50. I feel certain that – since I am fully compos mentis (despite the police trying to section me under the Mental Health Act) – you will understand that I cannot give much credence to your claims that you are trying to assist me in my quest for justice. Only an idiot would give credence to mere rhetoric when compared with hard facts and the facts show you have not actually done anything to achieve the justice your training as a barrister knows I am entitled to.
51. When I met you after my release from illegal incarceration, you said that you would write to the Ministry of Justice and ask why I was moved between 10 prisons in just 12 weeks. Since I have never seen a copy of that letter, I can only realistically assume that you have not written it.
52. Whilst you state in your letter that you “have always prided myself on being as fair as possible to constituents in their time of need,” I think you will understand why I find it immensely difficult to give your undertakings any credence.
53. You state that I ought to seek “the right legal advice”. I have done this on a number of occasions and every time the solicitor/ barrister is only too happy to take on my case, but then fail to call me back or immediately become involved in yet another abuse of process. It is evident to an intelligent person that they have been “spoken to” by the Home Office, no doubt in connection with my banned book on child abuse in Lambeth.

My letter dated 08 December 2014
54. With regard to my request for you to ask questions about my persecution by the State during Prime Minister’s Questions, I must rebut your claim that you do not know enough about my index offence – the alleged Incitement of a 14-year-old girl at Southwark Crown Court in 2009.
55. You have been informed about this case on several occasions – both verbally (with witnesses present) and in writing.
56. For the avoidance of doubt, your training as a barrister will allow you to interpret the legislation around Incitement – that Person A must incite Person B. The law is very clear in this regard and since there never was a Person B, I cannot be guilty of that offence.
57. For the avoidance of doubt, the trial judge – Nicholas Loraine-Smith – informed a juror that I could not be found guilty if there never was a victim (she had asked the question prior to retiring).
58. You have also been informed that there were a serious number of abuses of process in that trial and many have been written about in my book FRAMED! and from Hillsborough to Lambeth
59. I do not accept your claim that you have insufficient evidence with regard to this or any other of my cases and/or miscarriages of justice.
60. Since I am – as you know – currently writing a book on the Tony Martin case, I am aware of your interventions in that matter. However, the point has to be made that that case was a national cause célèbre and mine are not due to the embargo in the media. I (and others) have noted that negative comments are printed about me, but never the truth or positive comments.
61. On this point, I (and others) have run several tests recently which show that all forms of my communications are continuing to be interfered with. Please write to the Home Secretary and ask her to provide a bona fide copy of the Warrant obtained under RIPA.
62. Please also write to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to ask why such a Warrant was obtained against me, an innocent man.
63. You state that you work hard for constituents when you have “got to know them well”. Apart from the negative implications of such a statement – which I will set aside – I have made many attempts to meet with you since October and they have always been rejected. You are always welcome to meet with me where I can further lay before you evidence of miscarriages of justice.

Ongoing cases
64. It has been suggested to me by right-minded adults that the reason the State continues to pursue these farcical cases against me is to:
(a) provide the public with the appearance that I am justifiably imprisoned (when the reality is that I have been illegally imprisoned on 3 separate occasions);
(b) to imprison me so that I can be further alienated from my family;
(c) imprison me so that I can then be “justifiably” ghosted again when the Impersonating a Barrister trial is heard in May;
(d) further disrupt my life;
(e) further disrupt my work in exposing child abuse and my other writing.
65. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not expect you to agree with (64) above. They are, however, the reasonable assumptions (given the history of this entire case since I exposed child abuse in 2006) made by adults whose mental well-being cannot be called into question.

66. I continue to attempt to find a first-class solicitor but even that recommended to me by no less than Baroness Lawrence herself chose to be “too busy” to take on my case. As a former barrister, you will know that being too busy is merely a euphemism for not wanting to take the case.
67. I continue to seek a meeting with you.
68. I continue to fight for justice (as perceived by me in accordance with the Rule of Law.)
69. I continue to fight for the Rights of my daughter and my beloved grandchildren, whom are innocent parties to this persecution created by agencies of State.
70. My Official Complaint to HM Government issued on 31 December 2014 is still active. I await to be called to provide information to the investigation into my cases.
71. For the avoidance of doubt, resolution to these matters will come when:
(i) my unlawful convictions are quashed (all of them);
(ii) the State compensates me for the detriment it has caused;
(iii) my daughter and grandchildren learn the truth and acknowledge it to my face;
(iv) my Right to be Forgotten is invoked to my satisfaction.
72. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking for anything that is outside of the Rule of Law.

73. Please note that you feature in my 12th book – 10 Prisons 12 Weeks. Copies are available at £14.99

Yours sincerely,
W. Brian Freeman (formerly known as Brian Pead)
0756 400 2493

© Lambeth Child Abuse and 2013

© 2014

In: Latest news

Still quiet

Leave a Response