Page 2

Call this a rough draft if you like , towards creating a cohesive narrative for submission. Most of the details you would know. I wont be surprised if your eyes and mind remain firmly closed in denial. A question that needs answering: How long were you of the belief that I was mentally ill? It appears you have tried to make a case on several occasions, to get me sectioned on psychiatric grounds. Each time it was recorded that you do not wish that I be informed that you were the one pressing for referral. Each time you assisted breaches of my medical confidentiality. Was it in 93 that you had arranged for a psychiatrist to see me whilst I as in the dentist's chair. Dr; Enoch was most apologetic when he found that I had not been informed. Your causal part was not discovered until I had secured my medical records much later under the then new Freedom of Information Act. Your mercurial toxic influence undermined my security, an unwarranted intrusion, designed by neglect to discredit and defame.
Your undue "caring" influence was again asserted in 95. When an attempt was engineered to have me sectioned in Ystradgynlais. A question arises, more than one perhaps. What was your motivation? I was merely homeless, friendless, jobless and physically debillitated at the time. Objective in my perception in spite of extreme stress from preoccupation with the anti-opencast mine campaign. Unhappy for sure and on many justifiable counts angry. On three occasions around that time you made deliberate attempt to harm me with the Mercedes van, (the red one). The one time that it was recorded officially was when you rammed me in front of the house in Abercrave. Recall me pleading to discuss properly important family and business matters.
The attempted referral corresponds concurrently with your application for a loan.
The two factors seen in overview are not to my belief mere coincidence, they are both indivisibly part of a greater incident. In February I was not living with you in Abercrave. Nor by your testimony was I a partner, nor was I the main wage earner, I was openly declaring my status to the Tax people and in receipt of Social Security benefit. A false declaration in your own capable hand. Mr. Littlewood declares by implication that my rights as a partner and were severed in December 94. Mr. Littlewood was not by your mutual testimonies my accountant when misleading statement was made in the loan agreement. Done without my knowledge or informed consent at your behest to unfairly gain sole financial advantage. The matter of Mr; Faulkner's denial of authorship of the witness signature, his denial also of any memory of having been party to the loan agreement. What ever was fact, remains so, no less real with the passing of time. Relevant to this day.
A fact that may have slipped your notice,It is not lawful to enter into a contract with a person whom it is believed may be suffering from mental illness. Belief is enough to render any contractual agreement voidable. The issue of whether the disadvantaged party was provably mentally ill or not is immaterial. No verifiable account to date of the money you gained by subterfuge. Record of the spending of the money not included in Rhinoceros Production accounts and bank statements from Barclays. Your statement to me in writing that you used the money to prop up the business In fear of the house being used as security with the bank rings less than true in the light of your purchase shortly after the loan money was received, of a white Mercedes van. The old one was in seviceable good working condition. A self indulgent waste of resources a vanity at a time when you claim you were in maximum difficulty. Easy come, easy go?
A question that might be put to you: "In 1996 did you close the joint domestc account with Midland/H.S.B.C. and transfer all assets to a current account in your sole name with the same bank?"
It would be hard to wriggle out of answering that honestly. You provably did.
Why then did you not declare that account which was still in use at the time of your affidavit to the court.?
One accepts there may be reasons for nondisclosure in such an instance it would be necessary to prove lawful excuse. Your affidavit puts you in contempt of court. Your action jointly in and out of court indicates strict liability. The domestic doctrine of "don't tell Dad" implicates and compromises our children into conflicts of loyalty and interest most harmful to all. As the Dad in question I could hardly be held culpable of consequence arising from that cultivated regime. Complicity in a deceit designed to defraud. Corruptive in the moral development of our children, encouraged to support wrongful acts likely to hurt and harm the absent father. Me. Your little secret not mine. Healthy It is not.
Your most recent , example of your interference in my medical confidentiality that one hopes is the last, is recorded by the hospital. The sordid fantasy you wove for them from malicious lies and ignorant imaginings whilst posing as my caring wife is documentary. It was years after our divorce. Great harm was done by your unsolicitted and unwelcomed intrusion. Against the best interests of my health and personal welfare.
Oliver by the way has divulged the details of your discussing a possible plan to kidnap Toby and have him "reprogrammed", not my words. Your paranoic delusion that I had brainwashed your son is well documented in correspondence between you and Toby as well as between you and I.
To understand what is right in detatched overview one must see the progress of truth in the context of the greater circumstance.
Reply or not as you will this merely serves to bring to notice details that will aid my claim. I need not assert that you are mentally ill. if you are confirmed in your belief that I am. One or both of us are vulnerable. Your actions would indicate that you are unable to discharge your obligations in Law. You would have done so by now, that would have been an end to the conflict.You were given enough help and space to do right in without interference and you appear to have done wrong. I will ask the court to supervise implement and enforce any orders arising from a suit for damages.
Discussing and settling properly and discreetly is the prefered civilised option. Pressing for a court judgement will expose most unpleasant details. Causal links would have to be illustrated. I may do that well enough.
In the matter of fraud I will not be aiming to press for prosecution and criminal charges . I need only refer to your deceits as a legitimate reason in consequence to seek compensatory remedy. If it is due by right and in law, fairly gained. All fundamental rights acknowledged. In or out of court would suit me fine. Granted it may pay better through the court. What may seem to be reasonable or otherwise will be determined by statute. It can be unforgiving. In court ultimately will cause greater rift, in no ones interest. It is however becoming my last resort.

I am still named as principle borrower in the ill got loan. I have not been informed of any change of title by C&G, they and you have a legal duty to do so, they have my address.An issue arising that perhaps you have not yet come to terms with is the strict liability for the discharge of the second loan agreement. There will inevitably be a claim that given the circumstance the liabilty is strictly yours. There is no evidence to the contrary. In the event of you not meeting your obligations in full a charge against your property will be sought that would compensate for any immediate shortfall with interest.

Please believe me when I stress that I am not writing to cultivate a literary following. Warning that I reserve the right to pubish any or all of my writings and correspondence at my own discretion. If you have something to say about that feel free to let me know. Let's hope there is a happy ending to the story without further damage.
Peace on all our houses for once without divisive exclusion. I will not desist that is assured until dues are acknowledged and all debt discharged.All fundamental rights prevailing..

Would you believe it there is a pile more. Further Education . I will rest for now before tackling number three in the series. The Clutterbox period and "The gentlemen's agreement" will also be accommodated.
What is right must be seen over all matters of blameful distraction. It is not about what's real to you. Itis about what is real to all. I close yours sincerely, Reinold..