COMPLAINT to JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE (JCIO)
Concerning Mrs Justice Pauffley OBE in the High Court Family Division – Case ZC14C00315
The form on the JCIO website actually only allowed for the first 3,000 characters, whereas I had 3,000 words in mind. This text is 2,778 words long.
- I am writing this complaint as McKenzie Friend for the 1st Respondent, Ms Ella Draper, the Russian mother of the two child witnesses, and assisted her since early November 2014. In her hearing on 26 January Mrs Justice Pauffley claimed that the mother was “too much under my influence” and thus didn’t take her issues on board.
- The most inappropriate personal comment referred to my use of walking sticks as opposed to crutches. Does she feel my pains and know what it takes to use either crutches or walking sticks? Why comment in a way that forced me to respond? My dignity as a disabled person suffering from chronic pain since 1973 was distinctly not respected.
- In the case, Mrs Justice Pauffley made a number of decisions that had a dramatic effect on twenty children and six adults as victims, as well as 70+ adults as supposed perpetrators of serious criminal allegations, which very much go against all principles spelled out in your Guide to Judicial Ethics[i]
- The allegations were made by two child witnesses, then 8 and 9 years old, over a period of several weeks, talking independently as well as together, and with persuasive consistency, to a number of different adults.
- The consistency of the allegations comes across twenty short privately recorded videos as well as long interviews by Barnet Police. The third Police interview with each of the children contained partial retractions of their original allegations which unfortunately do not come across as being credible. The quality of the Police interviews has thus been questioned by a Witness Statement[ii] submitted in a Judicial Review[iii] as well as by a Forensic Linguist[iv] and an ‘amateur’ blogger[v] with many validating comments.
- On 11.02.15 I left London to my country of origin (Germany) for fear of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, after I alerted the Home Secretary to the alleged crimes in this case, without getting a response, despite reminders. I can only return if I am given official assurance of personal safety.
Using the Secrecy of Family Courts to Cover-Up Criminal Activities
- The list of charges derived from the allegations is long and also includes conspiracy to each of these charges:
a) Sexual activity with a child family member
- Rape of a child under the age of 13
- Assault of a child under 13 by penetration
d) Sexual assault of a child under 13
e) Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity
- Sexual activity with a child
- Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
h) Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
i) Causing a child to watch a sexual act
j) Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence
- Perverting the course of justice common law
- Witness Intimidation
- Exploitation of child sex for financial gain.
- In our view as McKenzie Friends, Mrs Justice Pauffley’s treatment of these criminal charges in a secret civil court is a misuse of her judicial status in the Family Court. [END OF 3,000 CHARACTERS]
- Her treatment of the mother was one of extreme bias and her assessment of the child witnesses can only be called cruel. Her professional misconduct includes holding a private meeting with the Applicant without the Respondent.
- Her treatment of the mother’s McKenzie Friends was questionable, unfair and unjust and anything but representative of the Judicial Ethics proposed in the Guide to Judicial Conduct[vi].
Private Meeting between the Judge and the Council’s Barrister
- At least one private meeting with the Local Authority’s barrister took place without the mother’s presence. That meeting resulted in the Order[vii] that required me to appear before her as the mother’s McKenzie Friend. This seems to go very much against the principle of ‘impartiality’ in Chapter 3 of the Guide to Judicial Ethics[viii].
- Later, her hearing on 26.01.15 made it clear to the mother and her McKenzie Friend, the Chairperson of our Association who happens to be called Belinda McKenzie, that the judge had no intention of returning the children to the mother’s or her parents’ care. She claimed that the mother was too much under my influence and ignored all issues in the mother’s Position Statement[ix].
Again, this re-enforced the perceived bias not only against the mother versus the accused father and Barnet Council among his associates, but also against us McKenzie Friends who knew the case much better and in much more detail than the judge.
Return the ‘Whistleblower Kids’ to their Russian Family
- We therefore published the petition “Return the ‘Whistleblower Kids’ to their Russian Family” online, for exposure to the General Public seemed to be our only way forwards, after all UK authorities had failed us. Barnet Council’s Legal Services and Mrs Justice Pauffley blamed the mother and me for publishing information without due justification and proper evidence, in particular the names of the abusers which we both categorically deny.
- The endnote refers to the story that I am telling on video, after the petition was removed with nearly 16,000 signatures in less than two months.
- However, online publications resulted in a Penal Notice on 10.02.15, once again from a secret court.
- Being a German national, this made me leave the flat where I have lived since 1985. I had seen many fraudulent imprisonments before as a result of ‘child snatching’ and ‘forced adoptions’, the terms that Christopher Booker uses in his weekly column in The Telegraph.
- From abroad I applied to set the Notice aside and asked for an adjournment, since my solicitor could not attend the hearing on 21 April 2015. But I must expect to be arrested by tip staff, once I am in a court room, and mistreated in a cell. Based on my experience with many victims of white collar crimes, litigants in person and whistleblowers, I must also expect an unfair and unlawful trial.
EU Directive 2011/92 on Combating Child Sexual Abuse
- I believed that I followed not only UK law on reporting crime, but, above all EU Directive 2011/92 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
- Its paragraph 28 says: Member States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.
- In this case, it was clear that the two ‘whistleblower kids’[x] as well as the other 18 children needed to be heard and protected from their father and the other 70+ alleged abusers, despite the supposed retractions.
- Instead the accused father was given weekly contact by Judge Mayer and the mother, who had a Residence Order in place, could see her children only fortnightly.
Cover-Up by Barnet and Camden Council
- Haringey Police were first to have been informed, albeit informally, before Barnet Police opened a Crime Report and took interviews. The Police report[xi] makes it clear that a ‘strategy meeting’ on 09.09.14 decided the way forward: an Emergency Protection Order with secret Family Court proceedings rather than investigation in a criminal court.
- After four hearings in Barnet Court, District Judge Mayer passed the case to High Court Judge Pauffley. It appears that this is due to personal relationships rather than the transfer of jurisdiction from one Court to another.
Cover-Up of Judicial Review against the Metropolitan Police
- Mrs Justice Pauffley perpetuated Judge Mayer’s orders with clear bias against the mother, favouring the father whom the children had accused. The mother’s issues were
- the reasons for keeping the children despite their supposed retractions,
- inequality of contact and
- the application for a Non-Molestation Order against the father.
- Mrs Justice Pauffley also presumed to have jurisdiction for the Judicial Review that the mother had filed on 22.12.14. She was assuming jurisdiction for the Admin Court when, in fact, for the High Court of the Family Division.
- The objective was for the Metropolitan Police to re-open the case that Barnet Police had closed with ‘no crime confirmed’, 18 days after the mother and children first reported the allegations. See CRIS (Crime Report Information System) report[xii].
- Mrs Pauffley claimed that the Metropolitan Police would “take their cue from a High Court Judge.”
- For what appears to be cause for collusion based on personal relationships, the Metropolitan Police contacted Barnet Council about the use of supposedly ‘confidential’ information.
- Even more strangely, the Metropolitan Police informed Haringey Council who were joined to the proceedings as ‘intervening authority’. Their barrister went as far as requesting that all interested parties should be asked to destroy their evidence. The list of interested parties includes three MEPs in Brussels, two of them Russian speaking.
Hearings without the Mother’s Legal Representation
- Mrs Justice Pauffley proceeded with hearings in secrecy despite a Police Raid on the mother’s house – without an arrest warrant – by 9 constables most of them in plain clothes – that caused her to leave UK jurisdiction. Since this action originated from complaints by some of the alleged abusers, this is another demonstration of Mrs Pauffley’s bias.
- Is such a visit not a criminal offence?
- Should she not have questioned the Police action in parallel to her efforts which were called ‘fact finding’?
- In order to provide a fair trial with ‘equality of arms’ when the other side was represented by up to twenty people, should she not have ensured at least one McKenzie Friend in the mother’s absence?
The Judgement of 19 March 2015 with Publication to Mainstream Media
- Eventually, Mrs Justice Pauffley expressed her bias crystal clear in a judgement that according to one blogger ‘contains factual errors and can therefore not be valid’:
- http://crimesofempire.com/2015/03/31/the-hampstead-judgement-contains-proven-falsehoods-and-cannot-therefore-be-valid/ or http://bit.ly/1KSWNZ9
- However, she also formulated her judgement as a Press Release before she handed it down to the parties concerned. Even though we have seen that before in cases of serious cover-up, it must be questioned whether this kind of action complies with her professional oath, as her judgement was picked up by a number of newspapers, without due investigation:
- As a result, the internet community that she accused of having sexual interests in the videos, i.e. being paedophiles and ‘evil and / or foolish’ is considering the start of defamation proceedings:
- Comment 15 on https://whistleblowerkids.uk/2015/04/24/a-complaint-to-the-independent-police-complaints-commission-about-their-handling-of-the-hampstead-case/ or http://bit.ly/1H50QQP
- Comment 20 on https://whistleblowerkids.uk/2015/05/07/desperately-seeking-police-against-child-abuse-to-investigate-hampstead-case-aka-whistleblowerkids/ or http://bit.ly/1JW6NmX
Submissions to Petitions Committee of EU Parliament
- “Using the Secrecy of UK Family Courts to Cover-up Criminal Activities[xiii]” has therefore been the title of a submission to the EU Petitions Committee. It was filed as an addendum to “Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent”[xiv] which was presented orally three times and is kept open before the Committee.
Dramatic Effects on Twenty Children and Six Adults
- First and foremost: the two children of the Russian mother who made very serious allegations against their UK father and his 70+ associates abusing them and their eighteen friends, besides murdering an unknown number of babies, have been with three different foster carers since 11.09.14, instead of their mother with whom they have been living all their lives, when she is the only person the children have explicitly said never abused them. Why should they be punished for reporting crimes that they partially retracted subsequently?
- Secondly, the author of the witness statement regarding the Police report and interviews was taken to court by Haringey Council, as a consequence of collusion with the Metropolitan Police.
- Thirdly, the mother, her partner and her McKenzie Friend were threatened with arrest and imprisonment and therefore fled UK jurisdiction.
- Furthermore, an American and a UK activist were arrested and tried for reasons that have yet to be proven to be valid. This added to the cover-up and familiar pattern of criminals preferring to commit crimes to cover-up crimes than to own up to them and apologise or compensate.
- The main victims in this case are the children who were separated from their mother after having ‘broken the deal with their father not to talk’. They were reported to have nightmares by the first foster carer; the girl said on video that she expected her father to come and kill them. She also said that the Police doesn’t help.
- To claim that is in their ‘best interest’ to keep them in foster care is not only utter hypocrisy, but also legally illogical: because despite Pauffley´s claims that Mr Christie abused them, he has not been charged. So this seems to be hot air to justify her support of and bias in favour of the father. Also, if the children´s claims are “baseless” as she states, then why keep them in care? If the abuse didn´t happen, as she is adamant it did not, they should go back to the loving mother who had full custody of them previously and who they never accused of abusing them. Mr Christie should either be charged with abuse so he can fight the case or the children returned to their mother if none occurred. The only other alternative is to criminally investigate the father, which Pauffley seems determined, for some reason, not to do.
- Betrayal of Children and Bias towards the Allegedly Abusive Father with a History of Domestic Violence. Mrs Pauffley has chosen to ignore all of this totally, despite many references to it in the LA bundle.
- The children have been betrayed in two ways: first their mother expected that by taking them to the Police, their child friends could be saved from further abuse like her own children. Secondly, they were persuaded to retract their allegations, after six days in care, but they were kept in foster care nonetheless.
- On top of these betrayals, they were exposed to their father once a week again even though they clearly expressed being afraid of him killing them. Given that they had said how he had taught them how to kill babies, their fears were clearly justified.
- The mother’s Application for a Non-Molestation Order was ignored by both Judge Mayer and Mrs Justice Pauffley, even though the father has a past of domestic violence and Non-Molestation Orders were issued against him before [xv].
- The father and the other 70+ abusers, accused to have committed serious crimes, have neither been investigated nor charged or tried. Instead, they complained to the Police that used the Harassment Act against the mother, her partner and her McKenzie Friend.
- Mrs Pauffley should never have accepted jurisdiction in a private conversation with Judge Mayer. Instead, the case should have been brought into a criminal court, whilst also following up the Judicial Review.
Gagging Order on Association of McKenzie Friends
- After two hearings in the County Court, the mother dismissed two solicitors and a barrister who would not defend her Affidavit.
- Hence she represented herself, assisted by the Association of McKenzie Friends. However, Judge Mayer did not take any of the mother’s issues into account.
- This is how she obtained copies of the Police interviews that later persuaded so many people on the internet the children were telling the truth and Barnet Police, as well as Metropolitan Police covering-up.
- This complaint concerning professional misconduct and misuse of judicial status must also cover the inappropriate use of an ‘undertaking’ that the judge expected Mrs Belinda McKenzie to give in her first hearing. In another hearing, she only permitted one McKenzie Friend and on no occasion did she attribute the right of audience.
- Thanks to the report “Fee-charging McKenzie Friends”[xvi], It is well known that McKenzie Friends have become a necessity for the judicial system and Mrs McKenzie agreed to given an undertaking on her own behalf but could, of course, not vouch for all members of the Association.
The Right to a Fair Trial?
- After the hearing of 26.01.14, however, Mrs McKenzie was so disillusioned that she wrote this letter to Mrs Justice Pauffley[xvii].
- We would welcome comments from the Working Group of judges who wrote the Guide on Judicial Ethics and wonder whether they would approve of these actions.
[ii] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzy22cCtwpdTFpfR0tpY1hZY3c/view?usp=sharing – Witness Statement