Dear Ministry of Justice,
I remind the Ministry of Justice of the Infringement Notice issued against the UK in relation to violations against EU Directives: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/eu-law-and-monitoring/infringements_by_country_united_kingdom_en.htm.
The actions of the MoJ in this case as presented below, will reflect on further legal evidence toward that Infringement, should British Authorities continue to act in ignorance of EU Law and with calls for economic sanctions against Britain via the EU Council who may be aware of this case and its multiple infringements of EU Law – due to this EU Petition: https://mckenzies4fairness.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/15-03-02-petition-1707.pdf
Please be on LEGAL NOTICE that on receipt of this information you are now a witness and a legally recognised Authority to whom a report of serious risk to British children has been alleged and is supported by multiple witnesses, circumstantial evidence and multiple professional medical facts.
In ignoring and/or failing to act on this information, you are personally and as an authority, complicit and criminally negligent according to EU & UK Law.
As you know, UK Law operates on previous Court Judgements which are then set as a precedent for future Judgements unless, evidence arrives to alter those judgements according to certain facts.
Read below – presented as a ‘famous’ example in Human Rights to a Fair Trial. The issue here is ‘restrictive order’ and ‘fair trial’ – which in this case, relates to a mother and her children who are respectively, suffering threat of arrest and taken into state custody.
Case study
The control order regime enacted by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (and still in force at the time of publication) imposes severe restrictions, including house arrest, on anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activity. Under the policy, the Secretary of State makes a decision as to whether a control order should be made and the courts then consider the decision made. In many cases, control orders have been made on the basis of closed material – where the person subject to the control order has never been given the chance to see the case against them.

The House of Lords held in June 2009 that this breached the right to a fair trial under Article 6. The Law Lords held that a person subject to such a restrictive order had to be given sufficient information to know the essence of the case against him or her. It was held that there could never be a fair trial if the case against a person was based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials and where any open material consists only of general assertions. The Court held that in conducting control order hearings judges must consider whether material needs to be disclosed to ensure the fairness of the trial.’
It was held that there could never be a fair trial if the case against a person was based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials and where any open material consists only of general assertions.
Justice Pauffley’s judgement recent High Court Judgement against said Mother in relation to her children’s allegations of serious sexual abuse against themselves and 20 other “special” children via multiple professionals including teachers, Cafcass officers, social workers and professional-status parents who also are accused of making child pornography, child trafficking and murder of babies, was delivered in ignorance of both UK & EU Law and especially, considering the evidence supporting the mother and children was the ONLY evidence that did NOT depend on ‘ closed materials’ and ‘ general assertions’.
Here is said Judgement: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html
Evidence:
Medical Reports: http://crimesofempire.com/2015/03/11/hampstead-leaked-medical-reports-end-all-doubt-about-sexual-abuse-claims/
Example of Children’s testimonies via non-abusers: Gabriel: http://zeeklytv.com/video/19744/Gabriel-05-Sep-I-27-min
Example of Children’s testimonies via alleged abusers: Alisa: http://zeeklytv.com/video/19745/Alisa-17-Sep-II-5-min
All video recordings of both allegations and retractions can be viewed here: http://zeeklytv.com/video/19748/Alisa-11-Sep-II-24-min
Circumstantial evidence provided by independent investigations due to lack of police investigation – see all video presentations of publicly investigated, circumstantial evidence here: http://zeeklytv.com/video/24833/CCPS-Vid-10-A-Hampstead-Baby-Trafficker
Foster Carer: “Although we know that they have retracted their statements, the children still, even now keep coming back to the same story and the details, while in the foster care to the degree that it became unbearable for their caretaker C to look after them. She no longer wants to do this.” http://trendwave.com/Parenting/COVER-UP-OF-SATANIC-CHILD-ABUSE-IN-HAMPSTEAD—Aangirfan
Mother’s Statement: http://zeeklytv.com/video/22955/CCPS-VID-9-Witness-Statement-by-Ella-Draper
Please compare ALL of the above evidence to the ‘closed’ and ‘general’ evidence on which Justice Pauffley delivered her judgement.
We have been informed by the Home Office, that this case is presently being investigated by special police unit ‘Operation Hydrant’ (see Home Office attachment sent to the MoJ prior to this email).
In light of this, the recent High Court case legally, SHOULD have been adjourned until further investigations were completed as evidence MAY prove the children’s story true and thereby, deny allegations against the Mother.
In this case, a judgement has been issued amid ONGOING Police Investigations.
It is clear, examining the video testimonies that the children’s retractions ARE coached and are very flimsy when compared to the original allegations which, we CANNOT forget were REPEATED to foster carers.
It was when the children retracted the retractions that legally, mother and her counsel had NO CHOICE except to report their reasonable and supported suspicions in GOOD FAITH to ‘other’ competent authorities which is their LEGAL RIGHT under EU Law: See Sections 26, 28 & 50 – all fully support and request the actions taken by Mother and her Counsel in making this case public in light of negligent and suspect authorities – the LEGAL POINT OF ISSUE HERE IS TO BE SURE THAT MULTIPLE CHILDREN WERE AND ARE NOT BEING ABUSED & MURDERED BY MULTIPLE PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN CHILD WELFARE.
It is the LACK of assuredness coupled with the REMAINING suspicion supported by the EVIDENCE, that legally demands IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION: The risk to child safety is both urgent and ongoing. A 12 day ‘fact-finding’ mission via the High Court after MONTHS of negligent inaction, is nowhere near ample enough time, to thoroughly investigate the facts presented in this case which present far too serious a threat to British children to be so casually handled and as casually dismissed by via Court proceedings which themselves, show an equally casual approach to EU & UK Law.
Considering the power of the collective authorities as police, cafcass officers, social workers etc. etc., and as actual suspects, and, considering the serious risk according to EU Legal Directives toward investigating this case AND protecting children SUSPECTED of being at risk according to the lawfully required GOOD FAITH we have in the EVIDENCE, as Ministry of Justice faced with allegedly ROGUE Authorities involving Courts, Police and Child Welfare, it is now your LAWFUL DUTY to IMMEDIATELY ACT and to remove the children from RISK OF HARM until further investigations are completed.
In light of negligent and allegedly abusive authorities, there is no other body of authority for the British public to turn to because according to the evidence, MANY MORE CHILDREN REMAIN AT RISK – the collective powers of alleged abusers amount to a SECRET and Court protected, terrorist threat to the children of Britain.
Considering the ever mounting evidence relating historical crimes of child sexual abuse and even, more recent, via multiple professionals working as MPs, Heads of Police, Councillors, Government Ministers etc., the grounds and cause for our remaining suspicions in this case, are further increased.
According to the evidence presented here, it is well within compassionate reason to realise the very serious risk which arises from the very real POSSIBILITY that two children and 20 other children were and perhaps still are, being repeatedly sexually abused by multiple professionals, that in their professional capacity, those abusers have used the Secrecy of the Family Courts, to abduct the victims/witnesses, intimidate them into retracting their allegations and issue arrest warrants against mother & her counsel in order to imprison them and thereby silence their concerns.
NONE of the above SUSPICIONS can be denied and they ARE in GOOD FAITH according to the FACTS and the EVIDENCE: ACCORDING TO EU LAW THOSE REASONABLE SUSPICIONS DEMAND IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION.
Please, use whatever powers you can
to issue an Emergency Care Order to protect the children from further RISK.
Please deliver the children to the SAFETY AND COMFORT of their family London home where their grandparent’s await.
Please CONSIDER the IMMENSE trauma that BRITISH AUTHORITY NEGLIGENCE in handling this case has put those children through, in the sense, they have MERCILESSLY handed those children over to alleged abusers in IGNORANCE of EU Law.
According to EU Law, the ONLY child testimonies to have legal credibility are those given when in hands of non-abusers. Though Mother and partner are now accused as ‘abusers’, it is very CLEARLY explained here exactly WHY that Judgement is VOID and actually, has NO legal foundation.
Foster Carers are NOT cited as abusers which means the allegations given to parties of mother, police and foster carers and other witnesses are considered FREELY GIVEN, while retractions are all in secret and while in care of alleged abusers are not legally accepted as ‘freely given’ – according to EU Law the original allegations (especially after they were repeated with accusations that retractions were via intimidation while in control of alleged abusers) are the ONLY allegations that can be granted PRECEDENCE toward warranting a FULL and IMMEDIATE investigation into this case.
ALL of the evidence presented here is INFORMING the Ministry of Justice of SERIOUS ongoing RISK to British children. It is your public DUTY to ACT and to use your powers to protect children in light of there being NO OTHER AUTHORITY PREPARED TO ABIDE BY THE LAW AND PROTECT CHILDREN FROM RISK AND HARM OF ABUSIVE AUTHORITIES.
This is a public demand delivered via a public judgement on this case in light of and according to both EU and UK LAW. It is our legal right as a legally recognised competent authority in this case and having examined all related evidence, to issue this judgement as an interim solution prior to the pending results of present and ongoing Police Investigations via Operation Hydrant.

We the public therefore request that the Ministry of Justice supports our sound and lawful judgement which hereby, issues an ‘Emergency Protection Order’ for the IMMEDIATE* transference of said children from care of present authorities and into care of their grandparents.
* You are on Notice to act IMMEDIATELY on receipt of this information and to make every effort toward ensuring the return of the children to their grandparents. We are aware that the day of this Notice is issued on a Friday and we order that nonetheless, the urgent need in light of the continued and reasoned RISK, cannot lawfully be ignored over the weekend ; the Public Order is that the children are swiftly removed from control of allegedly abusive/suspect authorities.
Failure to honour our Democratic Judgement and public request for our Legal Order, will lead to further charges of Infringement of EU Directives against British Authorities and of which, the Ministry of Justice itself will now be directly implicated.
Yours Sincerely,
Miss AB, as a British Citizen, as an accepted, public representative and spokesperson on behalf of mother, her counsel and the children of Britain, and as an experienced and enlightened independent, authority on the issues of both law and assessment of risk related to this case.