Corruption and Perjury in Secret family Courts UK.

This FOI request has been back tracked, to the offending parties for their consideration. This is normal. You go the full circle and get back to spare one without an answer or resolution to the problem you raised.

There is no accountability for wrong doing and criminal activity and then you become the subject of false allegations, with vindictive and malicious content. They lie, they cheat, they steal your children then they "COVER UP". This has been my experience working with Government agencies for the past six years.

Every time I complain or make an inquiry , I put myself at risk of hard punitive action, as the departments close ranks to protect themselves from criminal exposure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5G_TyMgIA

Not one MP's is prepared to do a dam thing, everything is about what they are going to do.Conflict of Interests and Perjury are common place.

They should all resign after listening to this, if they don’t put an end to this wickedness immediately. Or will they continue to condone abuse of children and families, whilst pretending to protect them?

How can it be right for anyone be arrested under a blanket offence?

The above comment about MP's not wanting to do a damned thing is summed up here, with the following comment from an MP.

Greg Mulholland MP 06 October at 14:43 Report
Your comments are stupid and offensive. I do not wish this sort of thing posted on my FB page. I am deleting you from my friends list and putting a permanent block on you. Please do not attempt to contact me again for any reason whatsoever.

This is the way MP's think they can respond!! They do not serve the elected, they serve themselves and are very arrogant

A letter has just come to me, dated the 12 November 2009 from Bridget Prentice MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

It is a response to my lobbying MP's re corruption in the Secret Family Court System. She is responding to David Gauke MP the Ref is MC257983

The letter reads as follows.

Dear David

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor , my address is here omitted.

thank you for your letter of 14 October to Jack Straw, about social services and openness in the family courts. I am replying as the Minister responsible for the family justice system in England and Wales. You refer to an earlier letter which my officials have not been able to trace, but I apologise for the delay in responding to you nonetheless.

I am very sorry for the experience that Mrs Stewart-Taylor has had with social services and the family courts regarding her grandchild. In order to preserve the principle of judicial independence, I cannot give opinion on a specific case but I hope that she will find the following general comments helpful.

It has, since 1991, been the policy of successive governments, as set out in legislation, that children should live with their parents wherever possible and that services should be provided to children in need and their families to enable this to happen.

The child protection system is designed to identify families who may be vulnerable and seeks to offer help at an early stage in order to enable children to remain in their family. Social workers must work closely with parents to identify and evidence where change or improvement is necessary in order to enable a family to stay together.

I assure Mrs Stewart-Taylor that local authorities are not given financial incentives to increase the number of children in care or remove children from care of their parents in order for them to be adopted. The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and the decision to make a care order is taken by the courts. In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered all the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

where the court makes an order placing a child in the care of a local authority, the authority will continue to work with the family with a view to the child returning home. Happily, the vast majority of children are returned to their parents. for those children who cannot return home to their parents, they have the right to have alternative plans considered to provide them with a permanent home; adoption is only one of the available options of providing this.

The final decision on whether a child should be adopted rests with the courts. Before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long term basis. where the parents/guardians have not given their consent, but it may only do so in limited circumstances. The court would have to be satisfied that the parent could not be found or is incapable of giving consent, or that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.

The Government does not have, and has never had, a national target to increase the number of children being taken into care. the target on adoption reflected the Government's desire to reverse a long-term decline in the number of children already in care finding a permanent home through adoption. The adoption target ended in March 2006. Similarly, the Government does not set adoption targets for local authorities, although authorities themselves may choose to develop targets with central Government through the Local area Agreement/Local Public service agreement process.

Mrs Stewart-Taylor is also concerned about the ability of parents or families to speak out about their case. The extent to which a parent, child or the media can publish information about individual children is complex and determined by a number of different aspects of legislation. The issue is the need to balance the rights of children to privacy, with the rights of other parties, and those of the media, in relation to freedom of expression.

The government has already taken some action to make family proceedings more open- the media can attend most proceedings, and the rules about disclosure of information have been amended to make it easier for people to seek the help and support they need.

these changes do not yet apply to adoption cases.Adoption is the most difficult and life changing decision a family court can make and needs special consideration. There are concerns that the identity of children and adoptive parents might be exposed, particularly in small rural populations or ethnic community areas. we are therefore considering, along with people most involved in adoption work, how best that these proceedings can be made more open but alongside legislation to ensure that identities are protected.

We will also introduce new legislation that will put the reporting and admission regime for all tiers of family court on the same foundation as that for youth courts. This will allow the media to report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the families involved. The Government will revise the law on reporting restrictions as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I hope that this letter is helpful. I am enclosing a copy for you to forward to Mrs Stewart-Taylor, should you wish to do so.

Kind regards

Bridget

BRIDGET PRENTICE

I would be interested in what anyone thinks about this. It has taken 6 years to get to here. I have been lobbying every MP for many years, repeatedly and finally we get this response.??

Relocation and Leave to Remove: A Report by The Custody Minefield

Foreword by Sir Bob Geldof. Published December 2009

I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it.

In the near future the Family Law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act. It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child “care” agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.

The court is entirely informed by outdated social engineering models and contemporary attitudes rather than fact, precedent rather than common sense and modish unproven nostrums rather than present day realities. It is a disgraceful mess. A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psycho-babble. Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.

Here is one more report that empirically nails the obvious fact that to remove a child from their father (in the hugely vast majority of cases), their grandparents and other family, their school and friends, is wholly destructive to a child and its family.

How much longer must we put up with the state sanctioned kidnap of our most vulnerable? Because in effect that’s what “Leave to Remove” amounts to. How much longer do we tolerate the vested interest intransigence of the appalling U.K. Family Justice system? How long before just one of them admit they have got it ALL wrong and apologise to their myriad victims?

This report is important, timely and vital. To accept its findings, which could have and should have, been conducted at any time in the past 30 years, is to accept the awful conclusion that rather than Solomon like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.

This report proves it. May God forgive them. I won’t.

Bob Geldof (December 2009)

The House of Commons Information Office's remit is to give information to the public about Parliament, its history and membership. We cannot pass on comments to ministers, the civil service or MPs.

Peers in the House of Lords

We cannot comment upon Peers’ role or obligations as the House of Lords is constitutionally separate from the House of Commons. You may, if you wish, contact the competent authority on Lords matters below.

House of Lords Information Office

London SW1A 0PW

Tel: 020 7219 3107

email: hlinfo@parliament.uk

Hours (during parliamentary session):

10am-6pm (Monday to Thursday)

10am-4pm (Friday)

Hours (during recess):

Note: they are closed until 4 January 2010.

10am-1pm and 2pm-4pm

MEPs

We do not provide information about the European Parliament or its members. For this information you should contact the European Parliament's Information Office in London.

The address is:

European Parliament

UK Information Office

2 Queen Anne's Gate

London SW1H 9AA

Telephone: 020 7227 4300.

Details of their office can also be found at the following link:

URL: http://www.europarl.org.uk/

Members of the House of Commons

There is no statutory job description for Members of Parliament and they have no statutory duty to respond to correspondence. It is at the discretion of Members as to whether they wish to take on a particular case and how and when they respond to correspondence.

The Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) produced a generic job description in their 1996 report. It was reproduced again on p32 of Volume 2 of the 2001 Report:

URL: http://www.ome.uk.com/downloads/volume2....

Members of Parliament must, however, adhere to the rules outlined in the Code of Conduct which is available on the parliament website www.parliament.uk. You can find information about the Code of Conduct and the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who oversees the Code at:

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/membe...

Further information about the work of an MP and other related material can be found in our factsheet at the following link:

M1: You and Your MP

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_p...

In addition, the House of Commons Library has produced a standard note titled: Members and Constituency Etiquette which can be accessed from:

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/res...

Finally, you may be interested to know that the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee produced a report titled: Revitalising the chamber: the role of the backbencher (HC 337) which contained a section on the role of MPs. The direct link to the report can be found below:

URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

It is a matter of Parliamentary convention that a backbench MP will not interfere in the constituency affairs of another MP. This convention is explained in the publications below.

Library standard note: Members and Constituency Etiquette

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/res...

Factsheet G7: Some Traditions and Customs of the House of Commons

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_p...

Your constituency MP is:

Westminster office:

Tim Farron MP

House of Commons

London SW1A 0AA

Tel: 020 7219 8498

Constituency office:

Acland House, Yard 2, Stricklandgate, Kendal LA9 4ND

Tel: 01539 723403

Email: tim@timfarron.co.uk

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Steve Hammett

House of Commons Information Office

London SW1A 2TT

T 020 7219 4272

F 020 7219 5839

E hcinfo@parliament.uk

W http://www.parliament.uk/

My disabled son is 18 in two months , i travel one thousand miles to see him once a month for 5 hours judge Alderson of Newcastle upon tyne county court is aparentley an intellegent man, he ordered this limited contact at the final hearing for residence of my son to stay with his mother who is mentaly ill, social services of Morpeth namely mr Ingham and mr Nelson are so called professionals they recomended to judge Alderson this course of action, any one out there see similarities, i have never harmed my child Roy nor do they have any concerns about me or the contact i have with my son this corrupt court system has cost me thousands of pounds in litigation and for three years minimum contact with my son since his disabled mother ran off with him from the Isle of Wight. I am ashamed to be British , where people in power rule and protect each others mistakes they are corrupt inderviduals with big egos at our children expense they are criminals and should be removed from society for a long long time .

The answer to this problem goes deep and tends to tax most people's patience, or rather their ingrained belief systems. The justice system has never been anything but corrupt and there to serve the elite and cause mayhem for the average person and the poor (divide and rule). This is it! It has been written about for centuries.

Yes there may have been periods of relative enlightenment and our societies may have enjoyed some periods of relative fair play (50 and 60's following the war effort) but in the main it does not work for justice, at best only an approximation of it.

The feelings of hopelessness need not be permanent though as more people wake up to this and begin to say NO! In due course we will develop our own justice systems from the people for the people as trying to use parliament (another fraudulent system set up by the elite to serve the elite) to sort this out is like asking Tweedledee to deal with the indiscretions of Tweedledum.

We are the power in truth, we just dont know it yet.

A man and his lawyer perjured on an application form to the Court of Protection/Office of the Public Guardian. They stated they had contacted relatives, when they had not. Legally, they are required to contact relatives. Because this statement was untrue, it is PERJURY. This perjury enabled them to get power of attorney over my aunt FRAUDULENTLY.

NEITHER THE COURT NOT THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN VERIFIES THE INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION FORM BECAUSE, I WAS ADVISED BY THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN'S OFFICE, THERE IS NO POLICY AND PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DO SO.

FURTHERMORE, IN A RECENT REVIEW OF THE COURT ORDERED BY JACK STRAW, THE RESULTS WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS IS DELIBERATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO RELATIVES TO CONTEST THE APPLICATION.

HERE IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT:

1. The underlying dilemma relates to (a) the need to inform family members and interested persons that an application is being made, whilst (b) avoiding the introduction of dispute and contentious proceedings, and thus cost and delay, when this is not appropriate

Here is a letter I wrote to David Cameron and Kenneth Clarke. Maybe others should be writing to them too.

Dear Sirs:

I have read the Court of Protection Rules Committee Report dated July 2010.

With respect to

1. The underlying dilemma relates to (a) the need to inform family members and interested persons that an application is being made, whilst (b) avoiding the introduction of dispute and contentious proceedings, and thus cost and delay, when this is not appropriate

I would like to know exactly what is going to be done by the court to verify that persons applying for deputyship have, indeed, contacted relatives.

In my aunt’s case, Power of Attorney or Deputyship was fraudulently obtained because the Public Guardian/Court of Protection has NO POLICY AND PROCEDURE in place for verifying that relatives did, in fact receive a notification letter regarding the application for Deputyship. Relatives were definitely not advised, and the court did absolutely nothing to verify the statement made on the deputy’s application form.

Judge Denzil Lush, Martin John, and Sir Mark Potter were all advised of this problem (along with others) and took no action, nor did they appear concerned. In fact, Sir Mark Potter told me to stop writing to him. Judge Lush simply passed my complaint to the Public Guardian’s Office and did nothing. The Ministry of Justice did the same thing. I contacted every area of government that could conceivably be concerned that the procedures (or lack of them) facilitated fraud by every Tom, Dick, and Harry anxious to get control of somebody’s assets. I even contacted the Home Secretary at the time, and Baroness Scotland, who sent me a very flowery letter which didn’t address the problem at all.

It was quite obvious to me that the system is corrupt. Even from the paragraph above, the court is obviously more concerned with preventing objections by family members who, 99.9% of the time, have the donor’s best interests at heart. It is bent on controlling the person’s assets, paying only 0.05% interest rate, and lining the pockets of greedy lawyers.

The court was negligent in not having this policy and procedure in place at the time when a deputy and his solicitor were able to obtain deputyship over my aunt fraudulently, and I am considering legal action. It was also negligent in its duties when it did not act to correct the situation, even after it was informed of the problem. I believe that the reason for this is that the court does not want relatives to be informed as preferred solicitors are benefiting from a very lucrative trapline to the courts. The paragraph above, from the report, underlines this.

Martin John was definitely unconcerned when I contacted him, and yet I see him and Denzil Lush sitting on the committee. What an ideal position to be in – to sit on a committee and manoeuvre matters so as to perpetuate any corruption, and cover up your own past actions. A great opportunity to audit yourself.

I understand there have been thousands of similar complaints, which is why Jack Straw was ordered to set up a committee to investigate matters in the Court of Protection. I see he resigned just in time.

I look forward to hearing from you both. I do not believe that the British public will be protected in the future, especially as I see that the courts are more concerned to prevent contentious litigation than they are anything else.

READ THE REPORT HERE. I DOUBT THAT ANYTHING WILL CHANGE. EVERYTHING IS SLANTED AGAINST THE PUBLIC - ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO HAVE MONEY.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres...

It has tended to be the case that poor people suffer from injustice more than the wealthy, but yes I can see that there are areas where a more wealthy person, not "connected" with the established order can become a target. In a system like ours all good people are pray to the sadistic and greedy parasites that prey on us. Sorry to hear about your case and hope things get sorted.

Things wont change...not on there own...we are the ones that have got to change it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?igb0f758y7ed677

Download a real life case study on how children are kinapped by CAFCASS through the secret family courts.

I have suffered very severe human rights abuses due to Michael Napier or Irwin Mitchell solicitors who have told over 1000 lies about me and to me. They left me to die in a prison in Thailand instead of paying £3000 bail...
My wife, a daughter of The Sultan of Brunei was told by them, their agents that I was a convicted child sex offender, I have NEVER been convicted or abused children in my life...

Dear Mike (Napier) QC (?)
I've just contacted Henry Kissinger about you.....

Would it be possible for the World's diplomats and foreign office staff to cut out the bloody protocol and get on with protecting and saving lives. Protocol is mainly an obstruction created for the diplomatic world by gestapo people during the past few centuries in order to ma ke sure nothing happens for as long as possible. "Mr Young I'm a Diplomat, I can't get involved with politics it isn't protocol" is a typical mind set of many diplomatic/embassy staff around the World." "Harry, thanks for the advice, I'll go back and let them know that NOBODY is going to stop them killing another 10,000 Thai children because it isn't protocol to interfere" and I don't mean "Harry" Lee Kuan Yew because he agrees with Erik Young, what is the matter with all of you ??? are you ID thieves ???? I am terrified of the final true figure of killings in Thailand and recently Cambodia that will surface when we have worked out how many were hidden by black market ID sales. I estimate it will be millions of lives.
Erik J C Young on Feb 6, 2:39 AM said:
Dear President Obama FYI
Regards Erik J C Young
Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
It is your duty to search out British Citizens in Thailand hiding behind the IDs of other people, in particularly when they have purchased the IDs of Thais that have been unlawfully killed by people including the local police. Would Mr Jeff Mitchell of The British Embassy Bangkok like to confirm whether or not he is related to "Micky Mitchell" formerly of Woking Surrey UK who was involved in a land and property fraud concerning a large house in Brookwood Surrey UK together with the son of Harry Wright of Knaphill Woking ? If you are then you've been aware of who has terrorised me, framed me and been stealing my families land and property interests in Thailand and elsewhere. About Irwin Mitchell solicitors http://www.thelawyer.com/story.aspxstory... I have been in contact with The Israeli Intelligence Service about these problems and they are killing people involved in this scam who have committed acts deemed to be satanic. President Mubarak of Egypt was trained to fly planes by my father Mervyn F S Young many years ago. Muburak has the same problem in Egypt presently, caused by former Gestapo families and associates such as the Mitchell family. I am returning to Thailand with more Mosaad (Israeli Intelligence Officers) to remove the problem "former Gestapo families living on other people's IDs. It seems The British Embassy in Bangkok are going to have problems with Mosaad, since it is obvious you have helped former Gestapo families instead of protecting a genuine British citizen. How loyal are The Gurkhas to former Gestapo families in or outside The British Embassy in Bangkok? My guess is they will assist Mosaad. Do you suppose the word PROTOCOL is an anagram of PR Occult ? The former Gestapo families of Woking Surrey UK called themselves The Occult - proting Satanic Games in Thailand that have killed more than 1 million Thais. Erik J C Young Landlord cc Mosaad President Obama Former President George W Bush Premier Wen JiaBao Baroness Thatcher Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/egypts-su...
Dear George Soros
Thanks for the commercial "The Net Delusion"... as you know she was not my mind having a delusion of grandeur she was very much a "human being" whom I loved more than anyone on the planet (until I met her sister after she was presumed dead)...
I want to raise the Exon-Valdez accident ..
I have become suspicious that this too was an arranged accident by Sylvester/Napier and their Occult syndicate who use stolen intellectual property-science to commit acts of terrorism and then blame other people. Mr Napier was the subject or a corruption scandal between Ford and Exon... I think he is a very very dangerous man and needs to be taken to Tel Aviv for questioning... he is definitely part of the former WW2 Gestapo families group aka The Occult from Woking Surrey UK, he lives in Pyrford Woods West Byfleet Surrey not far from "Newark" Abbey a ruined monastry that was the subject of satanic rituals in or around 1973. He may have been part of this satanic group when the police arrested these people for satanism and black magic.
I heard you have located my son Edward Jason Young date of birth 7th June 1995 (or 96) in New York State and are taking car of him... is this true ????
I worry about him nobody has revealed his location to me I do not know why.
Regards
Erik J C Young

Dear George Soros
I have defeated the corrupt Police and Magistrates in Guildford Surrey UK. Some of them are from former WW2 Gestapo families.
My opinion they are in business with the world's Heroin Cartel who are behind some of the worst terrorist attrocities on the planet may be exposed to the world in due course.
Some of them have connected to the 1973 robbery of my land and title deeds have set themselves up in Phuket Thailand under different IDs.
This firm Irwin Mitchell of 40 Holborn Viaduct Holbron London (with solicitors in tiny letters on their letter head) have some employees I am certain come from former Gestapo families. They repeatedly lie to me and other and are the worst law firm I have ever dealth with.... perhaps some of your friends in the city can pressure others to have them dis-barred and prosecuted for human rights abuses, fraud,deception and money laundering.
Dear Irwin Mitchell
I wrote to The Attorney General for England and Wales about some of my problems recently. I mentioned the situation concerning Guildford Police Guildford Surrey UK (whose incinerator has been burning a lot of papers yesterday) and some of the Magistrates being corrupt and framing me for crimes I have never committed.
Yesterday I went to Court. The Court was cleared of all the Magistrates and The Attorney General sent a prosecutor he selected to deal with the matter, a lady from the USA who is an English solicitor.
All charges against me have been struck out and costs to be taxed.
Another name connected to a former Gestapo family is Craig-Wood... they hijacked the ID Craig from former Commander in Chief of The British Military Forces during the Kuwait Gulf War. I recall Sir David Craig discussing the problem with Mervyn F S Young at the time, they were furious the Woods of Walton Rd Woking Surrey UK had added "Craig" to their ID. Not sure of their original name before they used the ID "Wood". Ken Wood of Kenwood food mixers was a personal friend of Mervyn Young he lived in Winnington Road Hampstead London at a house called Kenwood.
There is the subject concerning my missing wife and daughter to be dealt with and other matters concerning terrorism and the Heroin trade including money laundering and the theft of my inheritance of land and property title deeds in 1973 which I believe your firm may be in part connected. These matters link to the 1973 Guildford bombing and Lockerbie Pan Am terrorist bomb.....
cc The Attorney General for England and Wales
Former President George W Bush Houston Texas USA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/financial...

Please visit Father Joe Maeir at www.mercycentre.org and help the children of Thailand.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-cno...

I am Howard.

I tried to send my feelings about my case, wrote a lot, but he forces lost what I had written.

Woe-betide if you should ever listen to any lawyer or local Recorder or District Judge, the Judges are paid by the lawyers to win on behalf of mothers (on legal aid) and they all share the pot. The only life-loser is the child and his/her father. You see it does not need to happen as if it did, why did Maddonna not have her way when wishing to remove children (whether her own or not) from the Jurisdiction? Guy Richie wouldn't stand for it, the case was high profile, but for lesser mortals such as I and many of us here posted - and I share a previous writer's view, that I/we can and will only depend on the Justice of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ as we have proved having spend tens of thousands of pounds, that "vain is the help of man" and nothing is what you get from the likes of then one of most Gender Biased, Racist and wholly foolish of Lower Court Judges, Recorder O'Farrell who has aided and abetted the trafficking of my son to Australia. MP's do not care, neither does Families Need Fathers, its all a conspiracy. When will our revolution come? We are a nation that despises our heritage, and what greater heritage can we despise than the when we despise the freedom and Justice for our children?

The Family Courts are a revenue raising tool for the Judicial and Political System. Surely, have we all failed to notice that there are no laws apart from Case Law (Judge made Law)? There is a reason for that. It keeps the Judiciary, Solicitors and Barristers busy cumulatively coming to forgone conclusions. The corruption in the Family Court System makes the MP's expenses scandal look a miniature storm in a minute teacup. Who do they really think they are kidding? I have seen this with my own eyes and heard bit with my own ears, yet they will just call me a maverick, a bitter Father, who has lost his case, they will suggest I just move on with my life and accept O'Farrell's Judgement, but they cannot hide the lies, the blatant perjury on which she underpinned her unfair, unrighteous, Gender Biased and Racist Judgement (I am black and the mother Romanian White). It made no difference that she has not ever paid a penny in tax (she never worked legally) and whilst with me never worked at all, she was given two years of legal aid even though she was supported by others and her long-time lover Emanoil Geaboc. The case is probably the best case of utter lies and deception - even the High Court has identified it - and what they found it necessary to highlight was just the tip of the Iceberg. I would never vote and it looks as if the only way to get justice is when you take the law into your own hands? Because, I am governed by a Higher Power, I do not, I just wait until Our Heavenly Father decides it is time for His Vengeance, which will come and completely without any help from me. Time is a wonderful factor in all this as you see, everything
you or I had explained would happen long ago, does happen and they relish the fact that they have pulled the wool over the Court's eyes. The problem is they never pulled any wool over anyone's eyes, as the Courts have deliberately set the process in place and the end game is to earn as much out of each and every family dispute as they can. Remember what Jesus said about Lawyers: Woe to you lawyers (St Luke 11 verses 46 and 52)Does this mean that every lawyer is bad? No of course not, but the Profession is not Noble at all.

People get banned from this site for telling the truth and exposing corruption. The courts, judges, solicitors, barristers and local authorities are corrupt and are racketeering on a grand scale in the UK

http://www.ukcolumn.org/events/blowing-w...

Open this link and come on mass to this event. this site will give you full instruction as to how to present your evidence.

Now is our chance to bring the monsters down and reclaim our Common law rights, expel corrupt officialdom and expose this mass corruption, treason and tyranny in the UK. Lawful, peaceful, non violent mass non compliance is our weapon against all those responsible for destroying innocent families and abusing OUR CHILDREN. Thank you.

This is not acceptable in an open and free democracy. It would be pertinent to direct specific FOI at the social servant and local authority responsible in each case and also to engage the Secretary of State for Justice as to why there are secret( by default illegal) courts in our democracy. Once you have a reply that does not satisfy, take them to the European Court of Human Rights for abusing the right to a private family life and the right to enjoy an open,free and fair judicial process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b7ujQ0-KsA

Latest update Brian Gerrish speaks at Stoke on Trent Child stealing by the state conference 23rd October 2011

In November 2010, the broadcast of Florence Bellona on the problem of the adoption forced Britain had caused the stir. The words "forced adoption" refer to scandals such as that of "l'arche de Zoé" in which Westerners embark foreign children under the pretext of extract to their misery, and without checking if they are really abandoned, for the placing on the market of international adoption.
But the fact that European countries such as the United Kingdom knowingly removes his own children and make them adopt without the consent of parents of birth remains a little-known phenomenon, because the affected families do not have the right to refer their case outside the Court of justice family, still less than in talking to a journalist under sentence of imprisonment.
The United Kingdom has a questionable history in "child protection" since the 19th century. One of the most dramatic episodes lasted 70 years: children stolen from poor families were sent to Australia State program "Migrant Children" to create "a good white strain"! 40 years after the end of the program, the beginning of 2010, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have produced a public apology in the House of Commons for this historic disaster.
Recognition of forced exile, despite decades of campaign by the families of victims, has virtually been no media coverage and its managers were never punished. Today, the "gagging order" (gagging order) protects the State, the press freedom, but freedom of expression. The parents came to use alternative media to describe their ordeal and above all, to find their children.
In recent years, is more material poverty but the charges of child abuse which precede the withdrawal children by social services. First, Florence Bellone listened to the explanations of MPs wishing to abolish forced adoption, those of associations for the defence of families and the testimony of parents. It soon became apparent it that parents really abusing would pass not 10 or 15 years to find their children and to all courts including the European Court of Justice to obtain their returns… And above all, there are thousands of women accused of "future negligence" or "future emotional injury" of their child, since the early days of the grossesse… It away the infant at birth and were thus removed each new baby, on the sole basis of a psychiatrist paid by social services. Their crime: have been a victim of domestic violence, either by their parents, or their partner, and very often by the family of home or orphanage or themselves were placed. Several hundred mothers, alone or in couple, fled abroad to keep their baby.
Legal records of these families and stories have him know the extent and variety of the tactics used by social services to parents. Subsequently, by becoming "MacKenzie friend" (legal support to which parents are right when they have no lawyer), Florence Bellone was able to attend hearings in the courts as well as the examinations of the parents by social services. Very often, what appears first as the false evidence are only statements not verified the Court and accepted by the judge as compelling facts. The same is true of the legal "guardians" of abducted children, who represent the child in court!

The continuous survey

In a second report on the "stolen children", Florence Bellone gives more speaking parents who have lost their children, but children who were themselves adopted force or at least, force from their families. Some are now adults, others have only 11 to 13 years. A raid of the police to take an infant and a maintenance of a woman pregnant with a social worker will also give an idea of the nightmarish situations generated by "child welfare". Finally we will discuss the issue of foreign children whose families, on the British territory, fell in the trap: Matilde, girl French 11 year removed with his little sister Louison in June, managed to call his father, late August - abusing his family of home - and -surveillance. It says "their life in prison", and especially request assistance to find their father and leave the England…

And we live in a democracy?