Janet Waddicor,
BTAS
First Floor, 9 Gray’s Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD

0203 432 7350

Dear Janet Waddicor (chairman BTAS)

I write with regard to the situation placed on my family by Judge Hollis, who made certain errors in the case I brought to his court in regard to the residency of my daughter Emily. HS09P00505

He conducted his court in such a manner that deceit and sinners were brought in to misdirect and obfuscate family court to consider Christine Stirling  perjury in this court, which placed a record upon the court. I wrote to Judge Hollis 11-10-1, explaining  that I had attached a letter from Social Services relating to the Core Group meeting 05/10/10. It is quite clear that this meeting was held without my input, knowing I was engaged in attending the parenting assessment directed by your honor. It is known to Mr. M. Gratton that Ms. Pat Clarke (Social Worker) spoke in front of him and me, stating that “There had been errors in the Social Services paperwork that Social Services were relying on.” This happened after one of your hearings in March. It is now known that these include 6475378-Genogram_re_Emily’s_family_19_08_10.doc submitted to court with wrong family birth information on them. There is no mention of David Cunningham, believed to be Emily’s half sister Lauren’s biological father. 

It should be pointed out for 14 years because of this I have hit brick walls. When it is clear to me from Malibu Dallas informs us on Twitter that a judge must act within his jurisdiction regarding the subject matter, or he/she will lose immunity from civil actions for such acts. This principle was established in Davis v. Burris, 220 Ariz., 75 P.2d. Generally, judges are immune from suits for judicial acts within their jurisdiction, even if those acts were done maliciously or corruptly. The only exception is for actions done in the clear absence of jurisdiction, as outlined in Gregory v. Thomson, 500 F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz 1974).

There is also a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, even in good faith, is nonetheless liable for civil action and cannot claim immunity from the sovereign. This was highlighted in Cooper v. O’Donnell, 99 F.2d 133.

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with the jurisdictional requisites, he may still be held liable for abuse of process, even if he believed in good faith that he had jurisdiction, as discussed in Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So.2d 697.

Now, you might ask, how does a judge lose his jurisdiction? This can happen when, for example, a CPS worker files an affidavit. By law, the worker must submit a truthful declaration, but often, these affidavits include facts of which the worker has no firsthand knowledge. When a CPS worker submits such a false affidavit under penalty of perjury, she/he commits fraud upon the court—a felony. If a judge creates a court order based on that fraudulent affidavit, the judge has also committed a felony. When fraud is committed upon the court, both the judge and the court lose subject matter jurisdiction, opening the judge to liability and the possibility of being sued for fraudulent acts.

Anyone attempting to enforce an illegal court order is, in effect, committing an act of violence against you.

case law mentioned in the text:

Davis v. Burris: Casetext and CourtListener
Gregory v. Thompson: Casetext and CaseMine
Cooper v. O’Connor: Justia and Casetext
Fidelity & Guarantee Co.: Justia

I must emphasize that the issues I have raised concern serious breaches of both English and Northern Ireland law, particularly regarding the handling of my daughter’s case by Newry Social Services. As noted in the Social Services report included in the books given to McGurk, Lauren traveled with her mother to Northern Ireland as the daughter of another man, not Gerard Keenan. This directly contravenes legal requirements, yet McGurk simply stated that NICCY cannot investigate the conduct of the court without addressing the legal breach itself. In addition, I have been informed wrongly by LGSO that there is ‘no care’ in Northern Ireland. I point you to both breaches in UK law.

I demand your panel consider why parties to this crime are ignoring the law: 

The legal requirement, as stipulated under the Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b), and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27, states that a child should not be moved more than 50 miles from their parental home. Despite this, his daughter and thousands of other children were relocated approximately 500 miles from her home. This blatant breach constitutes serious negligence and a violation of her rights (Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b); Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27). You are still advocating that this position is not unlawful in respect to my daughter Emily and her sister, who have no relationship or genetic family in Northern Ireland that would stand up to genetic testing, for which I have provided DNA, and our organization fails to provide these for the children, proving they are not from Northern Ireland as children of Northern Ireland, and your legal purpose in educating both children in the Church of England has been remiss. You seem to still be applying a correct decision about me, which I have not received and is taken as an assault on my family and family name.

“Your message has been passed to the relevant government department for their attention.” by the Prime minister has come to no fruition when passed to your organisation

The OPNI report Access Request 24/357 contained multiple redacted sections, blacking out key statements on the letter’s spread out through the DAPSAR, where I repeatedly raised urgent concerns, including:The system has been failing for more than 14 years why has nothing been done to,
HALT this corruption of services why is my daughter Emily missing and not locatable
hen East Sussex said they could do a better job of her care than | could? She’s no
18 is my daughter Emily missing and not locatable when East Sussex said they could

do a better job of her care than | could?

When Anita Cundall was tasked with investigating these matters, she chose instead to defame me by perpetuating unsubstantiated claims made by social services. Despite being presented with evidence to the contrary, she refused to rescind these falsehoods, further compounding the damage and undermining trust in the Council’s actions, indicating criminality. I repeat, social services have never provided a report on me, which is required under the Care Act. Our family’s children were relocated approximately 500 miles from their home. This blatant breach constitutes serious negligence and a violation of her rights (Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b); Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27). You have never answered or provided repairation; instead, this raises serious concerns under the Fraud Act 2006, Section 2, which addresses false representation.–

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold