Hampstead Cover Up Ella & Abe Expose Brian Gerrish Bill Maloney MI5 McKenzie RCJ Conspiracy
“How to Arrange the Arrest/Imprisonment of a “Troublesome” Mum Who Loves Her Children and WILL NOT Accept That Sick Criminal Perverts in Social Services and the Local Authority Have Any Right to Abduct Her Children.
A “problem mother” who is also refusing to accept some black-gowned, white-wigged, Filth-From-The-Temple criminal’s “decision” in support of his/her confederates in The Authorities. An irritating nuisance of a parent, who WILL NOT just slink of defeated, to drown herself in a sea of alcohol and valium – killing herself slowly/quickly. A “smartarse” mother who DIDN’T freak out when the authorities snatched her children because she saw that that was EXACTLY what The Authorities wanted: a “mentally unstable hysterical mother” – who should be sectioned. Of course, by not freaking out, ella was then labelled “a mentally unstable NON-hysterical mother” – who should be sectioned. This is reminiscent of the trials by Satanic judges (warlocks, wearing robes and head-dress pretty much the same as they do now) in 17th century England (please see footnote below).
So, with such a mother, a frame-up of some sort is necessary – to arrest and imprison mother, in order to silence her.
Step 1: Accuse mother of a crime she didn’t commit.
Here we see the first stage in action: the introduction of the completely FALSE assumption that ella is “in contempt of court”. This is an excerpt from an email from the HOSTILE litigant, solicitor Susannah Hargreaves, to Pauffley’s clerk, Barry clerk on 9th February, 2015 at 12;15:
“At the time of writing, the Papa Kills Babies mobile phone footage that has been uploaded onto You Tube has been viewed by nearly 163,000 people. The other 2 videos which are on You Tube also have been viewed by thousands.”
“The London Borough of Camden are taking legal advice about what steps they may need to take to address issues that arise for them from the dissemination of this material.”
“It would seem clear from the events of the end of last week that both Ms McNeil and the mother are in contempt of court for publishing material which forms part of the evidence in these proceedings on the internet and, by osting the videos of the children, together with numerous references to their first names, thereby causing them to be very easily identified as the subjects of these proceedings.”(italics and bold type are mine for emphasis)
Interestingly, even though Susannah Hargreaves considers ella AND Sabine McNeill to be in contempt of court, only ella is CC’d in this communication – McNeill is conspicuously omitted.
Step 2: Arrange to Try mother for a crime she has not committed.
The reply from BC, The Clerk at 13:08, 9th February 2015:
Mrs Justice Pauffley has decided to hear this case tomorrow, Tuesday, 10 February at 2.00pm. May I please impose on Ms H to ensure that all concerned are made aware. Thank you.
So, a court hearing is set up for 24 HOURS LATER – BY EMAIL?!! – to hear a case where ella is to be accused of contempt of court!!! BC The Clerk doesn’t even bother to email the “accused”, ella, directly. Instead, she is just CC’d in on this email to Hargreaves. And BC The Clerk ASKS a hostile litigant “to ensure that all concerned are made aware”! ella’s name is NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE in this email, yet she faces being found guilty of contempt of court, arrested and possibly imprisoned at the outcome of a hastily and UNLAWFULLY arranged court case, just 24 hours away!
Again, curiously, Sabine McNeill is not even CC’d in this email from BC The Clerk, even though McNeill is THE ONE who published (“inadvertently”, as the computer expert, multi-blogger and petition writer extraordinaire never tires of reminding us) those materials online.
However, ella could have easily refuted this accusation – she could even have called as a witness, Belinda McKenzie, who has stated publicly: “that the mother herself is entirely innocent of publishing materials online”. And McKenzie KNEW for certain that McNeill was responsible, as she has also stated publicly: “my colleague in the Association of McKenzie Friends Sabine McNeill who is responsible for having leaked the home-videos of the 2 whistle-blower children to a blogger”
So, it was necessary not to try to arrest ella for a crime she had not committed (which she could easily refute -and refute dangerously loudly), but to arrest her for a “crime” that could be made TO APPEAR she had committed: breaching an injunction/being in contempt of court.
So, ella was set up to be framed for BREACHING AN INJUNCTION for a crime she hadn’t committed: publishing material online. Of course she could have easily refuted that injunction too – proving with the help of testimony from Belinda McKenzie AND Sabine McNeill, if they’d felt so inclined – her complete innocence in the matter. But that wasn’t part of the plan. It was essential NOT to give ella a realistic chance to refute the contempt of court charge/breach of injunction, or to prove her innocence. That’s why ella wasn’t given notice directly, but just CC’d in on an email to the hostile litigant, who had every intention of seeing ella served with that impossible injunction: “to remove all offending materials from the internet by 16.00 on Friday 13th February 2015”. This was why ella was given ridiculously inadequate and UNLAWFUL notice to appear in court, and given NO warning that she was going to be served an injunction. The point of this was to have ella as ill-prepared as possible to refute this trumped-up contempt of court charge/breach of injunction, confusing and intimidating her as much as possible. This was achieved by NOT issuing a court summons served by a court official, or a courier-transported summons which HAS TO BE signed for by the respondent on receipt of said summons, i.e. to have PROOF that the summons has been served. Instead, an EMAIL was sent to the HOSTILE LITIGANT! The hostile litigant, Suzannah Hargreaves, was of course, EAGER TO SECURE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ELLA. In short, this was all carried out by totally UNLAWFUL means.
Step 3: Keep silent when ella looks for help from McKenzie “Friends”.
At ten past ten at night, February 9th 2015, ella sent an email to Sabine McNeill, Belinda McKenzie and Terence Ewing among others, forwarding them the email that BC The Clerk sent to Susannah Hargreaves, the hostile litigant (see above).
ella included her message: “They want me to come to court tomorrow”
There was no response from Sabine McNeill, Belinda McKenzie or Terence Ewing that day. The following morning, February 10th – the day of the hastily and UNLAWFULLY arranged court hearing – ella received this message from another recipient who APPEARS to be genuinely concerned about this mockery of justice, and is also aware of the danger ella is facing (which is why she is not named here):
“The rescheduling of this case today 10th Feb, what is that all about, what are the plans now?10.10pm this instruction comes through surely this is not lawful?”
This email was sent out to ella, with Sabine McNeill, Belinda McKenzie and Terence Ewing, CC’d at 06:24.
Step 4: Leave ella, unprepared, with NO assistance from “McKenzie Friends”, to face the Wrath of The Court, and a skilled hostile lawyer on her own.
Belinda McKenzie emailed ella, exactly two hours later, at 08:24. Only the apparently concerned person was CC’d – So, just ella and “Apparently Concerned” received the following email, with no mention of Sabine McNeill whatsoever:
“We are going to have to do this preparing of the docs this morning, please come as soon as you can. We have an ex-policeman who is going to go into the court with you and demand the return of the children.”
Remember Belinda McKenzie is a lay legal advisor, who KNEW this “summons” to appear in court was completely UNLAWFUL. She could easily have informed the court the summons was unlawful, rejecting it out of hand for the unlawful method of notification of a summons – as well as citing the ridiculously inadequate notice to attend. The FACT that McKenzie DID NOT do this shows her intention: to cast ella TOTALLY UNPREPARED into court, up against a hostile skilled lawyer, eager to obtain an injunction against ella, together with a judge and her clerk, who had underhandedly set up this trap of a “hearing”. Of course, McKenzie chose not to go into court with ella that day because – AS A WITNESS – she could have been called upon to swear, under oath, “that the mother herself is entirely innocent of publishing materials online”. But having any charges of contempt of court and breaching an injunction against ella THROWN OUT, were definitely NOT part of the plan.
But not to worry: with a completely unknown, so-called ex-policemen to assist her, ella should be all right…
So we have Belinda McKenzie effectively saying to ella: “Off you go with the nice ex-policeman, dear – and good luck! (You’ll need it, heh, heh). I’m really sorry I’m not going to be there in person to testify for you, but I’m there in spirit!( heh, heh, cackle , cackle). And where is the notification for Sabine McNeill to appear in court? Well, McNeill wasn’t the one the Satanic Witches wanted to frame, was she? And why should they want to frame a fellow member of their coven? McNeill was busy packing her bags to take a break in Germany, where she would twist things with numerous, instantly set up skype interviews while “on the run”, to give the appearance she was THE HERO of this evil frame-up.
I have to admit, she had me fooled for a while.
from a conscious living being,
Drifloud July 27th “