In an ideal world, doing good deeds, particularly in the public domain, should be celebrated and encouraged. However, an alarming trend has emerged where acts of goodwill or public service are being twisted and used as triggers by local authorities to unfairly target individuals for scrutiny, often resulting in the unjust removal of their families. This form of coercive control is not only deeply disturbing but also raises serious questions about the misuse of power by those who are supposed to protect the public.

From the very moment Child Protective Services (CPS) arrives to take your children, the decision is often made without you as the parent. This immediate and unilateral action can lead to devastating consequences. My family has endured physical violence due to the improper use of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). I ask you to consider the conditions under which a judge might lose immunity. Specifically, when a judge acts without jurisdiction, there is no discretion, as discretion is incidental to jurisdiction. When an officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or fails to comply with jurisdictional requirements, they may be held civilly liable for abuse of process, even if the decision was made in good faith but lacked jurisdiction. This principle extends to CPS workers. When a CPS worker submits an affidavit of truth in court, they are required to have firsthand knowledge of the events leading to the removal of children. This affidavit is submitted under the penalty of perjury. However, it is impossible for a CPS worker to have firsthand knowledge of all the events, which means that the CPS worker may be committing fraud upon the court by submitting such an affidavit.

The Dark Side of Good Deeds

It seems counterintuitive—why would local authorities target someone for doing something good? The reality is that acts of kindness, activism, or public engagement can sometimes draw unwanted attention. When a person becomes more visible, particularly in cases where they challenge the status quo or highlight societal issues, they can inadvertently make themselves a target for authorities who may have ulterior motives. There is uncorroborated information stated in the Isle of white of a “secret book” with children’s names in it. There is evidence that social workers are being asked to sex up reports for social workers there are two separate pieces of evidence that corroborate this sexing up of reports The Express – Sex Up abuse claims the same year Emily is abducted. – thestealingofemily.co.uk.

For instance, whistleblowers, community leaders, or activists who take a stand on issues of public interest may find themselves under disproportionate scrutiny. The very act of stepping into the public eye can lead to their personal lives being dissected, with local authorities sometimes exploiting minor issues to initiate investigations that spiral into unwarranted family separations.

Coercive Control Tactics

Local authorities may use various coercive tactics to achieve their aims, including:

• Manipulation of Evidence: Small, often irrelevant details can be exaggerated or taken out of context to build a case against an individual.
• Psychological Pressure: The threat of losing one’s family is a powerful tool for coercion. Authorities may use this fear to force compliance or silence opposition.
• Public Shaming: In some cases, local authorities may leak information or smear individuals publicly to undermine their credibility, making it easier to justify harsh actions against them.

Additionally, social workers aren’t trained adequately on coercive control, leaving victims and children vulnerable. According to a report, after five years on the job, one social worker found that 90% of her cases involved psychological abuse. Yet, this crucial aspect of their work was barely covered in her university studies. This lack of training undermines the ability of social workers to recognize and effectively address psychological abuse, making it easier for coercive control tactics to go unnoticed and unchallenged. BBC Report on Social Workers and Coercive Control.

The Judicial System’s Role

How many of you reading this have found yourself in family court, only to discover that the evidence you had proving that the local authority was targeting you was not only dismissed or ignored by the judge but actively stacked against you? The notion that the case could be moved to a criminal court to be judged by a jury of your peers—potentially placing the local authority under criminal proceedings—seemed to evaporate the moment you stepped into the courtroom. This experience is all too common, as family courts often operate with a degree of secrecy and discretion that can shield local authorities from the full extent of public and legal scrutiny.

What You Can Do

By this point, you may have already made complaints to the Local Authority or attempted to get the hearing moved to a higher court through appeal or another legal mechanism. These actions are important steps in protecting your rights and seeking justice. Even if these efforts have not yet yielded the desired outcome, they serve as critical markers of your intent to challenge the system.

• Filing Complaints: Documenting your grievances with the Local Authority is crucial. It creates a record of your concerns and your efforts to seek redress.
• Appeals and Higher Court Applications: Attempting to escalate the case to a higher court can introduce a broader review of the case, potentially highlighting issues that were overlooked or ignored in family court.
• Position or Direction Statements: Submitting these statements to the court, especially if they request a transfer to a criminal court, can help create a marker on your case file. These documents may later serve as evidence that you sought a fair hearing and proper legal consideration of your claims.
• Requesting a Criminal Court Transfer: If ignored, repeated requests for transferring the case to a criminal court reinforce your position that the actions of the local authority may warrant criminal investigation. This can serve as a crucial step in documenting the seriousness of the allegations.

Regulation 8(1) and Your Rights

It is important to realize that Regulation 8(1) provides a formal mechanism for addressing serious concerns regarding the actions taken by local authorities, such as East Sussex County Council, especially in cases of wrongful family separation. Regulation 8(1) explicitly states that an authority cannot dismiss any complaint pertaining to a statutory duty that the local authority may have towards an individual. This regulation ensures that complaints about breaches of statutory duties are recognized and addressed.

• Formal Complaints: Under Regulation 8(1), you can formally address your grievances, ensuring that they are not disregarded or dismissed without due consideration.
• Statutory Duties: This regulation reinforces that local authorities are bound by statutory duties and must be held accountable if they fail to meet these obligations.

Case Studies

To understand the impact of this issue, we must look at real-life cases where individuals who engaged in public service or activism were targeted by local authorities. In several documented instances, parents who advocated for better conditions in schools, protested against local government policies, or reported corruption have found themselves facing accusations of neglect or abuse, often based on flimsy or fabricated evidence.

These cases highlight a disturbing trend where the line between genuine concern for child welfare and punitive action against individuals who challenge authority becomes dangerously blurred.

The Need for Accountability

The use of coercive control by local authorities represents a severe abuse of power. It undermines public trust and creates a chilling effect on those who wish to engage in civic duties. To combat this, several measures are needed:

• Greater Oversight: There must be independent bodies tasked with overseeing the actions of local authorities, ensuring that power is not being abused.
• Legal Protections: Individuals who engage in public service or activism should be afforded legal protections against retaliatory actions.
• Public Awareness: Raising awareness about this issue is crucial. The more people know about these tactics, the less effective they will be.

Conclusion

The exploitation of good deeds as a pretext for coercive control by local authorities is a troubling phenomenon that demands urgent attention. As citizens, we must be vigilant in safeguarding our rights and ensuring that those who serve the public are not punished for their contributions. The time has come to shine a light on these practices, demand accountability from those in power, and push for a judicial system that truly serves justice—where cases that involve potential abuses of power by local authorities are given the scrutiny they deserve, possibly in a criminal court before a jury of peers, to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

If this article has impacted you, please be courageous and comment on the page. If you have faced legal frustrations, consider adding your case to those who feel the system is broken. Please note that this is on a secure server and requires validation data, which will be compared with the Family man database to ensure submissions can be verified. Do not hold back your emotions; this situation is truly horrific and evil. If you are not seeing the survey below this might mean you need to try a different Internet browser: