Published on Feb 2, 2015
as described -
Dear Home Secretary
Anybody who watches these privately taken videos is convinced.
This is to alert you to the fact that I have just added your email address to the petition that I published on
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-chr ... ian-familyI did so as an individual rather than co-founder and web publisher of the Association of McKenzie Friends, for our Chair Mrs McKenzie had been asked by Mrs Justice Pauffley to give an undertaking, even on behalf of her colleagues, NOT to publish anything. Is ‘corporate gagging’ now a new permissible facet of the secrecy of family courts!?
Unfortunately, Mrs McKenzie has also lost complete faith in the Judge after she assisted the mother in court. She says: “Not having as yet ‘come to her decision’ = judged, she did not grant a level-playing-field between the parties regarding Contact in the interim, as if already ‘presuming’ one side to be ‘less innocent’ or ‘more guilty’ than the other. This was plainly wrong and has laid the judge open to accusations of bias.”
As the petition describes, it requests the return of the two children to their Russian mother who were taken into ‘care’ after they reported the crimes of their British father. However, in the attempt by Barnet and Metropolitan Police to cover up rather than investigate, and by LB Barnet to keep the children rather than return them, the latest unacceptable proposition was to increase the contact between the abusive father who sees his children already on a weekly basis, while the mother is only allowed every two weeks.
I trust that you know how Sir James Munby invited courts to take the realities of the internet into account, especially Social Media.
url-1
The attached Position Statement was our offer NOT to expose this scandal in exchange of returning the children. Instead, Mrs Justice Pauffley ignored the issues that have been outstanding since Judge Mayer transferred the case to her on 23 December:
The justification for an Interim Care Order.
The discussion of a Non-Molestation Order.
The inequality of Contact.
Instead, the Judicial Review filed on 22 December 2014 is attempted to be stymied and two barristers have suggested that evidence should be destroyed! Furthermore, LB Barnet want to write not only to all interested parties that include 3 MEPs but also the mother’s list of witnesses.
In the wake of your efforts to make a National Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse happen, you will know how important it is for victims to be believed. Anybody who watches these privately taken videos is convinced. But the mother is supposed not to make use of them!
Can you maybe at least pretend to ensure that there is some proper procedure in any of the institutions mentioned?
Or maybe you can just ask the Executive Director of LB Barnet, Andrew Travers, to return the children with immediate effect?
With many thanks in advance,
Campaigner
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/02/courts-w ... -punished/https://audioboom.com/boos/2823318-mich ... se-inquiry
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:03 am