Sunday, 9 June 2013
NIGEL COOPER’S STOLEN CHILD – THE GOVERNMENT IGNORES INTERNATIONAL ORDERS – THE QUEEN TOO!!!
As each day passes the loving parent of stolen children gather momentum. There are so many groups of 1000’s of parent, BUT.. and I will emphasis BUT, each group remains alone. There is an old statement. “Untied we stand, divided we fall”. So I will ask you all one again. Join this group and become part of something much bigger. https://www.facebook.com/groups/savingbailiekatecooper/ You are all aware, that it the Queen fails to reply to my letter with the return of my daughter I will issue criminal charges against HM Queen Elizabeth for contempt or court for refusing a court order. “Oh that will not be in a secret court, it will be very public!
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Queen of England Buckingham Palace London England … 29th April 2013
Reference (a) King Albert II royal assent judgment 14th March 2012 (below)
Reference (b) UK’s Mr. Moylan’s blatant refusal to obey the law. (below)
My name is Mr. Nigel Cooper, a Belgian habitual resident of many years. I am in possession of the judgment at reference (a). The judgment is a Belgian judgment, an E.U. judgment and an International judgment. It is also the continued binding to the ratification of the Hague convention, the treaty of Rome and the Lisbon treaty that was recently ratified and signed by your current Prime Minister Mr. David Cameron on 11th October 2011 in Lisbon, Portugal transferring pillar one of law to Europe. I once served for you in the Royal Navy. I severed for twenty-two and a half years, (D175549N). I went to war three times in your name. I was abused in the Royal Navy when persons under your name injected me with the bio-hazard “Anthrax” against the Geneva convention! I was awarded thirteen medals in your name. I took my skills to NATO where I continued to work for peace, freedom, democracy and the law. I want to know why Mr. Andrew Moylan has the right to disobey the law? As all officers of your courts draw their ultimate power from you, I want to know why you have authorized the officers of your courts to break the law? I am in possession of a lawful judgment served against the UK. Your family courts have tried everything possible to stop me enforcing my judgment. I have been lied to and I have had my civil rights abused against my right as laid down in the Magna Charta. I have been witness to the perversion of justice, perjury and fraud.
I have had my life threatened to a point where my address is no longer disclosed. What I have been witness to is the greatest abuse of power in the history of mankind. Ma’am, I want my judgment enforcing in full, where the ultimate responsibility lay’s with you. As it is clearly sated in the judgment: “everybody is supposed to obey the law”, Ma’am that is you and I include. This letter exposes me to a potential act of treason before you. That is, if I was a resident of your country; that is, if I hold your passport; for which I longer wish to hold. I once believed in my queen and country, I fought for the freedom of your country. Now your families courts abuse the very man who was prepared to lay down his life for that queen and country; when asked where I am from, at this time, alas I am utterly ashamed to have to call myself British! Though I write this letter to your personally, I write this letter in public, my judgment is public for all to read, therefore every document generated in the execution of this judgment is also public. This document has been published publically in accordance with the law. Please enforce my judgment and return my daughter in accordance with the law.
Mr. Nigel Cooper
Cde N° : 188
COUNTY COURT OF MONS
R.G. : 11/3804/A
We, Albert II, King of Belgium,
To all, present and future, let hereby known :
Mrs. Benedetti Sylvia
Rue Sainte-Victoire, 25
NOTIFICATIONS 14 MARCH 2012
1322 DECIES § 7
1 Central Authority
Directory number 12/2869
Year Two Thousand and Twelve, on March Fourteenth;
Following his deliberation, Xavier HIERNAUX, Single Judge of the County Court of Mons, Hainaut Province, assisted by Christine VACHAUDEZ, Registrar in this jurisdiction, has handed down in summary proceedings the following verdict in open court :
IN THE CASE OF :
Mister Nigel Cooper,
Domiciled in 7020 MONS (Belgique), Rue Grande, 205/2.2 ;
The Applicant ;
Attending the hearing, assisted by his Counsel Mrs Sylvia BENEDETTI, Solicitor, whose Law Firm is registered in 7031 HORNU (Belgique), rue Sainte-Victoire, 25 ;
Mrs Gail COOPER,
Domiciled in 41, Ennerdale, Albany, Washington, NE37 1 BW (United Kingdom) ;
The Defendant ;
Neither attending nor represented at the hearing ;
IN THE PRESENCE OF :
Mister Henri RENARD, Substitute for the Royal Prosecutor
of the Public Prosecuting Office of the Mons County Court, 7000 Mons, and whose offices are registered in 7000 MONS, rue de Nimy, 28 ; Representing at the hearing, THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE OF JUSTICE,
Central Authority of Judicial Cooperation in civil matters,
Legislation Bureau of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
File WL 16/LH/2011/1213/VA
Offices registered at 1000 BRUXELLES, boulevard de Waterloo, 115 ;
Upon the decision filed in the registry of this Court on 21 December 2011, and rendered on 25 November 2011 by the High Court of Justice of London denying the return to Belgium of the child Bailie Kate COOPER, born on 1 August 2003, and the related documents, forwarded by the Belgian Central Authority under article 1322 decies § 1 of the judicial Code, pursuant to article 11.6 of the Regulations (EC) following the consultation of the British Central Authority on an application for obtaining the immediate return of a child, initiated by the Belgian Central Authority on 14 October 2011, under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of child abduction and articles 1322 bis to 1322 quaterdecies of the judicial Code ;
Upon the notification given on 23 December 2011 to Gail COOPER, Nigel COOPER, the Office of the Mons Public Prosecutor, on 4 January 2012 to Mrs Stephanie ADAMS, Solicitor, and Mr Graeme Langlands, Solicitor (Millsdonkin&co, Solicitors) ;
Upon the conclusions submitted and based on article 11 of Brussels II bis and article 1322 bis of the judicial Code for Nigel COOPER, initialed by the Registry of the Court on 31 January 2012 as well as the attached file of documents ;
Upon the notices 1322 decies of the judicial Code, sent on 1 February to the Office of the Mons Public Prosecutor, Nigel COOPER, his counsel, Gail COOPER, Mrs Stephanie ADAMS, Solicitor, Mr Graeme Langlands, Solicitor (Millsdonkin&co, Solicitors), regarding the hearing set on 22 February 2012 ;
Upon the correspondence from Millsdonkin&co, Solicitors (Mrs Gail COOPER’s counsel in England), addressed to the Registry of the Court on 10 February 2012 ;
Upon the correspondence received by fax from Williscroft & co, Solicitors (Mr Nigel COOPER’s counsel in England), and initialed by the Registry of the Court on 13 February 2012 ;
Upon the transcript of the 24 November 2011 hearing held under British Jurisdiction, sent by fax in its English version and initialed by the Registry of the Court on 21 and 22 February (fax and correspondence), and its corresponding English translation ;
Upon the correspondence from the Sunderland City Council, sent by fax to the Registry of the Court on 22 February 2012 ;
Heard at the hearing on 22 February 2012 :
Mister Henri RENARD, substitute for the Mons Public Prosecutor,
Mister Nigel COOPER, assisted by his counsel Mrs BENEDETTI, Solicitor, and an English language interpreter, Mrs Catherine REYNELBERGE,
The trial debates have been declared closed and the cause has been taken under advisement,
Upon, provided at such hearing : the files for Nigel COOPER ;
Upon the fact that, although regularly convened by the Registry of the Court, the Defendant Gail COOPER did not attend nor was she represented at Our 22 February 2012 Hearing ;
That as far as she is concerned the Court shall rule by default and without further examination, on the basis of the means, files, and conclusions presented and provided by the attending parties ;
OBJECT AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST
Given the request, formulated by the conclusions provided to the Registry of the Court on 31 January 2012 for Nigel COOPER, on the basis of article 11 of the European Regulations No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003, also known as “Brussels II bis” and article 1322 bis of the judicial Code, is disposed to grant to Nigel COOPER primary custody of his daughter Bailie Kate COOPER, born on 1 August 2003 in Coventry (united Kingdom) from his union with Gail COOPER, and therefore order immediate return of the child to the Kingdom of Belgium, in this case to the domicile of her father, registered in 7020 MONS (Belgium), rue Grande, 205/2.2 and in this respect, on forfeiture of a penalty of 500 euros per day of delay, Our decision being additionally supplemented by the passport certificate in accordance with the “BRUSSELS II bis” Regulation, under the conditions, modalities and authorizations better outlined in the arrangement scheme of the initiating proceedings ; that subsequently the request is pursuing the right for secondary custody in favor of Nigel COOPER regarding his daughter Bailie Kate COOPER, the modalities being better detailed in the operative part of the conclusions ;
That this request, justified in its means and submitted within the legal deadline, shall be receivable ;
CAUSE FOR THE REQUEST
Brief background facts
Considering that the applicant Nigel COOPER settled in Belgium in January 2006 as he was hired as Principal Consultant for Network Security at SHAPE ;
Considering that he was later joined by his daughter on 12 October 2006 as attested by the residence certificate written and signed by the Civil Registrar of the City of Mons on 30 September 2011, based on a private power of attorney provided by the defendant Gail COOPER on 5 August 2006, which reads as follows : “I, Gail COOPER, mother of Bailie Kate COOPER, authorize
Bailie Kate COOPER to live with her father Nigel COOPER” ;
That the defendant later joined the applicant and his daughter on 20 January 2007 to live with him, first in Mons, than later in Lessines ;
Considering that during the period of the time they lived together, the applicant obviously catered to the well-being of his daughter, mainly by himself and because of the clear addiction to drugs and alcohol which already afflicted the defendant at the time ;
That, no less than twenty-five independent testimonies were written and provided to the file of the applicant in order to attest of the true attentive care he was providing his daughter, as well as the quality of the level of education he was offering her ;
Considering that on 3 March 2011, the defendant committed a felony by taking the child Bailie Kate to the United Kingdom, and did so after having willingly misled to local authorities of the City of Lessines, in playing on the existing similarity of names between the applicant, herself, and a someone named Paul COOPER, who was her first husband, and father of a daughter named Keeva-Rae, the so-called Paul COOPER granting the defendant, after signing a private power of attorney on 7 December 2007, full authority to leave the Kingdom of Belgium with his daughter Keeva-Rae COOPER ;
That on 5 November 2011, the Mayor of the City of Lessines acknowledged that he had indeed been completely misled and as a result stated so in writing, explaining that in fact the applicant Nigel COOPER had never given to the defendant Gail COOPER the written authorization to leave the Belgian territory accompanied by their daughter Bailie COOPER;
That in accordance to the provisions of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction, the applicant COOPER contacted on 21 September 2011 the Belgian Central Authority, i.e. the Federal Public Service of Justice to notify them of the parental abduction and thus asked for the immediate return of the child to Belgium ;
That, in addition, the child contacted her father again as early as 13 November 2011 to let him know that she felt unsafe with her mother and her new partner, this once again proving the alcoholism and drug abuse of the defendant, Gail COOPER ;
That the British High Court of Justice ordered against the return of the child on 25 November 2011 ;
And that following a decision that can be criticized on many grounds, which were clearly taken out of context or subject to a utterly subjective and inadequate interpretation, Our British counterpart considered that the applicant Nigel COOPER had simply, through his mere acts, given his consent to the mother to take the child, under article 13 of the Hague Convention ;
Considering that We do not wish to remind of the legal, international, and internal provisions applicable in this case, since “no one is supposed to ignore the Law” ;
That the request of Nigel COOPER, which aims to grant him custody of his daughter, is fundamentally based on article 11.7 of the Brussels II Regulations ;
That there is no doubt whatsoever that the whole family was residing in Belgium until the defendant Gail COOPER committed a felony ;
That the child Bailie Kate was therefore indeed a legal resident in Belgium ;
Considering that the applicant never gave his consent for his daughter to depart to the United Kingdom ;
That it has been clearly established that the defendant COOPER misled the authorities of the City of Lessines in order to get hold of the authorizations she needed ;
That the letter written on 1 March 2011 by the applicant to the defendant, reference C38 of the file of British Court, relates exclusively to the applicant’s consent to the departure of his wife, and not the departure of his daughter ;
That indeed, this document clearly bears the following reference “the departure and return of Mrs Gail COOPER to the United Kingdom” ;
That the interpretation of the British Judge regarding the email that Gail COOPER addresses to the applicant on 15 August 2011, is in fact exactly the opposite of its actual meaning ;
That this email does not, in any case, lead to the conclusion that there was no illegal departure of the child ;
Considering also that the financial support offered by Nigel COOPER to his spouse does not demonstrate his will to offer child support contributions to his spouse in the maintenance and educational costs of his daughter, hence does not either automatically imply that Gail COOPER does in effect and lawfully benefit from the prerogatives of custody rights, but rather show that he is strictly complying with his duty of supporting his spouse while in marriage, as described in article 203 in the Belgian Civil Code;
Considering that at every single contact between the applicant and his daughter by videoconference, the child strongly expressed her wishes to go back to Belgium, and that this clearly indicates that she was not properly cared for by her mother and the partner of her mother ;
That the British Social Services, warned by the applicant’s letter, took over the case while the Children Social Welfare Services of Sunderland presented a written agreement to the parties on 12 January 2012, which aim was to minimize (sic!) all risks for Bailie and promote her emotional, social, and physical well-being – agreement made between Mrs Gail Cooper, her current partner Derek JOHNSON and the Sunderland Local Authority ;
That, in accordance to the above-mentioned agreement, Mr Derek JOHNSON was no longer authorized to stay overnight at the residence of the defendant whenever the child was present, going as far as pointing out that when the child was staying at the residence, Mr JOHNSON and the defendant COOPER should refrain from consuming alcohol or any illicit drugs “resic!” ;
That the above-mentioned agreement also suggested that the defendant should report to a service called “Riverside Women in Need”, which is sponsored by the University of Sunderland and meant to help victims of domestic abuse, this very invitation clearly indicating the level of “quality” of the relation between the defendant and her partner Derek JOHNSON ;
That the later was supposed to report to a service called “The Head Project”, sponsored by the same university and meant to help abusive and violent individuals, this invitation obviously being a consequence of the similar invitation made to the defendant COOPER… ;
Considering that in planning the hearings of the British High Court of Justice scheduled on 24 and 25 November 2011, an independent consulting organization called “CAFCASS” as per the translation “Service of counsel and support to the family court” provided a child abduction report, which made us believe beyond any reasonable doubt that what Bailie Kate COOPER genuinely wished for was to go back and live under the roof of her father, as Mrs Liliane ODZE reports ;
That this report indeed shows that even if the child remains, and it is by far understandable, torn apart by the inevitable conflict of loyalty between parents, she does not however shows any clear preference in her wishes in remaining in England but rather she insists on going back to her father’s home, while expressing her wish to meet regularly with her maternal grandfather, and, of course, her mother ;
That the British Judge should have, in view of all the elements which were given to his appreciation, ordered the evident return of the child in the country of her choice, i.e. the Kingdom of Belgium ;
That We shall order this course of action, which also obviously meets the greater and objective interests of the child ;
That no guarantee can be obtained in this regard within the home of her mother, knowing that the removal and/or control precautions of the mother and her partner as described in the agreement made on 12 January 2012 do not strictly constitute a binding constraint or even an obligation ;
Considering finally that Our decision will be supplemented with the passport certificate as referred to in article 42 of the Brussels II bis Regulation; passport certificate which is to be handed to the applicant Nigel COOPER, along with this decision ;
That based on the Rule of Law, the home of the parent who is honorable and capable to respect the prerogatives of the custody of his child must be preferred to any other care structure or any other home of replacement, as respectable as these may be ;
That Nigel COOPER effectively complies with these conditions and requirements in this case ;
FOR THOSE REASONS,
We, Xavier HIERNAUX, Single Judge, assisted by Christine VACHAUDEZ, Registrar ;
Upon the provisions of the law of 15 June 1935 applied in this case, and article 107 of the law of 22 December 1998 ;
Upon article 11 of the European Regulations Nr. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003, also known as “Brussels II bis” and article 1322 bis of the judicial Code ;
Hereby record the claim, denials and reservations of the appearing party, and deem all further or contrary conclusions unsubstantiated;
Having heard Mister Henri RENARD, Substitute for the Royal Prosecutor, who gave his assent at the hearing of 22 February 2012 ;
Rule by default
against the defendant Gail COOPER, and upon hearing the other parties in summary proceedings ;
Declare the request of Nigel COOPER admissible,
And pronounce his request well-founded for the specific purpose stated below ;
As a result :
Grant custody rights for the child Bailie Kate COOPER, born in Coventry (United Kingdom) on 1 August 2003, to Nigel COOPER, her father, with whom the child will have her official residence ;
Order the immediate return of Bailie Kate COOPER, born on 1 August 2003, to the Kingdom of Belgium, and in this case within the official residence of her father Nigel COOPER, as registered rue Grande, 205/2.2 in 7020 MONS, and in the absence of complying with the obligation of return of the child by the defendant Gail COOPER , we condemn her to a daily fine amounting to FIVE HUNDRED EUROS (500€) for the delay in the return of the child, to be enforced and paid starting on the day following the service of this decision ;
Declare that this decision is supplemented by the passport certificate referred to in article 42 of the Brussels II bis Regulation, which is delivered to Nigel COOPER upon sending it to him ;
Authorize, as needed, Nigel COOPER to take back or arrange the removal of his daughter Bailie COOPER as soon as this decision is rendered ;
Empower the Police Forces to retrieve this child wherever she may be located, whether a bailiff is present or not as per his mission of executing the present judgment ;
Expressly authorize the Police Forces as well as the bailiff to force any entrance, even private and even if it is somewhere else than the school she attends or the domicile of Gail COOPER, this for the sole purpose of retrieving Bailie, if necessary with the assistance of a locksmith in order to open and even break open doors, may these be private entrances ;
Declare that the entire fees and disbursements generated by the execution of this decision will have to be paid exclusively by the defendant Gail COOPER, and condemn her to pay back to Nigel COOPER all fees he may have given up front, upon a simple justification of payment ;
Condemn Gail COOPER to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings, as they are not to be settled by Nigel COOPER and deemed to be lawfully reserved in accordance to article 21 of the judicial Code ;
Declare the present judgment to be provisionally enforceable aside from any appeal and without any security nor special cantonment offer ;
This is our judgment and it is pronounced in French, at the public hearing of the Presidential Chamber, at the Mons Court of Justice, on the day, month, and year mentioned on top, where sat :
Mister Xavier HIERNAUX, single Judge,
Madam Christine VACHAUDEZ, Registrar.
C. VACHAUDEZ X. HIERNAUX.
Presented on 15 March 2012
Chief Inspector a.I.
Summon and hereby order all Judicial Officers to enforce the existing judgment to this end ;
To all our Public Prosecutors and Royal Prosecutors at the County Courts to assist them and to the Commanders and Officers of the Public Force to support when they are legally required to do so.
In witness whereof, the present order has been legally signed and sealed by the Court.
For certified execution delivered to Mister Nigel Cooper.
(seal of the County Court of Mons) The Chief Registrar
Registrar’s Office of the County Court of Mons
Date : 16/03/2012 Der : 2843
8 pages at 2,85 euros
Duties paid : 22,80 euros
The Chief Registrar
Attatched is the “judgement” given by the top Belgian judge which the UK government is ignoring, breaking international law!
UPDATES – NIGEL COOPER – APRIL 2013
“Just to keep you all up to date with what I am doing and why I am doing this. 1. September 2011 My daughter is kidnapped from Belgium 2. November 2011 The Hague request’s for return. (UK refused on Article 13) 3. December 2011 Belgium issues a seizure notice of the Hague article (11) 4. February 2012 Belgium hears and re-tries the seizure case and awards the immediate return of my daughter to Belgium under Article 11, under international law, under Belgian law, Under UK law, under E.U. law, under universal law. Belgium writes the perfect judgement and has the judgment sworn as omnipotent before King Albert II, King of Belgium; who then declares the judgement as a royal decree! 5. March 16th 2012 Belgian Bailiff flies to the UK to serve notice of the judgement on the EJC in the Strand London, Bailiffs receipt note held on record in the Royal courts of Mons Belgium. 6. March 16th 2012 Belgian advocate instructs Sunderland Social services that a return order has been issued by the King of Belgium. 7. March 16th Sunderland Social services “refuse” the “non-refusable”? 8. March 16th Belgian advocate informs Sunderland Social servers in the name of “Ms. Joanna Bonar” that she acting as the legal representative of the UK, have just breached The Hague convention, the Lisbon treaty and many more. 9. April 2012 Justice Moylan formally refuses international law, refuses my right of appeal, refuses my civil rights, my human rights and condones the kidnapping of my daughter, harbors a known felon who has a bench warrant out against her. 10. I’ve now been refused every form of legal assistance in the UK to recover my daughter. 11 16Th April 2013… to this day the UK refuses to return my daughter and has broken just above every law there is! 12. I’ve had 5 death treats made against me from the UK, via telecom calls, or published articles. 13. The UK went as far as to interfere with NATO’s employment schemes and had me dismissed for no reason what so ever. 14. I’ve had to move out of Belgium and go into hiding due to the threats on my life, all for asking the law to be obeyed! 15. The list of wrongs just keep going and the power of the judgment keep growing, to a point I was granted rights of Bailiff, I was grants right of arrest, I was grants unlimited resource to enforce the judgement; and as I started by telling you, the judgment is perfect, there is an “UNLIMITED” indemnity clause, the UK will have to pay for the total cost of this case as to date this case has not been enforced as it is deemed under article 21 of the law that all costs will be born by Ms. Cooper, who in turn; the Sunderland Social Services have sworn on oath to cover all costs of Ms. Cooper.
When this case is enforced it will bankrupt Sunderland city, It will bankrupt Sunderland local authorities, it will bankrupt the central authority and higher. The judgement is perfect and it will kill the forced adoption in the UK once and for all. The Judgement was is perfect, the judgement is a master of English. The UK have been caught stealing children for profit.
I will not stop and I will not bow down to the UK.From Nigel Cooper – 17 April 2013:
UK Caught Stealing Children
To all of you who and following my battle with the UK to see justice severed. Well! What can one say! Justice in the UK? That is a very silly thing to mutter, to a point that you can’t put justice and the UK in the same sentence it does not work! I once thought, a very long time ago that the social services was just that, a SERVICE for humanity when in fact it is a profit making mechanism bolstered by the abduction of international children, you and I call that kidnap, oh an that is an international felony under the international penal code, but the UK just ignore that one, it does not count when the UK’s name is used. I once thought a judge was an honorable person! I see no honor amongst the thieves of the courts of the UK. … I once though that the UK stood for the rights of freedom and liberty as laid down in the Magna Carta 1297 A.D, and in the rights and freedoms of lords and men of 1100 A.D.It seems that those enshrined laws and covenants go by the wayside when the social services, when the judges, when the corrupt police get involved.
I once thought that truth would prevail! That’s until I discovered the fake doctors and social workers, the fake legal people, the fake M.P.s and much more. So how much is a child worth to the UK? Moreover, how much is a child worth to you! I know that there is NO SUM on this planet that can replace what has been stolen from myself, and to multiply that figure to cover every stolen child and we are in the realms of an evil deed that is so great, so evil, so woefully painful to parents it transcends all realms of humanity. For what I see, the social service’s are undertaking is the greatest abuse of power in the history of mankind. If the UK supports this act of abuse of power, then the world should turn its back up on the UK, the world should cast down a shadow over the UK and reject the UK from the community of mankind, the UK should be openly punished before the eyes of humanity for humanity, for each and every one of us. From a time before Christ….. A wise king known as King Solomon was tasked with the fable of two women and a child. I suggest you read it. I will fight for my daughter, I will lay down my life for my daughter, I will see justice served if it is the last thing I do in my life.I will not bow down the UK, I will never agree to the lies and frauds of the UK. To that end..
Sir, Madam I am looking for two things:
1. Good international legal assistance
2. Good media coverage.
I am in possession of the perfect judgment sworn before the King of Belgium, King Albert II as the omnipotent judgement. It is perfect at every point of law. I want someone to force this judgement to be obeyed in the UK. I openly offer 1,000,000 Euros to any person who get’s my judgment enforced in full. If you would like to read the judgement…
I’ll send you a copy just ask me….
Mr. Nigel Cooper
UK Caught Stealing Children
When I am asked to “prove” ??? the UK steals children for profit.. I reply!
How much information do you want? You need documents facts, books? Tax returns? Companies House financial returns? All you have to do is ask people here, each one of them can give you a big slice of this information. There are bigger players who have been at this for many years collecting and collating information. I am not just one person I am one of 10’s of 1000’s of parents who have worked this out. It does not take rocket science to do this, just a good head and a clear understanding of public records. To put just one person into the picture.. “A single Doctor” This doctor who is actually not a doctor but a fake, her company ( a doctor as a company).. make 43,000% yes forty three thousand percent profit in a 12 month period.
Questions??? Why was this abnormal profit not investigated by HMRC or Companies house, or whoever was paying the doctor for services rendered why did they not ask. Then there are the so called M.P. for families? Hold on a second is this the same M.P. how publicly boasts of is prowess with women? Is this the same M.P. who “girl-friend” is a director of a THE company that provides all of the IT infrastructure to the foster homes and centers? Is this the same M.P. who ranted for so long on a families bill that was nothing more than a whitewash of the facts. So not the Core-IT directors and just “aquired” the group of people who form expert witness’s.. So now the Social Services, have the doctors, the legal teams, the so called expert witness’s and the judges all colluding?
You’ve got no idea what’ going on! each week some 250 to 300 children are taken.. Yes a 1000 children a month taken for no reason other that for profit. The SS staff take the children so they have a job, they pass it up the chain to the legal teams have a job and make a profit, the courts have their own budget that just get bigger and bigger. The foster homes, cafcass teams, social workers, doctors, police, judges, and much more are all involved is creating a vast financial turnover in children for profit. Give the past figures and records, it dose not take too much effort to extrapolate those figures into a future forecast. That forecast is damming beyond belief, by the years 2020, at the rate the UK is stealing children, they will be able to wholesale children like a commodity, like, gas, coal and steal. Stealing children is very big money!
Hence my original statement.”
video: NIGEL COOPER – CHILD STEALING – UK BREAKS INTERNATIONAL LAW
UK Column Live – Nigel Cooper live on UK CAUGHT STEALING CHILDREN
72 min. video:
. from: nigel cooper
Published on 29 Mar 2013
“I told the would I would not stop! I will not stop, I will publish to the world. What I do I do not do for myself only, I do for the community of mankind, for… “We the people for the people”, Let no man take from mankind the gift of mother nature the gift of life, let alone a judge or social worker.”
———————————- “EUROPEAN COURTS COME AFTER UK ‘SOCIAL SERVICES”
“A European judge has ordered police to force Britain’s rogue ‘family courts’ to hand back a child they kidnapped from her father.
Judges in Belgium made the landmark ruling ordering officials in the UK’s tyrannical secret law courts to give former NATO security contractor Nigel Coopers daughter back to him….” contd.
Do you know of a scandal involving the SS in Cornwall? Have your efforts to publicise your case come to nothing because no-one will listen? Let us know. Just post below.
Nigel Cooper: see much more, who did it, and vital comments: “BANNED from the UK: NATO Security Consultant because the “UK has been caught red handed stealing children”