Access to Lawful Natural Justice

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

Please supply the following:

1. Policies and written documents concerning the correct procedure
for filing a complaint;
2. Policies and written documents concerning the procedure for
dealing with complaints received through the post;
3. Policies and written documents concerning the procedure for
advancing cases into the Criminal Courts.
4. Policies and procedures and written documents defining protocols
for dealing with complaints about police authorities refusing to
investigate crimes.

Specifically, this is the meat of the complaint that I tried to
file at several locations on Wednesday 19th May 2010 around London.
--

Notification of Intention To Indict and Affidavit of Truth
of the Family: Moore -v- NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL Inter Alia
1. I, James-Ross: Moore, currently living in England as a Sovereign
Free Man and Self-Governing as such, do hereby make this Sworn And
True Notification of Intent against NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL inter
alia, on behalf of myself and my Common-Law and Legal Spouse,
Melizza-Jayne Moore, neé Lunney, and our offspring, Kieron Matthew
Celestine Moore, Nathanael Aleksandr Paul Moore, Jamie William
Patrick Moore, and Benjamin Jake Bruce Moore. WE speak as ONE.
2. Firstly let it be recorded that we are Flesh and Blood Human
Beings with Souls, ergo Free under Common Law and thus Entitled to
Speak Freely with whomsoever we choose about our grievances, and
that we therefore exercise our Rights under Common Law to do so
without fear of Unlawful reprisal, and without restriction of
Statute to which we neither agree nor condone hence are not bound
to obey, to whit:
3. We remain sui juris
4. WE DEMAND THAT IF NO CHARGES HAVE EVER OR WILL EVER BE FILED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING HELD IN NOTTINGHAM FAMILY PROCEEDINGS
COURT IN FEBRUARY 2009 BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE HARRIS OF THE NORTH
MIDLAND CIRCUIT, THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE NEVER HAS BEEN
A CASE TO ANSWER AND THAT OUR OFFSPRING ARE RELEASED FROM THEIR
BONDAGE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURNED TO THE CUSTODY OF THEIR NATURAL
PARENTS AS THEY WERE PRIOR TO 2 MARCH 2009.
5. That as a Lawfully recognised Family Unit, with Offspring who
are Sovereign flesh-and-blood Human Beings with Souls, that we are
afforded from this time, retrospectively and hereafter unto
perpetuity, all Common Law Rights and Liberties and Privileges due
us as codified in the Great Charter of 1215, the British
constitution incorporating the Rights of the Subject 1689, the
British Bill of Rights 1688, and any and all such Treaties and
Conventions guaranteeing inalienable Rights as issued in such forms
by the European Convention and the United Nations and ratified by
tacit acceptance of same as a condition of becoming a Member State
of said institutions.
6. Also, that acknowledgement that our family and ourselves have
therefore been wronged by the LOCAL AUTHORITY be made on a public
forum with a written apology and written commitment of full
rehabilitation services by agents selected by the claimants and
paid for by the LOCAL AUTHORITY, additionally that punitive damages
in the sum of ten million Pounds Sterling each be offered to not
only the immediate family of our offspring, but also to their
extended family who have been completely denied contact since 2
March 2009.
7. Also, that those named in the attached document entitled
“PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” are arrested and prosecuted for the crimes
as listed next to their names, with summary penalties levied under
the full weight of the law upon their conviction.
8. We have never endangered our offspring.
9. That by their actions, the Local Authority have and continue to
cause significant harm to our children.
10. That by their actions, the Local authority have demonstrated
their ability and willingness to use techniques that can only be
described as torture, coupled with cruel and degrading treatment
and deliberate withholding of essential services to carry out
urgent structural repairs on the family home, with the stated
intention of removing our offspring to corporate care.
11. On the face of the Law as it is understood by a Lay Person,
prediction of an event based upon flawed, false or incomplete
information is itself flawed and false. The COURT did deny a Fair
and Speedy Trial as guaranteed by Constitution with full
consideration given to facts and only facts as guaranteed by Magna
Carta, with malice aforethought to the outcome, hence is guilty of
treason to the Crown, Laws and Spirit of the Land, its Citizens and
Subjects and its Monarch.
12. That on the face of Findings of Fact given by District Judge
Melvin Harris, North Midland Circuit, that they are illegal and
unlawful; given that the Witchcraft Act 1542 (A1562, A1563, A1604,
A1735) itself was finally abolished in 1951, hence prosecution
isn’t possible under this Act however is still prosecutable under
the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 since the justifications given in
the judgement were based upon events that had not happened, were
not proved to have happened hence nor were proved beyond reasonable
doubt to be likely to happen.
13. Therefore, that the COURT should therefore also be prosecuted
under the Treason Felony Act of 1848 for pretending authority from
and above the Crown which it serves under Common Law (the Law of
the Land) by instead acting under the rules of Napoleon (the Law of
the Sea), hence usurping the power and authority of the Crown in a
situation of Law, to Foreign Influence.
14. And therefore, that those individuals listed in the attached
document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIME” be additionally charged
with complicity and conspiracy to commit and/or abet and/or
misprise Treason.
15. And therefore, that the LOCAL AUTHORITY also be charged as a
collective PERSON ENTITY with complicity and conspiracy to commit
and/or abet and/or misprise Treason.
16. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY sought, through complicity with the
local NHS Trust, to attempt to commit unlawful killing through
action of psychological assault and Torture, through destruction of
documents vital to the initiation of proper medical treatment for
an inherited metabolic condition, and to further endanger minors
through destruction of same.
17. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY further seeks to alienate the minors
from their natural family, placing them in mortal danger should
they require rare blood factors, internal organs such as kidneys or
portions of liver, bone marrow, etc., and that they are
deliberately withholding vital information from us as to their
daily condition and disposition.
18. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY sought, through complicity with the
local Family Law Panel members of the Bar Association and the local
Judiciary, to deprive four minors of their Lawful Right to live
with their natural parents for no Lawful Reason and using Unlawful
procedures tantamount to coercive kidnap to obtain sole permanent
access to said minors.
19. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did in fact, Unlawfully and without
consent of the natural Parents, take custody of three of said
minors from their place of Corporate Daycare to a location which
remains unknown to the natural Parents and the extended family.
20. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did from the day of the aforementioned
Abduction and continue to this day, to exclude the aforementioned
minors’ extended Family completely from their lives. This is
causing our offspring untold emotional harm and stress-related
health problems and mental imbalance.
21. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did from the day of the aforementioned
Abduction, and continue to this day, to deny the aforementioned
minors their Constitutional Rights to communicate with their
immediate and extended natural family by whatever means available
to them, for example: Telephone, Internet Electronic Mail, Letter,
Special Occasion Visits for example birthdays, Christmas and other
national holidays.
22. That the Family COURT System in the UK is Unconstitutional and
Unlawful according to Common Law edicts set out in Magna Carta
1215, the 1688 British Constitution, and the Articles set forth
under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, the European Convention
For The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953
and the European Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989,
23. Therefore, that the HIGH COURT is under Lawful obligation to
investigate and prosecute and/or elevate the case set above to the
United Nations Officer of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
for full investigation and prosecution under International Law.
24. That the Attorney General of the United Kingdom take an active
role in investigating every facet of this case and of all similar
cases carried out in the Family Proceedings COURT with a view to
criminal prosecution of those responsible in the HIGH COURT on
charges of racketeering, among other charges, to whit:
25. That the blanket Injunction set out in Section 97 of the CA1989
is unlawful and extraneous as far as protecting the identities of
minors involved; the minors are already known and identifiable,
26. Further, that S97 CA1989 serves only to protect and perpetuate
the closed nature of the FPC thus allowing those responsible for
violations of International Law and Laws concerning Treason,
Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury, and those procedural
rules governing collection, assimilation and consideration of
material evidence and witnesses, are not held publicly accountable
for said violations and to continue violating said procedures,
protocols and Laws.
27. That the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants” in the
aforementioned FPC hearing of 2009, ensured the “Defendants” were
deliberately misled into the belief that they had no grounds for
appeal against the Permanent Care Order.
28. That the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants” did conspire
with the Solicitors, barristers acting for the LOCAL AUTHORITY and
CAFCASS, and the Legal Representatives of the minors to ensure that
the Permanent Care Order was approved, thus performing an overt act
of professional misconduct.
29. Therefore, that the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants”
did with intent to defraud, claim and collect monies from the
public Legal Fund held and pursed by the Legal Services Commission
through the Community Legal Advice organisation.
30. Therefore, that the Legal Representatives of the “Defendants”
did conspire with the Solicitors, barristers acting for the LOCAL
AUTHORITY and CAFCASS, and the Legal Representatives of the minors,
and the representative Educational Psychologist from Carter Brown
Associates, to further defraud the LSC Fund by instructing the CBA
operative on the diction and phrasing of his report.
31. Therefore, that the presiding Judge of the FPC in our case did
further conspire with the aforementioned, to aid and abet in the
fraud by allowing the CBA operative to claim further monies from
the LSC Fund to write a supplementary report retracting portions of
his first report which looked favourably upon the family thus
strengthening the case in favour of the LOCAL AUTHORITY.
32. That none of the Parties mentioned in the document entitled
“PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did offer forward details of conflicts of
interests, encompassing but not limited to: membership and
graduateship of the front charity called Common Purpose UK for the
purpose of training to act outside of their Lawful Authority,
fiscal interest in the Contract Care & Adoption Industry,
cross-involvement in one another’s fields of authority and the fact
that every one of them operated outside his legal sphere of
influence in order to influence the outcome of the case.
33. That several demonstrable conflicts of interest were evident
throughout the case process, which negatively influenced the
outcome for the family.
34. That the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem did not, as is her duty to
the COURT and to our offspring as her clients, demand full
disclosure of all relevant documents and materials to the COURT and
to the parents, to whit; the full Social Services records
pertaining to Mrs. Moore encompassing but not limited to internal
communications, reports concerning her time in the care system
under the wardship of Nottinghamshire County Council, reports of
her being abused while in the care of the State which were
compartmentalised and buried, and records from the Psychiatric Unit
at Nottingham City Hospital.
35. That the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem did with malice
aforethought, conspire to mislead the COURT with regard to the
wishes and feelings of our offspring; her report and statement did
not reflect the wishes of our offspring, therefore she failed in
her charged duty to represent our offspring.
36. That the COURT did maliciously and with intent to remove our
offspring, deny our Constitutional Right to a fair and speedy
hearing by Jury; further that the COURT denied our Constitutional
Right to call our witnesses to support our case; further that the
COURT did deny our Constitutional Right to appeal an unlawful
judgement; further that the findings of the COURT were flawed,
incomplete and false as the “evidence” it accepted as undisputable
fact from the LOCAL AUTHORITY; further that the COURT did deny our
Legal Right to sufficient time to review the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s
bundle that we might have the opportunity to prepare rebuttal.
37. That the individuals and organisations listed in the attached
document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did act in violation of
the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 in that: they did use
(unqualified hence fraudulent) diagnoses of mental illness against
we the parents in attempting to predict events that may or may not
happen (tantamount to witchcraft) in order to secure the unlawful
removal of our offspring into State custody.
38. That the individuals and organisations listed in the attached
document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” , in particular
Nottingham City NHS Trust, did commit acts of physical assault and
reckless endangerment when they did administer or allow to be
administered, (a)H1N1 vaccinations into our offspring against our
express written withdrawal of consent for such vaccinations,
detailing our concerns about the safety or lack thereof, of the
“Swine flu” vaccination which to date still has not been
extensively (if at all) laboratory tested on humans yet has not
only been passed by the GMC but actively pushed on an unsuspecting
public by the Government – notwithstanding several dozen
high-profile reports of contraindications such as deaths
immediately following such vaccinations.
39. That further crimes itemised in the attached document entitled
“PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did occur with the full knowledge and
sanction of the COURT:
–
PARTICULARS OF CRIMES

1. That Jas Purewal, social worker acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM
CITY COUNCIL did commit the act of affray as he threatened to
disunite offspring from their natural family and abduct them into
State custody, within earshot of our offspring and with sufficient
volume that they heard every word he said causing them great
distress;
2. That the aforementioned Jas Purewal, did commit the act of
perverting the course of justice by submitting false testimony to
his superiors;
3. That the aforementioned Jas Purewal did commit acts of
destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL
AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of
telephone conversations between himself and other agencies;
4. That the aforementioned Jas Purewal did commit the act of
conspiracy to kidnap as he colluded with other agencies to
construct false allegations of abuse and/or neglect against
ourselves with the intention of abduction of minors.
5. That Maxine Agatha Rose, social worker GSCC: E/1052458 acting on
behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit the act of affray when
she stated using sufficient volume for our offspring to hear,
causing them great distress, that she would have them removed to
State custody on the grounds of neglect and emotional harm;
6. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of
perverting the course of justice when she submitted false
allegations and knowingly misled the COURT as to the nature and
origins of certain photographs she herself claimed to have
captured;
7. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of
perjury when she changed her account on several occasions – while
on Oath – as to the nature and origin of the aforementioned pieces
of evidence;
8. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit acts of
destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL
AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of
telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;
9. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of
torture over the period of time she was assigned to our case in
that she repeatedly reiterated her and the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s
intention to remove our offspring in an act of kidnap, in a voice
of sufficient volume for our offspring to hear, causing great
mental distress;
10. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act
of conspiracy to kidnap when she attended the Advocates Meetings
during the week-long hearing in 2009, to which we were neither
invited nor party to, before she took Oath to give evidence.
11. That Stephen Richard Parker, agency social worker GSCC:
E/1054286 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit
the act of perjury when he made false testimony in statements
submitted by and on behalf of the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
12. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the
act of affray when he continually iterated to us his intention to
abduct our offspring to State custody, within earshot of our
offspring on many occasions, and of sufficient volume that they
heard every word he said which caused them great distress;
13. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit acts
of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the
LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of
telephone conversations between himself and other agencies
14. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the
act of
perverting the course of justice when he submitted false written
testimony to his superiors;
15. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the
act of conspiracy to kidnap when he colluded with outside agencies
before and during the hearings in 2009 to ensure the unlawful
removal of our offspring to State custody.
16. That Carol Norman, principal at Welbeck Primary and Nursery
Unit in Nottingham, did commit the act of perverting the course of
justice when she submitted false written testimony to her
superiors;
17. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of
racial discrimination on several occasions, when she was witnessed
to have said, on school premises, that the ethnic minorities caused
or got into more trouble than the “white kids”;
18. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts of
destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL
AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of
telephone conversations between herself and other agencies
19. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did on many occasions
commit the act of child physical abuse and torture: on at least one
such occasion a child reported, with no prompting or otherlike
coercion, that one of her classmates had been sent by Mrs. Norman
to stand facing a blank wall, on his own, for more than forty five
minutes. Our own offspring have suffered unexplained injuries while
in the ultimate care of this woman, every report of unexplained
injury has gone unexamined. In fact, one injury sustained by
Benjamin, our youngest son, was sustained at school after he struck
his head on the corner of a table; this required hospital treatment
and stitches to a laceration above his eye, yet was not entered
into the accident book as is the school’s statutory duty; this
incident was later put forward by Mrs. Norman as a claim that it
was a cigarette burn inflicted by Mrs. Moore!
20. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit further acts of
defamation with claims that she had witnessed Mrs. Moore hitting
and kicking Jamie “all the way to school”. This would be a:
impossible unless such an act actually occurred, which it did not,
b: impossible to corroborate since the act which did not take place
therefore could not and did not have witnesses to the nonevent, c:
impossible to prove since it did not happen therefore did not leave
bruises or marks which therefore could not be photographed, and d:
impossible to corroborate with police reports, call records to the
police or emergency services switchboard as said event did not
happen as she claimed as it would then have been her statutory duty
to report immediately such actions to the police for the sake of
protecting offspring from harm.
21. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of
affray as she kept our offspring in a constant state of paranoia
after telling them that she was going to have them taken from us
their parents because she considered a mixed-ethnicity marriage to
be unnatural and not allowable;
22. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of
perjury as she submitted false testimony to the COURT regarding the
events laid out in para. 15-16 of this document, while claiming not
to be racist – her comments, witnessed by several, indicate to the
contrary;
23. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts amounting
to conspiracy to kidnap as she colluded with the LOCAL AUTHORITY
and the Legal Teams in closed Advocacy meetings during the
hearings, and closed interagency meetings before the hearings, to
unlawfully remove offspring to State custody. It is our
demonstrable belief that the schools’ Gifted & Talented Register is
a tool that is used to cherry-pick the best and brightest and most
aesthetically pleasing of offspring to unlawfully remove from their
families to feed the cottage industry that is commonly known as the
care industry;
24. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of
professional malpractice as she failed in her Statutory duty of
care to ensure the safety and well being of not only our offspring
while they attended that school, but also to every other child who
continues to attend that school.
25. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts of child
sexual assault when she looked down the trouser of our offspring
supposedly to check that they were wearing clean underwear – is a
child’s word that they are, not sufficient?
26. That Maria Lacey, offspring’s worker formerly of the
now-defunct Trent Family Centre, did commit the act of perverting
the course of justice by submitting false testimony to her
superiors;
27. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit the act of
affray when she threatened to report that I was being deliberately
obstructive (I may have been but that was my lawful choice to do
so) when she attempted to interrogate me about my family history,
to her superiors hence claim grounds for an emergency protection
order;
28. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts of
destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL
AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of
telephone conversations between herself and other agencies
29. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts of perjury
when she relayed fabricated testimony about those interviews,
encompassing her notes regarding our responses to and during the
Webster-Stratton Better Parenting Course which she told us said
notes were confidential, in a sworn affidavit to COURT via the
CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem’s notes and in its entirety via the LOCAL
AUTHORITY;
30. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts amounting
to conspiracy to kidnap when her aforementioned actions are taken
as read and the fact that she also reported in closed interagency
meetings about our “progress” during the Webster-Stratton course.
31. That Dr. Degala. Shankar, general practitioner, Meadows Health
Centre, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when he
failed to disclose the results of a blood test performed on myself
at the Queen’s Medical Centre on 2 August 2008, which showed a
positive hit for Type II Diabetes/hypoglycaemia and a
recommendation for further testing on an urgent basis;
32. That the aforementioned Dr. Degala Shankar did commit acts of
criminal neglect by destroying said documents, physical copy as
well as digital scan copy, in relation to those blood tests, thus
placing the lives not only of myself, but those of my biological
offspring, in danger. As the principal general practitioner for our
family, we do hold him ultimately responsible for the accuracy,
safety and disposition of our records, particularly those which
might save our lives.
33. That Dr. Rudrashetty Sree C Rao, general practitioner, Meadows
Health Centre, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice
as partner practitioner to Dr. Shankar in neglecting to ensure that
medical records regarding a potentially life-threatening situation
are kept accurately;
34. That the aforementioned Dr. Rudrashetty Sree C Rao did thus
commit acts of criminal neglect in not reporting his partner
practitioner to the General Medical Council when it was pointed out
to him by myself that where my bloodwork results should have been
in my digital medical record, there was a gap. It was not missing,
there was a gap where that record should have been – it had been
deliberately erased.
35. That Andrew Kawalek, consultant educational psychologist acting
for the LOCAL AUTHORITY under instruction from the COURT and
contracted by same through Carter Brown Associates, did commit acts
of perverting the course of justice when he submitted falsified
records of meetings with service users, being ourselves, to the
COURT via the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem and her representative;
36. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek committed fraud by
claiming that he was a consultant psychologist when in fact he is
an educational psychologist, hence entirely unqualified to make the
nature of the report that he claimed as an accurate representation
of the meetings he had with us and his interpretation of events
that he also claimed to be qualified to make opinion-based
testimony upon – for which again, he was entirely unqualified;
37. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of
affray by threatening to have myself committed under the Mental
Health Act if I did not cooperate with his unqualified line of
interrogation;
38. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of
perjury by submitting a supplementary report to his initial report
to the COURT on promise of extra money, which retracted the
positive statements he had made in his initial report and replaced
them under detailed instruction from the CAFCASS legal
representative with comments intended to prejudice the case in
favour of the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
39. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of
criminal neglect by claiming that he was qualified to make
diagnoses of mental distress in ourselves (offspring and adults)
and offer us a reference with pre-diagnosis to the community mental
health team.
40. That Melvin Harris, District Judge, North Midland Circuit, did
pervert the course of justice when he failed on numerous occasions
to pull the LOCAL AUTHORITY up on their repeated use, and
presentation, of hearsay evidence, as factual and that he accepted
tampered evidence from the “defendant”’s legal representative as
first-hand (I refer here to dark-copied, facsimile-quality black
and white photographs with no annotations from high-quality colour
originals that I myself captured that day and supplied on
high-quality stock with date and time stamps intact and visible
below each image);
41. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did commit acts of
criminal malpractice in the service of the crown when he pretended
rule of Napoleonic Code over Common Law, thus usurping power,
authority and status of the crown while claiming to serve same;
42. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did ultimately commit the
crime of kidnap, being as it was by his instruction that the LOCAL
AUTHORITY did act to unlawfully take three offspring form their
Place of Corporate Daycare into their custody;
43. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did act in conspiracy to
kidnap as not once did he pull up any of the LOCAL AUTHORITY
witnesses who blatantly were caught in perjury to his Office,
instead allowing them to continue their lies unchallenged; further
that he did not ask of we the natural parents that we had anything
further to say to the COURT, nor at any time did he ever invite we
the parents to directly address the COURT or cross-examine the
witnesses as is our right under Magna Carta to directly face our
accuser;
44. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris, in the pretended service
of the crown and with the charges laid out in preceding paragraphs,
did commit an overt act of treason to the Crown.
45. That Louise Smith, offspring’s worker at Surestart Meadows, did
commits acts of affray when she threated, in front of our offspring
and ensuring they heard her, to have them removed for emotional
abuse and neglect;
46. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of perjury
by submitting false and fabricated statements to the LOCAL
AUTHORITY and to the COURT;
47. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of
perverting the course of justice when she lied on Oath to the COURT
about the contents of her statements; further that she attempted to
introduce fabricated evidence that was not previously made known to
any other party;
48. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of
destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL
AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of
telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;
49. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of torture
in continuing her threats to have our offspring removed – within
earshot of our offspring so causing them great mental distress;
50. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts tantamount
to conspiracy to kidnap when she colluded with the closed meeting
of advocates before entering the COURT and testifying on Oath.
51. That Gillian Pegg, social worker (team leader) GSCC: E/1023014
acting for NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit acts of perverting
the course of justice by instructing those in her charge to commit
actions as laid out, both without and within the FPC setting with
the intended endgame of the removal of our offspring to State
custody;
52. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg aided and abetted in the
act of torture by instructing those in her charge in methods
intended to cause maximum psychiatric injury;
53. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg aided and abetted in acts
of affray when she instructed those in her charge to use methods
intended to cause affray;
54. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg committed acts of criminal
neglect by virtue of her instructions to those in her charge to use
unlawful methods to cause psychiatric injury, affray and the
continued withholding of essential services to the family,
encompassing but not limited to community mental health services,
structural repairs to the home, with the intended endgame being an
attempt to demonstrate negligence on our part as grounds for
removal of our offspring;
55. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg did commit acts tantamount
to conspiracy to kidnap by virtue of the charges laid against her
in preceding paragraphs combined with the fact that after the
Permanent Care Order was granted to the LOCAL AUTHORITY she then
attempted to further defame our names and characters via Valerie
Cresswell to a close family friend whom we have accepted as
Godmother to our youngest son Benjamin, by the false claim that we
were unfit parents.
56. That Jane Harding, health visitor attached to Nottingham NHS
Trust and NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts tantamount to
criminal malpractice in neglecting to offer information vital to
the proper consideration of the case, also in offering opinion as
fact as to the the mental disposition of mother and offspring,
which she is unqualified to do;
57. That the aforementioned Jane Harding did commit acts of perjury
in the aforementioned act when she offered, yet again, opinion as
fact while under Oath;
58. That the aforementioned Jane Harding did commit acts tantamount
to perverting the course of justice in withholding information
vital to the fair consideration of the case from the attention of
the COURT.
59. That David Stansfield, social worker (team leader) GSCC:
E/1059593 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit
acts tantamount to perverting the course of justice by
compartmentalising and burying information vital to initiating a
review of the Permanent Care Order gleaned while chairing a Looked
After Child Review conference;
60. That the aforementioned David Stansfield did commit acts
tantamount to civil perjury when he made a statement in an LAC
meeting to the effect that he would investigate allegations made by
ourselves against the LOCAL AUTHORITY, on the trust that he was
acting in that meeting independently from the LOCAL AUTHORITY as we
had been up to that point led to believe;
61. That the aforementioned David Stansfield has therefore
implicated himself in the conspiracy to kidnap minors.
62. That Helen Fountain, CAFCASS officer/social worker (agency
unknown), did commit perjury when she offered demonstrably
secondhand opinion as her own version of fact while under Oath;
63. That the aforementioned Helen Fountain did commit affray when
she threatened to have our offspring removed under an emergency
protection order when I demanded that we remain as witnesses or
have another adult present in the room when she interviewed our
offspring;
64. That the same Helen Fountain committed acts of criminal
malpractice when she did not reveal the fact that she is a
registered agency social worker until she stood to take Oath at the
hearing; up to that point she had never alluded to the fact – in
fact it was outright denied by the solicitors Mr. Mannering, Ms.
Evans and Mr. Neil upon direct interrogation as to Ms. Fountain’s
interests;
65. That the aforementioned Helen fountain did commit acts of
perverting the course of justice by presenting fabricated answers
to questions she never asked we parents yet claimed she did, while
under Oath;
66. That the aforementioned Helen Fountain did commit acts of
conspiracy to kidnap when she attended the closed-door interagency
meetings before the hearings and the closed-door Advocates’
meetings before she took the stand.
67. That Stephen Mannering, solicitor acting on behalf of CAFCASS
as agent representing Shelton’s Solicitors, did commmit acts of
perjury when he knowingly presented opinion as fact and further
that he presented fabrication as fact;
68. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts
amounting to perverting the course of justice, when he attended
interagency Advocates meetings before and during the hearing, to
which we the parents were not invited, also that he failed in his
duty of care to discharge his duty as instructed to represent the
wishes and feelings of our offspring to the COURT;
69. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts of
affray when he, in collusion with the aforementioned Helen
Fountain, did threaten to have our offspring removed on an EPO if
we did not cooperate by allowing him and Ms. Fountain to interview
our offspring without an Appropriate Adult present;
70. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts
tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap when he attended closed
interagency meetings to discuss the progress of the case with the
LOCAL AUTHORITY’s agents.
71. That Rosamund Evans, solicitor working for Jackson Quinn,
“representing” myself, did commit perjury when she informed the
COURT that we had neither witness nor oral statement to present
before the COURT;
72. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did pervert the course
of justice when she informed myself that introducing our own
witnesses to events and sworn affidavits of character would harm
“our case”;
73. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did commit criminal
malpractice when she flat refused to accept my first draft
statement which read thus: “I have no statement to make as there is
no case to answer.”;
74. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did commit acts of
criminal neglect when she informed us that we had no grounds for
appeal against an unlawful permanent care order.
75. That Rebecca Wimble, stand-in solicitor acting through Jackson
Quinn and “representing” myself, did commit acts of perjury when
she failed to inform the barrister of missing or incomplete or
incorrect portions of the bundle, various witness statements,
inconsistencies, uncorroborated evidence in the form of single
statements;
76. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts
amounting to perverting the course of justice through details as
[75];
77. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts
amounting to criminal malpractice through details as [75];
78. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts
amounting to criminal neglect when she did corroborate Ms. Evans’
claim that we did not have grounds for appeal against an unlawful
permanent care order;
79. That Graham Neil, solicitor acting on behalf of V. H. S.
Fletcher’s of Nottingham and “representing” Melizza-Jayne Moore in
the FPC proceeding of 2009, did commit perjury when he
compartmentalised and buried, further that he denied and continues
to deny the existence of, essential documentation to aid the
family’s case for rebuttal against the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
80. That the aforementioned Graham Neil did pervert the course of
justice when he misled the family into the belief that we did not
have the option to appeal against the permanent care order, further
that he failed to make the COURT aware that he was made aware of
issues in the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle that they had supplied, to
whit: documents pertaining to events and dispositions made on
Melizza-Jayne’s behalf as a child in the care system were not
supplied as requested which would have shown the current case in a
historical context hence showing that the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s actions
were nothing short of criminal;
81. That the aforementioned Graham Neil did commit acts of criminal
malpractice in that he failed, and continues to fail, to file
documents on an urgent basis to prevent the LOCAL AUTHORITY from
taking actions not conducive to the wellbeing of our offspring, to
whit: the children’s recent school change to which not only our
offspring objected, but we did as well, in the strongest possible
terms. Those objections have gone unanswered and ignored, as a
result, Benjamin and Jamie have been further alienated from their
family, from the friends they grew up with, and from everything
else they find familiar and take comfort in;
82. That the aforementioned Graham Neil has and continues to commit
acts of criminal neglect by failing to take instruction from his
clients (us) instead taking instruction from the LOCAL AUTHORITY
which seems to consist of “Keep them hanging in hope, don’t file
anything, we’ll do the rest.”
83. That Patrick Gallagher, barrister employed by KCH Chambers in
Nottingham, did commit acts of perjury when he failed to ask
questions put by and on behalf of his client to the LOCAL AUTHORITY
during Fact Finding; further that he was complicit in the actions
which resulted in our enforced silence during the proceedings and
the failure of the COURT being made aware of inconsistencies in the
LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle documentation alongside their spoken
testimony;
84. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did pervert the
course of justice by way of the events alluded to in [83] and the
fact that he did conspire to silence us by supporting the argument
that we had no appeal against the PCO;
85. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did commit criminal
malpractice by taking instruction from the LOCAL AUTHORITY in
closed advocates meetings before and during the Final Hearing
rahter from me his client;
86. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did commit criminal
neglect when he failed to disclose to the COURT, his interest in
perpetuating the industry in which he is a cornerstone player not
only because of his associations with others who also just happen
to still enjoy celebrity status, they are also serving elected
members of local and central Government and paid contract carers
themselves.
87. That Beryl Gilead, solicitor acting on behalf of NCC (the LOCAL
AUTHORITY), did commit acts of perjury and perverting the course of
justice when she barratted we parents accusing us during our
testimonies-under-oath of actual harm and neglect when in fact no
such harm or neglect had been raised to the attention of the COURT
previously, in an attempt to destroy our credibility in an
adversarial setting which flies against the ideal; setting under
which the Children’s Act might work to the advantage of the LOCAL
AUTHORITY; further that she deliberately introduced that air of
adversity in an attempt to entice strong emotional outburst from we
parents hence prove in the eyes of the FPC the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s
blatantly false claim that we are mentally unstable;
88. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit criminal
malpractice in that she failed to provide, upon request, her copy
of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle to the solicitors acting on behalf
of we the parents that we could check and make sure that the LOCAL
AUTHORITY’s bundle matched ours in content – which, as it later
turned out, it did not;
89. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit criminal
neglect by the above actions given in [87] and [88];
90. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit affray by her
actions in [87];
91. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit acts amounting
to conspiracy to kidnap when she attended closed advocates’
meetings before and during the Final Hearing, where she took
instruction and gave instruction to and from the advocates acting
for other agencies and from those claiming to represent we the
parents.
92. That Carol O’Connor, head of special needs at the Nottingham
Emmanuel School did commit perjury and did pervert the course of
justice when she claimed that photographs showing a pair of shoes
that were clearly too large for someone the size of a seven year
old did in fact belong to him; further that she claimed that the
condition of our son’s pack for a school trip was flea ridden and
soaked in urine; this was a blatantly false claim, as half his pack
was delivered by myself in clean and parasite-free condition and
there were no other witnesses to her claims;
93. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit acts of
criminal neglect when she failed to voice any concerns she may have
had with Nathanael’s presentation at the time of the event instead
of sitting on it and only raising phantom issues when coerced into
it by the LOCAL AUTHORITY and submitting perjurious statements to
the COURT;
94. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit acts of
professional malpractice by her actions in [93];
95. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit conspiracy to
kidnap when she attended closed Advocates’ meetings before and
during the Hearings, and before she took the Stand and perjured
herself.
96. That Kathryn Emma McGovern, social worker GSCC: E/1138375
acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts in
contempt of Court when she changed our youngest two boys’ school
without permission or leave of the Court, violating stipulation of
the PCO.
97. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did also commit
acts of affray when she sent an email containing threats to
terminate contact between ourselves and Benjamin, Nathanael and
Jamie if we alluded to the truth of why the younger two were being
moved school; notwithstanding the fact that that same week we
received the email Benjamin arrived at contact clearly upset
because he had been told earlier in the week that he was being
moved and he had no say in the matter.
98. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did and continues
to commit acts of vicarious child emotional abuse by allowing such
abuse to continue against our offspring while under her direct
supervision, after being informed by ourselves that emotional abuse
had been revealed to us by our boys.
99. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did and continues
to commit acts of vicarious child physical abuse by allowing such
abuse to continue against our offspring while under her direct
supervision, after being informed by ourselves that physical
injuries that continue to pass unexplained are revealed to us by
our boys on a regular basis.
100. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did commit the
crime of misprision when she failed to report to the proper
authorities or even her superiors, our voiced concerns about the
safety of our offspring.
101. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did fail to
inform her superiors of a previous professional relationship with
Melizza-Jayne going back fifteen years, which would clearly
prejudice her professional position in the present.
102. That Pelham Dennis Williams, social worker acting on behalf of
NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, GSCC: E/1122337, commit acts of affray
when during a contact session at TRENT FAMILY CENTRE in May of
2009, he did cause affray to our offspring when he threatened me
with violence within the centre – during said incident he did stand
half a metre from my body and try to stare me down.
103. That Uzma Moody, Independent Reviewing Officer GSCC: E/1114214
acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commits acts of
professional negligence when told at a LACR conference by we
parents that we had concerns over our offsprings’ mental and
physical condition, she failed then to inform either her immediate
superiors of our concerns or the proper authorities, which is a
failure of Duty of Care stipulated in the Care Standards Act 2000.
–
1. Additionally, that NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL are held collectively
liable;
2. that NOTTINGHAM MAGISTRATE’S COURT encompassing NOTTINGHAM
FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT are held collectively liable;
3. that CARTER BROWN ASSOCIATES are held collectively liable;
4. that VHS FLETCHER’S SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;
5. that JACKSON QUINN SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;
6. that SHELTON’S SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;
7. that KCH BARRISTERS (CHAMBERS OF JAMES HOWLETT) are held
collectively liable;
8. that NOTTINGHAM CITY NHS TRUST are held collectively liable;
9. that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND are held collectively liable;
10. that the now defunct GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN,
SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, as it stood from formation to its eventual
demise in May of 2010, are held collectively liable;
11. that the UK GOVERNMENT under the leadership of ANTHONY CHARLES
LYNTON BLAIR, later JAMES GORDON BROWN, are held collectively
liable;
- for any and all actions or inactions carried out or not by any of
their agents or employees or other persons or entities authorised
to act on their behalf whether or not by their explicit instruction
or general or specific policy.

I hereby certify, swear and affirm under pain of penalty and
perjury that the first-hand knowledge contained within this
indictment is truth.
Signed (Right Thumbprint)
James of the Sovereign Family: Moore

Yours faithfully,

James Moore