TheKeyAuthor's Blog, page 2

Just Human

Rare, in that a barrister was successfully prosecuted for perverting justice. Only the second(?) in over 800 years. She was also a judge (and an author).

Her crime was "an act of arrogance by educated individuals who considered that respect for the law was for others". Well, that applies to Lily's abduction, so why won't the cops investigate properly? A major factor is that there is no mainstream-media (MSM) coverage of my story. The media have not touched it in eight years. As with so many cases of institutional injustice, the real justice battlefront is the MSM: no awareness means no justice.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Treatment

Here is an extract from a recent article recording former chief prosecutor Sir Keir Starmer's ideas and thoughts on a new victims' law.

Writing in the Guardian, he [Sir Starmer] said many victims were not coming forward because of a lack of faith in the criminal justice system.
He said: "And the issue that deters them is simply the way in which they are likely to be treated if they come forward."

And to think I wrote to Starmer over Lily's abduction when he was Director of Public Prosecutions. He did nothing!

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Pure Chance?

Last week, my eighty-plus-year-old mother experienced something new: a complete stranger gave her a book. She didn't want it but the guy was quite pushy, so she accepted the as yet undisclosed literature. As the man quickly exited the scene through the outdoor market, my mother looked into the bag to find it contained Madeleine by Kate McCann. Now what were the odds on that?

On the same day, the book cover's iconic image of Madeleine was splashed across the news channels covering the breakthrough story. Now, why was such information withheld? Well, any information that tarnishes the image of a state or damages the credibility of its institutions (police) is often censored, just like Lily's abduction. Don't believe me? Well, here's a compelling argument. And why didn't the British Foreign Office warn British families there was a predator on the loose targeting young, white British girls? Well, as Lady Meyer and I have stated, the British authorities think more of international relations than the fate of children. Put another way, the authorities don't give a damn about the public, even when, as in Lily's case, foreign government institutions are involved in abducting children on home soil.

If warnings of the predator had been issued, the McCanns may never have booked their fateful holiday or may have been more vigilant. And the same can be said of all the other families put at risk.

Still, the odds of being given a book pale into insignificance compared to the 7 billion to one yielded by my own, The Key?, -- to put that into context, the chances of being killed by lightning are 300,000 to one apparently -- but that, as they say, is another story.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Join The Dots

A recent article informs that relatives of Liverpool fans killed in the Hillsborough
disaster have called on the Metropolitan Police (Met) to answer claims officers spied on them:

The call comes after Private Eye magazine had a freedom of information (FOI) request turned down by the Met.
The Met has yet to comment, but reportedly turned down the FOI request to "safeguard national security".
Sheila Coleman, of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign, called for police to show "transparency" and admit spying.
Louise Brookes lost her brother Andrew Mark Brookes in the disaster and she alleges she has had her post intercepted or tampered with.
She said: "Everything to do with Hillsborough would arrive opened."
Meanwhile, Ms Coleman claimed campaigners' phones were "definitely tapped".

I found this interesting because the same happened to me: phone tapped and mail arrived opened. In fact, as stated in my book, my communications were compromised even more than that.

The Hillsborough tragedy and "Lily's" abduction resulted from genuine mistakes made by the authorities. But instead of admitting to them, the authorities covered them up and condemned innocent families to years of injustice and suffering.

Now, I've never had anything to do with Hillsborough and as far as I'm aware, these allegations of spying are new. That fact makes the allegations more compelling. Why? Well, I can understand that some people may find my isolated case quite unbelievable, but when other innocent families are treated the same way then it's far more difficult to ignore. Another example would be the Met's treatment of the Stephen Lawrence family.

In other words, when you join the dots, a very disturbing picture is revealed: the police protect the system, not the public, even when it condemns innocent families to years of injustice and suffering; if you campaign for justice, the police will spy on you.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Book Blocked!

It seems my book has been receiving some special attention. They really don't want the public to know the truth.

The log of a Twitter Direct Messaging chat that I had with a local author a few weeks ago:


More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

See No Evil

I recently came across a BBC article that backed up my observation about truths.
The following is an extract from the article:

Some people suggest this refusal to think is produced by the system itself - it's the only way our current economic and political arrangements can keep on going. This may be so, but the resolute avoidance of unsettling facts is a deep-seated human trait.
While we live surrounded by unknown unknowns, we live on the basis of unknown knowns - intractable facts that we prefer to forget. We'd do better to confront these awkward realities and muddle through more intelligently. We humans are sturdy and resilient animals, with enormous capacities of creativity and adaptability, but consistently realistic thinking seems to be beyond our powers. This may well be the biggest unknown known of them all - in an age that prides itself on its advancing knowledge and superior understanding, we're as anxious as ever to avoid facing up to our actual condition.

A Bag Worth More Than a Child?

November, 2013, Gibraltar
Vienna Convention violated: diplomatic bag opened
Media Coverage: UK television and national newspapers all covered story. Prime Minister's anger broadcast on radio and TV.
Prime Minister:

“It is a breach of the principle of state immunity and the principles underlying the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations,” Mr Cameron said.
“It’s an extremely serious action that took place.”
“We asked the Spanish authorities to investigate urgently and they have done that. We’ve now received an explanation from the Spanish. We’re reassured this will not happen again but let me be absolutely clear — we will always stand up for the rights of people in Gibraltar and for the sovereignty of Gibraltar.”

August, 2006, London
Hague Convention on Child Abduction violated: 4-year-old girl abducted
Media Coverage: UK television and national newspapers contacted but total news blackout even though known international elements were involved including a foreign authority dubbed "the kidnapping office" by an international-child-abduction-conference speaker.
Prime Minister: Cameron does nothing against perpetrators but does force anonymity on my whole family.

The conclusions are straight forward: "Great" Britain's leader considers a diplomat's bag more important than child abduction; the Prime Minister will not stand up for the rights of people in Britain.

The Real World, Not Illusion

Imagine a world where ordinary people suffering institutional injustice are banned from the mainstream media and can only exist in public if they are anonymous. I have lived in that world, year after year after year.

So, what did I do then? I did something dangerous, very dangerous indeed: I had children.

Why the injustice? Well, it boils down to this: Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no defence). In my case, although the judge and government's justice department had no understanding of even the basics of international law, the authorities refuse to accept such ignorance was the catalyst for my four-year-old daughter's abduction and removal from the country.

So, why the forced anonymity? Well, in 2006, a landmark Court of Appeal judgment upheld the human right to freedom of expression for a parent subjected to secret court proceedings who wanted to tell the public about their own story. Soon after the judgment, the government's justice department initiated draft legislation to put a stop to that.

Wouldn't that cause an outcry in the mainstream media? Actually, a few years later, the media hailed a head of the government's justice department as a champion of free speech even though he was still pushing through the legislation to overturn the judgment.

But surely the elected representatives in such a democracy wouldn't allow it to get through into law? Well, it's true there is a due process but prior to an election, special negotiations are invoked called the wash-up. It was by this secretive process in early 2010 that both main political parties collaborated to pass the gagging legislation into law. As such, both main political-party leaders are responsible — particularly galling are the fact I had written to both leaders and the head of the justice department about my daughter's abduction and given the political intrigue of my case, they must surely have known about it.

And the media ban? I have since found out that because of my book, legally there is no reason why they can't cover my story. It is certainly in the public interest to expose such a cover-up. But since publication, the media silence has been total.

Well then, why not get a proven anti-establishment lawyer? Been there, done that. Everything was going well, documents were handed over and the cheque sent. Then, one day, the lawyer “disappeared” without a word. Years later, I found out he lied to a colleague about it. He didn't cash the cheque, not even for the amount he had already billed.

So, who is to blame? A prime candidate is the justice department. I would also say the political leaders have questions to answer. The mainstream media have let down my family and the public, too. However, the public likes the illusion dictated by the political elite and dutifully portrayed in the media. As the public vote for this time after time after time, it seems I am locked in this Orwellian world forever.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.

Human Extinction

In a sense my predicament as described in "No Man's Land" came about due to technological advances the consequences of which were not properly understood. The following extracts from a recent news article, How are humans going to become extinct?, resonate in particular:

If we get it wrong, this could be humanity's final century.
These are "threats we have no track record of surviving".
...the advance of technology has overtaken our capacity to control the possible consequences.
"This is the first century in the world's history when the biggest threat is from humanity..."

But none more so than this: the consequences of some error or terror are greater than in the past.... Remember, the core system protects itself first and foremost, not your family.

My campaign site. Free eBook.

Secret Evidence

On August 9th 2006, Judge F presided over a summons hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ), the UK High Court. Being a family court, the hearing was in secret. Blissfully unaware of the existence of this hearing, I was neither present nor represented.

The barrister was experienced in these Hague Convention on Child Abduction cases. Although he knew even the key allegation statement was false and the case had no merit -- he surely knew it was a blatant hoax -- he presented the case to the judge. He also knew the granting of the summons would provide an opportunity for the UK legal profession to correct an earlier UK judicial mistake, one that the court documents clearly displayed.

For some reason, the barrister handed up a document to Judge F that wasn't in the court bundle. During the judge's summing up, it was clear the contents of that document dominated her thoughts. The summons was granted. And so began the nightmare that led to my daughter being traded as payment for the judicial mistake -- even though they knew "removing a parent from a child was the ultimate penalty a State can do to a citizen," they still did it.

In 2007, I initiated a number of investigations with a host of legal regulatory bodies against solicitors, barristers and judges. A complaint against a firm of solicitors was not upheld in part due to a letter that I'd never seen before. When I called the investigator, she gave the impression it had been used at the summons hearing. I wrote to Judge F asking for this missing letter, but its existence was not disclosed.

My complaints against the judges were dismissed but I persisted and appealed to the Judicial Ombudsman. Months later, they finally asked the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to do an investigation. Judge F was one of those to be investigated, as was Judge M who presided over the subsequent hearing at the RCJ. Later in the year, I requested a transcript of the summons hearing from the RCJ. It duly arrived, via a transcription firm, without a hitch. That transcript exposed the existence of the secret document. I wrote to Judge F asking for it to be handed over. The reply was not what I expected: "We do not have a copy of the 'summary of background/chronology' that was handed up in court on 9th August. This is not a document that we would have kept".

As the three main documents in the official court bundle were in effect all 'summary of background/chronology', why did the barrister feel he needed to hand up a fourth and why was this one not kept when such documents evidently were? And why did the judge not disclose the existence of the document when I explicitly asked a few months earlier?

There are rules that govern the use of secret evidence in courts and they apply when national security is a concern. As this book extract clearly shows, the issue of open (not secret) evidence is fundamental to the rule of law (due process in US) -- Article 6 of the Human Rights Act is applicable to both civil and criminal cases:

On Tuesday 4 May [2010], the British Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that allowed the British government to use secret evidence to defend itself in a civil law case. This became a major story in the Press and the high court judges' strong remarks were well publicised. The Court of Appeal said it would “take a stand” against secrecy that would undermine the “most fundamental principles of common law.” In a strongly-worded ruling, the Master of the Rolls (second most senior judge), Lord Neuberger, said:
In our view, the principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by a court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it.

I wrote to the OJC explaining Judge F had used secret evidence in court and had not disclosed it when asked. I then requested the transcript of Judge M's hearing at the RCJ because I realised they were so damning. Obviously I wasn't alone in that assessment because the hearing records were destroyed.

Ultimately, the OJC didn't uphold my complaint against the judges. However, one of the investigators did contact Scotland Yard's Special Crime Directorate on my behalf. The SCD6 police officer lied as to why they wouldn't investigate.

Not a single person has been punished let alone charged in connection with my daughter's illegal removal from the UK. The entire matter has been comprehensively covered up; a total media block is still in place.

More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.