Subject: OPERATION DUNHAM THE ULTRANET SCANDAL AND THE PERSON CAUSING MISERY IN EAST SUSSEX, NORFOLK AND KENT 

Re: CAS-7983833-X1C1C9

Police Reference: 50239746-2024
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Operation Dunham and the Ultranet Scandal
Action Fraud Case: 8872649, NFRC241207046189, REF20147,  Allegation DPR202401619
Serious Fraud Office References: c98c91180d570dc [Official] – ,  Allegation DPR202401619,
Serious Fraud Office References:   5e118dc08da84da [Official]
ICO Complaint Reference: IC-337307-W2B4

NICCY: NICCKY09-24-01

Dear Adam May,

I am writing to address the completely unacceptable and defamatory remarks made by Anita Cundal of East Sussex County Council. These comments, which reference historical allegations, are not only baseless but have been inexplicably resurrected in 2024. There is no justification or evidence to support these claims, and no factual assessment or investigation has been conducted by social services to substantiate them.

I demand an immediate retraction of these comments, as they are not only false but also damaging to my reputation and well-being. The spreading of unverified and harmful statements cannot be tolerated, particularly when they involve no recent or credible evidence.

This matter is of grave concern, and I expect your prompt response in order to resolve this issue. The failure to address this situation adequately may require further legal action.

For clarity:

• Social services have never conducted any assessment or investigation into my case. It would be impossible to do as my daughter Emily has been wrongly and illegally placed in Northern Ireland for 14 years. 
• How does Anita Cundal think this social services assessment has been done 500 miles away? 
• There has been one LAC review in fourteen years (Cite: https://youtu.be/c2VpxRmBTPE?si=phVVH8uwwfTjMBY5)
• There has been illegal Closed Material Procedures ‘Secret Courts’ Paperback ISBN 978-1-66640-432-6  in Family Law
• My daughter went missing in 2016 on her social media, feared to be another Madaline McCann.
• Over the past 14 years, I have gathered substantial evidence of East Sussex Council wrongdoing, including fabricated reports and systemic failures, all of which are well documented.
• Complaints in Northern Ireland have been ignored, including 18 Signed for  letters to NICCY asking them to sit down with my daughter and one complaint  ignoring  DNA evidence (Cite: https://youtu.be/m9_dwbosPD0?si=YBaTwYnKtlzMPuDy)

It is unacceptable that Anita Cundal has perpetuated inaccuracies and falsehoods with no legitimate basis. Specifically:

1. Anita Cundal referenced allegations without evidence, misrepresenting historical issues and distorting the truth.
2. Anita Cundal failed to acknowledge the responsibility of social services in fabricating reports, which has led to significant harm and injustice.

Additionally, I demand you address the following serious matters:

• How do you intend to explain to my daughter, Emily, the circumstances of her mother’s death, given that East Sussex Council’s actions contributed to this tragedy and were concealed through omissions in the coroner’s report?
• Why was critical information regarding Emily’s mother’s death withheld, and why was no family member informed that her ashes were destroyed after being retained far beyond the standard period?

To reiterate:

• The reference to “Peters” as one of Emily’s mother’s aliases put in place by social workers was false and misleading.
• The correct reference to L’s father is Mr. Cunningham of Reading.
• Miss L. Cunningham—wrongly identified under the name Miss L. Keenan—has a brother and sister (Paige and Daniel Cunningham) as well as a half-sister, Emily Newbold.
• These inaccuracies were further compounded by forged paperwork in the General Register Office (GRO) by your social workers. Had the judge been presented with correct facts instead of fabricated social work reports, this atrocity could have been prevented.

Furthermore, I must highlight that:

• The social services genogram you provided misrepresents family relationships and omits key facts regarding L’s background.
• Child L was not born in Northern Ireland, as falsely stated in court on geogram, but is the result of a relationship between her mother and Mr. Cunningham. Efforts to notify Reading authorities of L’s relocation were deliberately mishandled and ignored. As such, this presents a situation as making false statements, or lying, in a witness statement as well as other documents can cross the custody threshold for contempt of court.
• It is a fact that Malibu Dallas tells us on Twitter that a judge must act within his jurisdiction regarding the subject matter, or he/she will lose immunity from civil actions for such acts. This principle was established in Davis v. Burris, 220 Ariz., 75 P.2d When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with the jurisdictional requisites, he may still be held liable for abuse of process, even if he believed in good faith that he had jurisdiction, as discussed in Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So.2d 697. Now, you might ask, how does a judge lose his jurisdiction? This can happen when, for example, a CPS worker files an affidavit. By law, the worker must submit a truthful declaration, but often, these affidavits include facts of which the worker has no firsthand knowledge. When a CPS worker submits such a false affidavit under penalty of perjury, she/he commits fraud upon the court—a felony. If a judge creates a court order based on that fraudulent affidavit, the judge has also committed a felony. When fraud is committed upon the court, both the judge and the court lose subject matter jurisdiction, opening the judge to liability and the possibility of being sued for fraudulent acts.
  
  Anyone attempting to enforce an illegal court order is, in effect, committing an act of violence against me.

East Sussex actions breach multiple legal and ethical obligations, including:

1. The Children Act 1989 (Section 22C(9)(b)) and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Article 27), which clearly state that a child must not be relocated more than 50 miles from their home. Despite this, both Emily and L were moved approximately 500 miles, in clear violation of these laws.
2. The ongoing systemic failures mirror the tragic history of abuse and neglect in Ireland’s institutional care system, where 8,000 children are taken into care annually.

Additionally, there is compelling evidence that social workers were asked to fabricate reports, as revealed in a Daily Mail article by Ted Jeory (December 11, 2011). This aligns with detailed accounts from individuals such as C.M., who confirmed being pressured to “sex up” dossiers to justify unjust removals.

Finally, I demand clarification on how these serious breaches—including European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) violations—will be addressed:

• Article 6: The right to a fair trial.
• Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life.
• Article 14: The prohibition of discrimination.

Given the gravity of these issues, I expect the following actions:

1. An immediate written retraction of your defamatory and inaccurate comments.
2. A formal acknowledgment of the factual corrections outlined above.
3. A detailed response addressing the systemic failures and breaches of law identified.

Failure to comply with this request will result in further escalation to legal authorities, regulatory bodies, and relevant governmental representatives. I will also have no choice but to contact the Cunningham family directly to inform them of these nefarious actions.

I look forward to your immediate response.

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold