This article follows on from the article entitled that introduces The Bar Graph-Control Chart. If you are yet to read that article, I would suggest that you visit this page before reading the article below. Please note that the names of the parties whose court case details are reported below have been changed in order to comply with the court’s reporting restrictions.

It is my understanding that the Control Chart is the outcome of coordinated efforts by Government Agencies and that the Court systems and the police have to some degree cooperated and been complicit in these atrocities.

The Children Act 2004 owes its existence to a single case, the Victoria Climbié case. The Act was driven by concerns arising out of a single child abuse tragedy and worked out to be problematic in practice. This is of course not the only Act so afflicted –the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 was another. I focus on the Victoria Climbié case because I have had sight of the Laming Report but not the Blom-Cooper Report. While the Children Act has since undergone some ammendments, some unwarranted infringements on citizen liberties remain.

When I first read through the Laming Report I was very impressed by the level of detail that was taken to investigate the case. Based on that reading, when news of the Control Chart that is the subject of this article came to my mind, I was almost certain that when the Government that was responsible for the Laming Report would hear of these allegations, not a stone would be left unturned by way of investigating how these human rights abuses were orchestrated. I therefore was very surprised when all the evidence I came across proved this to not be the case. None of the people in power who had been presented with these concerns was in the least bit interested in conducting an investigation.

This puzzled me at first, until I realised that they knew. Forget about the Big Bang, everything designed has a designer. They knew about the planned obsolescence activity in the Social Care system, that is why they didn’t want to investigate. Who in their right mind would spend time, energy and resources investigating something which they know already?

My next question was: If they are not interested in the welfare of their citizens to such an extent, why then did they bother with the Victoria Climbié case? I can’t say I know the answer for sure, but if child welfare is not their concern then I could hazard a guess that the interest and hype associated with the Victoria Climbié case was generated in order to make the Children Act 2004 possible. The human rights abuses are encoded in the law. The “it’s in the water principle”; the last place that the average person will ever think to look for the source of the problem.

I have found that void Court Orders are being used to subject an entire demographic (if not the whole nation). Violating the human rights of citizens has been made into a lawful activity. It will be happening right under your eyes and you will not see it, or, if you can see it, you find that you have been disempowered by the law; the law of the jungle. If this sounds frightening, it is because it is.

Listen to this truncated account of the appeal experience of one mother had her children taken off her in the Family Courts using void Court Orders (some names have been changed to satisfy the Court’s stipulations):

A void Court Order was issued by the Family Court on the 6th of September 2019 and she lodged her appeal with the Court of Appeal a few days later. The Court of Appeal in turn issued a void Court Order on 02/10/2019 leaving the disenfranchised mother with nowhere else to go. If – as the Police and just about every Government Agency do – you consider all Court Orders to be voidable (i.e. they have legal effect and are executable until officially set aside by a higher court) indeed she had reached the end of the road. If, however, you read about void Court Orders and the Doctrine of Nullity, you will find that not only did she still have an avenue to turn to, she was free. A void Court Order cannot be said to stand until set aside because it lacks an element essential to its constitution, doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I won’t go into the details, but trust me, you need to read about void Court Orders.

Consider the details of this case study to see just how bad the situation is. This is the Court of Appeal, “the highest court within the Senior courts of England and Wales”.

The Court Order was issued on the 2nd of October by the Court of Appeal’s Civil Division under the reference number B4/2019/2288. The Court Order by Lady Justice King made reference to an Approved Transcript of Judgement when the Applicant had submitted none such.

The exact wording on the Court Order (see 2nd Paragraph from the bottom) read

“The judge took into account the views of the applicant (para5,7 , 8 &9) and set out details of her co-operation in relation to certain matters.(para12).”

The Applicant requested of the Court copy of the Approved Transcript of Judgement that was before Lady Justice King when she passed judgement on the matter.

The Court of Appeal’s Master Bancroft-Rimmer is quoted in letter dated 17th October as having said the following:

“Ms [Munosvikepi (name changed)] has asked what transcript Lady Justice King referred to in making her decision. Lady Justice King referred to the transcript of judgement of Recorder Bond dated 6th September 2019. Generally the court does not require a transcript of proceedings to determine an application for permission to appeal. Lady Justice King clearly did not consider that a transcript of proceedings was required in order to determine this application.

The order of Lady Justice King is final and it is not possible to set it aside or seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (see note (2) on the order). I am sorry that Ms [Munosvikepi (name changed)] is disappointed with the outcome of her application but there is nothing further that the Civil Appeals Office can do to assist her”.

If there was anything plainly visible on the B4/2019/2288 Court Order, it is that Lady Justice King’s was making reference to a Transcript of Judgement from the lower court.

“The judge took into account the views of the applicant (para5,7 , 8 &9) and set out details of her co-operation in relation to certain matters.(para12).”

And yet Master Bancroft-Rimmer was saying that “Lady Justice King clearly did not consider that a transcript of proceedings was required in order to determine this application.”

The Applicant pointed out the constitutional defect to the court and requested that the Court of Appeal set aside their void B4/2019/2288 Court Order. The Court responded by sending her an Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Certificate dated 18th November.

In correspondence dated 20th November, the Applicant returned the Certificate and insisted on her right to have the B4/2019/2288 Court Order set aside. Again her request was refused as communicated in correspondence dated 30th November. The correspondence stated that her application had been referred to the Master of the Court of Appeal who had directed that

The order of Lady Justice King is final and the court has no jurisdiction to make a declaration that the application is void. The application is to be returned unissued.

The 20th November application was resubmitted to the Court of Appeal under cover of letter dated 5th December and the final word from the Court of Appeal is “The case directions dated 18 November and 30 November stand”.

One cannot help but wonder how impartial the administration of justice in the United Kingdom is when the highest Court in the land can issue a Court Order that clearly is void and expect it to stand. Is there anymore any integrity in the courts?

The Doctrine of Nullities (summarily) is established to prevent any abuse of powers/privileges right from the outset and mitigates any such abuse before it escalates. It gives legal ineffect to acts/orders that have been made without jurisdiction (jurisdiction of parties or jurisdiction of subject matter) or that are afflicted by permanent defects. The Doctrine helps protect the integrity of the courts and the impartiality of the administration of justice.

If the highest court in the land is failing to uphold the rights of one citizen in as clear a case as this, how many more cases are affected? And how are the lower courts themselves doing? I think the situation there is worse because a void Court Order cannot get to the Senior Courts unless the lower courts issue it to begin with!

Here’s a second case: One “public spirited citizen” engaged with her local MP, the Children’s Commissioner, the Secretary of State and finally the Prime Minister in efforts to get a Public Inquiry into the Control Chart conducted. Her Judicial Review Application against the Government of the United Kingdom was filed and issued by the Administrative Court (Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice) on the 3rd of June 2019. Judge Saffman deciding on the papers on the 8th of August 2019 gave three reasons for refusing permission to judicially review the Government’s refusal to conduct a Public Inquiry into how that Control Chart came to be.

The 100-page court bundle of documents submitted by the claimant to demonstrate how she had engaged with the various Government offices (and with what evidence) over many long torturous months was trivialised. The Judge deciding on the papers gave as his reason for refusal “The claimant seeks to review a decision simply to refer to the Ministry of Justice a letter sent by the claimant to the Prime Minister’s office.”

One of the reasons given for dismissing the grounds on which the Judicial Review claim was made was “… there is no evidence that the claimant herself has sufficient interest to make a claim…”

see copy of the full Court order here.

An interesting revelation on the subject of this Judicial Review application is that on the 17th of May 2019, the claimant sent a letter to the Prime Minister explaining the issues of concern for which she was requesting a Public Enquiry (this contact being the final step after engaging with other Government offices before). The Prime Minister’s office responded (see letter dated 22 May) “As the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the matters you raise, I am forwarding your letter to them so that they are made aware of your views”. And that was it.

When finally the claimant had filed her Judicial Review Application and served it on the Prime Minister, the Government would not even be bothered to acknowledge service of court documents or assist the court with arguments. The government did not fear that the claimant would maybe receive a default judgement if they failed to acknowledge service because they know that they have everything under their control in the courts system. They knew the courts would be able to take care of the claimant without their ‘assistance’. And besides, where will the claimant take her dissatisfactions regarding that judgement; the Court of Appeal? That’s the court reported above for refusing to set aside a void Court Order and proceeded to issue one that was void in its own right, remember? The The courts are cooperating with the Government and are complicit in these sophisticated human rights abuses.  

The Control Chart is the result of coordinated efforts by Government agencies along with the cooperation of the court system and the Police (these guys will unquestioningly enforce a Court Order that clearly is void). The evidence gathered indicates that the UK’s public administration system is corrupt to the core. And the question is; what are we going to do about it?

Close Menu