Importance In Context: International Criminal Group Action: 1998 C. 42

A. The Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42)

1. Article 2 – Right to Life.

“Everyone‘s right to life shall be protected by law”

The plaintiff(s) (A.) lay claim to serious infringement of their right to life and to the rights of their offspring, claiming that “Law” has failed to “Protect”. Instead, the plaintiff(s) (A.) believe that the “Law” has been used as a catalyst by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) to maximise effect as a complicit act with the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.), and minimise effective remedy and “protection” of the “Law”.

2. Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture.

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” 

Actions by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) before, during and after proceedings involving FAMILY COURT(S) (B.) have had the effect of severe mental anguish and physical manifestations of physical and emotional stress inflicted on the plaintiff(s) (A.) and the extended family of the plaintiff(s), who in their own right should be equally treated as plaintiffs. These effects are ongoing and persistent.

3. Article 5 – Right to Liberty and Security.

“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person”

The action of both the FAMILY COURT(S) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (B. and C.) have violated the security of the plaintiff(s) (A.) and the extended family of the plaintiff(s) (A.) as a family unit, and has deprived the siblings of the plaintiff(s) (A.) and the extended family of their liberty.

4. Article 6 – Right to a Fair Trial.

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”

i. When plaintiff(s) (A.) commence hearings with the FAMILY COURT(S) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (B. and C.) they are commenced in camera with no consideration given by the FAMILY COURT(S) or the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (B. and C.) to evidence offered in rebuttal to claims made by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.).

ii. In criminal proceedings, the plaintiff(s) (A.) would be entitled to challenge allegation made by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) and appointed “expert” witnesses or other multi-agency witnesses. (see § 3, (d) “to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”). But in civil proceedings (Family/Child) the plaintiff(s) (A.) is left with no opportunity of such facility. Many plaintiff(s) (A.) have migrated inter-state, only to be pursued by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) in the form of fabricated information being sent to the plaintiff(s) (A.) new state of residence.

5. Article 7 – No Punishment without Crime.

i. (see § 1) “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed‖.

ii. (see § 2) ―This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations‖.

The plaintiff(s) (A.) were at no point charged with any crime in connection with proceedings. The plaintiff(s) (A.) were at no time arrested, or interviewed under caution, yet they and their extended families, their offspring and their peers are all being punished to varying degrees.

Indeed, if in any proceedings, plaintiff(s) (A.) had been arrested, interviewed under caution, bailed or charged, the norm would be that the charges were dropped after the end of proceedings or the charges “held” as a catalyst to the proceedings involving the FAMILY COURT(S) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (B. and C.), to assist their systematic removal of the offspring.

6. Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life.

i. (see § 1) “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.

ii. (see § 2) “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

The rights of the plaintiff(s) (A.) to private life were and continue to be violated by the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.) at the behest of the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) with no due process of Law and on the basis of unqualified opinion, fabrications and hearsay.

7. Article 9 – Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion.

i. (see § 1) “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”.

ii. (see § 2) “Freedom to manifest one‘s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

The rights of the plaintiff(s) (A.) to freedom of thought as to their own wellbeing were and continue to be infringed by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) by their insistence (and evident in numerous documents to which the plaintiff(s) (A.) are privy) that the plaintiff(s) (A.) and the extended family of the plaintiff(s) (A.) wishes and feelings and mental and physical wellbeing are secondary to that of all others.

8. Article 10 – Freedom of Expression.

i. (see § 1) “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises”.

ii. (see § 2) “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.

The plaintiff(s) (A.) rights to freedom of expression are continually violated by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) in such forms as threatening letters and electronic mail intended to force unnatural behaviours between the plaintiff(s) (A.), the plaintiff(s) (A.) offspring and the extended family of the plaintiff(s) (A.), thus effecting interaction in society. 

9. Article 11 – Freedom of Assembly and Association

i. (see § 1) ―Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

ii. (see § 2) “No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State”.

The plaintiff(s) (A.) are prevented from association with parents in similar situations by the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.), further they are prevented by unlawful “gag”[5] from discussing their circumstances and that of their offspring with the extended family.

10. Article 12 – The Right to Marry

“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right”

In extreme cases, plaintiff(s) (A.) have been “prevented” from marriage by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.), showing complicity to “divide and conquer” what would be a strong foundation unity and sound base for a family. In many proceedings, the plaintiff(s) (A.) have been advised, with false hope from the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) that separation and ultimately destruction of the marriage would ensure the offspring would be returned to one of the parents, only to be denied this by the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) in the final proceedings, with the use of “insecurity” being the reason for the systematic removal of the offspring, from the plaintiff(s) (A.).

11. Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination.

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.

Given the unqualified claim by the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) and the “Expert Witness” that the plaintiff(s) (A.) are in most cases, mentally ill (notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff(s) (A.) neither are or have ever been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 2007 (c.12) during proceedings in the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.), the proceedings in the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.) can then be shown to be in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (c.13) as mental incapacity is recognised in that same Act as a disability.

12. Article 17 – Prohibition of Abuse of Rights.

“Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention”.

Therefore, it can be shown that the FAMILY COURTS and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (B. and C.) acting themselves and through other parties, have acted to persistently violate the rights of every plaintiff(s) (A.) and their offspring, and that of the extended families of the plaintiff(s) (A.).