Access to Lawful Justice

James Moore made this Freedom of Information request to Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,

Please supply any and all written policies which would prevent me from filing this document, which is my appeal against injustice suffered at the local Court level:

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

Achow, Ann,

Dear Mr Moore,
Thank you for your request of 20 May 2010.

From my preliminary assessment it is clear that I will not be able to answer your request without further clarification. Are you asking for copies of policies which would prevent you from filing your document at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom or at other lower courts in the UK? Once you have clarified your request I will be able to process it.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Ann Achow
Departmental Records Officer
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square
London
SW1P 3BD

Tel: 020 7960 1983

show quoted sections

Dear Achow, Ann,

I am talking about filing at the Supreme Court.

Yours sincerely,

James Moore

Achow, Ann,

Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your enquiry of 20 May 2010 in which you ask for written polices which would prevent you from filing your document (attached below).

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited: it hears appeals from orders made by the Court of Appeal and (in certain cases) from the High Court. Unless your appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court you cannot lodge an appeal with the Court nor is there provision to file documents unrelated to cases which fall within the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court Registry will only accept papers if the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

The information which you request is contained in the written polices governing the filing of appeals. These are accessible on our website and within our Publication Scheme. The link to the relevant website page for the Rules of the Court, Practice Directions and an explanatory guide entitled 'A guide to bringing a case to the Supreme Court' explain the full procedures and are available at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/procedure... If you are unable to access these documents you may ask for them to be sent in hard copy for which there may be a photocopying and postage charge.

As part of our obligations under the FOIA, we have an independent review process. If you are dissatisfied with this response you may write to request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not make the original decision, and they will re-assess how your request was handled.

If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email to the Director of Corporate Services within two months of the date of this reply, at the following address:

Director of Corporate Services
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square
London
SW1P 3BD

e mail: [email address]

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner's Office under Section 50 of the FOIA. You can contact the Information Commissioner's Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Internet: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Ann Achow
Departmental Records Officer
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square
London
SW1P 3BD

Tel: 020 7960 1983

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org