Dear #CEO of #BarnetCouncil, consider #returning #WhistleblowerKids in light of #EUDirective

Dear Mr Travers

This comes to you in the wake of telephone conversations between my solicitor Mr Aseem Taj and Colindale Police, regarding the online exposure of the concealment of serious crimes against children in LB Camden. It involves several of your agencies and employees.

I am accused of having published a document that I categorically deny. I was always following a lawful course of action to get two children returned to their Russian mother and grandparents, after Barnet Police took them on 11 September 2014.

Against me, a supposed ‘warrant for arrest’ was followed by ‘wanted for discussion’ and ‘bail conditions’. This perversion of justice is an abuse of power and position and misconduct in public office. For it is clear that this 8-year-old boy and his 9-year-old sister are two of some 20 children who have been suffering regularly from 60 or 70 adults, not counting the murders of babies allegedly having taken place.

In December 2014, I brought the ‘whistleblower kids’ to the attention of all councillors with a link to the same videos with which I also alerted the Home Secretary. After the mother’s issues were ignored by Dame Anna Pauffley in the High Court, an internet explosion should have ensured that you got an email every time somebody signed the petition “Return the Whistleblower Kids and Abuse Survivors to their Russian Family”. The popular response proves the veracity of the children’s allegations, even though they sound soo un-believable to normal human beings.

This video describes the position of the grandparents with English subtitles and includes the visit of 10 supposed police officers to the mother’s home, when she managed to escape on Thursday 12 February. I would be grateful if you could investigate who authorised that operation which was carried out without a warrant for arrest.

The video also makes clear that the children want to go home and are NOT kept in care in their ‘best interest’.

I left the country after the Position Statement of LB Barnet stated that a prosecution against me would be mounted.

Furthermore, an injunction against the mother and me has been put together by your Legal Services, instead of investigating and prosecuting the real criminals.

In short, the serious crimes against children are and have been covered up by

Social Services of Camden presumably in collaboration with Barnet:

  1. A Strategy Meeting decided to take the children into ‘care’ on 9 September 2014.
  2. Hardly any of the medical, school and other reports that the mother should have had have been disclosed to her.
  3. The government claims that Social Services should keep families together. But what is happening on the ground is the irreversible traumatisation of children and the serious disruption and destruction of families.

Barnet Police were alerted on 5 September, took the children on 11 September and closed the case with “crime not confirmed” on 22 September.

  1. Interviews with clearly coached ‘retractions’ of the allegations were made on 17 September. I attach the extracts of a witness statement critiquing both the Police reports and the quality of their interviews.
  2. Metropolitan Police are covering Barnet (and other Police stations and constables named by the children) with their Acknowledgment of Service of the Judicial Review that we filed on 22 December 2014.

Legal Services of Barnet Council cover the criminal father and his associates:

  1. There is no proof for any risk of harm for the children in the mother’s care and the Russian grandparents are a perfect solution for healing the UK trauma.
  2. The Injunction Order is a grotesque attempt to control incontrollable people on the internet and to accuse the mother and myself instead, besides framing her partner instead of the biological father as the leader of a cult.
  3. The inequality of contact between father (weekly) and mother (fortnightly) is as incomprehensible as the claim that scarring in the anal areas of the children is due to constipation.
  4. Having ignored the mother’s Residence Order and previous Non-Molestation Orders against the father turns out to be a way of treating the children as cruelly as possible, as the grandparents describe on their video.

Barnet County Court with Judge Vera Mayer transferred the case to Dame Anna Pauffley at the High Court without addressing the mother’s issues:

  1. the reasons for the Council keeping the children;
  2. releasing the children for Christmas;
  3. the inequality of contact with the father who also gave a laptop to the children for skype conversations in addition to his contacts;
  4. the non-molestation order against the father whom the children are clearly afraid of;
  5. the first foster parents reported nightmares that the father would come and kill the children.

You will be aware of Rotherham Council and you may know of connections with the Royal Commission in New South Wales which resulted in the report Corruption, Reform and Paedophilia. It was carried out in 1997 and continues in a way that is clearly required also in the UK, given this Hampstead scandal.

With a view to win / win solutions for the victims, please consider:

  1. handing the children over to the Russian Consul who has been attending hearings and plans to visit them as soon as he returns from holidays;
  2. cancelling any ‘wanted’ calls for the mother and myself so that we can both return safely to the UK;
  3. initiating a “Police Against Child Abuse” force, starting with Colindale Police station;
  4. stopping Barnet Legal Services from persecuting the wrong perpetrators, using the secrecy of family courts to cover up the lack of professional criminal investigations.

Looking forward to your response,

Yours sincerely,

Sabine K McNeill
___________________

Co-Founder, Association of McKenzie Friends
Public Interest Advocacy while assisting Litigants in Person

www.SabineMcNeill.co.uk
… mathematician, system analyst, event organiser and web publisher

According to EU Directives, you behaved lawfully Sabine and UK Authorities have not.

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician, software designer, system analyst, event organiser, independent web publisher and online promoter of positivity.
This entry was posted in Child 'care', Child 'Protection', Child abduction, Child Abuse, EU, Paedophilia, Russian Children and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Dear #CEO of #BarnetCouncil, consider #returning #WhistleblowerKids in light of #EUDirective

  1. I have watched, listened and followed, as I do with the west minster “Nothing to see here” historical? child abuse.. and I am not surprised. Sabine, What you fight for and who you fight for restores my faith in humanity. The Stone wall you face and the iron fist that is trying to come down on you, is the testimony to what must be being hidden.
    You have more compassion for “the right thing” than our entire child services collectively. A service governed by money, where adoption, fostering, taking children seems to hold an endless pot, against a pocket of small change to support families.
    Keep up the work and know for many here in the UK, you are in our hearts, as much as I’m sure that will stick in many throats here.

  2. Sheila Gardner says:

    Dear Sabine,

    I am heartbroken at the way you have been treated. Thinking of you and those you have tried to protected.

    Kind Regards,

    Sheila

  3. Angelyda says:

    God bless the children and their mother and Sabine. Please don’t give up the fight! Greetings from USA

  4. lee says:

    excellent investigation…………..
    can we do a grand jury , then prosecute by jury trial these criminals, and continue with on-going trials….
    can we have open testimonial & witness giving sessions to all , every day, which are recorded, with evidence delivered at the public testimonals to name & shame crown criminals…..
    the queen erii will not live her oath by stopping her crown officals from commiting crime in her name…………..

  5. lee says:

    queen will NOT Honour her oath duty of catre to her subjects….
    queen violates coronation oath………..
    queen will not discipline her criminal judges…..

  6. Grand & Petit Juries

    The traditional system was that persons qualified to be members of Juries (freeholders aged over 21) were called by County Sherriffs to Assizes (Now Crown Courts) and divided into ‘Grand’ and ‘Petit’ juries. Grand Juries heard accusations of crimes and decided whether there was a case to answer. If there was, the Crown was required to place the matter before a Petit Jury. Members of a Grand Jury could also make investigations on their own initiative as a posse.

    The authority of a Grand Jury comes from the subject’s right to be tried by his Peers per Chapter 39 of Magna Carta 1215: ‘No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, and by the law of the land.’

    The right of Grand Juries to present their verdicts to the Sovereign is acknowledged in Articles 5 and 11 of the Bill of Rights 1688: 5. Right to petition. ‘That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning etc’….and 11. ‘Juries. That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned’ etc….

    Both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are “statutes in force”. As with many legal terms, ‘statute’ has more than one definition. In these cases they were re-statements of the common law by the Sovereign as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative. No Parliaments were involved because in the event there had been lawful rebellions, ‘trial by battle’ would have settled the issue on both occasions [1].

    This also means that no Parliament has authority to infringe their provisions. This is also acknowledged in Article 13 of the Bill of Rights: 13. Frequent Parliaments. ‘And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently’…“Amending” is a legal term which means to ‘improve’, ‘strengthen’ and ‘preserve’ which have their natural meaning. There is no lawful authority for a Parliament to infringe the subjects Common Law rights.

    Returning to the fate of Grand Juries post 1917, the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 was passed which was described as ‘An Act to abolish grand juries and amend the law as to the presentment of indictments’. That Act was later repealed and the practice of accepting the signature of a Court Official, instead of that of the foreman of a Grand Jury on indictments (formal charges requiring a jury trial) has continued on dubious legal grounds.

    There are in force at least two statutes which still require trial by Grand Jury. The first is known as the Statute the Fifth of 1351 IV. ‘None shall be taken upon Suggestion without lawful Presentment; nor disfranchised, but by Course of Law. Whereas it is contained in the Great Charter of the Franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold, nor of his Franchises nor free Custom, unless it be by the Law of the Land; It is accorded assented, and stablished, That from henceforth none shall be taken by Petition or Suggestion made to our Lord the King, or to his Council, unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done, in due Manner, or by Process made by Writ original at the Common Law; nor that none be out of his Franchises, nor of his Freeholds, unless he be duly brought into answer, and forejudged of the same by the Course of the Law; and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redresseed and holden for none’ etc. This is another example of a statute made by the Sovereign.

    Now we turn to a statute in force made by a Parliament which requires that Grand Juries be embodied: V. ‘Indictment must be found by a Grand Jury within Three Years…’And to the intent that the Terror and Dread of such Criminal Accusations may in some reasonable time be removed That …for no Person or Persons whatsoever shall be indicted tryed or prosecuted for any such Treason as aforesaid or for Misprision of such Treason that shall be committed or done within the Kingdome of England Dominion of Wales or Towne of Berwick upon Tweed…for unlesse the same Indictment be found by a Grand Jury within Three Years next after the Treason or Offence done and committed…’

    There we have it, Grand Juries never went away, they have been conveniently forgotten by the present establishment. That does not mean they can get away with it. In Bowles.v. Bank of England (1913) it was ruled that: The Bill of Rights remains unrepealled and practice or custom, however prolonged … cannot be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions.

    If the present legal establishment fails to do their duty, freeholders aged over 21 may, on their own authority, form Grand Juries to investigate and indict criminals.

    There could be said to be some slight semblance of a continuing existence of the idea of the Grand Jury in the various parliamentary committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Perhaps the relationship should become more transparent, to widen the meaning of Twelve Good Men and True beyond sitting Members of Parliament and Lords Spiritual and Temporal to embrace the common men and women of the realm?

    End Notes

    [1] Here is confirmation from Blackstone’s Commentaries that “Right of War” sets lawful title to The Crown and the limitations which bind the King: THIS conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it’s inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it’s descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England.

    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
    Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.

  7. peter oakes says:

    Now all we have to do is to get the courts on board ? Extremely difficult when the
    Legal Mafia have hi-jacked the Country in a creeping coup ! The police are corrupted
    at high rank, clerks of court, solicitors, judges of all ranks etc and your elected
    councillors in local government readily join in when advised by the town clerk
    ( a solicitor). Treason against the people is the charge ! let,s have a few
    in the dock.

  8. peter oakes says:

    Oh and by the way, When ever I have been in a court Blackstones is ignored,

    They allways refer to Archbold. anything to confuse to obfuscate the fatcs, it,s
    about time the Law set on One Rule book

  9. Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
    Once upon a long time ago, we were told to, ‘tell the truth and shame the devil’. Now we tell the truth and find we can be arrested and even imprisoned. What is happening to the country I grew up in?

  10. Pingback: #UK_Infringement of #EU_Directive on #ChildSexualAbuse #CSA and sexual exploitation of children & child pornography | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  11. Pingback: ACCORDING to #EUDirectives you behaved lawfully and the #UKauthorities not | Victims Unite!

  12. Pingback: UPDATING #WhistleblowerKids: #Abusers #Videos #PoliceCoverUps | Whistleblower Kids in the Court of Public Interest

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s