Importance In Context: Freehand Informations - Particulars

PARTICULARS OF CRIMES

1. That Jaswinder Purewal, social worker acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit the act of affray as he threatened to disunite offspring from their natural family and abduct them into State custody, within earshot of our offspring and with sufficient volume that they heard every word he said causing them great distress;

2. That the aforementioned Jaswinder Purewal, did commit the act of perverting the course of justice by submitting false testimony to his superiors;

3. That the aforementioned Jaswinder Purewal did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between himself and other agencies;

4. That the aforementioned Jaswinder Purewal did commit the act of conspiracy to kidnap as he colluded with other agencies to construct false allegations of abuse and/or neglect against ourselves with the intention of abduction of minors[1].

5. That Maxine Agatha Rose, social worker GSCC: E/1052458 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit the act of affray when she stated using sufficient volume for our offspring to hear, causing them great distress, that she would have them removed to State custody on the grounds of neglect and emotional harm;

6. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of perverting the course of justice when she submitted false allegations and knowingly misled the COURT as to the nature and origins of certain photographs she herself claimed to have captured;

7. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of perjury when she changed her account on several occasions – while on Oath – as to the nature and origin of the aforementioned pieces of evidence;

8. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;

9. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of torture over the period of time she was assigned to our case in that she repeatedly reiterated her and the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s intention to remove our offspring in an act of kidnap, in a voice of sufficient volume for our offspring to hear, causing great mental distress;

10. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of conspiracy to kidnap when she attended the Advocates Meetings during the week-long hearing in 2009, to which we were neither invited nor party to, before she took Oath to give evidence.

11. That Stephen Richard Parker, agency social worker GSCC: E/1054286 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit the act of perjury when he made false testimony in statements submitted by and on behalf of the LOCAL AUTHORITY;

12. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the act of affray when he continually iterated to us his intention to abduct our offspring to State custody, within earshot of our offspring on many occasions, and of sufficient volume that they heard every word he said which caused them great distress;

13. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between himself and other agencies ;

14. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the act of perverting the course of justice when he submitted false written testimony to his superiors;

15. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the act of conspiracy to kidnap when he colluded with outside agencies before and during the hearings in 2009 to ensure the unlawful removal of our offspring to State custody.

16. That Carol Norman, principal at Welbeck Primary and Nursery Unit in Nottingham, did commit the act of perverting the course of justice when she submitted false written testimony to her superiors;

17. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of racial discrimination on several occasions, when she was witnessed to have said, on school premises, that the ethnic minorities caused or got into more trouble than the “white kids”;

18. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;

19. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did on many occasions commit the act of child physical abuse and torture: on at least one such occasion a child reported, with no prompting or otherlike coercion, that one of her classmates had been sent by Mrs. Norman to stand facing a blank wall, on his own, for more than forty five minutes. Our own offspring have suffered unexplained injuries while in the ultimate care of this woman, every report of unexplained injury has gone unexamined. In fact, one injury sustained by our youngest son, was sustained at school after he struck his head on the corner of a table; this required hospital treatment and stitches to a laceration above his eye, yet was not entered into the accident book as is the school’s statutory duty; this incident was later put forward by Mrs. Norman as a claim that it was a cigarette burn inflicted by Mrs. Moore!

20. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit further acts of defamation with claims that she had witnessed Mrs. Moore hitting and kicking _________________ “all the way to school”. This would be a: impossible unless such an act actually occurred, which it did not, b: impossible to corroborate since the act which did not take place therefore could not and did not have witnesses to the nonevent, c: impossible to prove since it did not happen therefore did not leave bruises or marks which therefore could not be photographed, and d: impossible to corroborate with police reports, call records to the police or emergency services switchboard as said event did not happen as she claimed as it would then have been her statutory duty to report immediately such actions to the police for the sake of protecting offspring from harm.

21. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of affray as she kept our offspring in a constant state of paranoia after telling them that she was going to have them taken from us their parents because she considered a mixed-ethnicity marriage to be unnatural and not allowable;

22. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of perjury as she submitted false testimony to the COURT regarding the events laid out in para. 15-16 of this document, while claiming not to be racist – her comments, witnessed by several, indicate to the contrary;

23. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts amounting to conspiracy to kidnap as she colluded with the LOCAL AUTHORITY and the Legal Teams in closed Advocacy meetings during the hearings, and closed interagency meetings before the hearings, to unlawfully remove offspring to State custody. It is our demonstrable belief that the schools’ Gifted & Talented Register is a tool that is used to cherry-pick the best and brightest and most aesthetically pleasing of offspring to unlawfully remove from their families to feed the cottage industry that is commonly known as the care industry;

24. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of professional malpractice as she failed in her Statutory duty of care to ensure the safety and well being of not only our offspring while they attended that school, but also to every other child who continues to attend that school.

25. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts of child sexual assault when she looked down the trouser of our offspring supposedly to check that they were wearing clean underwear – is a child’s word that they are, not sufficient?

26. That Maria Lacey, offspring’s worker formerly of the now-defunct Trent Family Centre, did commit the act of perverting the course of justice by submitting false testimony to her superiors;

27. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit the act of affray when she threatened to report that I was being deliberately obstructive (I may have been but that was my lawful choice to do so) when she attempted to interrogate me about my family history, to her superiors hence claim grounds for an emergency protection order;

28. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;

29. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts of perjury when she relayed fabricated testimony about those interviews, encompassing her notes regarding our responses to and during the Webster-Stratton Better Parenting Course which she told us said notes were confidential, in a sworn affidavit to COURT via the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem’s notes and in its entirety via the LOCAL AUTHORITY;

30. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts amounting to conspiracy to kidnap when her aforementioned actions are taken as read and the fact that she also reported in closed interagency meetings about our “progress” during the Webster-Stratton course.

31. That Dr. Degala. Shankar, general practitioner, Meadows Health Centre, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when he failed to disclose the results of a blood test performed on myself at the Queen’s Medical Centre on 2 August 2008, which showed a positive hit for Type II Diabetes/hypoglycaemia and a recommendation for further testing on an urgent basis;

32. That the aforementioned Dr. Degala Shankar did commit acts of criminal neglect by destroying said documents, physical copy as well as digital scan copy, in relation to those blood tests, thus placing the lives not only of myself, but those of my biological offspring, in danger. As the principal general practitioner for our family, we do hold him ultimately responsible for the accuracy, safety and disposition of our records, particularly those which might save our lives.

33. That Dr. Rudrashetty Sree C Rao, general practitioner, Meadows Health Centre, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice as partner practitioner to Dr. Shankar in neglecting to ensure that medical records regarding a potentially life-threatening situation are kept accurately;

34. That the aforementioned Dr. Rudrashetty Sree C Rao did thus commit acts of criminal neglect in not reporting his partner practitioner to the General Medical Council when it was pointed out to him by myself that where my bloodwork results should have been in my digital medical record, there was a gap. It was not missing, there was a gap where that record should have been – it had been deliberately erased.

35. That Andrew Kawalek, consultant educational psychologist acting for the LOCAL AUTHORITY under instruction from the COURT and contracted by same through Carter Brown Associates, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when he submitted falsified records of meetings with service users, being ourselves, to the COURT via the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem and her representative;

36. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek committed fraud by claiming that he was a consultant psychologist when in fact he is an educational psychologist, hence entirely unqualified to make the nature of the report that he claimed as an accurate representation of the meetings he had with us and his interpretation of events that he also claimed to be qualified to make opinion-based testimony upon – for which again, he was entirely unqualified; further that the qualifications claimed upon his CV as supplied in the case bundle did not correspond with the information given by the University he claims to have studied at;

37. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of affray by threatening to have myself committed under the Mental Health Act if I did not cooperate with his unqualified line of interrogation;

38. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of perjury by submitting a supplementary report to his initial report to the COURT on promise of extra money, which retracted the positive statements he had made in his initial report and replaced them under detailed instruction from the CAFCASS legal representative with comments intended to prejudice the case in favour of the LOCAL AUTHORITY;

39. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of criminal neglect by claiming that he was qualified to make diagnoses of mental distress in ourselves (offspring and adults) and offer us a reference with pre-diagnosis to the community mental health team.

40. That Melvin Harris, District Judge, North Midland Circuit, did pervert the course of justice when he failed on numerous occasions to pull the LOCAL AUTHORITY up on their repeated use, and presentation, of hearsay evidence, as factual and that he accepted tampered evidence from the “defendant”’s legal representative as first-hand (I refer here to dark-copied, facsimile-quality black and white photographs with no annotations from high-quality colour originals that I myself captured that day and supplied on high-quality stock with date and time stamps intact and visible below each image);

41. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did commit acts of criminal malpractice in the service of the crown when he pretended rule of Napoleonic Code over Common Law, thus usurping power, authority and status of the crown while claiming to serve same;

42. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did ultimately commit the crime of kidnap, being as it was by his instruction that the LOCAL AUTHORITY did act to unlawfully take three offspring form their Place of Corporate Daycare into their custody;

43. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did act in conspiracy to kidnap as not once did he pull up any of the LOCAL AUTHORITY witnesses who blatantly were caught in perjury to his Office, instead allowing them to continue their lies unchallenged; further that he did not ask of we the natural parents that we had anything further to say to the COURT, nor at any time did he ever invite we the parents to directly address the COURT or cross-examine the witnesses as is our right under Magna Carta to directly face our accuser;

44. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris, in the pretended service of the crown and with the charges laid out in preceding paragraphs, did commit an overt act of treason to the Crown.

45. That Louise Smith, offspring’s worker at Surestart Meadows, did commits acts of affray when she threated, in front of our offspring and ensuring they heard her, to have them removed for emotional abuse and neglect;

46. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of perjury by submitting false and fabricated statements to the LOCAL AUTHORITY and to the COURT;

47. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when she lied on Oath to the COURT about the contents of her statements; further that she attempted to introduce fabricated evidence that was not previously made known to any other party;

48. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;

49. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of torture in continuing her threats to have our offspring removed – within earshot of our offspring so causing them great mental distress;

50. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap when she colluded with the closed meeting of advocates before entering the COURT and testifying on Oath.

51. That Gillian Pegg, social worker (team leader) GSCC: E/1023014 acting for NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit acts of perverting the course of justice by instructing those in her charge to commit actions as laid out, both without and within the FPC setting with the intended endgame of the removal of our offspring to State custody;

52. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg aided and abetted in the act of torture by instructing those in her charge in methods intended to cause maximum psychiatric injury;

53. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg aided and abetted in acts of affray when she instructed those in her charge to use methods intended to cause affray;

54. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg committed acts of criminal neglect by virtue of her instructions to those in her charge to use unlawful methods to cause psychiatric injury, affray and the continued withholding of essential services to the family, encompassing but not limited to community mental health services, structural repairs to the home, with the intended endgame being an attempt to demonstrate negligence on our part as grounds for removal of our offspring;

55. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg did commit acts tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap by virtue of the charges laid against her in preceding paragraphs combined with the fact that after the Permanent Care Order was granted to the LOCAL AUTHORITY she then attempted to further defame our names and characters via Valerie Cresswell to a close family friend whom we have accepted as Godmother to our youngest son, by the false claim that we were unfit parents.

56. That Jane Harding, health visitor attached to Nottingham NHS Trust and NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts tantamount to criminal malpractice in neglecting to offer information vital to the proper consideration of the case, also in offering opinion as fact as to the the mental disposition of mother and offspring, which she is unqualified to do;

57. That the aforementioned Jane Harding did commit acts of perjury in the aforementioned act when she offered, yet again, opinion as fact while under Oath;

58. That the aforementioned Jane Harding did commit acts tantamount to perverting the course of justice in withholding information vital to the fair consideration of the case from the attention of the COURT.

59. That David Stansfield, social worker (team leader) GSCC: E/1059593 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts tantamount to perverting the course of justice by compartmentalising and burying information vital to initiating a review of the Permanent Care Order gleaned while chairing a Looked After Child Review conference;

60. That the aforementioned David Stansfield did commit acts tantamount to civil perjury when he made a statement in an LAC meeting to the effect that he would investigate allegations made by ourselves against the LOCAL AUTHORITY, on the trust that he was acting in that meeting independently from the LOCAL AUTHORITY as we had been up to that point led to believe;

61. That the aforementioned David Stansfield has therefore implicated himself in the conspiracy to kidnap minors.

62. That Helen Fountain, CAFCASS officer/social worker (agency unknown), did commit perjury when she offered demonstrably secondhand opinion as her own version of fact while under Oath;

63. That the aforementioned Helen Fountain did commit affray when she threatened to have our offspring removed under an emergency protection order when I demanded that we remain as witnesses or have another adult present in the room when she interviewed our offspring;

64. That the same Helen Fountain committed acts of criminal malpractice when she did not reveal the fact that she is a registered agency social worker until she stood to take Oath at the hearing; up to that point she had never alluded to the fact – in fact it was outright denied by the solicitors Mr. Mannering, Ms. Evans and Mr. Neil upon direct interrogation as to Ms. Fountain’s interests;

65. That the aforementioned Helen fountain did commit acts of perverting the course of justice by presenting fabricated answers to questions she never asked we parents yet claimed she did, while under Oath;

66. That the aforementioned Helen Fountain did commit acts of conspiracy to kidnap when she attended the closed-door interagency meetings before the hearings and the closed-door Advocates’ meetings before she took the stand.

67. That Stephen Mannering, solicitor acting on behalf of CAFCASS as agent representing Shelton’s Solicitors, did commmit acts of perjury when he knowingly presented opinion as fact and further that he presented fabrication as fact;

68. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts amounting to perverting the course of justice, when he attended interagency Advocates meetings before and during the hearing, to which we the parents were not invited, also that he failed in his duty of care to discharge his duty as instructed to represent the wishes and feelings of our offspring to the COURT;

69. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts of affray when he, in collusion with the aforementioned Helen Fountain, did threaten to have our offspring removed on an EPO if we did not cooperate by allowing him and Ms. Fountain to interview our offspring without an Appropriate Adult present;

70. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap when he attended closed interagency meetings to discuss the progress of the case with the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s agents.

71. That Rosamund Evans, solicitor working for Jackson Quinn, “representing” myself, did commit perjury when she informed the COURT that we had neither witness nor oral statement to present before the COURT;

72. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did pervert the course of justice when she informed myself that introducing our own witnesses to events and sworn affidavits of character would harm “our case”;

73. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did commit criminal malpractice when she flat refused to accept my first draft statement which read thus: “I have no statement to make as there is no case to answer.”;

74. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did commit acts of criminal neglect when she informed us that we had no grounds for appeal against an unlawful permanent care order.

75. That Rebecca Wimble, stand-in solicitor acting through Jackson Quinn and “representing” myself, did commit acts of perjury when she failed to inform the barrister of missing or incomplete or incorrect portions of the bundle, various witness statements, inconsistencies, uncorroborated evidence in the form of single statements;

76. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts amounting to perverting the course of justice through details as [75];

77. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts amounting to criminal malpractice through details as [75];

78. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts amounting to criminal neglect when she did corroborate Ms. Evans’ claim that we did not have grounds for appeal against an unlawful permanent care order;

79. That Graham Neil, solicitor acting on behalf of V. H. S. Fletcher’s of Nottingham and “representing” _____________________ in the FPC proceeding of 2009, did commit perjury when he compartmentalised and buried, further that he denied and continues to deny the existence of, essential documentation to aid the family’s case for rebuttal against the LOCAL AUTHORITY;

80. That the aforementioned Graham Neil did pervert the course of justice when he misled the family into the belief that we did not have the option to appeal against the permanent care order, further that he failed to make the COURT aware that he was made aware of issues in the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle that they had supplied, to whit: documents pertaining to events and dispositions made on Melizza-Jayne’s behalf as a child in the care system were not supplied as requested which would have shown the current case in a historical context hence showing that the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s actions were nothing short of criminal;

81. That the aforementioned Graham Neil did commit acts of criminal malpractice in that he failed, and continues to fail, to file documents on an urgent basis to prevent the LOCAL AUTHORITY from taking actions not conducive to the wellbeing of our offspring, to whit: the children’s recent school change to which not only our offspring objected, but we did as well, in the strongest possible terms. Those objections have gone unanswered and ignored, as a result, Benjamin and Jamie have been further alienated from their family, from the friends they grew up with, and from everything else they find familiar and take comfort in;

82. That the aforementioned Graham Neil has and continues to commit acts of criminal neglect by failing to take instruction from his clients (us) instead taking instruction from the LOCAL AUTHORITY which seems to consist of “Keep them hanging in hope, don’t file anything, we’ll do the rest.”

83. That Patrick Gallagher, barrister employed by KCH Chambers in Nottingham, did commit acts of perjury when he failed to ask questions put by and on behalf of his client to the LOCAL AUTHORITY during Fact Finding; further that he was complicit in the actions which resulted in our enforced silence during the proceedings and the failure of the COURT being made aware of inconsistencies in the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle documentation alongside their spoken testimony;

84. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did pervert the course of justice by way of the events alluded to in [83] and the fact that he did conspire to silence us by supporting the argument that we had no appeal against the PCO;

85. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did commit criminal malpractice by taking instruction from the LOCAL AUTHORITY in closed advocates meetings before and during the Final Hearing rather from me his client;

86. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did commit criminal neglect when he failed to disclose to the COURT, his interest in perpetuating the industry in which he is a cornerstone player not only because of his associations with others who also just happen to still enjoy celebrity status, they are also serving elected members of local and central Government and paid contract carers themselves.

87. That Beryl Gilead, solicitor acting on behalf of NCC (the LOCAL AUTHORITY), did commit acts of perjury and perverting the course of justice when she barratted we parents accusing us during our testimonies-under-oath of actual harm and neglect when in fact no such harm or neglect had been raised to the attention of the COURT previously, in an attempt to destroy our credibility in an adversarial setting which flies against the ideal; setting under which the Children’s Act might work to the advantage of the LOCAL AUTHORITY; further that she deliberately introduced that air of adversity in an attempt to entice strong emotional outburst from we parents hence prove in the eyes of the FPC the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s blatantly false claim that we are mentally unstable;

88. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit criminal malpractice in that she failed to provide, upon request, her copy of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle to the solicitors acting on behalf of we the parents that we could check and make sure that the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle matched ours in content – which, as it later turned out, it did not;

89. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit criminal neglect by the above actions given in [87] and [88];

90. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit affray by her actions in [87];

91. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit acts amounting to conspiracy to kidnap when she attended closed advocates’ meetings before and during the Final Hearing, where she took instruction and gave instruction to and from the advocates acting for other agencies and from those claiming to represent we the parents.

92. That Carol O’Connor, head of special needs at the Nottingham Emmanuel School did commit perjury and did pervert the course of justice when she claimed that photographs showing a pair of shoes that were clearly too large for someone the size of a seven year old did in fact belong to him; further that she claimed that the condition of our son’s pack for a school trip was flea ridden and soaked in urine; this was a blatantly false claim, as half his pack was delivered by myself in clean and parasite-free condition and there were no other witnesses to her claims;

93. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit acts of criminal neglect when she failed to voice any concerns she may have had with ___________________ presentation at the time of the event instead of sitting on it and only raising phantom issues when coerced into it by the LOCAL AUTHORITY and submitting perjurious statements to the COURT;

94. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit acts of professional malpractice by her actions in [93];

95. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit conspiracy to kidnap when she attended closed Advocates’ meetings before and during the Hearings, and before she took the Stand and perjured herself.

96. That Kathryn Emma McGovern, social worker GSCC: E/1138375 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts in contempt of Court when she changed our youngest two boys’ school without permission or leave of the Court, violating stipulation of the PCO. 

97. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did also commit acts of affray when she sent an email containing threats to terminate contact between ourselves and _________________________, _________________________, and _________________________, if we alluded to the truth of why the younger two were being moved school; notwithstanding the fact that that same week we received the email ____________________ arrived at contact clearly upset because he had been told earlier in the week that he was being moved and he had no say in the matter.

98. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did and continues to commit acts of vicarious child emotional abuse by allowing such abuse to continue against our offspring while under her direct supervision, after being informed by ourselves that emotional abuse had been revealed to us by our boys.

99. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did and continues to commit acts of vicarious child physical abuse by allowing such abuse to continue against our offspring while under her direct supervision, after being informed by ourselves that physical injuries that continue to pass unexplained are revealed to us by our boys on a regular basis.

100. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did commit the crime of misprision when she failed to report to the proper authorities or even her superiors, our voiced concerns about the safety of our offspring.

101. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did fail to inform her superiors of a previous professional relationship with ______________ going back fifteen years, which would clearly prejudice her professional position in the present.

102. That Pelham Dennis Williams, social worker acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, GSCC: E/1122337, commit acts of affray when during a contact session at TRENT FAMILY CENTRE in May of 2009, he did cause affray to our offspring when he threatened me with violence within the centre – during said incident he did stand half a metre from my body and try to stare me down.

103. That Uzma Moody, Independent Reviewing Officer GSCC: E/1114214 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commits acts of professional negligence when told at a LACR conference by we parents that we had concerns over our offsprings’ mental and physical condition, she failed then to inform either her immediate superiors of our concerns or the proper authorities, which is a failure of Duty of Care stipulated in the Care Standards Act 2000.

–

1. Additionally, that NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL are held collectively liable;

2. that NOTTINGHAM MAGISTRATE’S COURT encompassing NOTTINGHAM FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT are held collectively liable;

3. that CARTER BROWN ASSOCIATES are held collectively liable;

4. that VHS FLETCHER’S SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;

5. that JACKSON QUINN SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;

6. that SHELTON’S SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;

7. that KCH BARRISTERS (CHAMBERS OF JAMES HOWLETT) are held collectively liable;

8. that NOTTINGHAM CITY NHS TRUST are held collectively liable;

9. that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND are held collectively liable;

10. that the now defunct GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, as it stood from formation to its eventual demise in May of 2010, are held collectively liable;

11. that the UK GOVERNMENT under the leadership of ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR, later JAMES GORDON BROWN, later DAVID WILLIAM DONALD CAMERON are held collectively liable;

- for any and all actions or inactions carried out or not by any of their agents or employees or other persons or entities authorised to act on their behalf whether or not by their explicit instruction or general or specific policy.

Finally, let it be known that copy of this document is also forwarded to:

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

ALL UK Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*

ALL European Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media[2]

ALL US Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*

ALL Pacific Rim Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*

ALL Australasian Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*

ALL Asian Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*

EVERY serving member of the UK House of Commons

EVERY serving member of the Upper House (of Lords)

The Office of HM Queen Elizabeth [Windsor] II

The Office of the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, Dominic Grieve, QC, MP

I hereby certify, swear and affirm under pain of penalty and perjury that the first-hand knowledge contained within this indictment is Documented Truth.

Signed (Right Thumbprint)

---

[1] This act is officially recorded as a disciplinary tribunal by the General Social Care Council as a result of which, Jaswinder Purewal was stricken from the Register for Social Workers and banned from working as a Social Worker due to this and many other similar complaints.

[2] encompassing but not limited to those who publish or broadcast in TV, radio, print and Internet