18 Seven Grounds for Public Interest

After the Online Petition to Return the Whistleblower Kids had been removed and my three Facebook accounts deleted, I thought I’d try www.meetup.com to get the community of people who cared about the case to collaborate more effectively.

I am member of 42 technical groups and have attended lots of events in London thanks to this excellent platform.

I used the PAGES facility to collect Witness Statements in view of an appeal against the judgement that Justice Pauffley had published on 19 March 2014.

The appeal was being handled by the solicitor who had come forward to protect and defend me. We persuaded Ella to use him, after she had, quite understandably, lost all faith in all lawyers.

But as mentioned earlier, Justice Pauffley saw a ‘conflict of interests’ arising due to him representing both of us, so he is no longer helping me.

We have to be realistic and state that the outcome of the appeal has already been determined, just as it was with Pauffley’s ‘fact finding hearing’. The system has decided what it wants – these children – and is going to do whatever it takes to get them, including trampling justice. Pauffley is just the tool the system is using to get this done, and this can be seen in the fact that she also presided over another, similar case, in which the same sort of injustices were done to victims, and similar preferences were given to abusers: the Hollie Greig case in Scotland.

In actual fact, the witness statements we gathered are evidence of the intelligence and dedication of the internet community that Mrs Justice Pauffley slanderously called ‘evil and/or foolish’.

The most prestigious witness statement came from Alfred Lambremont Webre, a retired Canadian professor of law and radio show host:

Extract from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fouxy51AIo

“There were no witnesses who could tell the truth at this judicial proceeding … You [Ella] were not present to tell the full story of your children’s participation in what appears to be what we’ve unearthed is a paedophile and ritual child sacrifice hub in Hampstead.

This is really the first opportunity in the court of public opinion. This is serving as a first instance to get these facts and your testimony on the record, which should have happened, if this judge had been an honest judge and not corrupted, and this court had been an honest proceeding.

And I say this as an attorney as a former law professor at two universities and as a judge in international proceedings. This is disgraceful: The conduct of this court by any international standard is disgraceful.”

– Alfred Lambremont Webre, Attorney and Radio Show Host

1. This 3-page complaint focuses on the fact that a Serious Fraud was committed in a Police Investigation which was perpetuated by the High Court Judge, even though she spotted it!

The details are that on 04.09.14 the couple reported the childrens allegations informally to Abraham’s brother-in-law, Mr Jean-Clement Yaohirou. He passed the audio recording of their meeting as well as the privately recorded videos on to DC Rogers who apparently sent them to a property store in Chingford, instead of making them available for investigation.

2. Another complaint covers these points:

  1. Court of Public Interest
  2. Satanic Abuse Explained
  3. Satanic Abuse and The Establishment
  4. Fact- Finding Case Short on Facts
  5. The Press Spout the Judgement Verbatim
  6. Poor Attention to Facts
  7. Claims of “A Full and Thorough Investigation”
  8. Falsification of Truth
  9. Intimidation of the Public
  10. Failure to Follow Judicial Precedent
  11. Unsubstantiated Claims of “Mental Torture”
  12. Perversion of Justice and Breach of Oath

3. This complaint was written by an ‘international citizen’. Here’s a one-page summary of the seven-page document:

I wish to (publicly) make the following complaint(s). I am not a party to the proceedings although I have followed the case reasonably closely and as a concerned member of the public wish to formalise and record my objection in the prescribed manner. Although criticism might be directed at public bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for the education and protection of children and the investigation of crime, as a senior High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffley assigned to this case, had an over-arching duty to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved, which she conspicuously failed to do.

The reasons for this assessment are as follows:-

(a) She demonstrated partisanship and bias in the way she controlled proceedings, in that she did not ensure “equality of arms” from the parties concerned, insofar as throughout, the mother did not appear and was not permitted representation by her ‘McKenzie Friend’. Nor did she allow the chosen mother’s representative even to attend to witness proceedings. To allow the remaining parties to the case to be represented – it is reported – by some sixteen legal personnel, without the mother having any, breached the rules of natural justice and equality of treatment.

(b) The whole tenor of her published judgement and conclusions far exceeds the evidence on which she claims to base it and is clearly slanted against the mother and in favour of the father. As such it demonstrates unjustified bias. Indeed it is quite contrary to the evidence! Previous court judgements had confirmed the mother to be good and safe, whilst the father had a track record of violence and dubious behaviour. Yet Judge Pauffley, incredibly concludes “on a balance of probability” quite the opposite, without supporting evidence, that the father and others should be exonerated whilst the mother was guilty of “torture”. Not only is this by every judicial standard, irrational, it is partisan and unwise.

(c) In publishing her seven conclusions in para. 165 of her judgement, she has exceeded her brief and competence by making assertions on criminal matters without being constrained by criminal rules of proof and evidence. She may have undermined on-going investigations – we are told – into allegations of sexual assault. This cannot be acceptable.

(d) She demonstrated bias and poor judgement by effectively rubbishing and rejecting all the videoed witness statements by the children as unreliable, whilst paradoxically accepting their so-called ‘retraction’ as reliable. Nor apparently was she prepared to take evidence from the children directly. This defies all logic and best practice in matters of alleged child abuse.

(e) Finally her sweeping condemnation of the public as ‘foolish, evil and/or perverted’ is unwarranted and a clear breach of her oath, not to demonstrate ill will to any.

4. The Hampstead Judgement Contains Basic Factual Errors was published by James Robertson who covers problems with Pauffleys judgement under these headings:

  • The Hampstead Judgement Contains Proven Falsehoods and Cannot Therefore be Valid
  •  A Profound and Simple Problem: The Judgement is Not Factually Correct and Should Be Considered Invalid on this Basis
  • The Factual Error that Proves the Judgement is Without Validity
  • The exchange from the September 17th Police interview: The Context
  • The Swimming Pool Affirmations
  • Six Affirmations and a Lone Victory for Witness G over his Bullying Interviewer
  • The Repeated Mantra of Intimidation
  • Blanket Retraction Coerced and Therefore Legally Worthless
  • Anatomy of a Transparent Cover Up: Attack a Straw Man-Justice Pauffley’s Transparent Tactic
  • The One Strong Part of the Establishment Narrative
  • History Will Condemn the Purveyors of Brazen Injustice
  • A Completely One Sided and Dishonest Account
  • Cover-Ups Are Rather Obvious and Easy to Spot
  • A Credible Legal Definition of Error and the Possible Consequences
  • The Rule of Evil.

5. This detailed critique of every paragraph came from a McKenzie Friend:

Pauffley: Your Order Needs a Shot of Truth.

6. This statement was written by Deborah Mahmoudieh in the light of EU Directive 2011/92 on combating sexual abuse and child pornography. Debbie produces remarkable videos and also the Crime Report for Police and BBC and the Appeal to the EU Commission. Here are the headings:

  1. Bias for Abusers and against the General Public as ‘Competent Authority’
  2. Violation of EU Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
  3. Home Office Referral to Operation Hydrant for Paedophiles in Public Authority
  4. The Supposed Retractions
  5. Alleged Abusers are Suffering the Effects of Negligent Authorities and Legally Necessary Publicity Online
  6. No Naming of the Crimes by their Legal Terms
  7. The Evil and / or Foolish British and International Public
  8. The Effects of Sheer Negligence by the Responsible British Authorities
  9. Balance of Probability as Required Level of Proof
  10. Considering Facts of Crime in the Light of Historical Victim Survivors
  11. Motive with Intent: who benefits from Coaching and Cover-Ups?
  12. Psychiatric evidence
    ________________________________
  13. The Sacrifice of P & Q for the Benefit of Twenty and how many others?
  14. The Medical Evidence by Dr Hodes
  15. Serious Crimes against Many Children by Abusive Authorities and Parents
  16. Serious Professional Failure by Dr Sturge
  17. Mrs Justice Pauffley’s and Dr Sturge’s Professional Failings
  18. Children Living in Fear of their Lives
  19. No Conclusive Judgement until Doubts are Satisfied
  20. The Father’s History of Domestic Violence and Physical Abuse
  21. Seeking the Abuser(s): the Father or Mr Christie?
  22. Professional Negligence in Analysing Evidence and Determining Facts
  23. The Gutter of Press ‘Wolves’
  24. Returning the Children to the Grandparents
  25. Absence of ‘Fair Trial’ due to ‘Closed Materials’ and ‘General Assertions’.

7. Finally, the Rule of Evil is shortly expressed in Poetry.