Importance In Context: International Criminal Group Action: Case Summary, Pre-Action Notice, Media

G. CASE SUMMARY:

APPLICATION BEFORE THE WORLD COURT OF JUSTICE

CLASS PLAINTIFFS

- V –

FAMILY COURTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

The UK Government have had nineteen years to sort out the mess that is the Family Law system, since the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) came into force on 14 October 1991.

Each and every Government has not only systematically failed to do this, they have continued in their conspiracy of silence in covering up the crimes against Humanity that have been sanctioned by the Family Proceedings Court.

What is their motive for this?

One can reduce it to two commonly and intimately intertwined possibilities: money, and the Marxist dream of the corporate State parent coupled with the destruction of the natural family unit.

IT IS ASSERTED THAT:

1. The Defendants (B. and C.) did with malice and determination for financial gain, and for the purpose of cultural genocide;

a. Conspire and act to remove offspring from their lawful right of family and residence;

b. Conspire and act to cause physical and mental harm to parents and offspring and extended family alike through their actions;

c. Conspire and act to cause physical and mental harm to parents and offspring and extended family alike through their actions through Third Parties as agents or employees, both individually and as corporate personalities;

d. Conspire and act to deny parents and offspring alike their inalienable rights as Human Beings to:

i. Fair trial;

ii. Due process of Law;

iii. Statutory duty of care as Public Servants to protect life, liberty and morals

e. Conspire and act through Statutory Instruments, to maintain a cloak of enforced silence regarding Family Proceedings in Public Civil Law, to enable the establishment of techniques designed to be entirely destructive to family relationships hence to facilitate removal of offspring. Such techniques encompass:

i. Unlawful procedures in Family Proceedings;

ii. Entrapment;

iii. “Hoop-jumping”;

iv. Threats of incarceration upon summary conviction of misdemeanours;

v. Parental Alienation;

vi. Malicious denial of Statutory services by other agencies;

vii. Intimidatory and malicious communications;

viii. Coercive methods;

ix. Propaganda;

x. Perjury and perverting the course of Justice;

– Without regard to the mental or physical wellbeing of either parent nor that of their offspring;

f. Conspire and act to deny parents and offspring the opportunity and knowledge required to facilitate reunification of the family unit;

g. Conspire and act to further deny natural Justice for plaintiffs (A.) by way if deliberate misrepresentation of their legal and Lawful rights;

h. Conspire and act to enforce and reinforce familial separations by way of coercive, intimidatory and extortionate methods established by Statutory interpretation and loop holing;

           

It is therefore the plaintiff(s) (A.) request to the Court, that this Class Action be heard in its entirety, allowing all mediums of information to be permissible as supporting evidence, encompassing Government statistics, written statements, oral evidence (witnesses to be requested by the plaintiff(s) (A.)), medical records, police records, CAFCASS case statements, “Expert Witnesses” reports and findings and other inter-agency documents, such as emails, telephone records and inter-agency case reviews. This Class Action is to encompass both Public and Private Law.

The plaintiff(s) (A.) are claiming punitive and actual damages from both the defendant(s) (B. and C.) in regard to the aforementioned claims against both defendant(s) (B. and C.);

The claim being made by plaintiff(s) is an individual figure of €10,000,000.00 per plaintiff, in respect of ongoing injury and distress, with a significant portion being held in trust for the plaintiff(s) offspring.

The plaintiff(s) (A.) are also requesting that extracted offspring resulting from fraudulent acts of either the defendant(s) (B. and C.) are reunited with their plaintiff(s) (A.) “birth parents”, with full assistance of rehabilitation. And that all offspring are included in official communication with the findings of this Court.

Pre Action Notice

_____________________________________,  representative for the collective plaintiff(s), sovereign in individual right as recognised by the Crown’s prior obligations, present fact, truth and claim for acceptance or protest before the Entire World.

Our presentation of action requires international notice to be made available to the public, through all mediums of media, in acquiescence of Human Rights, ensuring the collective plaintiff(s) and other(s) receive remedies through judicial process for protection and remedies against the theft of offspring or what seems to be more appropriately titled as “State chattels”, through the apparent actions of the FAMILY DIVISION COURT(S) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) of the UNITED KINGDOM.

The UNITED KINGDOM has abandoned the plaintiff(s) and all extended families of the aforementioned plaintiff(s), and obligations of justice to all sovereign beings within the realms of the UNITED KINGDOM. This abandonment of legal and moral obligation voids authority of the UNITED KINGDOM, to affect any sovereign being.

Therefore, we the representatives, having claimed the abandoned obligations to the sovereign beings of the UNITED KINGDOM, and have accepted the obligation to speak on behalf of the plaintiff(s) and all sovereign beings for the protection of our offspring, our rights and fundamental freedoms, and our physical and mental wellbeing.

This will be undertaken within international authorities regarding humanitarian and criminal law, known to be obligations requiring recognition by the UNITED KINGDOM, FAMILY PROCEEDING COURT(S) and LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) encompassed within.

Allegations

1. The UNITED KINGDOM, and the FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT(S) and LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) encompassed within, have failed to;

i. Prevent the systematic destruction of the individual family unit, by means of false allegation, perjury, perverting the course of justice, harassment and maladministration.

ii. Prevent serious infringements of human right and fundamental freedoms of offspring, birth parents and extended family unit members during state intervention, through manipulation and reckless abandonment of domestic and international Laws, Statutes, Treaties and Conventions.

iii. Preserve the rights of the extended family during both Private and Public Law, excluding options allowing continued access of extended family members with offspring, and denying obligation for keeping family unity paramount.

iv. Prevent abandonment of fiduciary duties to protect and assist families and extended families during Family proceedings in both Public and Private Law.

v. Consider the imposition on Public Funds regarding costings of Family Court proceedings to remove children to State care or adoption versus support services for families as required by Statute to ensure the continued integrity of the Family Unit.

vi. Disclose any and all conflicts of interest relating to those agents acting for said organisations and consider possible ramifications as to the outcome of Family Proceedings Court cases.

2. The UNITED KINGDOM, and the FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT(S) and LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) encompassed within, have wilfully and with aforethought to stated intentions:

i. Sought to withhold information pertaining to individual cases particularly regarding material, recordings and running logs, before during and after proceedings, from the Respondents in those proceedings, here named as collective and individual Plaintiffs.

ii. Committed acts of torture and distress, through action and inaction, against both adults and children in a demonstrable effort to alienate one from the other, dismantle marriage and force removal of minors in the wake of manufactured situations of natural parents’ incapability of maintaining themselves never mind a family.

3. It is on the basis of the above and the fact that no blanket settlement can be agreed upon within the jurisdiction of the UK Courts at any level; the fact that no police authority will even consider the possibility that unitary authorities are capable of Crimes Against Humanity; and the fact that the Attorney General herself (Baroness Scotland, as was at the time of enquiry) refused a submission for the DPP to consider in private prosecution against the Local Authorities of the United Kingdom, that we declare the Property in question, that being the children of the United Kingdom, are to be considered contested Property. It is therefore requested and demanded that this document be taken as read and understood as a Lis Alibi Pendens, that such is clarified and understood throughout the UK Court System until such time as the Class Action is resolved to the satisfaction of the Plaintiffs.

4. Therefore, alternative remedy is now being sought through higher judicial process at the Courts listed below. We would ask that this request for judicial action be accepted and investigated with all measures of justice, preventing further infringements of human rights, crimes against humanity and failings in judicial and local authority procedures and processes in the United Kingdom;

International Court of Justice

Peace Palace

Carnegieplein 2

2517 KJ

The Hague

The Netherlands.

-

International Criminal Court

Information & Evidence Unit

Office of the Prosecutor

Box 19519

2500 CM

The Hague

The Netherlands.

-

European Court of Justice

Palais de la Cour de Justice

Boulevard Konrad Adenauer Kirchberg

L – 2925

Luxemburg.

-

European Court of Human Rights

Council of Europe

67075 Strasbourg Cedex

France.

-

The Supreme Court

Middlesex Guildhall

Parliament Square

London

SW1P 3BD.

Telegraph Online Article: 19 June 2010

Mother whose children were taken for adoption joins class action[11]

More than 100 British families who say they have been treated unfairly by social services departments and the family courts are preparing to launch an unprecedented case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, arguing that their human rights have been breached.

By Rebecca Lefort

Published: 8:33PM BST 19 Jun 2010

When ‘Alison’ developed post natal depression she pleaded for help from those she thought were there to assist her.

But instead of gaining support she ended up losing custody of her three beloved daughters.

Social workers said the children were at risk of suffering “emotional abuse”, even though they conceded that she cared deeply for them and had worked hard to be a better parent.

Now the 22-year-old, whose real name cannot be used for legal reasons, is pregnant for a fourth time and is terrified that social workers will refuse to give her the chance of caring for the new baby once it is born.

This week the mother, from the north of England, became one of hundreds of parents who have joined an unprecedented class action, suing the family courts and local authority social services departments.

The claimants hope the action will lead to greater transparency and accountability in the family court system, as well as the possibility of being reunited with the children they believe have been taken unfairly.

More than 100 families have now signed up to the claim, which will be lodged on July 1 at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, where political leaders are tried for genocide.

Alison, who is 15 weeks pregnant, said: “I’m pleased someone’s taken action, because they’ve taken my children.

“It’s about showing that they’re using claims like ‘emotional abuse’ when they’ve got nothing left to put against you.

“You have to prove it 150 per cent that you’re a perfect parent, and there’s no such thing as 150 per cent.

I don’t know what would be good enough for them.”

There were no problems with Alison’s first baby, but after the birth of her second child she suffered from post natal depression and was not able to care for the baby properly.

She said she asked social services for help and support, but instead officials decided she was unfit to be a mother. Both Alison’s baby and her 18-month-old toddler were taken into care.

The judge at the family court hearing which decided the fate of Alison’s first two daughters, in September 2008, recorded in her judgement that the mother had turned up for appointments, assessments and all her court hearings, adding: “She loves her children and has shown a commitment to them in contact.”

The judge also praised Alison for enrolling on a health and social care course, and staying on top of her finances. Nevertheless, her judgement concluded that the girls should be taken away from their mother because if they were left with her they would be “at risk of emotional harm and physical harm, as a result of her neglectful and poor parenting”.

The two girls were first put into foster care, then put up for adoption. After the decision Alison received counselling and took a series of courses which, she now says, made her a better parent. When she had a third daughter, and fought to keep the baby, she had the testimony of a psychologist who said she had improved greatly. But again social services said there was a “risk” that harm could come to the child, and again a family court ruled against her.

Now Alison is only allowed to receive a letter and picture of her three girls once a year. The first three girls shared the same father, with whom Alison had a volatile relationship. She has now split up with the man and is in a more settled relationship with a new partner, the 26-year-old father of unborn baby.

“I’m petrified about being pregnant just because I think they’ll take the baby away,” she said.

“I’m scared of them coming for it, I don’t know what to do and I’m constantly thinking of ways I can help myself. Sometimes I think about running away.

“No one’s perfect, but I’ve been trying so hard and I’ve done so much, but they don’t even seem to care.

“There are some awful mothers out there who hurt their babies, and I’ve never done anything like that.”

The court action Alison is now part of is being brought by Freedom, Advocacy and Law, which claims that parents have suffered “constant denial of freedoms” which ought to be protected under the Human Rights Act.

The action alleges that British courts and local authorities have breached the legislation, which gives the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private and family life.

Sam Hallimond, of Freedom, Advocacy and Law, said: “Families have been destroyed by the actions of family courts, and no one has been held to account.

“Considering what’s at stake at these hearings we need to see some sort of definition of the criteria under which action should be taken by social services.

“The possibility of future emotional neglect and abuse is not good enough, unless courts have a crystal ball I don’t know how they can justify that.”

He said he hoped the class action could result in financial payouts to some claimants, but the main purpose was to expose the flaws families saw in the system.

---

[1] These documents are available by written request to the Author

[2] These documents are not available for viewing

[3] At Common Law, a writ issued by a superior Court to an inferior Court jurisdiction demanding the record of a particular case

[4] Thus far we know of no person who has successfully sued under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, pt 1, § 2, over Maladministration/Vicarious Liability in the Family Proceeding Court.

[5] 1989 (c. 41) Section 97

[6] Document not available

[7] [2003] 2 FLR 42

[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8019667.stm

[9] http://sociologyindex.com/cultural_genocide.htm

[10]Refer Children Act 2004 (c.31), Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c.38) , Children Act 1989 (c.41), Civil Proceedure Rule 1998 , The Family Procedures Rule 1991, Crown Proceeding Act,  Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29) § 7.

[11]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7840835/Mother-whose-children-weretaken-for-adoption-joins-class-action.html