Documenting Legal Aid Misuse in Child Placement Orders

Public Information Officer
Federal Bureau of Investigations
U.S. Department of Justice
O: (540) 868-4593
Email: foipaquestions@fbi.gov

To: laacounterfraud@justice.gov.uk
Cc: HMCTScounterfraud@justice.gov.uk;
Date: 2025-09-25
Subject: Response to Request for Further Information – Legal Aid Fraud Concerns

Dear Duty Officer,

Thank you for your email of 22 September 2025. You asked me to provide further particulars about the Legal Aid concerns I have raised. I now enclose documentary evidence, including an A52 Application for Revocation of Placement Order (Hastings Family Court, 2 December 2024), which demonstrates how Legal Aid funding was improperly obtained in relation to proceedings that were fraudulent and without jurisdiction.

Concern 1 – Hastings Family Court / Emily Newbold Smith

Provider/Solicitor: Eversheds Sutherland, instructed by Nationwide Building Society.
Case Reference: A52 Application for Revocation of Placement Order (Emily Newbold Smith).
Details:
- The placement order was made on the basis that Emily was in Northern Ireland. She was never there, as confirmed by later documentation (including OPONI responses).
- The A52 revocation filing (attached) sets out in detail the fabricated genogram (19/08/2010) and false reports introduced by Andrea Weddel and others under the direction of Matthew Dunkley (Director of Children’s Services).
- N208-eng Emily Newbold Smith.pdf habeas Corpus
- Legal Aid was claimed to support proceedings founded entirely on misrepresentation of jurisdiction. The court itself had no lawful basis to act.

Concern 2 – Money Court / Civil Claim 640MC413

Provider/Solicitor: Eversheds Sutherland on behalf of Nationwide Building Society.
Case Reference: 640MC413 (Online Civil Money Claim).
Details:
- The “Money Court” accepted Legal Aid payments despite providing no valid service. The matter was simply transferred away without judicial determination.
- The Defendant’s solicitors served me a pre-filled, pre-signed transfer form in August 2025, instructing me to submit it. This was done in place of responding to a Writ of Habeas Corpus Litum which required them to bring Emily before the court.
- No sealed order, no judicial name, no lawful submission — yet Legal Aid funding was nevertheless claimed.

Concern 3 — Hastings Family Court / Residence Claim

Case Reference:
- Case HB10C00055 (2011, Judge Hollis)
Provider? Solicitor :
- Mr Mike Gratton, Morgan & Lamplugh, 12 Wellington Square, Hastings TN34 1PB ( not any longer in practice shut down.)

Details
- In 2011, Judge Hollis acted without jurisdiction by ordering the relocation of my daughter to Northern Ireland. This breached the Children Act 1989 (England) and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, both of which set statutory limits that a child must not be placed more than 50 miles from their family home except in exceptional circumstances.
- No such exceptional grounds were demonstrated. The relocation order was unlawful on its face. It is now evidenced beyond dispute that my daughter was never present in Northern Ireland, rendering the order both procedurally defective and factually impossible to implement.
- The use of public funds — including Legal Aid fees — in support of this unlawful placement constituted a misuse of taxpayer resources. It also deprived me of proper remedy through the courts, since proceedings were advanced on a jurisdictional fiction.
- Two statutory regimes were breached and the order was “a nullity on its face

Why this matters

The logic is identical to the Treasury’s missing ledgers and the court’s missing children:

A proceeding without a judge.
A document without a seal.
A defence without a submission.

All of these constitute fraudulent appearance of authority, funded by Legal Aid under false pretence.

Request

I therefore ask the Counter Fraud & Investigations Team to:

Investigate the Legal Aid claims made in relation to these three matters (Emily’s placement order and Claim 640MC413) HB10C00055
“investigate/confirm/strike out”, also request refund/recovery of public funds and referral
Confirm whether Eversheds Sutherland or any related providers drew down Legal Aid certificates for these matters.
Strike out or rescind any claims where Legal Aid was fraudulently claimed in absence of lawful jurisdiction.

Evidential Enclosures:

A52 Application for Revocation of Placement Order (Hastings Family Court, 2 December 2024).
N208-eng Emily Newbold Smith.pdf (105K)
[Optionally I can attach supporting correspondence already submitted: Nationwide/Eversheds letters, OPONI SAR response, Money Court filings].
2024-12-02- A52 Emily Newbold Smith revocation.pdf (2,135K)
Application_Form_ENG EHCR.pdf (318K)
2024-11-18 – STATEMENT to Strasburg EHCR – Read me First.pdf (81K)
List of Documents Lodged with the European Court of Human Rights.docx (37K)
2024-11-09 – LGO list of files sent to EHCR.pdf (63K)
Complaint Sent to Intelligence.co.uk.pdf(1,052K)
2024-12-20 – N16A General form of application for injunction (05.14).pdf (389K)
2024-08-12@0251PM – Email – WRIT 1st Request Re_ Subject access request (ref_ 19567481) Habeas Corpus Ad Judice.pdf (1,170K)
2024-11-13@0845AM – Email – WRIT Re_ Subject access request (ref_ 19567481) Habeas Corpus Ad Judice.pdf (1,199K)
2024-08-13@0908AM – Email – WRIT Re_ Subject access request (ref_ 19567481) Habeas Corpus Ad Judice.pdf (1,210K)
2024-08-13@1129AM WRIT Email – Re_ Subject access request (ref_ 19567481) Habeas Corpus Ad Judice.pdf (1,219K)
2025-05-26 – Witness Statement Martin Newbold.pdf(302K)

Additional Context – Political Misrepresentation
On 18 September 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated publicly at Chequers (standing alongside President Donald Trump):

“I draw a limit between free speech and the speech of those that want to peddle paedophilia and suicide … to children.”

This remark, broadcast internationally, was used to conflate legitimate grievances and documentary evidence raised by families (including my own) with the criminal exploitation of children. It has the effect of chilling oversight, misrepresenting victims, and shielding fraudulent conduct from scrutiny under the guise of protecting children.

When such a statement is made at the highest level of government, in front of a U.S. President, it is no longer a domestic matter. It becomes an international one: the UK Government presenting false narratives about children and safeguarding to its allies. This makes FBI interest a matter of reciprocity, especially where U.S. records (e.g., Clinton Library, Epstein flight manifests) are directly tied into the unanswered questions about missing children and misused public funds.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Newbold

thestealingofemily.co.uk