20 2. Breach of Professional Oath

1. Court of Public Interest

Like over 30 million of the worldwide public, I have viewed the detailed evidence of an alleged satanic abuse ring in Hampstead. As party to all the online evidence, I wish to make this statement in the Court of Public Interest, giving the full context in which I ask for a review of Judge Pauffley’s unlawful ruling.

2. Satanic Abuse Explained

Two brave young children have outlined crimes of kidnap, child trafficking, rape, buggery, torture, murder and cannibalism. They allege abuse of at least 18 more young children and the murder of numerous infants, occurring at Christchurch Primary School and in the locality. It is unprecedented in human history for the wider public to be privy to such detailed evidence of satanic abuse. The exposure of this is a game-changer for the world. The world that Child G and A described back in September 2014 is not the same world as the world of March 2015.

3. Satanic Abuse and The Establishment

The change is that many people all over the world now believe these satanic crimes are credible and may form part of wider corruption at the highest levels. The children’s powerful evidence is all the more believable in the context of the Westminster paedophile scandal,  from which new revelations constantly unfold, most recently the naming of former Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw and prominent MP Enoch Powell as allegedly involved in satanic ritual paedophilia.

The Borough of Hampstead is close to Westminster and The City of London, centre of the World’s financial system. Hampstead has the highest concentration of millionaires in the UK. It is also close to the Finchley Road, where several alleged members of the Hampstead cult have businesses registered. Gordon Bowden, RAF Whistleblower, has recently presented evidence showing that there are many fraudulent businesses registered in the nearby Finchley road linked to top MPs, Dames and Lords.

4. Fact- Finding Case Short on Facts

Judge Pauffley’s fact- finding case last week proceeded with poor attention to the facts, without a proper investigation, and with obvious falsification leading to her – I would suggest- forgone conclusion that the allegations of a widespread abuse ring were “baseless”. I will consider each of these points shortly.

5. The Press Spout the Judgement Verbatim

To compound matters further, the mainstream press simply parroted the judge’s false findings verbatim, with no analysis or investigation of their own.

As a result, the travesty of justice that took place in the court was amplified by the press.

This demonstrates that the MSM is either a) devoid of a single original thought, or b) is effectively gagged by the state. Either way, it is a dangerous state of affairs.

6. Poor Attention to Facts

In their original videos, the children speak from the heart, gladly revealing information about the nature of the abuse, ritual items, the abusers’ names, roles, actions and naked bodies. They named local businesses, places, routines and activities connected to the ring and seem to show eager relief in being able to speak their truth at last.

However, Justice Pauffley simply ignored the overwhelming weight of evidence in these first videos and instead focused on the vastly inferior “retraction” video made by the police.

Police interviewed the children alone, without their mother, late at night and attempts to re-write their script are self – evident, because the children are hesitant and inconsistent.  The children’s testimony here is not nearly as believable as their original videos -and yet being so young, they are not entirely accomplished liars either. So ‘some babies, not many’ are murdered and the plastic willies used for buggery still get a mention. The judge ignores any anomalies. The interviewing police don’t ask the young children how come they can describe the physical characteristics of so many adults’ naked bodies- and judge Pauffley omits to address this key evidence. She also belittles the strong medical evidence given by the expert witness- despite the fact it constitutes proof:  proof of abuse the expert maintained, even after she qualified her initial statements slightly.

7. Claims of “A Full and Thorough Investigation”

What is particularly horrifying is that Justice P. claims there has been “a full and thorough investigation”, but it is self evident that this has not occurred: to examine and pursue all leads given would take many, many man-hours, months or years and besides which, several alleged abusers have admitted that no-one has questioned them! The matter has not been properly investigated and to claim it has, is a falsehood.

8. Falsification of Truth

Justice P.  also made some strange remarks about young children’s sexuality- for instance saying it is normal for a nine year old to sexually touch a dog, and for 8 and 9 year old siblings to sexually touch each other frequently, and during the daytime. Common sense tells me that this is highly abnormal- and furthermore, why does Justice Pauffley consider herself to be an authority on the matter, and if she is just repeating her own beliefs on the matter, then what does that say about her? Or, conversely, If she is citing a particular source in making these allegations, then what is the source and what are its probable links to pro-paedophile groups or philosophies?

9. Intimidation of the Public

Furthermore,  Justice P.  claimed that any of the 30 million people who had seen the evidence and considered it credible, were either “evil “ or “foolish”… and that many of them may be child abusers themselves because of their prurient interest in the case. This belies all common sense, since it is a completely normal reaction for people to sympathise with young children who show signs of being abused.  Judge Pauffley offered no evidence to substantiate in what way it was either evil or foolish to believe the claims to be true, so I now consider her remarks to be slanderous and an attempt at intimidation.

10. Failure to Follow Judicial Precedent

Justice Pauffley shows a breach of her office I believe, by ignoring the judicial precedent set by a recent case with similar circumstances. Mr Justice Green found in the Worbys case that the Metropolitan Police had breached the Human Rights Act of 1998 by failing to investigate crimes of rape due to rape victims “not being believed”. The judge found that “it is a legal duty to properly investigate allegations of rape and serious assault” and that when people were “not believed” this had serious psychological consequences, which were “almost worse than the rape itself”. Surely this Human Rights Law applies equally to the similar crimes in Hampstead? This case, like the Worbys one, is also under the Metropolitan Police. Why was this legal precedent not followed in the Hampstead case?

Justice Pauffley’s sorry fact finding case showed an ignorance of facts, precedents and proof – and contained fabrications and personal slurs against the parents and whistleblowers with the aim of discrediting the children’s testimony.

11. Unsubstantiated Claims of “Mental Torture”

The judge makes an unsubstantiated claim that the mother and stepfather “tortured” the children mentally, by forcing them to make up their testimony of rape, buggery, child trafficking, kidnap, torture and satanic rituals and by helping them to invent subtly similar, but distinctly different genital distinguishing marks and tattoos for at least a dozen adults. Seemingly, the whistleblowers have made up allegations of 20 children suffering ritual satanic abuse, and all the abominations above, in order to win a custody battle. Judge Pauffley does not even attempt to explain in what way it could be plausible for the children’s parents to invent such a story, with so many child victims -who could all be examined for evidence of rape, and the entire story be discredited immediately. Nor does she try and show how Abe and Ella managed to extract such an utterly convincing testimony from the children in those first videos, when the police failed miserably to coach them to speak with conviction when they tried to get them to lie.

12. Perversion of Justice and Breach of Oath

The recent ruling is a perversion of the course of justice bearing many similarities to the way in which the Scottish establishment treated whistleblowers and legal representatives in the Hollie Greig child abuse case. It has turned justice on its head, preparing to punish the innocent and allowing the guilty to walk free.

Justice Pauffley has ignored key evidence, denied scientific proof, not believed victims, refused to investigate fully, failed to follow judicial precedent, wrongly accused whistleblowers, smeared legal representatives and tried to intimidate the public. I insist that she now be held fully accountable for perverting the course of justice and breaching her oath of office.