Judge Wall, the secrecy rules, and another stinging attack

The most senior judge in the Family Division, Lord Justice Wall, takes an unprecedented step.

It’s very difficult to make sense of nonsense. The only useful guideline seems to be: good press or bad press, don’t believe it.

This latest article by Christopher Booker in The Telegraph is, fortunately, a sign of sanity, whereas all other mainstream media articles about Vicky and the father of her daughter are an incredible accumulation of opinions, speculations, beliefs and gossip – as opposed to facts and information, in legalese also called “evidence”.

Well, I know what there is in terms of evidence. I know that and how it will be submitted by the right person to the right person.


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 Blogging, Campaigning, Family Courts, From Mainstream Media, Online Petition, Paedophiles, Secrecy, Sexual abuse, Twitter, Wordpress and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Judge Wall, the secrecy rules, and another stinging attack

  1. Jimmy says:

    I think this may be the first time that the words “Christopher Booker” and “sanity” have ever appeared in the same sentence.

  2. annie says:

    As fast as Sabine posts articles about EW, and with them receiving negative feedback, no sooner are they removed. A second post appears to have been removed today…this one on EW being jailed.

    Look just a short while ago Sabine posted a statement from VH citing her “confidence” in the appointment of a new Judge, insodoing agreed to stop campaigning. Ironically the campaigning is done significantly, through this website. Allowing VH the freedom to “dip in” when the atmosphere is warm or luke warm, but when it’s ice cold, there appears to be a “gagging” by removing the posts “dipping out” or rather opting out of responding by ensuring such posts are removed.

    Sabine writes “it’s very difficult to make sense of nonsense” alluding to the finding of Lord Justice Wall. No it’s not difficult if you stop wiping out postings you invite responses from.

    Just 3 days ago, there was a publication of EW’s response to Lord Justice Wall, which I would use Sabine’s words “it’s very difficult to make sense of nonsense” in the manner EW addressed the Court on behalf of herself, VH and her daughter.

    With such a published Court document it is not difficult to understand why it was deemed for consideration the Author “mentally unstable”. Even if the facts were true. This was and is the job for a top brass barrister, and not for someone to dabble in the arts of legality without professional qualification at a level to address Lord Justice Wall.

    This site lacks rigor. Such rigor would only be possible via a top brass barrister, who would instantly demand closure on disclosure of this case via any media. And this is the rigor those accessing this site and its “information” ought to apply. And ask the following most pertinent question.

    Why is information being irresponsibly passed to this site to publish details of what should remain a private family law matter? This would answer the next question why there has been no consistent if any formal legal representation with the now 3 (High Court) Judges.

    One would have to ask what was more important. Publication versus expert legal representation = privacy. Certainly no formal legal representation would consent to this scale of publication doubtless any. So why, if it wasn’t for blackening someone elses name, would someone pursue High Court action without legal representation if it wasnt to allow them unfettered freedom to continue to publish? eg prolong the agony of the person subjected to such allegations now found by Lord Justice Wall to be untrue.

    If as Sabine alleges there remains evidence, despite the most recent findings at the highest level, one can ask why a top brass barrister was never deployed at the initial stages to have produced this “evidence” and prevented the ongoing publicity Surely it was in the best interests of the child to have ensured such “evidence” Sabine states is available, was presented at the outset via someone who was professionally qualified & experienced in doing so. Why that was never done, if it exists,appears only to have been driven by the refusal to pay for the best legal help to protect the child from all this appalling negative publicity of the family you included.

    Sounds to me like “shutting the gate after the horse has bolted” VH.

    There was every opportunity to have paid for expert legal help, and if the excuse was it couldn’t be funded, well we know legal aid funds those who cannot fund themselves. So there is no excuse for failing to use legal representation, leading us back to the real question why it was declined. eg appears to allow scope to continue publishing lurid details of the case.

    Trust me on this one VH. You seriously believe you daughter has been abused, so you stop publishing anything to do with your daughter on this case. You go away and lick you own self inflicted wounds of public humiliation, and you fight your battle behind closed doors. Do you understand? Now is the time for you to stop and fight privately with legals, to have any chance of success of being reconciled with your daughter, ……….that’s if she really is your top priority.

  3. Jimmy says:

    It appears Ms. Watson now has a grown up lawyer who is trying to walk this back. He has instructed Ms. McNeill to delete any reference to his client form the site and she has now done so. Who knows, maybe common sense is breaking out?

    • Jimmy says:

      My mistake. I believe the position is that counsel instructed WordPress to instruct Ms. McNeill. Does this mean that wordpress is happy about the rest of the content? I imagine not.

  4. Debra says:

    Child Custody and The Law

    Last month, mid July 2011, I was contacted by Vicky Haigh, by way of email, to read a website in support of her plight to get her daughter back from the dad, who Ms. Haigh said is a paedophile. I did so, and subsequently wrote “For the Children, Justice, and to Vicky Haigh”, but in mid-August 2011, in a High Court of Justice, David Tune (dad) was found not guilty of sexually abusing his daughter. Vicky Haigh, it is reported, is guilty of coaching his daughter based on presented evidence.

    What Law, if any, Ms.Haigh upheld in Court is unknown to me. I was not there, nor have I read Court transcripts. Perhaps she felt the evidence was sufficient, and as a mother, as is frequently the case, would be heeded over the dad whose child it is. This was a Custody battle from the start, as are most cases in Family Courts.

    First, the website Vicky Haigh asked me to read is headed with “ requesting her daughter return from her paedophile [dad] ”. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty and is absolutely the premise for Justice to occur. Without that, we have bias and judicial prejudice. Thus the statement is unLawful then and now. Secondly, my primary interest is bringing Truth and Justice to the Courts for the benefit of all, not for a few selected cases. Court Judgments must be based on Law.

    The issue of Secret Proceedings in the Family Courts and children un-Lawfully removed from their family due to questionable evidence is the serious issue-at-hand. There is only one set of Laws and this is the Law sworn by both Elizabeth 2, and the judges who swore to obey her. It is The Law of God, the ONLY Law, found in the Bible, specifically in the Royal Collection Bible associated with E2’s “signed” Coronation Oath. This is factual, this is the Truth. There is NO other Right Way.

    The Family Court fiasco of which Brian Gerrish has been exposing for some time now could be halted in its tracks IF Lawfulness was rightly proclaimed, but the lack thereof, as well as the lack to outright support God’s Law, is negligent, corrupt when people have been informed otherwise. There is no room for an excuse.

    The Law of Custody –

    Children are bore by the wife for her husband who is the head of the household. Period. There are no arguments against facts. A man is head of the household, and men who are fighting for their rights, having been fooled by allowing women’s liberation, ought to be fighting to re-instate Custody Laws in order to protect children.

    The State Gov’t has absolutely no rights to children, never did, never can, under The Law. Failure to follow God’s Law has led to the ability of the State to steal a child which the advocates such as Brian Gerrish are proclaiming. So, if you fail to follow The Law, then expect injustice, and start to blame YOU/YOURSELVES.

    A reason a Birth Record (Certificate) is a Lawful document, and which some Common law campaigners are insisting is proof of legal fiction which is utter nonsense, is a valid Birth Record is Lawful proof of identity, and in the cases fought in Family Courts, proof of Custody, leaving those who might wish to legally “steal” a child an impossible act to achieve IF The Laws of God were maintained. If and when abuse is proven, a child who, shown by the Birth Record to be the property of dad, would follow the Laws of Inheritance. Thus, be granted to the mum, or next of kin, etc., depending on the circumstances. Dad always is first, mum is second, and so on. NEVER ever a State agency or adoptive parents seeking ownership by “legal” means. So, the issue is NOT necessarily secret Courts, unless a Court denies a Lawful Argument or disallows that it be made public. Privacy is Lawful, discretion is necessary and secrecy an issue when Lawfulness is NOT allowed, then hidden.

    Proving Abuse –

    People lie for varied reasons. People protect abusers for varied reasons, as well. Proof is based on evidence and / or upon sworn witness of two or more people. It is therefore essential all The Law is maintained, and The Law against false witness is NO LESS important than any other Law. Liars, upon diligent investigation, are to be punished and to receive the SAME penalty for the crime of the false accusation. THIS is the deterrence for lying, and only a fool would take the chance, unless of course they’re not enforcing God’s Law, do not support it, and hope it will never be enforced because they would have to answer for all their crimes too.

    Solution –

    Elizabeth 2 did not say she would maintain Common Laws, yet people continue to ignore that. Secondly, the judges sitting on the “Queen’s Bench”, as some put it, represent E2 directly, and these judges took an Oath proving this. Since, neither judge nor so-called Queen has sworn an oath to Common Laws, then explain why people demand Common Laws be followed, when there is no-thing to base this persistence on, and doing so is altering both Oaths. ‘Lawful Rebellion’ has claimed the Judicial Oath is to Common Laws, when in fact, it absolutely is not. Lawfully the only Laws that can be upheld are all The Laws of God, and found in the Royal Collection Bible. Common Laws which some emphasise, are subjugated to higher Laws which are The Laws of God. The people have yet to explain their mistakes.


  5. annie says:

    @Jimmy I do not believe Counsel have instructed EW “stuff” be removed, because there remains other lurid information on this site produced by EW indeed has her name/signature on it.

    I think it’s more to do with the negative comments the post receives which of course is “bad publicity” for those responsible for what is published.

    • Jimmy says:

      Ms. McNeill posted this instruction on another site, although this too has now been deleted. I searched for “watson” using the site facility and it came up blank. Ms. McNeill’s usual MO in these circumstances is to pretend that she published the material without permission. Obviously that isn’t good enough this time.

  6. Pingback: What do Vicky Haigh and the Musas have in common? Sir Nicholas Wall! « Vicky Haigh: requesting her daughter to return

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