“Hundreds of trafficked children are disappearing from the care system…

Ian Josephs sends this 28 9 11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/28/child-trafficking-local-authority-care

“Hundreds of trafficked children are disappearing from the care system. Government and social services departments are accused of failing to protect victims
 
 reddit this Mark Townsend, home affairs editor guardian.co.uk, Saturday 28 May 2011 21.05 BST Article history
Since police resources allocated to trafficking are small, many of the young victims smuggled into the UK each year remain unknown.
Hundreds of children who have been trafficked into the UK are disappearing each year from the care system, amid allegations that government and local authorities are failing to protect them.
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, a government agency, estimates that at least 300 juveniles identified as trafficked have disappeared from local authority care over the past three years.
Collated figures from the NSPCC yesterday showed they had dealt with 549 trafficked children in the past three-and-a-half years, although there was no indication of how many had since disappeared after being delivered into care.
Charities have urged the government to adopt a scheme successfully piloted in Scotland, in which guardians are appointed to act as advocates and points of contact for all children believed to have been trafficked. The government has so far rejected proposals to extend the scheme to England. “Guardianship is an essential cost-effective way to prevent children from going missing from care,” said Christine Beddoe, director of child protection charity Ecpat UK.
“It would ensure that victims of child trafficking now in care have access to the safe housing, education and legal support which would prevent them slipping back into the hands of their exploiters.”
A policy document by the Conservatives in 2008 estimated that “over half of trafficked children disappear from social services”. The document also criticised the absence of “safe accommodation” providing 24-hour care for trafficked children. But concern is growing that the party has little appetite to tackle the issue now it is in power.
Home Office sources have suggested that a forthcoming strategy paper on human trafficking is unlikely to include a specific section on child trafficking, an omission that will infuriate campaigners. “We have worked tirelessly with government officials over the past five years to develop a national action plan and a robust protection framework for child victims of trafficking,” said Beddoe.
“To see this washed away almost overnight is a scandal. It’s as if the Home Office have shredded all the facts and figures.”
The government has a statutory duty to provide care to children regardless of nationality or immigration status.
New figures released by the children’s charity NSPCC show that during the year to April its child trafficking helpline dealt with 146 cases alone, although experts say this is merely a fragment of the true picture.
Scotland Yard will launch a freephone trafficking hotline to encourage victims to come forward in response to concern that the scale of the crime remains largely unknown.
Detective Inspector Gordon Valentine, the former head of Operation Paladin, Scotland Yard’s specialist anti child-trafficking team of police and UK Border Agency officials, said yesterday that the issue did not seem to be a priority for policymakers.
Valentine, who retired on Friday, said that although the Yard had made progress in identifying child victims, there was a concern that the team – which has just five officials – needed to be expanded if traffickers were to be dissuaded from targeting the UK. He added: “Paladin has been a real success and should be expanded, but one issue is that it sits between two stools, the UK Border Agency and the police, and there is an issue about who’s going to drive it. The Met are fully committed to Paladin: it’s just [a matter of] convincing the wider authorities. Logically, [tackling child trafficking] is cost-effective, but because you can’t put costings to it, it’s difficult to sell [to policymakers].”
Anne Marie Carrie, Barnardo’s chief executive said: “It is imperative that we identify these children quickly and accurately. Failure to do so means they are left without the help and support they so urgently need.”
Anthony Steen, former Conservative MP and head of the UK’s Human Trafficking Foundation, said: “Child trafficking remains unseen and children don’t complain or answer back.”
The Home Office said it took the issue extremely seriously and that it remained “core” police business.
See also
12 Aug 2003
Social services ‘failing many vulnerable children’
24 May 2011
Child trafficking not seen as a child protection issue
12 Mar 2009
How Whitehall betrayed social workers 
———————————————————————-

 Hello,
At 10 oclock on Tuesday 4th October 2011 the M family will attend a hearing at  
Queens Building
The President Court
Court 33
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

in which the court will challenge and try to change the Habeas Corpus application made by the M’s – an order which requests the return of their 6 children who have been taken illegally using totally bogus allegations made by certain employees at Haringey council, London in collusion with numerous other government departments, including the judiciary and police.
Please attend if you can to show your support for the M family who have been systematically victimised, targetted, intimidated, threatened and unnecessarily harrassed by this dubious council and connected parties.
  The M case is just one of many cases whereby this council is using secret closed courts and even open courts to make totally illegal and therefore invalid judgements and orders regarding the 6 M children they have taken, for example many Interim Care Orders have been issued without the parents being present at the hearing, as is their right if they have issued an objection to an ICO being issued. The parents not being present makes any ICO issued completely null and void, yet ICOs have been issued this way and taken as valid and a legal document when it is not. It has been pointed out over and over {messages to the courts, MPs and other authorities below} that numerous ICOs have been issued that are null and void but all communications are of course completely ignored as is the norm in this atrocious case. The total number of children removed by this council wrongly and not in keeping with the strict laws governing the removal of a child I would conjure is staggering, if the many null and void ICOs, false allegations made, false arrests, false judgements, solicitors lies, barristers lies, and countless other very serious irregularities undertaken, including sexual abuse upon a minor, is anything to go by.

The latest trend seems to be trying to section in a mental hospital the M parents and the prominent supporter Maurice Kirk, who knows the law better than most and has used his knowledge to win cases against councils heinous actions which border on the atrocious. So far the attempts to lock these good people away have failed but one fears  it will happen knowing the lengths these characters will go to. Making up false stories is their forte and who knows what falseness they will come up with next.
 
There are reports of outrageous actions taken by Haringey council from 2008 which illustrate precisely the appalling modus operandii used when this council is allowed to ride roughshod over others human rights, even when the person accused is a child care worker herself working for a council and very familiar with the law governing children and any abuse shown towards them. The following report from the “Daily Mail” is typical of the lengths this council are prepared to go, completely abusing the law whereby a care worker herself was subjected to shocking targetting, intimidation and outrageous threats where even her children were to be removed for no sound reason. This poor lady had upset somebody in the council and how they reacted was beyond belief. The “Daily Mail” took up the story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086196/Baby-P-council-falsely-accused-abusing-child-reveals-whistleblower-feared-shed-lose-daughter.html#ixzz1Yp5v4TyQ
———————————————————————-
“Sunday Telegraph” – Christopher Booker:
The mystery of Haringey’s missing ‘Girl X’ makes a mockery of the Children Act.
SUNDAY 12 6 11:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8570173/The-mystery-of-Haringeys-missing-Girl-X-makes-a-mockery-of-the-Children-Act.html
The family of a girl taken into care have not seen or heard from her for 10 months, writes Christopher Booker. Whilst in care this child, aged at the time 9 years old, was sexually abused by a member of the foster family she was placed with, and after telling her father about it on a contact visit she was never to be seen again, now for 13 months. The council never say anything about her when asked, and even the Nigerian Ambassador has not been allowed to see this child, let alone the parents which is of course their Human Right. Numerous complaints have been made about this to the Prime Minister, a chief constable, numerous MPs, and regulatory bodies for foster agencies {who shouldve reprimanded the agency concerned for allowing the child to be placed in a home with a paedophile in it} but all complaints and communications regarding this subject is completely ignored by all. The parents need to know if their child, now 11, is still alive, which I fear is not the case, this being the reason this council and their police underlings are going to such extraordinary lengths to keep everything so utterly wrapped tight that not a squeak out of anybody concerned ever emerges about her. In the past 10 days alone the police, acting for the council, have arrested the Musa parents and a supporter no less than 4 times between them on the flimsiest of charges, attempting to section them all too in mental hospitals in an effort to silence them. Of course the truth won out and these atrocious attempts to abuse the law yet again by these authorities, who should have known so much better, were foiled.

More here:
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER CHRISTOPHER BOOKER, “SUNDAY TELEGRAPH”,
SUNDAY 25 9 11:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8787134/Police-show-themselves-once-again-at-the-beck-and-call-of-social-workers.html

Another article by Christopher Booker: 
CHRISTOPHER  BOOKER “SUNDAY TELEGRAPH” ARTICLE 17 SEPT. 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8771232/Couple-denied-legal-help-while-lawyers-make-1m-removing-their-children.html 
 
PLEASE SEE THESE 2 ARTICLES  FROM AN AFRICAN SUNDAY NEWSPAPER “THE LEADERSHIP” PUBLISHED ON THE 17 + 21 AUG. 2011, ON THE SHOCKING M CASE =
 
http://leadership.ng/nga/articles/5282/2011/09/17/british_journalist_writes_jonathan_over_seized_nigerian_children.html

http://leadership.ng/nga/articles/4068/2011/08/21/british_govt_detains_nigerian_couple%E2%80%99s_six_children.html
 
————————————————————————-
My message to the court about illegal Interim Care Orders issued which have kept the children from their parents. Just some of the many crimes committed by the British authorities.
 
6, 7,  9  Sept.  letters to Principle Registry Family Department, Holborn,London.
 
To whom it may concern,
 
 Having called the Principle Registry this afternoon Friday 9 Sept. 2011 on phone numbers 020 79477939 at 16.31 BST,  my call was hung up without notice, followed by a further call to number 02079476020 at the same address at 16.39 when i was hung up upon again, I finally rang 02079 477922 at again the same addresds to be told that there was noone there to take my call.
During the first call a young lady there told me that London councils can renew Interim Care Orders by phone, which was going to be the subject of my phone call had I been able to speak with anyone. I duly pointed out I had put in my emails the law which states otherwise – that ICO’s were not allowed to be issued if the parents had objected and were not present at the court hearing – as was the case when the M parents were not present in the court when this ICO was issued on the 5 Sept. 2011, and the said ICO was therefore null and void that was supposedly “issued” by judge Hess, the notification received by the M family by judge BERRY IN THE LATE AFTERNOON, AS MY RESUME DESCRIBES BELOW IN THE EMAILS UNANSWERED BY YOURSELVES.
 
I am concerned at the lady on the phone saying that ICOs are issued FOR LONDON COUNCILS IF THE PARENTS CONCERNED ARENT PRESENT, and although she claimed to be an “admin clerk”, this indeed is a serious statement of how this court works. I have solid evidence to prove this was said and what ive described occurred in its entirety.
 
Thank you,
 
——————————————————————–
From: adamski2012@hotmail.co.uk
To: mark.barford@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; lorraine.morichelli@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; dave.woods@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; admin@number10.gov.uk; pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk; picklese@parliament.uk; supportline@victimsupport.org.uk; mayt@parliament.uk; lammyd@parliament.uk; ruffleyd@parliament.uk; prfd.privatelaw@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; lee.grubb@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; camerond@parliament.uk; andrew@andrewgeorge.org.uk
Subject: FW: CASE NO FD10C00195 – THE M FAMILY AND THE ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF THEIR 5 CHILDREN
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:27:31 +0100
 
Dear Sir / Madam,
Further to my email dated 6 9 11 below can you please tell me exactly what action you intend to take about:
a} the illegalities involved – the ICO being issued contrary to the standard guidelines set within British law,
b} the children now removed under a null and void order – are they to be returned as no legal ICO is in place as is their right?
and
c} what is to be done about the persons who partook in the actions of issuing a meaningless and irregular Interim Care Order, in respect of those persons not acting responsibly and allowing such an ICO to be issued?
I may add this is the 4th time such an ICO has been issued, without the objecting parents being at the hearing which is their right according to British law.
This case – no. FD10C00195 –  is not only causing a lot of unnecessary distress to the parents and more than likely their children since the irregularities began on the 8 April 2010, brought about by government employees who seem set on working outside the law, but is also wasting a huge amount of taxpayers money in the process. No wonder there are silencing orders in place whereby the misdeeds and crimes that have been committed are kept from public scrutiny.
 It is an outright disgrace that things are allowed to continue by those put in office that are supposed to monitor and stop and correct such irregularities and crimes.
 
Thank you.
 
The articles below were written prior to the baby being removed on 28 June 2011:

From: butlincat . (adamski2012@hotmail.co.uk
Sent: 06 September 2011 11:22:03
To:  mark.barford@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; lorraine.morichelli@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; dave.woods@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; admin@number10.gov.uk; pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk; picklese@parliament.uk; supportline@victimsupport.org.uk; mayt@parliament.uk; lammyd@parliament.uk; ruffleyd@parliament.uk; prfd.privatelaw@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; lee.grubb@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk; camerond@parliament.uk
 
M FAMILY ANDTHE ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF THEIR 5 CHILDREN
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:22:03 +0100
 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
 
CASE NO FD10C00195 – THE M FAMILY AND THEIR 5 CHILDREN.
 
Concerning an Interim Care Order issued yesterday 5 September 2011 regarding the 5 children belonging to the M parents G.  and C. M  at the 
Principle Registry of the Family Division, Holborn, London
this is an official complaint regarding the proceedings involving judge HESS, judge BERRY and all others concerned whereby an Interim Care Order was issued outside of British law at the above court.
It is understood JUDGE BERRY informed the MUSA parents GLORIA and CHIWAR MUSA of an ICO being issued via a telephone conversation between HARINGEY COUNCIL and a certain JUDGE HESS. Seeing as the M parents objects to this ICO being issued, and had notified the correct people of their objections, for this ICO to be issued in their absence renders the said ICO null and void.
 
MAY I POINT OUT BRITISH LAW, IN THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO ISSUE AN ICO IF THE PARENTS HAVE OBJECTED AND ARE NOT IN THE COURT FOR THE ISSUANCE HEARING.  THE PARENTS HAD OBJECTED AND THESE CHARACTERS HARINGEY COUNCIL, JUDGE HESS, AND JUDGE BERRY HAVE PERVERTED THE COURSE OF TRUE JUSTICE BY ISSUING THE ORDER AND MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME AN ICO HAS BEEN ISSUED ILLEGALLY REGARDING THE MUSA CHILDREN, THE PARENTS NOT BEING PRESENT, HAVING OFFICIALLY RAISED OBJECTIONS AND FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR SUCH OBJECTIONS.
 THE PARENTS HAD BEEN AT THER COURT READY FOR THE HEARING  WITH RELAVENT DOCUMENTS AT THE OPENING OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORNING ONLY TO BE TOLD JUST BEFORE IT CLOSED OF THIS ICO BEING ISSUED CONTRARY TO BRITISH LAW. IT IS DISGRACEFUL THAT THESE JUDGES, SUPPOSEDLY KNOWING THE LAW GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID INTERIM CARE ORDERS COULD ACT IN THIS WAY, THE LAWS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE BEING:
 
Rule 28 of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 SI
1991/1395 which provides;
 
“A justice’s clerk or single justice shall not make an
order under section 11(3) or section 38(1) unless –
(a) A written request for such an order has been made to
which the other parties and children’s guardian consent
and which they or their representatives have signed;
(b) A previous such order has been made in the same
proceedings; and
(c) The terms of the order sought are the same as those of the last such
order made.”
 
The parents have consistently stated in writing that they do not agree to the
orders being renewed which means postal renewal cannot lawfully happen,
there must be a hearing whether the parents attend or not
 
This     is stated clearly in Neutral Citation no. (2002)     NIFam 11 Ref:    GILC3695 IN     THE MATTER OF SM (INTERIM CARE ORDERS: EXERCISE OF JUDGE’S DISCRETION)
 
Frankly I am not absolutely certain what the phrase `will be renewed administratively by Court Office until date of review hearing’means.  It was clear that counsel in this case were also somewhat unclear.  It may be helpful if I set out at this stage some comments on the renewal of Interim Care Orders;
 
1.         When an Interim Care Order is made it is normally necessary for the making of further Interim Care Orders to be considered on at least one occasion before the final hearing.  I am given to believe that there may be a variety of local practices for dealing with such cases and while it is not intended to encourage courts to depart unnecessarily from well-established local arrangements(particularly those which approximate closely to what I recommend below), some guidance may be helpful to ensure a degree of uniformity.  Although the makingof further Interim Care Orders is described as “renewal”, it must be rememberedthat the proper form of order is that the whole application is adjourned to the next date for further consideration.
 
2.         A court may not renew an Interim Care Order as a matter of course and without reconsideration.  At the expiration of every Interim Care Order, the granting of every further Interim Care Order must be considered independentlyon its merits.  It can never be right for a court granting an Interim Care Order at one sitting to attempt to lay down a policy which might fetter the discretion of any future sitting in regard to the grant or refusal of a further Interim Care Order – see Re P(Minors) (Interim Order) [1993]2 FLR 742.
 
3.         It is,therefore, necessary for the court to make a judgment regarding renewal in eachoccasion and the court should treat each further hearing as an opportunity to monitor the progress of the application.  This does not mean however that all parties should be required to attend a hearing on each occasion.  The court is perfectly entitled to deal with the matter on the basis of the attendance of the applicant only provided that written consents of the other parties are produced and no party objects.  Provision can therefore be made at the first direction hearing for further Interim Care Orders to made without the need for the personal attendance of all the parties.
4.        In the Family Care Centres where the Trust, who normally would be the applicant, produces consents from all the parties, confirms that directions have been complied with and the court considers that it might be unduly onerous to require the personal attendance of his representative eg due to the distance to be travelled or for some other good reason, then I can see no reason inprinciple why the court should not permit the applicant Trust in those circumstances to make a written application for renewal.  In such an instance, the responsibility would rest with the applicant to ensure that a written application was acceptable to the court, that all the consents were in order, and that all parties concerned were satisfied that the papers would reach the court file in time for the hearing.  That application must however be considered by the appropriate judicial officer.  Such aprocedure would be similar to the well-established practice of hearings on the papers presently carried on for example in the Court of Protection and beforemasters in the High Court.
 
 
 
I HEREBY ASK THAT THIS MATTER RECEIVES THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES BY THE POLICE AND OTHER REGULATORY BODIES WHO WILL BE INFORMED IMMEDIATLY OF THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE, AND THE PERSONS ACTING OUTSIDE THE LAW BE BROUGHT TO BOOK, AND THE CHILDREN THIS FALSE ICO ISSUED WAS REGARDING BE RETURNED AT ONCETO THEIR RIGHTFUL PARENTS, THE CHILDREN BEING REMOVED FROM THOSE PARENTS BY ILLEGAL MEANS ANYWAY, viz. FALSE EVIDENCE AND ALLEGATIONS BY EMPLOYEES OF HARINGEY COUNCIL.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THESE VISITORS TO THIS COUNTRY – THE MANY CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THEM BY HARINGEY COUNCIL AND PERSONS CONNECTED TO THEM IN THE REMOVAL OF THEIR 6 CHILDREN,  SUCH AS THE ACTIONS OF THE GUARDIAN SOLICITOR ABOUT WHOM I HAVE ISSUED OFFICIAL COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED  IS AN OUTRIGHT DISGRACE.
 
THANK YOU 
 
============================================================
Concerning Maurice Kirk, a silenced Mckenzie Friend for the M family, now banned from ever having contact with the M family forever, because he was campaigning for them re: the atrocious case against them by HARINGEY COUNCIL, who have committed numerous crimes against them in league with the police, judiciary, foster care agencies and every government department that has ever come into contact with them!
Pls. see www.kirkflyingvet.com – Maurice sits in a Cardiff cell on dubious charges awaiting his case!!!

Haringey Council’s Barrister and Children’s Solicitor make False Claims so that Judge Imprisons Maurice
Not being family means you don’t get information from Holborn Police Station. As McKenzie Friend, I was eventually told he was detained for nearly five hours until 6.10pm, without any charges or further action.

Meanwhile, I’ve pieced this together from a witness of the Nigerian parents whose story was reported in the national Nigerian paper Leadership on 21 August 2011: British Govt Detains Nigerian Couple’s Six Children as to some of what happened:
1.Maurice went to court with snatched children’s parents who have been named by the Nigerian newspaper.The children’s Guardian solicitor Jonquil Houghton, apparently in league with of Haringey Council’s barrister, Ms O’Donahugue, allowed several false claims before HHJ Carol Atkinson, new to the case
including:

a Coronation Street actress, I forget which and unsavory male habits appear to be mixed up in all this………the next blog, after I have spoken to her or her agent, may clarify the whereabouts of six stolen children so a few poeple can be jailed and the family can GO HOME
•that he was recording proceedings with a dictaphone or mobile neither of which he had in court.
•Neither barrister nor solicitor corrected the judge when the judge assumed that Maurice was Paul Randle-Jolliffe who had acted as McKenzie Friend for the M family before. [Both barrister and solicitor had acted before and had spoken to Paul numerous times in previous hearings but at 2pm deliberately told the judge, when Maurice was safely behind bars, that he was using two names to mislead the court!]
•Maurice believes they did this to bar him from future hearings, because he had suggested to the judge, both lawyers stating ‘the idea had never been considered’, to simply ‘deport’ the children, not the parents, in the care of the NHS to the aircraft and allow the Nigerian authorities to take over from that point.
•Maurice had also told the judge DNA tests, withheld from the parents for months, proved the six children was theirs afterall, making ‘child trafficking’ even more less likely
•Maurice also had told the judge that the police, if that concerned with an allegation, armed with a positive opium drug result, illicit drugs inflicted on a one year old baby, would of had one or more of the parents behind bars months ago.
•The drawback of this simple solution, pressed a year earlier by the parents, to send the children back to Nigeria, was that the huge ‘gravy train’, as Maurice calls it, would no longer be available.
•Maurice suspects the UK is the only country in the world with such secrecy law to disguise this day by day fraud.
That morning, in the presence of the parents and another witness, Maurice had arrested the solicitor for ‘perverting the course of justice’, by misleading the court and covering up, for the past 18 months, the original spurious reasons for the snatch that, so long ago, had been proved false. What finger has this law firm raised to help the children?

Maurice was told, by the clearly annoyed Holborn police due to being duped, that police drug analysis from the baby, in June11, would have been confirmed, either way,in a matter of days vwhich is one of the3 reasons why Hornsey police refuse to release the parents’ custody records, Maurice insists with, clearly, Haringey being told to shut up.
Maurice says, “either there are drugs involved or there are not—-if not then send the family home NOW” and that includes daughter, feared to be now dead.
Daughter’s last alleged handwriting, when the parents believed she was still alive, submitted by Haringey BUT refused to be even looked at, yet alone examined, by three or is it six judges now, is a pointer as to where the truth lies.
Death or worse is seriously now possible by examining the content of the 8th September 11 Haringey Council brief for the new judge, deliberately written to deceive: page 1, page 2 and see paragraph 17 of page 3 of this Case Summary, unless the Hornsey police have conspired in this enquiry from conception?
Incidentally, what  Maurice actually indicated, on the way out of court to get the police, was that he would use his megaphone, confiscated by court officials earlier, to call the public to save the family from this room full of criminals. The plan, put off until next time now, is for him to stand in the middle of Higher Holborn road, outside the 42-49 numbered Principal Registry of the Family Division, broadcasting the appalling facts and cover up by so many lawyers/judges and police all determined to swindle large sums from the tax payer by dragging out cases with no concern for the families in a secret environment unique within Europe.
With Maurice now safely locked up in the cells of Holborn police station and his captors now having perused court documents, they soon realised the lawyers had lied.
There never was a tape recorder and together with the false documentation the barrister had just served  on Her HonourJudge Atkinson and Maurice’s few words as the parents’s Mckenzie Friend, had caused her to swiftly vacate the court room. She soon realised, by her repeating the ICO Haringey application, would be unlawfully settled now  in court if it was done on 5th. Maurice has warned that the ordered transcipts would not be complete and to prolong yet another separation of children from each other and from each parent was further crimiinal conduct.
On the Monday, 5th September, when the ICO was ‘nodded’ through, with neither party, the lawyers now say, privy to it, now triggers an emergency Judicial Review Application commmencing after the parents visited to ‘that place’ in the Strand.
Examination of served papers, at commencement of the 8th September hearing, suggest the Council, if you wish to believe it, had ‘no knowledge’ of the Monday, 5th September, hearing, despite being listed before a District Judge for parents with the subsequent court order for the 5th Sept hearing (Copy redacted as identifies all six kids) served on both parties, to lodge rebuttal.
Maurice has studied numerous cases riddled with sharp practices and cover-ups in both South Wales and in the RCJ, indicating the problem is endemic in the cartel of ‘family law’ since incidents of child abuse were taken out of the criminal courts in 1948 to be hidden in this new but lucrative medium.
He vows he will therefore now campaign to make family courts go public and the crimes committed by lawyers to be put back into the criminal courts. Ther will be some exceptions, of course and supervised recording for the applicants’ immediate use and ownership is also of paramount importance. See The Secrecy of Family courts should be Lifted NOW! and Send the Musa Family back Home to Nigeria – WITH their Children!
What also is clearly outdated is the UK adversarial systerm, with no checks as to the voracity of the players, is no proper taxation of the huge bills fabricated for the tax papyer.
Here is custody record page 1 and here’s page 2.

What is clear from all this shambles is that avarice has once again prevailed and Haringey should be subjected to an external police enquiry.
Punishment without Crime is an article that Ian Josephs based on his experiences, with golden rules for parents.
 
…….Sex Worker/Child Trafficking/Paedophelia all concluded by police but Haringey Council continue withholding the whereabouts of the six children and if they are still all alive?
Filed under: family courts, Haringey Council, M family, Michelle Collins
Published Sep 09 2011, 06:56 AM by SabineKMcNeill
…namaste…b.
 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


About butlincat

my butlincats blog: http://www.butlincat.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/butlincat http://www.twitter.com/butlincat https://www.facebook.com/butlin.cat.9 [2 a/cs : pink cat logo is main a/c, winking cat logo is secondary] linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnbutlincat-graham-5a35b440/detail/recent-activity/
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.