JUDGES must obey the law: people must not be jailed in secret and ‘exceptional’ cases might require a new level of ‘probabilities’

15 05 07 Daventry ExpressI wonder whether I would be jailed in secret, if I went back to the UK… Please note that I left on 11 February 2015, for Barnet Council wanted to support a prosecution. A day later Police came to my flat and nine Police to the Russian mother of the two ‘whistleblower kids‘ whom I had assisted as a McKenzie Friend.

First of all, I could be apprehended by Police at St Pancras (Eurostar), any air or ferry port, since the alleged abusers have complained to the Police who want to apply the Harassment Act, without having applied for an arrest warrant though.

Their names were published by Veterans Today (it was certainly neither me or the mother, but it has been suggested by two independent people that it was MI5) – but has now been withdrawn! I’m sure those names are still in other places, but Hampstead Research are developing their knowledge base about them and sharing as they go along.

Secondly, I could be ordered before a judge because of ‘contempt of court’ regarding this Penal Notice from a secret High Court of the Family Division.

However, we are not alone: John Hemming is quoted in this newspaper article that people must NOT be jailed in secret:

A very experienced McKenzie Friend had written that judges have full immunity. One can only ‘appeal’ against a judgement.

So I’m writing to the author of Should there be a Third Standard of Proof in Care Cases? to introduce him to the extreme and exceptional ‘Whistleblower Kids‘ case:

  • at least 20 child victims
  • 70+ adult abusers
  • 8 schools and 1 church
  • an unknown number of killed babies.

According to EU Directive 2011/92, we the British Public and Internet Community are acting as ‘legally competent authority’, after all other authorities have failed us!

Volunteers are finding facts to substantiate the children’s allegations online:

But High Court Judge Pauffley would prefer to hand custody over the children to their abusive father, one of the patterns that connects cases of child snatching and forced adoptions… That’s Why Ian Josephs doesn’t recommend reporting crimes: you might loose your children

Greetings from the ‘Hampstead Whistleblower’…


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to JUDGES must obey the law: people must not be jailed in secret and ‘exceptional’ cases might require a new level of ‘probabilities’

  1. jacquifarmer1984 says:

    Reblogged this on Hampstead Research and commented:
    Poor Sabine and Ella and Abraham! Imagine what it’s like to be driven out of your home and country. Our hearts are with them.

  2. lindybb says:

    I am no Law expert Sabine, but surely they can’t lawfully in-prison you, you were only acting in the best interest of the children.. It isn’t a crime to be so wonderfully passionate in believing the children and wanting justice, if anything was to happen to you Sabine there wouldn’t just an uproar in this county it would be International!! Many, many wonderful people are behind you AND Ella.. It’s going to be a tough time,granted,, But i believe JUSTICE for those beautiful children will be done… Stay strong Sabine, You’re one hell of a Lady..xxx

  3. Peter Etherden says:

    I think John Hemming has lost his seat in parliament…as did George Galloway…probably the only MPs likely to have been removed by ballot box tampering…not that we’d ever know. Tories are within six seats of a majority…with 15 constituencies still to report. Poor Cameron. With hindsight, He’ll soon discover that managing the Coalition was a doddle compared to a wafer slim majority. Target a dozen Tory MPs and one will oppose the party line. Interesting times.

  4. al says:

    For information:
    I discovered the “names document” on 7-feb-2015 at about 22:30.

    I know this because I posted a link to GLP forum at precisely 22:49.
    I also saved that page on GLP offline, before the mods deleted it! (so I can prove the page existed at 22:30 on 7-feb-2015/).

    I also recorded the location on pastebin of the document. It WAS at:

    If you want more info (e.g. proof), I can supply it via email

    PS are you aware that over on the Icke forum, they are saying not to visit here for fear of viruses???
    they give a spoof link to “hampsteadresarch” (missing an e).

    and here is the DI twit…Le Dingue’s post.

    i also posted this exact comment on the HampsteadResearch blog for JF’s attention.

  5. Anonymous says:

    you see that is the beauty of brave communication brave I mean because courageous and costly to do the right thing sometimes,,,,and beauty in that no man or woman is an island and as one becomes vulnerable another reaches out….

  6. Anonymous says:

    Not wishing to introduce a pessimistic note, but of course John Hemming who chaired a HoC’s select committee on related areas and had championed greater transparency in court proceedings, lost his Yardley, Birmingham seat in the recent election by about seven thousand votes to his Labour rival.

  7. anono says:

    Everyone should be aware by now that there are two sorts of contempt

    1. by individuals/LiPs/private citizens who are able to help or fund themselves, and
    2. state organs/legally aided solicitors and lawyers generally.

    The former will be jailed, the latter will be let off with a mere slap on the wrist.
    If you do your research you will find that it is the public who bring these latter groups to justice not the judges or the state and the former by judges/social services etc etc.

    Two interesting cases to read/google are Davies v CSA [High Court and CoA] and Davies v Welch [High Court]. If you have been brought before the court for contempt ask why you should be treated any differently? What court order do you have to obey when the secretary of state does not have to. And as the law on secrecy in the family courts is destined to change in the future to more openness just do the same as Mrs Welch?

  8. Pingback: DESPERATELY SEEKING: ‘Police Against Child Abuse’ to Investigate ‘Hampstead Case’ aka #WhistleblowerKids | 'Whistleblower Kids' in the Court of Public Interest

  9. Pingback: Related Family and Criminal Proceedings: Nice Words, Harsh Realities #whistleblowerkids #forcedadoption | '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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s