The Musa ICO Hearings:
Below is the video of the call made to the Royal Court of Justice, 11 Jan. 2012, asking that the Musas be presented in the court the following day as they had objected to the Interim Care Order regarding their children, as they always had done every 28 days since April 8 2010 when the ICO renewal hearings were instigated. The Listings Officer at the court assured that the Musas would indeed be present at the hearing and it was “all arranged” – we were all fobbed off.
What actually happened that day is recounted in the video, in which a Principle Registry of the Family Division court officer actually admits that ICOs are renewed “over the phone” for “London boroughs” – this of course is highly illegal, especially if the parents had objected, as the Musas had, as it is their right to be present at the hearing to air their objections. The Musa parents and supporters waited 8 hours outside the courtroom to be told by the usher finally when the court was closing that the ICO had already been renewed by phone, hence the call a couple of days later also in this video to find out what on earth had gone on, and how could such irregularities occur contrary to these peoples own rules and guidelines, and British laws. In the Musa case ICOs have been renewed without the parents being present at the hearing at least 5 times now…..The video:
video: Interview with the Musa Parents – April 2011:
article: “How Social Services are Paid Bonuses to Snatch Babies for Adoption”
[this D. Mail article is from 2008 – has anything changed?].
article: from “Researching Reform”: Councils Using Private Investigators To Spy On Parents May Be Breaking The Law“:
Letters of complaint to the PRFD court, – no reply was expected, or received!!
“6, 7, 9 Sept.: letters to PRINCIPLE REGISTRY FAMILY DIVISION, 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 after speaking with an employee who told me of an obvious irregularity, 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 address – the Principle Registry of the Family Division court 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 before I was cut off. 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 MUSA 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 MUSA 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.
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: FW: CASE NO FD10C00195 – THE MUSA FAMILY ANDTHE 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?
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.
From: butlincat . (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sent: 06 September 2011 11:22:03
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
MUSA 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 MUSA FAMILY AND THEIR 5 CHILDREN.
Concerning an Interim Care Order issued yesterday 5 September 2011 regarding the 5 children belonging to the MUSA parents GLORIA and CHIWAR MUSA 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 MUSA 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
(c) The terms of the order sought are the same as those of the last such
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 `willbe 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 finalhearing. 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 courtmay 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) 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.
The Musa Interviews, April 2011, before the baby “Queen Elizabeth” was removed on the 28th June 2011, and a year after the children were removed originally by Haringey council on April 8 2010, on false allegations: Video: The Shocking Musa Case – interview + clips x3 – 7 stolen children by a N. London council – 2011: https://www.vid.me/L3Ol
What a racket: “How Social Services are Paid Bonuses to Snatch Babies for Adoption” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html [this D. Mail article is from 2008 – has anything changed?].