Southern Health and Social Care Trust
Directorate of Children and Young People’s Services

28th October 2024

CC: PRIVATE OFFICE NI GOVERNMENT.
CC: Patients Client Council ( NIDirect) 0800 9170222.
CC: East Sussex County Council, Phyllis Allward.
CC: Legal Team Niccy.
CC: Olga McCoy NI LGO.
CC: Lost Contact.

Subject: Misprision of Treason and Formal Claim of Negligence and Request for International Review and ‘Wrongful’ Separation, (ref: TOF-2032-2024) (Ref: 18971405) (Case ID24012899)

Southern Health and Social Care Trust
Children and Young People’s Services
Main Headquarters: Southern Health and Social Care Trust,
Craigavon Area Hospital, 68 Lurgan Road,
Portadown, BT63 5QQ, Northern Ireland.

By Email, Public Domain and by Recorded Letter.

Dear Assistant Director Caroline Doyle,

Introduction

This letter serves as a formal appeal and urgent plea to address the Southern Health and Social Care Trust’s handling of my daughter Emily’s care, which has resulted in a severe breach of both our and her family’s rights. The abrupt denial of court-sanctioned family contact, which includes breaches of the care acts and breaches of information rights, the emotionally distressing and traumatic experience of her removal, and the consistent lack of meaningful communication from the Trust underscore a pattern of disregard for Emily’s well-being and our family’s integrity. Through this letter, I seek to highlight the violations of her rights, draw attention to the wider legal and social implications, and request immediate corrective action to restore regular family contact and uphold the principles of transparency, fairness, and human dignity. As such, I place it on the public record.

I understand that a person known as “Baby Killer,” Lucy Letby, is not being prevented from contacting or seeing her parents. Why then is Emily not able to communicate with her father’s family? This has to be laid at the feet of the abusers of the family by The Southern Health and Social Care Trust.

Is it a wonder that both the Irish Times and TULSA state this care in Nothern Ireland is not fit for purpose.

Previously, I was granted contact with my daughter as court-sanctioned regular contact, a right that was abruptly violated when she was forcibly removed from my presence. In a shocking act, she was physically dragged away, screaming, by a social worker, which left a profound impact on both her and our family. This cruel deprivation of contact not only breaches her rights but also reflects the systematic disregard for her well-being by those responsible for her care. I am also aware that the barrister for Lucy Letby, Barrister Mark McDonald, mentioned that the review and potential appeal of her case could be costly and time-consuming, likely taking up to five years and possibly incurring significant public expense. McDonald and his legal team are taking the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to assess whether it should be sent back to the Court of Appeal. This case has prompted widespread debate over both the evidence and legal process, with veteran MP David Davis also raising questions about the safety of Letby’s convictions​ (The Justice Gap, The Standard).

Furthermore, looking at the McCann’s Imposter case, I wrote to one of the now missing Children’s Directors of Southern Health Social Care Trust with an invitation to meet my daughter, which I understand to be a legal requirement, but it was never enacted. Consequently, this McCann’s imposter now becomes relevant to Emily’s case. In early 2023, a young Polish woman named Julia Wendell (also known as Julia Faustyna) gained international attention after claiming she might be Madeleine McCann, a British child who disappeared in Portugal in 2007. Wendell shared her suspicions on social media, stating she had gaps in her memory from her childhood, physical similarities to Madeleine, and a similar eye condition known as a coloboma. This sparked significant media coverage, and Wendell even appeared on Dr. Phil to discuss her claims.

Th Emily deceased biological Mother said in Police report : Summary of Incident Report Serial: 1385 MC19 1701 20090601 On June 1, 2009, at 17:01, a report was received by phone from a caller expressing concern about Martin Newbold, who currently has custody of the caller’s child with the caller’s permission since the previous Wednesday. However, after a disagreement over money, Mr. Newbold has stopped answering the caller’s calls and is refusing to confirm when he will return the child. The caller reports no concerns for the child’s welfare but is frustrated by Mr. Newbold’s lack of response and wishes to confirm a definite return date. Although initially agreeing to have the child back by Wednesday, the recent argument has left the caller uneasy and seeking assurance. The incident has been classified under “NC Domestic” with Grade 4 priority and recorded at Headquarters by Miss G H Brown.

At present, my daughter, Emily Newbold-Smith, a minor, is being held in Northern Ireland, blocking any contact in breach of legal requirements. This is criminal under law as stipulated under the Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b), and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27, which states that a child should not be moved more than 50 miles from their home.

Emily’s last known address was with Colette Keenan at 226 Barcroft Park, Newry, County Down, BT35 8ES, who is now deceased. After her disappearance from this address, various lies and criminal behavior have been perpetrated by members of the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. This resulted in only one LAC (Looked After Child) meeting in 13 years, which Emily did not attend. Since then, there has been institutional fraud to prevent me from communicating with her, based on toxic judicial procedures in both the UK and Northern Ireland.

Over the past two months, I have written 18 letters to the Children’s Commissioner, asking for a meeting with my daughter. Despite the lack of communication from their office, they have not provided any details stating that they had met with her. After speaking with social workers in Northern Ireland, I was advised to file a missing person’s report, which I have now accomplished.

However, after taking a DNA test, it was confirmed that Wendell was not Madeleine McCann. Following the test results, Wendell expressed regret over the attention her claims had garnered and mentioned receiving backlash, including death threats. She explained that her suspicions were rooted in unresolved questions about her own past and her adoption status, leading her to seek answers about her identity (Oxygen Official Site, GB News). As I have already supplied DNA evidence that shows Emily’s family is not Northern Irish and is of Germanic descent, it further underscores the systematic mishandling of this situation. The McCann family, who have faced several unverified claims over the years, have been broken up behind the silence of this situation. Are you placing this burden on Emily’s family?

1. Emotional Toll: The ongoing uncertainty and distress related to Emily’s care, particularly following the abrupt termination of contact between her and her family, can lead to emotional strain. Families in similar situations often experience feelings of helplessness, grief, and frustration as they navigate complex social services and legal systems. This emotional burden can be exacerbated by the fear of losing a loved one or feeling powerless against bureaucratic decisions.
2. Legal and Financial Strain: Engaging with the legal system can be both costly and time-consuming. Families often incur significant expenses while seeking to regain contact or advocate for their rights, which adds a financial burden on top of the emotional stress. Your reference to the lengthy and costly appeals process in Lucy Letby’s case highlights a broader issue regarding public expenditure on legal matters, which can overshadow the needs of affected families.
3. Social Stigma and Public Scrutiny: Just as the McCann family has faced unverified claims and public speculation, Emily’s family may be subject to similar scrutiny and stigma. The implications of being involved in a high-profile case can lead to a sense of isolation, as the family might feel judged or misunderstood by the public and media.
4. Impact on Family Dynamics: The forced separation and lack of contact can disrupt familial relationships, leading to long-term psychological effects on both Emily and her relatives. The strain on family bonds and the inability to participate in her upbringing can create lasting scars.
5. Identity and Belonging: The DNA evidence that highlights Emily’s familial origins can lead to questions of identity and belonging. The uncertainty around her family background, especially in light of the implications drawn from the McCann case, can create additional emotional challenges as the family struggles with societal perceptions and personal truths.

In summary, the “burden” signifies the cumulative emotional, legal, financial, social, and psychological challenges that Emily’s family faces as they navigate their circumstances. This burden underscores the need for compassionate and effective intervention from social services to prioritize the well-being of the child and her family. How are Emily biological family going to deal with this on this basis someone could come forward saying they are Emily as thousands of young women don’t know their family origins from this diabolical evil situation

There is no mention of human rights, the Human Rights Act, or attention to the writ of Habeas Corpus, which I have served.

Where is the honesty of the handlers of Emily clearly as traffickers of children is clearly noted in my correspondence to your children Directors if you were intending to keep Emily Illegally in breach of care acts until she turned 18. Clear this is now evidence you have intended to break these laws for 7 years at age 11 what would she think of that statement as she would recognize you were lying. You still have established that you have not even spoken to Emily let alone met with her.

Is this claim consistent with the videos of complaint and the single LAC meeting (in links), where it was stated that my daughter went out shopping, studied hotel management, and showed an interest in singing? The person appearing at this meeting, who seemed draconian (female), presented in a manner that suggested manipulation, as prison staff were not in uniform, which could mislead observers. They certainly appeared not truthful too young to be officials and speaking to someone else behind the scenes who was never revealed in a cloak and dagger movie that was supposed to be a LAC meeting in which Emily was presented healthily. Your trust has failed to have even done the basic assessment work of me in-person meeting with me which has never been executed Instead, you informed me having written a letter to me in person for the first time on 10th October 2024 that I am using offensive language well at least I am not acting criminally which your trust clearly is not following government rules of operation in the care Acts. Are you joining NICCY in this breach of the acts and will I be writing my next book about you not dealing with this and pointing this out in my final book? You should be ashamed if this is your role as a handler of my daughter to create a situation with Emily extremely likened to missing Madeline Mcann. Perhaps this is now Missing Emily Newbold Smith.

As your one communication is shown to lack of reference and formal address it does not constitute a letter to me instead a dumb Prank or Unsolicited Message even a Propaganda or Political Message which during times of political activism or unrest, anonymous mail might be used to distribute messages, literature, or propaganda? As a handler and contractual agreement regarding Emily for twelve years with only two meetings being provided. It was contracted in England that contact with Emily would be provided. Yet these promises or assurances related to this role could potentially fall under estoppel if they lead to detrimental reliance. If actions or promises have tangibly affected our family life or led to reliance on someone or something to your detriment, this could potentially be a basis for estoppel, but it requires proving that the reliance was reasonable and detrimental. As such when will you be writing to me as part of your social contract and clearly defined company objects under estoppel in the form of harm or loss and detriment to and family life with Emily which my family clearly depend on, in all meanings where Promissory Estoppel, or Equitable Estoppel even more seriously Proprietary Estoppel where someone has acted to their detriment in reliance on an expectation or promise regarding property rights? This causes Laches which are creating unreasonable delay. This is underscored by the legal system’s commitment to equity and fairness, ensuring that legal rights and obligations are not merely theoretical but must also align with practical justice and reasonable expectations.

I am therefore at liberty to serve a Formal Notice: Acknowledging the breach or non-fulfilment of the promise and request Negotiation or Mediation: Attempting to resolve the issue before resorting to legal proceedings. If negotiation fails, formal legal action could be initiated to enforce the original promise or assurance.

[ATTACHMENT email 27th October 2024]

Southern Health and Social Care Trust
Children and Young People’s Services
Main Headquarters: Southern Health and Social Care Trust,
Craigavon Area Hospital, 68 Lurgan Road,
Portadown, BT63 5QQ, Northern Ireland.

27th October 2024

CC: PRIVATE OFFICE NI GOVERNMENT.
CC: Patients Client Council ( NIDirect) 0800 9170222.
CC: East Sussex County Council, Phyllis Allward.
CC: Legal Team Niccy.
CC: Olga McCoy NI LGO.
CC: Lost Contact.

Subject:  Misprision of Treason.

By Email : Oct 27, 2024, 7:07 AM

Dear Assistant Director Carolin Doyle,

I am deeply disappointed by the lack of empathy and accountability displayed in your letter dated October 10th. It is evident that you are unaware of my daughter’s precise whereabouts, even though she remains under the responsibility of your organization. This lack of awareness suggests the absence of an effective protocol or structured mandate within your services. The frequent turnover of interim directors within your department should signal the need for a thorough review of your operational practices. Furthermore, I note that your letter did not include a return address or reference, a basic step that would facilitate meaningful engagement.

You also referenced “inappropriate language,” a claim based on hearsay despite this being our first communication. All my correspondence is prepared through AI assistance to ensure clarity and professionalism. This baseless accusation reflects the lack of truthful engagement I have come to associate with your organization.

I would point out the criticisms of my books, the Stealing of Emily have stated 

“The Stealing of Emily series has garnered critical acclaim for its chilling narrative, often compared to a retelling of Huckleberry Finn with a more sinister twist. This comparison emphasizes its exploration of themes such as innocence lost against a backdrop of societal and systemic corruption. Described as “chilling” and “brutal,” the series appeals to readers drawn to darker, more challenging themes. It delves into the less trodden paths of legal and judicial systems, focusing on their profound impact on individuals—particularly children. This niche yet significant exploration carries considerable emotional and political weight, inviting readers to confront uncomfortable truths about justice and its real-world implications.”

• The Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b), which clearly stipulates that children in care must be placed within 50 miles of their home.
• The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27, which similarly emphasizes the importance of keeping children within close proximity to their home when in care.
• Furthermore, I would point out the case of McMeel v Gissing-McMeel | [2022] EWHC 1448 (Fam), which underscores the implications of judicial conduct based on fraudulent actions. This case highlights how the misuse of fraudulent affidavits can lead to significant legal ramifications for the judicial system and those involved in enforcement actions. For more insights, please refer to my article on this case: Fraud Allegations Against HHJ Watkins: Key Insights.
• Any individual attempting to enforce an illegal or fraudulent court order is committing an unlawful act. Such actions can be construed as acts of violence against those affected, as enforcing a void order has no legal standing and violates the rights of those involved. It is crucial that these issues are addressed immediately to prevent further harm.

During the sole LAC meeting held in over a decade, your team assured me that my daughter was thriving, learning to sing, training for a hospitality role, and enjoying regular visits. However, I have since learned that children under the care of the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, including my daughter, are at times placed at Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC), a secure facility with an annual cost comparable to elite private boarding schools. When I contacted the Woodlands Juvenile Centre directly on October 26th, I was informed that my daughter had not been there for four days. This prompted me to seek additional guidance.

I initially reached out to the emergency social services helpline, where an advisor named Ashley informed me that no specific protocol existed for addressing missing persons under the emergency social worker’s role. Ashley advised contacting the police, who in turn redirected me back to social services. This circular response demonstrated a complete lack of cohesion among agencies, leading to critical delays that could have otherwise been used to ensure my daughter’s safety.

To expedite matters, I filed a missing peron report with Sussex Police (reference number 519 26102024) and Northern Ireland Police (reference number 50239746-2024) in the hope it might prompt more direct action. When I informed Northern Ireland Social Workers of this step, I received additional conflicting guidance, leaving me uncertain of agency responsibilities.

This experience has highlighted a serious lack of coordination and accountability, particularly in cases involving missing individuals under the care of multiple agencies. Such a fragmented response not only hinders effective resolution but also places unnecessary emotional strain on families during already distressing circumstances. When vulnerable individuals go missing, there should be an urgent, unified approach across all relevant agencies. My experience, however, has shown a distinct lack of such coordination.

 I have written to express my deep concerns regarding NI Direct’s role in managing complaints related to public services in Northern Ireland, particularly in light of serious legal issues affecting families like Emily’s case. Emily’s situation underscores significant shortcomings within the child welfare and family law systems, with allegations of legal breaches, including failures to adhere to child protection and safeguarding laws. In a recent interaction with NI Direct on October 22, 2024, I learned that information provided by the public is retained within NI Direct and not shared with relevant third-party organizations. This approach is troubling, especially in child welfare cases where timely, accurate communication is essential. When individuals contact NI Direct seeking assistance, they expect their concerns to be conveyed to the appropriate authorities, ensuring that issues are heard and acted upon. The current model, where only aggregated data is shared, risks reducing NI Direct’s function to that of a call center, often leaving individuals feeling unheard and without  

I am formally requesting clarification on the established protocols for managing missing persons when multiple agencies are involved. Additionally, I seek guidance on the steps I should take to address this matter effectively, along with assurances that my concerns will be taken seriously. I hope this letter prompts a reconsideration of current processes to prevent other families from facing similar distressing challenges.

Finally, I must ask why, despite repeated requests over the past 12 years, I still do not have confirmation of my daughter’s whereabouts, especially in light of her mother’s passing and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding her welfare. I urge your organization to address this lack of transparency and ensure proper care and accountability moving forward.
 

There has been no mention of the Writ of Habeas Corpas 

October 13, 12:29 PM – Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Attachment
October 13, 9:45 AM – Subject Access Request (ref: 19567481) Habeas Corpus Ad Judice
October 12, 5:18 PM – Request for Statement of Service Under Criminal Procedure Rules and Information on Children Taken into Care
October 12, 3:51 PM – Request for Statement of Service Under Family Procedure Rules 2010 Rule 6.7
October 12, 10:41 AM – Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Judice

Or the subsequent Subject access request (ref: 19567481) Habeus Corpus Ad Judice

Kind regards,

Martin Newbold

Recent posts

• October 19,2024 The Pursuit of Truth and Justice in the Face of Adversity
• October 17,2024 Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Attachment.
• October 15,2024The Hidden Costs of Care: Council Debt and the Impact on Children’s Services
• October 12,2024 Understanding Habeas Corpus and Child Custody Cases
• October 4,2024 Malpractice in Child Welfare: A Father’s Plea for Justice
• October 1,2024 Default Notice and Notice of Serious Misconduct
• October 1, 2024 Addressing NICCY: Negligence in Welfare Cases of Children
• September 19, 2024 Fraud Allegations Against HHJ Watkins: Key Insights
• September 18, 2024 “Can I sue a Judge?”
• September 6, 2024Challenges in Data Protection and Stakeholder Engagement at Southern Regional College
• March 26, 2024THE STEALING OF EMILY – Closed Material Procedures (‘secret courts’).
• September 6, 2024Potential Criminal Concerns at Southern Regional College: Need for Investigation
• September 6, 2024Urgent Assistance Needed: Resolving Data Protection and Stakeholder Engagement Issues at Southern Regional College

Everyone is asking on twitter: “Can I sue a Judge?”

Yes, you can in very slim circumstances If a judge creates a court order based on that fraudulent affidavit, the judge has also committed a felony. Anyone attempting to enforce an illegal court order is, in effect, committing an act of violence against you.

What is an affidavit: a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.

If these articles have 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:

The Stealing of Emily – Review of cases for illegal Separation. | Crowdsignal.com (survey)