The Hampstead Judgement Contains Basic Factual Errors.

And now another critique of the judgment. Witness E for our collection on

Crimes of Empire

Witness and Victim G. Witness and Victim G.

March 31st, 2015.

The Hampstead Judgement Contains Proven Falsehoods and Cannot Therefore be Valid.
As seasoned cover up merchants have long known, the best way to conduct a cover up is to get on the front foot, seize the initiative and present an essentially inverted narrative, where the perpetrators are the victims and the victims are perpetrators. As the Americans might put it, the best form of defense is offense.  And so it was that Justice Pauffley announced grandly and unequivocally on the first page of her Judgement that:

“I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish “ Justice Pauffley, Hampstead…

View original post 2,746 more words


Ex-#POLICE expose #Hampstead #Cover-Up #WhistleblowerKids

Three minutes of one former Detective Sergeant to the Police ‘protecting’ Christ Church in Hampstead:

He spent three hours with Ella and knows that her case is not unique. She has been harassed.

We have child abuse problems at epidemic levels.

Everybody knows it.

We got to start acting on it.

A lot of it is underpinned by our financial system.

It’s not historic. It’s happening now.

I know no police officer has properly investigated this.

One in 10 children are being abused.

Let’s change it!

For the background of the bigger picture of Satanists and Satanist families:

#MoJ We demand an Immediate Emergency Protection Order for the #WhistleblowerKids

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:
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:
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‘.
Example of Children’s testimonies via non-abusers: Gabriel:
Example of Children’s testimonies via alleged abusers: Alisa:
All video recordings of both allegations and retractions can be viewed here:
Circumstantial evidence provided by independent investigations due to lack of police investigation – see all video presentations of publicly investigated, circumstantial evidence here:
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.”—Aangirfan
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.
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.

Continue reading

SAY IT in Poetry beyond Prose and Music beyond Words #WhistleblowerKids

Olivia Douglas is the artist who sent me not only a German press release about this case, but also this poem:

part of humanity

leaving us
for answers
to find signs
of deviousness
to prove
it’s not part
of humanity
it merely is

redefined daily
by our deeds

© olivia douglas, 2015

What it means to be human?

  • trying to heal where there is hurt
  • trying to help where there is need
  • connecting rather than splitting
  • communicating honestly and openly
  • spreading positivity to overcome negativity…

Here’s another fabulous example: comments about the case and judgement – accompanied with music by ‘Matters of the Harp’:

We are living in interesting times where we need to decide which side we are on: good or evil – not only individually, but collectively! 99% vs 1%…

Have you already seen my latest petition with its overview of the case on ?

And the ideal platform for collaboration: ?

#Pauffley as #SpinDoctor? #Judgement needs a Shot of #Truth #WhistleblowerKids

This analysis has come from ‘Witness A’, someone who knows not only the mother and Abraham Christie but also other child snatching cases, the second contributor to a ‘Portfolio of Public Witness Statements‘ I am starting to gather on Let’s Respond to the Pauffley Judgement. I have yet to publish the first one.

Please, dear Commentators all over the net, do repeat, copy and paste and contribute to this page which focusses on the judgement as the ‘public response of ‘evil’ and ‘foolish’ people to the appeal. My first publication of the judgement is here on this blog.

You can also email your analysis / comments asap me to sabine AT, in case I have missed some of your superb observations and you want anonymity as Witness A does.

Pauffley: Your Judgment Needs a Shot of Truth.

Full case on this Family Law Week link and on the official site of judgements [a recent introduction to lift the veil of secrecy somewhat]:

I have decided to name the children as with over 4,000,000 hits on the internet why be coy about their names as if it makes much difference. [The first blogger‘s YouTube profile was viewed over 27 million times before the 3 videos he down- and uploaded were deleted.]

Introduction and executive summary Continue reading

Anna Pauffley: ignorant or complicit?

From the great internet community of ‘evil’ and ‘foolish’ people – reblogged from

But since the blog has been set to PRIVATE, here’s the original text:

16 04 03 YT image 3This is Anna Pauffley (you can watch a video of her speaking here), the woman who thinks that when an eight year old girl and a nine year old boy spend hours on video, describing in detail how their father and various carers abused them, they were acting. They must have more ability at 8 than their minor Hollywood actor father does decades later, if that is true, because when one watches them talk, one can see that they aren´t lying. They corroborate each other, aren´t “high on hemp”, are not led into making statements, and clearly surprise the interviewer with their experiences.

Note: If youtube delete the video you can get it off my google
drive here.

Medical evidence has ascertained that they both have anal scarring, and therefore long-term abuse has been going on, so that much is certain. Their mother´s partner, Abraham Christie, has only been with her for a couple of months, however, so he cannot be responsible, and they are quite categoric that it is their father and teachers and others in local power in Hampstead who “do sex to them”, not Abraham, the interviewer, or Ella Draper/Gareeva the mother.

Yet that is not enough for Anna Pauffley. What the children say about their abuse doesn´t matter, apparently. Although she does believe what they say when a policeman called Steve badgers them into a partial, unconvincing retraction. In fact, she has stated that she believes the mother and her partner who reported the abuse – were themselves abusing the children by tapping them with spoons playfully to encourage them to talk, whereas the years of sodomy and sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of their father and teachers, and which has been confirmed by the police´s own medical report, is not even worthy of a criminal investigation!

Why would the mother report the matter to the police if she was abusing them?

Why did Belinda McKenzie, the “McKenzie Friend” of the mother in court get stalked by secret police vans during the court hearings? Is this normal? Why did Sabine McNeill get chased off to Germany by hordes of police? Is this normal? Why did Ella Draper get chased off to Russia by more hordes of police? Is this normal? Why did the police close the case before even getting the medical report back? When this report confirmed abuse, why didn´t they re-open it?

Why didn´t judge Pauffley pass the case onto the police for a proper criminal investigation into who caused the now-proven longterm abuse?

Because there is now a policy of supporting child abuse at large within the British government. In this case, it was ensured that the children would be alone in england without their mother, in the clutches of a system that want to continue their abuse, so that custody could be given to their father – who they state had threatened to kill them if they spoke out about their abuse – despite his record of marital violence against the mother, and the fact that the children have categorically said that their mother never abused them, only their father.
And it is Anna Pauffley who has made all this happen. She could have listened to the children. She could have kept them with their mother who they have said has never abused them.

She could have turned the case over to the police for a criminal investigation, or at least taken note of the damning medical report that showed long-term anal scarring, and followed that up. But instead, she took the children off the mother who has never been accused of anything, increased the contact time the children had with their father despite the allegations against him, got the police to chase the mother out of the country, declared the allegations against the father to be fantasies without undertaking a proper investigation, smeared the mother via the mainstream press, and is now determined to hand the children over to the father who has systematically raped and trafficked them to other paedophiles for years on end.

Is she ignorant of systemic child abuse? Or is she, rather, part of the system which exploits it when it finds it happening within families?

Either way she is a disgrace. On the one hand, how can she be ignorant of systemic abuse given all the high-profile instances of it recently, when the Met is investigating high-level cover-ups of it, and when Lowell Goddard is being brought in from New Zealand to investigate it?

The alternative is that she does know, and is therefore part of the system which is encouraging the abuse of children, protecting abusers of children, and covering up the abusers of children.

Which one is it, Anna: are you ignorant of or complicit in childrape and its cover-up?

Does anyone give a shit about children anymore?