QUESTIONS for Mrs Justice #Pauffley #HampsteadScandal #WhistleblowerKids

Deborah Mahmoudieh mentions our submission

It refers to

Among Deborah’s questions:

  1. On what grounds do you claim that the children’s allegations are ‘baseless’?
  2. Do you have evidence from a police investigation?
  3. How can you judge this case until the Met’s “Operation Hydrant” is completed?

From a commentator:

So many questions remain unanswered.
How come haven’t they examined the other children who were mentioned that were abused too?!. Why would the mother and partner include physical abuse of other children in the story they “made up” when they “brainwashed” A and G with a foolish and evil story? If they made up the story, they would have surely found the other children not to have sign of abuse. Nothing makes sense.

From another online supporter:

UK Column highlights negligence of mainstream journalists and asks good questions in relation to the Hampstead case:
1) What took place in the secret court hearings?
2) Why did the police coach the children to retract their statements?
3) What investigation did the MET police carry out? [Answer: they covered up and attacked in response to our Judicial Review – just as Barnet Police]
4) Why did the Judge attack the medical report demonstrating serious sexual abuse?
5) Why was there no criminal court case?
6) Why have the Daily Mail & others printed sensationalist smear stories
7) Why were members of MET police threatened over this case?


17 thoughts on “QUESTIONS for Mrs Justice #Pauffley #HampsteadScandal #WhistleblowerKids

  1. Are you familiar with Jordan Maxwell’s explanations of Maritime Admiralty Law? No injustice is a mystery after listening to him:
    I imagine it’s quite likely the legal status of children in the UK is the same as the legal status of children in the colonies (ie. my home, Canada) — inasmuch as they have no legal status, ages 12 and under. This is what my lawyers told me, as my son refused visits with his father for four continuous months…etc., etc. But they should have all the rights! was and is my reply. Foolish me. But that’s the heart of the problem. If we establish their rights…an objective dependent on the will of the people. I also emailed, questioning whether I would be refunded the money I spent to promote your now-deleted petitions — no response yet… 😉


  2. Oh, I thought giving a small headache was one of the least things I could do. I have signed the third petition, and will promote it. But yes, my understanding is that, upon birth, all citizen children are registered as insurable securities/property of the crown, also as corporate entities. And so we mothers and fathers are mere placeholders for the direct authority of the state over our children’s lives, and should we find issue with that authority, God help us. Is it true that Bill Maloney is getting involved?

    I wish you all the comfort in the world, and all the strength of everything good in this universe — and whatever other universes — I believe these evils are an inevitable part of the process, what with naked men/youth climbing and falling out of Buckingham’s windows these days…my best to you!


    • Just a note re. Buckingham Palace fall guy, I too was caught out by that one. Apparently it was a prank to fool the likes of me. Who did it and for what purpose awaits to be revealed I believe. Perhaps just to prove how gullible we humans are and how easily led astray?


      • Thanks, Tim — so who revealed it to definitely be a prank? I know opinions were split, but so many video editors made comments about how difficult it would be to fake, and I went on a photo hunt and matched up the two buildings myself…I’m much happier if no one died falling from that window!


  3. When a judgment has been made it stands, even if the judgment were daft or blatantly wrong. The Judgment stands until such time someone overturns it, usually by appeal or setting it aside. If a Judge makes a Judgment then the same Judge or another judge can stay it or over turn it.

    Any party whom is directly affected by a Judgment can make an application to set it aside . Bleating on about it over the internet will no doubt antagonist the authorities further . It would be far better if the internet reported an application has been made by a party directly involved and in that application, ask any questions you like , such as in the video.

    You should not write directly to a Judge as that can be contempt, so the proper forum is in Court .

    In the usual course of events where a party makes an allegation of fraud or of a criminal nature the proper course of action is that the Judge should adjourn , or stay the case pending/until the outcome of a/the Police investigation .
    Without knowing what facts were before the Judge , in my view the Mother ( any party involved) should make an application to set aside Mrs Justice Pauffley judgment and any determination on all parties involved to be stayed until the out come of a police investigation into crime Number XYZ. And mention any supporting EU directives

    Likewise a letter should be sent to the Chief Constable of the local area involved,detailing the allegations against all parties alleged and a ring binder of the evidence sent recorded delivery , asking for a crime number. and name of the CID officers dealing.

    That way the police can also be held for account , if need be , if they fail to act .

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sensible suggestions Peter B. The proper legal route is absolutely essential and can only be done by those directly affected, as far as I understand it, or are party to factual information regarding the case. Unfortunately, when in effect taking on State power structures, including the courts, it is a ‘David and Goliath’ battle, in which limited financial and professional resources on one side, come up against unlimited ones on the other. This is what the people that inhabit the function, hide behind and affords them protection. When the laws and decisions based on them are moral and fair, this must be seen as a ‘good thing’, because it protects from undue influence or threats. However when the laws or their interpretation defies the higher law of justice, it can only be regarded as shocking and reprehensible. Such is the case here. Hopefully information will soon emerge as to what is happening to the appeal process on Pauffley’s judgement and against the Metropolitan Police’s decision not to investigate further, that they are resisting. (Incidentally Google and the Guardian took down an item of mine that referred to this latter Met Police refutation submission!) Is legal aid available or been granted? What Barrister is taking the case. Perhaps Cherie Blair would like to?!!! The only glimmer of hope is that we are told David did defeat Goliath in the end.


  4. I expect I will get gagged again (it’s a bit like being in the family courts if you don’t tow the line in this blog!).I will still repeat that the kids lost credibility by wild exaggeration of killing babies and drinking their blood etc
    I HAVE NO DOUBT THESE KIDS WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED BUT GIVEN THE PUBLICITY SURELY OTHER CHILDREN AND PARENTS WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD BY NOW TO EXPOSE THE ABUSES;Normally in similar cases if one whistleblower comes forward others follow but not in this case which leads me to believe that the children were truthful at base but wildly exaggerated to be sure of getting attention .Sadly exaggeration reduces credibility in what would still have been a horrific story.


    • Forced Adoption the examples you give for disbelieving the children are ones that I found compelling for several reasons:
      1. the technical detail they gave could not be obtained from normal childhood experience. It inevitably suggests abnormal influence from whatever quarter. Basically we have three options: as the judge wants us to believe it was done by coaching by the mother and step father despite there being a complete absence of evidence to support this; or as the police want us to believe it was seeded by watching a film (the Mask of Zorro) or some other literary or tele-visual source, which rather confirms the glaring absurdity of their position; or it was gleaned by actual experience as described.
      2. what we have is not only a statement as to what was experienced (perhaps if sufficient effort was put into coaxing a high level of acting skill in eight and nine year olds) but also intimate and personal description that even adults may not be aware. How otherwise would a child know that blood had a ‘metal taste’; or that skin was ‘sticky’; or that injections could be made into the back of the hand or directly into the neck; or prior to puberty details (‘glue in the bottom’!) details of ejaculation; or the detailed anatomy of men and women including the activity of fellatio on an adult woman; or how plastic dildo’s could be made and their variety; or the subjective experiential consequences of the insertion of objects in vaginal or anal orifices; or using stages of violence to ensure compliance; or the subjective experience of cutting a child’s head or the process of collecting the blood with all its pitfalls. These are not scripted anodyne reports but naturally accurate as far as they are able.
      3. the descriptions remain consistent to different interviewers, at different times, in different locations at different times, even when questioned by a policeman in a police station on four occasions. Even in the two odious ‘retraction’ interviews after six days of retention, subject to who knows what overt or subtle pressure, the best we can say about them is that they were indifferent and partial. Here were children trying to make good a situation along lines suggested to them, no doubt in the expectation that if they did so the horror of their enforced separation from their mother would be brought to an end, sadly betrayed. How police and courts could seize on partial retractions, whilst completely ignoring the previous compelling testimony is a feature of this case that convinces as to the corruption of it.
      4. the non-verbal elements attest to the truthfulness of the children’s accounts. Throughout, they are totally consistent with what they describe. So the ‘metal taste’ is accompanied by a screwing of the face; cutting activities are demonstrated spontaneously; injection sites are demonstrated by pinching skin and pointing to the location in the neck; the insertion process is demonstrated by an arm around the back; the process of removing skin is demonstrated.
      5. truthfulness is demonstrated not only specifically by passing all the objective questions and tests posed by the policemen, it can be witnessed in the way they correct the questioners whenever they spot a name mispronounced or other information that they perceive as wrong. I could list them all but time is running out. No doubt you will see what I mean if you watch the videos. Then there is the willingness to incriminate themselves in what they must know are very bad acts as with the babies’ heads and in other matters. They add almost as an after-thought “Papa made me do it. He helped us” (It is interesting in this regard the father in his own interview makes a big point as to whether the children refer to him as ‘Papa’ not to mention the contrast between inherent truthfulness of the children’s narrative as compared to his own)
      6. finally there is the incomprehensible way in which these children’s accounts of what took place mimic so closely the secret world of such practices. Is it really believable they were inculcated with fine detail to replicate features of SRA, could maintain their stories under cross examination and despite threats of death or worse, and for what purpose just to spite an errant ex-husband? Really!


  5. I’m sorry, Ian, I do NOT gag you! I promote you! Otherwise I wouldn’t have started

    So I don’t know what WordPress or HACKERS are doing, as someone else complained he can’t comment…

    Shall have to inquire with WP.

    Re other parents: if they are alleged abusers themselves, it’s hardly surprising! However, one JUNE WIGGARD confirmed the children’s allegation in a YouTube comment – which was removed together with the whole video.

    In my view, the degree of cover-ups prove the veracity of the children’s ‘outlandish’ stories. See

    I have yet to add ‘mainstream media’ as the level of cover-up of the cover-ups…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s