Importance In Context: Freehand Informations - Intent

Please note that this document is presented intact, with only the names of the children omitted.

Notification of Intention To Indict and Affidavit of Truth of the Family: Moore -v- NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL Inter Alia

1. I, ______________________, currently living in England as a Sovereign Free Man and Self-Governing as such, do hereby make this Sworn And True Notification of Intent against NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL inter alia, on behalf of myself and my Common-Law and Legal Spouse, ______________________, neé __________, and our offspring, _____________________________, _____________________________, _____________________________, and _____________________________. WE speak as ONE.

2. Firstly let it be recorded that we are Flesh and Blood Human Beings with Souls, ergo Free under Common Law and thus Entitled to Speak Freely with whomsoever we choose about our grievances, and that we therefore exercise our Rights under Common Law to do so without fear of Unlawful reprisal, and without restriction of Statute to which we neither agree nor condone hence are not bound to obey, to whit:

3. We remain sui juris

4. WE DEMAND THAT IF NO CHARGES HAVE EVER OR WILL EVER BE FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING HELD IN NOTTINGHAM FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT IN FEBRUARY 2009 BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE HARRIS OF THE NORTH MIDLAND CIRCUIT, THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A CASE TO ANSWER AND THAT OUR OFFSPRING ARE RELEASED FROM THEIR BONDAGE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURNED TO THE CUSTODY OF THEIR NATURAL PARENTS AS THEY WERE PRIOR TO 2 MARCH 2009.

5. That as a Lawfully recognised Family Unit, with Offspring who are Sovereign flesh-and-blood Human Beings with Souls, that we are afforded from this time, retrospectively and hereafter unto perpetuity, all Common Law Rights and Liberties and Privileges due us as codified in the Great Charter of 1215, the British constitution incorporating the Rights of the Subject 1689, the British Bill of Rights 1688, and any and all such Treaties and Conventions guaranteeing inalienable Rights as issued in such forms by the European Convention and the United Nations and ratified by tacit acceptance of same as a condition of becoming a Member State of said institutions.

6. Also, that acknowledgement that our family and ourselves have therefore been wronged by the LOCAL AUTHORITY be made on a public forum with a written apology and written commitment of full rehabilitation services by agents selected by the claimants and paid for by the LOCAL AUTHORITY, additionally that punitive damages in the sum of ten million Pounds Sterling each be offered to not only the immediate family of our offspring, but also to their extended family who have been completely denied contact since 2 March 2009.

7. Also, that those named in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” are arrested and prosecuted for the crimes as listed next to their names, with summary penalties levied under the full weight of the law upon their conviction.

8. We have never endangered our offspring.

9. That by their actions, the Local Authority have and continue to cause significant harm to our children.

10. That by their actions, the Local authority have demonstrated their ability and willingness to use techniques that can only be described as torture, coupled with cruel and degrading treatment and deliberate withholding of essential services to carry out urgent structural repairs on the family home, with the stated intention of removing our offspring to corporate care.

11. On the face of the Law as it is understood by a Lay Person, prediction of an event based upon flawed, false or incomplete information is itself flawed and false. The COURT did deny a Fair and Speedy Trial as guaranteed by Constitution with full consideration given to facts and only facts as guaranteed by Magna Carta, with malice aforethought to the outcome, hence is guilty of treason to the Crown, Laws and Spirit of the Land, its Citizens and Subjects and its Monarch.

12. That on the face of Findings of Fact given by District Judge Melvin Harris, North Midland Circuit, that they are illegal and unlawful; given that the Witchcraft Act 1542 (A1562, A1563, A1604, A1735) itself was finally abolished in 1951, hence prosecution isn’t possible under this Act however is still prosecutable under the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 since the justifications given in the judgement were based upon events that had not happened, were not proved to have happened hence nor were proved beyond reasonable doubt to be likely to happen.

13. Therefore, that the COURT should therefore also be prosecuted under the Treason Felony Act of 1848 for pretending authority from and above the Crown which it serves under Common Law (the Law of the Land) by instead acting under the rules of Napoleon (the Law of the Sea), hence usurping the power and authority of the Crown in a situation of Law, to Foreign Influence.

14. And therefore, that those individuals listed in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIME” be additionally charged with complicity and conspiracy to commit and/or abet and/or misprise Treason.

15. And therefore, that the LOCAL AUTHORITY also be charged as a collective PERSON ENTITY with complicity and conspiracy to commit and/or abet and/or misprise Treason.

16. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY sought, through complicity with the local NHS Trust, to attempt to commit unlawful killing through action of psychological assault and Torture, through destruction of documents vital to the initiation of proper medical treatment for an inherited metabolic condition, and to further endanger minors through destruction of same.

17. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY further seeks to alienate the minors from their natural family, placing them in mortal danger should they require rare blood factors, internal organs such as kidneys or portions of liver, bone marrow, etc., and that they are deliberately withholding vital information from us as to their daily condition and disposition.

18. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY sought, through complicity with the local Family Law Panel members of the Bar Association and the local Judiciary, to deprive four minors of their Lawful Right to live with their natural parents for no Lawful Reason and using Unlawful procedures tantamount to coercive kidnap to obtain sole permanent access to said minors.

19. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did in fact, Unlawfully and without consent of the natural Parents, take custody of three of said minors from their place of Corporate Daycare to a location which remains unknown to the natural Parents and the extended family.

20. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did from the day of the aforementioned Abduction and continue to this day, to exclude the aforementioned minors’ extended Family completely from their lives. This is causing our offspring untold emotional harm and stress-related health problems and mental imbalance.

21. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did from the day of the aforementioned Abduction, and continue to this day, to deny the aforementioned minors their Constitutional Rights to communicate with their immediate and extended natural family by whatever means available to them, for example: Telephone, Internet Electronic Mail, Letter, Special Occasion Visits for example birthdays, Christmas and other national holidays.

22. That the Family COURT System in the UK is Unconstitutional and Unlawful according to Common Law edicts set out in Magna Carta 1215, the 1688 British Constitution, and the Articles set forth under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, the European Convention For The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 and the European Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989,

23. Therefore, that the HIGH COURT is under Lawful obligation to investigate and prosecute and/or elevate the case set above to the United Nations Officer of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for full investigation and prosecution under International Law.

24. That the Attorney General of the United Kingdom take an active role in investigating every facet of this case and of all similar cases carried out in the Family Proceedings COURT with a view to criminal prosecution of those responsible in the HIGH COURT on charges of racketeering, among other charges, to whit:

25. That the blanket Injunction set out in Section 97 of the CA1989 is unlawful and extraneous as far as protecting the identities of minors involved; the minors are already known and identifiable,

26. Further, that S97 CA1989 serves only to protect and perpetuate the closed nature of the FPC thus allowing those responsible for violations of International Law and Laws concerning Treason, Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury, and those procedural rules governing collection, assimilation and consideration of material evidence and witnesses, are not held publicly accountable for said violations and to continue violating said procedures, protocols and Laws.

27. That the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants” in the aforementioned FPC hearing of 2009, ensured the “Defendants” were deliberately misled into the belief that they had no grounds for appeal against the Permanent Care Order.

28. That the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants” did conspire with the Solicitors, barristers acting for the LOCAL AUTHORITY and CAFCASS, and the Legal Representatives of the minors to ensure that the Permanent Care Order was approved, thus performing an overt act of professional misconduct.

29. Therefore, that the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants” did with intent to defraud, claim and collect monies from the public Legal Fund held and pursed by the Legal Services Commission through the Community Legal Advice organisation.

30. Therefore, that the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants” did conspire with the Solicitors, barristers acting for the LOCAL AUTHORITY and CAFCASS, and the Legal Representatives of the minors, and the representative Educational Psychologist from Carter Brown Associates, to further defraud the LSC Fund by instructing the CBA operative on the diction and phrasing of his report.

31. Therefore, that the presiding Judge of the FPC in our case did further conspire with the aforementioned, to aid and abet in the fraud by allowing the CBA operative to claim further monies from the LSC Fund to write a supplementary report retracting portions of his first report which looked favourably upon the family thus strengthening the case in favour of the LOCAL AUTHORITY.

32. That none of the Parties mentioned in the document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did offer forward details of conflicts of interests, encompassing but not limited to: membership and graduateship of the front charity called Common Purpose UK for the purpose of training to act outside of their Lawful Authority, fiscal interest in the Contract Care & Adoption Industry, cross-involvement in one another’s fields of authority and the fact that every one of them operated outside his legal sphere of influence in order to influence the outcome of the case.

33. That several demonstrable conflicts of interest were evident throughout the case process, which negatively influenced the outcome for the family.

34. That the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem did not, as is her duty to the COURT and to our offspring as her clients, demand full disclosure of all relevant documents and materials to the COURT and to the parents, to whit; the full Social Services records pertaining to Mrs. _______ encompassing but not limited to internal communications, reports concerning her time in the care system under the wardship of Nottinghamshire County Council, reports of her being abused while in the care of the State which were compartmentalised and buried, and records from the Psychiatric Unit at Nottingham City Hospital.

35. That the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem did with malice aforethought, conspire to mislead the COURT with regard to the wishes and feelings of our offspring; her report and statement did not reflect the wishes of our offspring, therefore she failed in her charged duty to represent our offspring.

36. That the COURT did maliciously and with intent to remove our offspring, deny our Constitutional Right to a fair and speedy hearing by Jury; further that the COURT denied our Constitutional Right to call our witnesses to support our case; further that the COURT did deny our Constitutional Right to appeal an unlawful judgement; further that the findings of the COURT were flawed, incomplete and false as the “evidence” it accepted as undisputable fact from the LOCAL AUTHORITY; further that the COURT did deny our Legal Right to sufficient time to review the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle that we might have the opportunity to prepare rebuttal.

37. That the individuals and organisations listed in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did act in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 in that: they did use (unqualified hence fraudulent) diagnoses of mental illness against we the parents in attempting to predict events that may or may not happen (tantamount to witchcraft) in order to secure the unlawful removal of our offspring into State custody.

38. That the individuals and organisations listed in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” , in particular Nottingham City NHS Trust, did commit acts of physical assault and reckless endangerment when they did administer or allow to be administered, (a)H1N1 vaccinations into our offspring against our express written withdrawal of consent for such vaccinations, detailing our concerns about the safety or lack thereof, of the “Swine flu” vaccination which to date still has not been extensively (if at all) laboratory tested on humans yet has not only been passed by the GMC but actively pushed on an unsuspecting public by the Government – notwithstanding several dozen high-profile reports of contraindications such as deaths immediately following such vaccinations.

39. That further crimes itemised in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did occur with the full knowledge and sanction of the COURT:

–