A sad case, where parents found themselves in care proceedings and if they had worked with professionals or taken the advice their lawyers would have given them, they probably would have overcome the problems and left the proceedings with the child, or at least with the child placed with grandparents.
Re A Child 2016
However, they instead took the route that shouting during the hearings that the Court had no power or authority over them was going to be the best approach. That and getting heavily involved with the Freedom of the Land movement, and thinking that their magic words and spells could save the day. They can’t. They never do.
This is all just Woo – pseudo-science dressed up as something real, selling an idea or a substance that’s too good to be true. [What, I just walk into Court and call myself “He who is Named David of the Family Hasslehoff” and the Court has no power over me at all? Awesome! Not true. Woo.]
Instead of taking up the free legal advice from people who know how to conduct care proceedings, know how best to get your child back and understand English law, they instead took advice from self-styled Federal Judge David Wynn-Miller.
If the fact that David Wynn-Miller is NOT a Federal Judge, but instead an American welder doesn’t raise some alarm bells about his suitability, just look at how many people who followed his suggestions ended up in prison. I counted eleven. Of twelve.
If even that doesn’t worry you, how about this, from his own words Miller remarked that the genesis of Truth-language was when he “turned Hawaii into a verb”
I know that there are good and bad lawyers, and some people have had awful experiences with lawyers that they had no confidence in or felt were lazy. That does happen. You can sack them and get a better one. But there really are not any lawyers who claim to have ever turned Hawaii into a verb.
Woo. Woo. Woo.
The parents in this case followed this lead. With the usual results. (On the plus side for them,they didn’t get sent to prison, so that counts as a major plus by Wynn-Miller’s usual track record)
- The application was listed for hearing before myself on the 14th March 2016. On that occasion the parents represented themselves having dispensed with the services of their legal representation. Sadly on that occasion neither parent would respect the authority of the Court. The Father shouted at myself and was ejected from the Court. The parents were removed from the Court on 2 occasions. After the first occasion they were informed that they could re-enter the Court provided they respected Court procedures but sadly despite assurances that they would, they did not do so and they were ejected again from the Court. It was quite frankly impossible to hold any form of a hearing with them being present as they refused to respect the authority of the Court or the Court’s procedures. I asked the Mother at one point whether they were going to register the birth of their child (those assurances having been given to the Court on the 19th February 2016 that they would do so without delay) but at that point the Mother commenced reading a prepared script when she questioned the authority of the Court. As a consequence of that she was removed from the Courtroom as she refused to stop reading her script, and clearly had no intention of answering my questions or respecting the courts authority.
- At that hearing the Court was very concerned about the evidence produced by the Local Authority, documented in the Social Worker’s statement of the 7th March 2016. The parents had entered into a Contract of Expectations on the 11th February 2016 which set out the expectations of the parents during contact sessions and the role of the contact practitioners to ensure that contact ran smoothly and was a positive experience of the child. However the social workers statement documented that the parents had failed to comply with that contract in that in almost every contact session that had taken place there was a refusal by the parents to accept or act on advice, they were being disrespectful to the contact supervisors and there was an increasing concern about the Mother’s presentation during contact sessions and the impact that this was having on the quality of contact. The Local Authority were also concerned about the behaviour displayed by both of the parents which was becoming increasingly threatening and disruptive to the contact which, in turn, impacted on the quality of the contact and the emotional experience for their baby.
- The Court was clearly concerned given the age of this baby that the parents should be given an opportunity to reflect on the position in the hope that further contact between themselves and their baby could take place. The order therefore of the 14th March records the Local Authority agreement to arrange contact between the baby and the parents twice a week provided the parents attend a meeting with the Local Authority to discuss the management and arrangements for the contact and that they sign a Contract of Expectations. It was on that basis, the Court taking that agreement into account, made the order under Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 which was of course a permissive order only, permitting, if appropriate, the Local Authority to refuse contact. The anticipation of the Court and the expectation of both the Guardian and the Local Authority was that following that hearing the parents would meet with the Social Worker, sign a free contract of expectations and that then further contact would take place.
- Sadly that has not been the case and these parents have not attended the Social Services offices nor have they made any attempt to re-instate contact and therefore they have not seen their baby since the 4th March 2016. Some four and a half months ago.
- On the same day the Local Authority made application to Mr Justice Baker under the Inherent Jurisdiction for orders as the parents were publishing information on Facebook and other social media outlets concerning these Court proceedings.
- From documents that the Court considered on that occasion it was apparent that the parents had dispensed with legal representation in this country and had consulted with a self-styled Chief Federal Judge, David-Wynn Miller.
- Various documents have been served on parties and the Court and on that occasion the court considered a document headed “Educational – Correspondence – Claim. It is a bizarre document which makes quite frankly not a word of sense but is a clear claim by them that the Local Authority have kidnapped their child. This has been a theme which has run through the documentation which has been on Facebook and on YouTube and has persisted throughout despite the injunctions which were made by Mr Justice Baker on the 14th March 2016.
A hint as to why the parents might have fallen for this Woo can be found in the concerns about them
Given the father’s medical beliefs, there are concerns that the child may have been treated indirectly with harmful alternative medication through the mother’s breast milk or may be treated with harmful medication in future:
3.1 . An investigative journalism piece in 2015 discovered that the father was selling Master Mineral Solution (MMS) as a treatment for cancer and autism. MMS is a sodium chlorite solution equivalent to industrial-strength bleach; the Food Standards Agency has warned it should not be consumed as to do so as directed could cause severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, potentially leading to dehydration and reduced blood pressure;
3.2. The father advocates the use of MMS and his personal website includes paraphernalia for the administration of such products to babies.
Yes, let’s treat cancer and autism with industrial-strength bleach. And let’s give this to babies.
This website debunking MMS explains the science very clearly and carefully – note particularly ‘one hundred thousand times the amount for safe drinking water’ calculations.
This is nasty, nasty stuff, preying on people who are sick and desperate. It is super nasty when it is pushed as a cure for children.
(some of my sympathy for these parents has evaporated. I remain very sorry for them, but not anywhere near as sorry as I do for anyone who purchased some of this cancer treatment. By the way, it remains a criminal offence under the Cancer Act 1939 to advertise for sale a substance or treatment that purports to cure cancer. If you are thinking of posting a comment about how it is just Big Pharma that has supressed MMS as a cure for cancer because they know it works and they want to keep it off the market, don’t bother. )
The Judge set out that the concerns about the parents were quite capable of being resolved, if they had engaged with assessments, but their bizarre behaviour meant that there was no alternative save for adoption in the case.
- This is an extraordinary case where there could well have been an alternative option or outcome for this child. Whilst the circumstances which resulted in the care proceedings being instituted by the Local Authority were concerning there was certainly a real prospect that the concerns of the Local Authority could have been allayed during the course of the assessments which were to be undertaken by them of the parents and grandparents.
- In addition to the health concerns and the parents’ conduct towards those in those early days of the baby’s life there were of course the other particularly worrying concerns in relation to the Father’s beliefs and in relation to the administering of Master Mineral Solution (MMS). Those concerns again could have been allayed by the Local Authority and Court being satisfied that despite his beliefs such a solution would not be provided to the baby and/or that the Mother would be a sufficient protective factor to ensure that nothing untoward was ever administered to the baby. Also as a backstop position if the Court were not sufficiently satisfied in relation to the Father it may well be given the Mother’s position at the commencement of proceedings that she, herself, could have cared for the baby on her own. All of these seemed very realistic options available to the Court at the commencement of these care proceedings.
- Sadly in this case however as can be seen from the chronology which has been detailed in this judgment the parents and the parents’ family have left this Court with no other realistic options other than the one proposed by the Local Authority.
I was invited to assist with this case, but refused!
I have not tried this yet but it seems legit!
“In August 2001, Paul and Myrna Schuck unsuccessfully used Miller’s language during a tax-evasion trial in Calgary, Alberta. They were later sentenced to jail after claiming postage affixed to their clothing and signed by them made them legally equivalent to royalty”
of course they forgot to get the stamps franked by a postmaster, you must have a date frank or its just not a vallid process,
That might be even better than the “I turned Hawaii into a verb” – he certainly Kentuckyed this one up for the parents.
yeah, ..now where is the love button?!
And this one is a real winner…
“people don’t need to pay taxes if they can “prove that money is a verb” “
I’ve acted as a mckenzie friend for a decade – although hard with some folks my number one message to them was that they were ‘fighting’ the case not the system.
That’s damn good advice.
Me too … Unfortunately I come up against a lot of resistence, ‘why should I understand their concerns, why should I speak calmly, why should I roll over to the child snatchers’
It’s very sad when I cannot get through to parents that swallowing their pride may enable them to keep their children.
It’s frustrating when you know they’d walk over hot coals, jump through pits of fire or stand in front of a speeding train for them, yet won’t simply nod, smile and say ‘yes I see that, how are we going to move forward?’
The argument is that to do that is to allow the system to continue to take children on crystal ball predictions, I can understand that, this is something that has to be stopped, somehow, however it can be a seperate battle to the case they are fighting in the here and now
It is possible to fight both in a case, its a bit of an art to choose which bits to fight and which bits not to fight, unusually I have a case atm where i am saying not to fight the case itself, ive never said that before, but the circumstances are highly unusual and is a perfect storm
You don’t have to fight anything or anyone in reality.
My usual first sentence is … Give someone enough rope ….
Some one else used the word fight, so it was sort of a quote
regarding rope, it is a far better approach
i find they tend to have supplied their own and then
i also provide enough to make sure all the knots are tied
I think it’s safe to say, we’re singing from the same hymn sheet.
Although I find other MKF’s are more difficult to educate than the parents at times!
As we can see from this post.
Thankfully the FMOTL types are fewer than the MKF’s who go with full on aggression, it’s hard to decipher which is worse
We are singing lol
I cannot see the point of deploying tack-ticks that wont work and FOTL stuff is utter nonsense, as good as deploying a blue cheese in a court room, talk to the cheese your honour as the BC is not listening, how many times I have to tell people that you cannot copyright a name is beyond imagining, of course they cannot give the idea up because they have invested their entire belief system in to it,
I know some damn good MKFs, unfortunately there are those capable of holding peoples hands and not so good at good advise.
I think the FOTL as worse as it is a quasi religious belief system and it has become endemic like a virus and i see the FOTL inductions approach as:
1. Being convinced you are a slave based upon mostly nonsense
2. Being convinced to act like one to get free
3. Based upon nonsense law.
4. Which will always fail
5. Thereby reinforcing that you are being treated like a slave
6. Requiring you to learn even more nonsense to get free
7. Resulting in being a hero if you fight enough using FOTL stuff to get locked up
Religious Revolutionary martyrdom
FOTL = Lemmings = Acceptable casualties in some FOTL leaders minds
I too have a great network of MKF’s … We work differently on many levels, but, we do turn to each other when necessary (we are not, after all, lawyers)
I think the main problem from my experience is overuse of the Magna Carta, the cherry picking from it without actual case law or even law to back up the extractions is disturbing
concerned for Magna Charta and the laws,” Queen’s Bench1710 case Queen v. Tooley.
Anne Dekins was a loud-mouthed party girl — or at least, that’s what the arrest warrant suggested. Whatever she may have done in the past, Miss Dekins was quietly minding her own business when Officer Samuel Bray found her on the street and began to haul her away.
Dekins wasn’t inclined to go quietly, and she put up a struggle. Her cries for help attracted the interest of several armed men led by an individual named Tooley, who confronted Bray and demanded to know what he was doing to the frantic woman. The officer produced his official credentials and insisted that he was making a lawful arrest for “disorderly conduct.” When witnesses disputed that description, Bray called for backup.
Tooley and his associates ordered Bray to release the woman, and then took action to enforce that lawful order. After Bray’s partner was killed in the ensuing struggle, Tooley and his associates were arrested for murder. The trial court threw out the murder charge, ruling that the warrant was defective. Since the arrest was illegal, the court pointed out, Dekins had a right to resist – and bystanders likewise had a right, if not a positive duty, to assist her. The defendants were eventually found guilty of manslaughter, but quickly pardoned and set free.
By trying to enforce an invalid warrant, Bray “did not act as a constable, but a common oppressor,” observed the trial court. Tooley and the other bystanders were properly “provoked” by the act of aggressive violence against Anne Dekins, and their forceful but measured response – first demanding that the abductor release the hostage, then exercising defensive force to free her – was entirely appropriate.
Lawless violence against the helpless “is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion” in any circumstance, observed the court, “much more where it is done under a colour of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is invaded….” In fact, an act of that kind carried out by a law enforcement official is nothing less than “a provocation to all the subjects of England.”
Every Englishman “ought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the laws,” concluded the Queen’s Bench in the 1710 case Queen v. Tooley. “And if any one against the law imprison a man, he is an offender against Magna Charta.”
Roughly forty years earlier, the same court had issued a similar opinion in Hopkin Huggett’s Case. Huggett and his friends had come to the aid of a man who had been arrested by a constable named Berry. Huggett demanded to see the arrest warrant. When Berry produced a clearly spurious document, Huggett drew his sword and demanded the prisoner’s release. Berry refused, and finished second in the ensuing swordfight.
The wrongfully arrested man in that case (who was threatened with impressment into the military) did nothing to resist his abduction. It wasn’t clear that Huggett knew the man, or had even met him prior to the incident. Yet the Queen’s Bench ruled that Huggett’s actions were justified, since a situation in which a “man [is] unduly arrested or restrained of his liberty … is a provocation to all other men of England, not only his friends but strangers also[,] for common humanity’s sake.”
Dekins and her rescuers were blessed to live in 18th Century England, a relatively civilized society that recognized and protected a free individual’s indispensable right to resist State-licensed criminal violence.
In addition to codifying the Common Law right to resist arrest, Hopkin Huggett’s Case and Queen v. Tooley recognized that this right inheres not only in the victim, but in citizens who interpose on the victim’s behalf.
Simply put: When a police officer commits the crime of unlawful arrest, the citizens who intervene are acting as peace officers entitled to employ any necessary means – including lethal force – to liberate the victim.
In early 18th Century England, this was seen as a non-negotiable bulwark against what the heroic Algernon Sidney called “the violence of a wicked magistrate who, hav[ing] armed a crew of lewd villains,” would otherwise inflict his will on innocent and helpless people with impunity. Sidney’s martyrdom at the hands of precisely that kind of degenerate, tyrannical magistrate underscored the vitality of the principle he expressed.
“The right to resist unlawful arrest memorializes one of the principal elements in the heritage of the English revolution: the belief that the will to resist arbitrary authority in a reasonable way is valuable and ought not to be suppressed by the criminal law,” observed Paul Chevigny in a 1969 Yale Law Journal essay. Actually, Chevigny – like many others – elides a critical distinction between “power” and “authority”: While a police officer may have the power to abduct or abuse an innocent person, citizens have the authority to prevent that crime.
Until the late 1960s, most states recognized – albeit grudgingly — the Common Law right to resist arrest. By 1969, that right had been transmuted, through judicial activism, into a revocable “privilege” – one that had to be dispensed with to serve the interests of the State’s punitive caste.
The difference between common law and unreasonable/unworkable law
Thankyou, very informative stuff there, also thankyou to Suess, helpful links make brains tick in perfect rhythm
Actually you are a lawyer, lawyer is not a reserved title, only things like solicitor, barrister and notary are, lawyer is merely someone, anyone who works with the law.
Always worth knowing as well that most of the Magna Carta is now gone – and what bits remained have more impact under Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention anyway.
(I’m not sure this link is completely right – I didn’t think we were down to just 3 of 63 clauses – I thought probably 5 or 6 left , but it illustrates the point http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19761919 )
Actually, the Magna Carta website suggests just 3 as well, and one of those is about the Church, so not much use. http://magnacarta800.org.uk/26045%20Chapel%20Are%20there%20any%20Magna%20Carta%20Pop%20Up%20V3.pdf
There is a bit more than three bits, true only three are numbered but here is the current statute.
Coke recons there were about upto about 40 Great Charters before this one
Magna Carta (1297)
1297 CHAPTER 9 25 Edw 1 cc 1 9 29
THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, AND OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE FOREST; CONFIRMED BY KING EDWARD, IN THE TWENTY-FIFTH YEAR OF HIS REIGN.
EDWARD by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, [X1to all Archbishops, Bishops, &c.] We have seen the Great Charter of the Lord Henry sometimes King of England, our Father, of the Liberties of England in these words:
HENRY by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and other our faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, Greeting: Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of (X1) the souls of our Progenitors and Successors [Kings of England,] to the advancement of Holy Church and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.
[Whoops mentions freemen and annoying words like liberties and for ever]
I Confirmation of Liberties.
FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
[1st bit is not just about church but your in good company even Lord Hamburger makes the same mistake, more annoying freeman bits and forever stuff, but its a statute so phew it does not apply to FOTL]
IX Liberties of London, &c.
THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs [which it hath been used to have]. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
[ I think Heath put paid to most of this bit in the 1970s]
[and the famous bit]
XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: deal with him,
I love that word “disseised” (dis-seised)
To remove (a party) wrongly from real property that is lawfully possessed.
[Middle English disseisen, from Anglo-Norman disseisir, variant of Old French dessaisir : des-, dis- + saisir, to seize; see seize.]
“He disseised me of me liberties your honour, ” I wonder if this is where the phrase taking liberties comes from? Certainly it looks like early base for Habeaus Corpus!
From that link, there are the same three surviving clauses as the BBC website and the Magna Carta website. The biggest one is as you indicate XXIX – though I’d question really whether in our modern era we can say of Justice “We will sell to no man” (it is right in the sense that the Courts cannot be bought and a decision cannot be bought, but we are certainly at a point where it is a damn sight easier to achieve justice if you happen to be rich and can pay for legal representation – there is no way, for example that the threesome celebrity injunction could have been obtained by people who were not sensationally wealthy and prepared to spend a lot of money to fight the case)
Justice is indeed expensive
It`s a shame that the father did not give the child methylcobalamin active vitamin b12 for the undiagnosed and untreated vitamin b12 deficiency or pernicious anemia that health professionals have no doubt left the child with . Unfortunately , the one thing which the child protection court has consistently failed to declare an interest in , is methylcobalamin active vitamin b12 , which was reserved for the private sector in the child protection report . Then , after causing vitamin b12 deficiencies and pernicious anaemia in children using nitrous oxide gas and vitamin b12 lowering pharma drugs over several generations which has lead to babies being born with inborn errors of metabolism , many doctors left the NHS or took early retirement , some of whom have predictably taken up private practice in order to take advantage of the methylcobalamin monopoly and cash cow which was created . Doctors in the private sector are now charging upwards of £100 per injection for methylcobalamin active vitamin b12 , which should only cost around 70 pence per dose .
Child Protection is based on policies used by Hitler in the holocaust . At the Nazi war crime trials in Nuremberg Hitlers ” yes ” man Hermann Goering said that the victims of the holocaust were taken into protective custody and accused of crimes in the future . Babies children Jews Indo Europeans ( PIE) and anyone made disabled from the use of nitrous oxide gas were rounded up . Child Protection have used ` danger of future emotional harm ` as an excuse to take babies and children like the pied piper .
Mothers who are vitamin b12 deficient tend to have pre term low weight babies . Children born with a low birth weight are prone to having an unnaturally early puberty ( precocious puberty ) which can effect children as young as three and can cause six month old babies to have a false puberty . Doctors have been referring these babies and children to social services for generations where they have been sexually abused in care before being handed over to “new parents ” who have also sexually abused them .
Justice Goddard who is conducting the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse asked people who had been force adopted in Canada and Australia between 1920 and 1970 to come forward and make statements about the sexual abuse they were subjected to . It seems that before being sent to Canada and Australia at about age three where they were force adopted by sex offenders and sexually abused they had first been sexually abused in ” care ” in the UK . I don`t think anyone is fooled by the new harvest of babies and children who are being force adopted in the present . Nor are they fooled by the court system which violates every single human right there is and operates to prevent children and their families from making genuine medico legal claims for medical negligence . Any child with a medico legal claim has been taken into care by LA`s and money which should be payed to them is being spent on dodgy social workers foster carers inept solicitors and barristers , judges who ignore evidence and dubious expert witnesses .
Apart from anything else , it is highly illegal and unethical to genetically alter babies through several generations , using nitrous oxide gas to switch off vitamin b12 synthesis , which can be permanently causing pernicious anemia and using vitamin b12 lowering pharma drugs , forceps to damage the optic nerve and the x-raying of babies heads in order to induce precocious puberty in children as young as three and to cause six month old babies to have a false puberty , then refer them to social services who hand them to sex offenders . Not only is this a hate crime but it is also a war crime and a crime against humanity . Those who have taken part in this heinous act will not be able to say later that they were acting on orders .
Wow. You’re post includes almost everything: The global conspiracy, Hitler and the Nazis, vitamins, big pharma, child abuse, poor lawyers, inept social workers, conniving doctors. You are so close to “the Truth”. If only you could see it was the alien lizards disguised as our leaders who were causing all our problems….
Yes, I assumed that I’d get at least one of these in my comments on this piece. Needless to say, the blog does not recommend following any of the ‘medical advice’ contained in that comment.
Of course I meant “your” not “you’re”, but my mobile predictive keyboard often prefers “you’re” and I don’t always catch it…
Cults seem to have gone out of fashion nowadays but really that’s what we’re seeing here; people trying to make sense of their lives and the unfair and unjust world around them, and subsequently being sucked into delusional belief systems.
What used to happen in cult cases? Were the victims expected to disengage unilaterally or was it accepted that effective professional help and therapy is required?
If the system was fair and not cult like itself people would be less inclined to buy others snake oil, i can say with clarity that criminal courts are more fair than not, but who can honestly say that about family law?
otherwise why would Munby have been appointed to “clean it up” his clerks confirmation to me in writting.
after 12 years I can look at most cases and find criminal breaches by LAs, due to ignorance mainly, I have some sympathy for parents like this, except they dont have the experience to discern LA hocus pocus and FOTL/ woo woo hocus pocus so always shoot themselves by choosing the wrong course, DOES NOT EXCUSE THE SYSTEM FOR IT’S WOO WOO THOUGH!
Thankyou for this. unwittingly, i let roots and routes for some dangerous networks that have preyed, vultures of all kinds. So of course, for attempting to put that straight~ i must be one of Them’,