#McKenzieFriend observes: #secret #familycourt system is out of control; we remain victims of callous abuses of power

Subject: Re: F (A child) B4/2015/0711 URGENT

14 11 15 snatch artworkSent: 23 Apr 2015 13:22 by a very experienced McKenzie Friend:

It appears clear from this order and from other orders I have seen produced by Lord Justice Ryder that he has now taken on the mantle previously adopted by Lord Justice Thorpe in his capacity as senior Lord Justice in Family Court Appeals in blocking and obstructing meritorious appeals which are of embarrassment to the judicial system.

Once anyone has made a number of applications in the same matter, however justified and meritorious, the senior Courts are quick to declare the applicant to be a vexatious litigant and to allege, generally dishonestly, that subsequent applications submitted are ‘wholly’ or as in this case ‘totally without merit’ thereby ‘justifying’ the determination that ‘the applicant may not request the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing’.

Since April 99 with Lord Justice Thorpe at the helm the Civil Procedure Rules were amended to ensure that any application which is refused Permission to Appeal in the Court of Appeal could not thereafter be progressed to Appeal in the House of Lords now the Supreme Court. The additional refusing of permission to receive an oral hearing came into effect in I believe April 10 allowing hugely meritorious subsequent applications to be summarily determined and dismissed on paper, without an oral hearing as we see here.

As is the normal modus operandi in the lower and the more senior courts in the UK, plainly wrong, unjust and often fraudulently achieved determinations made in the early stages of a court process cannot be re-evaluated and are accepted as tablets of stone, condemning the litigant to become the next in a long line of victims of miscarriages of justice at the hands of the Family ‘Justice’ System. If you really threaten them or upset them you will become the subject Civil Restraint Orders or Extended Civil Restraint Orders as I did.

As for the arguments Lord Justice Ryder provides, and bearing in mind that he has provided arguments in your case however insubstantial to ‘justify’ the decisions he has made – I have had applications dismissed without judges ever being provided with the evidence and offering no reference therefore to any reasons or grounds for declaring the total lack of merit in an application – it is clear that he is accepting only evidence of change of circumstances Since the abusive and draconian decisions were put in place.

This means that evidence which the lower court judges had failed to properly consider, like the significance of the children’s respective conditions, in particular the younger child’s diagnosis of autism/autistic spectrum disorder, which was entirely relevant to the initial decisions being made, cannot now be considered as fresh evidence, even though it was entirely relevant to the wrongful removal of the children.

Regrettably whatever changes of circumstances you were able to provide they were unlikely to have been accepted at this stage as grounds for overturning the adoption order.

The intransigence of the senior Courts in this country and their unwillingness to go behind wrong, cruel and abusive determinations of the lower Courts, driven by local authorities, is a large part of the reason why those same authorities up and down the UK are getting away with achieving the fraudulent and permanent removal of tens of thousands of children into long term foster and adoptive placements.

It is clear that in this case Lord Justice Ryder‘s failure to entertain consideration of the second and third arguments, namely the relevance of the failure to take into account the pre-existing conditions of the children resulting in the wrongful permanent removal of the children was crucial and fundamental to his dismissal of this application.

Until such time as the ambivalence of senior Lord Justices like Lord Justice Ryder to the long term human suffering that enforced separation and the destruction of family life causes can be challenged and the courts and local authorities and other contributory organisations like CAFCASS can be prosecuted and held accountable for their actions then this traffic in human suffering will continue.

Sorry to be the bearer of such unhelpful and such unwelcome advice but the system is out of control and until this system is brought under control and forced to behave justly, fairly and appropriately we all remain its victims and subject to its total, gross and callous abuses of power.



About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Acting as McKenzie Friend, HM Government and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to #McKenzieFriend observes: #secret #familycourt system is out of control; we remain victims of callous abuses of power

  1. Reblogged this on Victims Unite! and commented:

    Waking up time: victims & survivors must become activists, campaigners and McKenzie Friends to dispel the institutionalised hypocrisy and legalised ‘authority’ of criminals.

  2. l8in says:

    Reblogged this on L8in.

  3. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee of Ilford, do hereby say as follows that:-

    1. There is the Supremacy of the Parliament Act in the United Kingdom.
    The Court Officers and Judges of any Court or Tribunal doesn’t have to ignore the Parliament Act, They have to Translate the Statute Law to the Members of the Public and also against the Ministers of the Crown, whilst other Parliament Acts are also difficult to understand, as Ignorance of Law has no Defence

    2. There is a House of Lords Judgment- O’Reilly V Mackman (H. L. (E)

    An Application for- (a) an Order of Mandamus, Prohibition or Certorari, of (b) an Injunction under Section 9 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1938 restraining a person from acting in any Office in which he not entitled to act, shall be made by way of an Application for Judicial Review in accordance with the Provision of this Order.

    (2) An Application for a Declaration or an Injunction (Not being an Injunction mentioned in paragraph (1) (b) may be made by way of an application for Judicial Review, and on such an application the Court may grant the declaration or Injunction claimed if it considers that, having regard to_ (a) the nature of the matters in respect of which relief may be granted by way of an Order of Mandamous, prohibition or Cetorari (b) the nature of the Persons and bodies against whom relief may be granted by way of such an order, and (c) in all the Circumstances of the case, it would be just convenient for the declaration or Injunction to be granted on an Application for Judicial Review.”

    The RSC Order 53 has been replaced as under the CPR Part 54 Rules.

    3. The Protection From Harassment Act 1997- This is a Parliament Act-
    A Claim Form under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997-
    This can be made in the High Court or the County Court.

    4. There is a Legal Right to make an Application for Judicial Review against the Upper Tribunal which is a senior Court of Record in the High Court of Justice, I see no reasons why an Application for Judicial Review can’t be made against the Family Division Court.
    This should be taken into consideration on a Point of Law-
    As the Family Division they don’t take into consideration of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 Section 1 (1) (a) and 6 (2) (B).
    and the Provisions for the HM Attorney General under Section 59 (1) (2)

    5. There is an Order made in the High Court of Justice Family Division before than Mr Justice East Ham who had varied the Order made on the 26th August 1988 before Mr Justice Hollis on the 26th August 1988.
    The Senior Courts Act 1981 under Schedule 7.
    The Supreme Court of Jurisdiction and Consolidation Act 1925, The Whole Act was repealed.
    Why does the Lawyers-Barristers rely on Repealed Parliament Acts as they are bending the Rule of Law.

    6. The HM Attorney General or HM Solicitor General didn’t require more than 6 Years to authorize an Application for a Section 42 of the SCA 1981 against Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee since the 26th August 1988 as with regards to the Proceedings in the High Court of Justice Family Division.

    7. PERJURY- SUBORNATION OF PERJURY is being Committed with the Directions of other High Court Judges, when the matter is heard in Chambers.
    As there is no Fair Hearing under Article 6 of the Convention Treaties.

    8. There is a House of Lords decision: Newbury District Council Versus Secretary of State for the Environment Appellant
    Newbury District Council Respondent
    International Synthetic Rubber Co Ltd Appellant.

    This Judgment is no Longer Exempt Information as the period of 30 Years had expired under the Public Records Office Act 1958.
    Whilst the period has been reduced to a period of 20 Years, as documents before 1988 shall not be exempt Information.

    9. Which was The Highest Court in the United Kingdom on the 27th January 2003, 14th May 2003.
    Was it the Judgment given in the Court of Appeal on the 27th May 1999 or the House of Lords Judgment given on the 20th July 2000 in Arthur J S Hall Versus Simmons and Others where it was ordered that Advocates have no Immunity Whether Civil or Criminal Proceedings?

    10. The words under Section 42 of the SCA 1981- On an Application by the HM Attorney General-

    It doesn’t state that on an Application by a Barrister or Solicitor on behalf of his or her Client.
    The Civil Procedure Rules 3-11, This needs to be repealed.

    The Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Ltd which is an Insurance Company for the Barristers in the United Kingdom, they should be ordered to pay the Costs and Damages for any Person who has a Civil Restraint Order.
    As any County Court Judge can make any Order which could be made by the High Court of Justice under Section 23, 38, 76 of the County Courts Act 1984, and also under Section 114 and 119 of the Equality Act 2010.

    11. The Office for the Judicial Complaints, they don’t deal with complaints against Judges who have made a case management decision, and also against Retired Judges, and Decisions given before the 3rd May 2006.
    This rules needs to be changed.

    12. The Midland Bank Ltd- which is now known as HSBC Bank Ltd-
    They did mislead the High Court of Justice when making an Application for a Greep & Loam Order, by failing to take into consideration of the Repeals made under Schedule 7 of the Senior Courts Act 1981,
    as The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is a Parliament Act-
    Section 11, 27 (7) (8A) (10) was in force from the 1st January 1991 until 31st December 2009.

    13. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is a Parliament Act-
    Schedule 9 and Schedule 10 does also apply,
    The Rules on Vexatious Litigants has not been changed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee when this should have been changed.
    The Amount of Money that should be commenced in the County Court and the Amount of Money that should be commenced in the High Court of Justice.

    I believe that the above is true

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee.

  4. AnonAnon says:

    and don’t forget the common use of bench memoranda in the court of appeal – judge sits listening to you/Lip setting out your case [to the judge you are just prattling on] – you/LiP finishes. Hey presto he/she starts reading out a fluid judgement all the journos and others think – what a fantastic judge grasping all the details. No – he/she was reading out a pre-prepared document which was written by a teenage scribbler fresh from law college. Invariably it always supports the lower court judgement. That is what the taxpayer now gets from a bankrupt justice system.

    Google bench memoranda or memorandum it should come up – common practice in the USA

  5. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    The Civil Procedure Rule Committee have voted recently and made some changes to the Civil Procedure Rules as from October 2015, the Solicitor or Barrister shall be making a decision on the amendments of the claim form, and other relief. This is also outside the Human Rights Act 1998 and The European Communities Act 1972 Section 2 (1), 3 (1) and International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights signed at the United Nations in 1966.

    There has been a breach of Article 27 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights signed at the United Nations in 1966.

    There is the Statutory Instrument 2012 No 3028,
    Documents before 1988 are no Longer Exempt Information.

    The Section 63 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does also apply.

    The United Kingdom Government had granted Independence to many Countries in Africa and Asia, and the Independence is being taken away by the United Kingdom Judges who are also members of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, whilst the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, This applies only to England and Wales and the United Kingdom.

    There is a breach of the Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835

    Yours Faithfully

    Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee.

  6. lkirby6733 says:

    How can this happen in a court, a very successful family businessman has everything he and his children worked hard to build up over many years is taken without dad’s or our knowledge in a Doncaster FAMILY Court. No family involved only the woman who claimed to be his second wife. See the first paragraph We found out about this just after dad was deliberately killed, yet South Yorkshire Police refuse to investigate why? Linda Kirby lkirby6733@aol.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s