Reporting Mrs Justice Pauffley to JCIO: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

This is a comment from the Whistleblower Kids blog:

Today I made a formal complaint with the judicial conduct investigation office about judge Pauffley, accusing her of professional misconduct. I´m not sure if people unrelated to the case can do this, part of the form implies it, part implies it has to be “your” case. I made it on https://webapps.judiciary.gov.uk/JCIO/complaintlink.do.

Maybe others want to complain about her?

Sabine, I think you should definitely complain. Here is the text of my complaint:

complaint 4398

Fundamentally, this judge has committed professional misconduct because interviewing 16 people and spending two weeks on a fact-finding mission is insufficient to uncover the truth behind the wide-ranging allegations involving numerous schools, hundreds of abusers and so on, that the children have made.

If this were a criminal case it would take months, even years of investigations to get to the bottom of the allegations. To hand these two children back to the father they say abused them after only two weeks of fact finding and a handful of interviews is an utter derogation of judicial duty.

For example, did she interview any of the parents the children accused of molesting them?

Did she interview any of the teachers the children accused of molesting them?

Did she investigate why the children´s school changed all its staff while the proceedings went on? And why businesses which were used as locations for the alleged abuse closed down during the same period of time? This is important because both of these are indicative of a systematic cover-up.

Did she ask for any of those the children accused of abusing them to have their distinguishing marks examined by medical experts? That would have settled things quite definitively, but it was not done. Why?

Also, why did she accept the police´s decision to close the case before the results of the medical examinations had been returned?

Given Pauffley´s superficial examination of the accusations made by the children, which is direct professional misconduct, but also the police disregard for the medical evidence, the “coincidental” business closures, the quick school staff re-organization, and the 16,000 name internet petition calling for the children to be returned to their mother being “leaned on” by the judiciary until it was deleted, I believe it should be seriously considered by whoever receives this complaint that Pauffley is an active part of a systemic cover-up of organized child abuse, and therefore, part of that infected, paedophile-protecting system whom Lowell Goddard has been brought in to investigate.

Anna Pauffley has accused those who are concerned for the welfare of Alisa and Gabriel and using the internet to exchange views on this case of being evil or foolish. I consider that personally insulting, and I would like that to be considered as another complaint under the inappropriate comments category. I am neither evil nor foolish. However, judges who help cover-up paedophile activities by powerful people are both, and worse.

I demand that Anna Pauffley be investigated for links to VIP pedophile rings.

I demand that she step down while an investigation is undertaken into her.

I demand that her judgement on 19th March 2015 be rescinded until it is complete.

I demand that Gabriel and Alisa not be returned to the father they say abused them, and instead be returned to the mother or her parents while the investigation takes place.

I am posting this complaint publicly.
Alan Wrightson

Yes, Alan, I will complain, too! Especially after a supporter wrote the first document for the Appeal for which we have 21 days since the judgement.

We shall not forget the Private Prosecutions either!

And the IPCC complaints, and, of course I shall pursue the EU route where this petition is still waiting to get on the agenda:

Meanwhile the German statement is out on a most popular blog:

Supporters were meeting yesterday and will meet for ‘Hampstead Picknicks’ from Sunday 12 April onwards. 12 – 3.

Sabine McNeill

Untitled-220-587x344

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

10 Responses to “Reporting Mrs Justice Pauffley to JCIO: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office”

  1. Julie says:

    Henry Curteis. Are you making money from this story on WordPress and all your “widgets”. You and other sites are promoting each other with this story, in my opinion for financial gain. NEVER have I seen such interest from this site and your friend Sabine McNeill about ritual abuse. I have no doubt that ritual abuse does occur, but the evidence has not been provided in this case.
    If you have more information, then PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    • Tapestry says:

      Not one penny, Julie. Unless you’re offering to help cover some costs. I’ve paid out over £1000 to have the site moved from blogger, and have gratefully received £100 approx in donations to date. This cannot be described as money-making exercise by any stretch of the imagination. Where do you see money? You agree that ritual abuse does occur. Let’s work on that. More and more people are starting to realise this is no joke, and needs dealing with if we are to make any progress at all in repairing the mess that’s being made of our world. Money is another part of the same control system. We are human beings wanting an end to control by Satanists, war-makers, psychopaths.

    • Kylie says:

      Hahaha your opinion or Outlaws useless opinion ?
      Start thinking for yourself, you look like a troll.

  2. RabbiT says:

    Please don’t think I am raining on your parade but I have pursued almost every complaint route possible in relation to judicial misconduct and it was covered up at every level (just as almost every public body has done to me and those I have acted for, in my lifetime).

    In my case the judicial misconduct was as blatant as the Judge ruling that the colour black, in his case, was to be accepted using the following term: white.

    I never used this route because it would never work as per the rules stated on the complaint form:

    “The JCIO will look into any complaint about personal misconduct of a Judicial Office Holder but cannot deal with any matter concerning a judicial decision or judicial case management.”

    I do however like the argument that the party who has a right to complain now includes anyone with an interest, as in this case the Judge – Pauffley, has clearly sought to publicly degrade everyone following her case, describing these members of the public as evil, foolish and likely sexually deviant.

    There was however a route I never exhausted which was the Lord Chief Justice.

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/announcements/appointment-new-lcj-july-2013/

    Perhaps a complaint should be made to him to consider Pauffley’s expressed disdain and contempt towards the general public as to otherwise leave her ethically and morally bankrupt.

    If such does not fall within his remit and I see no reason why not, could he perhaps point us to who should hear complaints, from those of us on the receiving end of her offensive public statements.

    It would appear Pauffley would not wish to degrade readers of Ham and High, The Daily Mail and other conduits she would seek to use to promote her extremist views, her hate speech and her rejection of our values of transparency and public interest in the administration of justice.

    With that said, there may be something helpful in here I don’t know?

    http://www.thelawyer.com/recorder-removed-for-bringing-judiciary-into-disrepute/1016608.article

    You could try writing to the Members of the Committee on Judicial Conduct.

    When you go down the route of complaint, what happens is you just end up with a massive box of papers while those who are paid to see that justice is done do the very opposite.

    In this case however we may just be able to shine a light for the world on how the UK Government and its cover – up goons work, in this instance at the very least the snatching of children courtesy of satanic police, satanic social services and “evil” judiciary (their preferred term).

  3. norse kode says:

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hampsteadmedicalreportconfirmsabuse11mar15.shtml#top…personally watching the videos and the kids told me alot of what i needed to know/sense about the veracity of their claims…and the alleged police leaked interview shows the disgraceful cover up in all its jaded glory…this is really happening right here and right now in the UK and the powers that be(top twisted spooks/magi/corrupt masons/black nobility/mk handlers/psycho,s) control/feed off this kind of abuse/snuff entertainment/pseudo state psy-ops/dark occult energy vortex,s….since long long ago…only now human kind is awakening from some kind of a trance to realise that some kind of an alien parasite has been living off them and their children… .keep it comin Tap -drip drop tick tock &never mind the widgets x

  4. Aldous says:

    This only serves to prove what we are up against:

    Minister who blew whistle on police child abuse errors ‘is threatened by UK’s top cop’

    But Ms Thornton, said to be David Cameron’s favourite police leader, hit back angrily last night. In a statement to The Mail on Sunday she rejected the allegations as ‘unfounded’.

    ‘I categorically deny ever making any sort of threat –veiled or otherwise – to Rob Wilson MP.’ And she said the claims entitled her to sue him for libel.

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=112862

    Is this latest revelation meant to scare future whistle-blowers off? Rob Wilson MP could have made the allegations using Parliamentary Privilege – so why didn’t he?

    “Mr Wilson, who is the woman’s local MP in Reading, offered to raise her case in the Commons in 2008. But he says police tried to stop him.”
    Full credit to him if this is all genuine but my radar is telling me that there is more to this latest story than we are being led to believe. This is yet another ‘historic’ case from the previous decade up to seven years old.

    It used to be said, “Who wants to read yesterday’s papers” and yet we have such historic/decades old/previous generation(s) stories being released ALL the time now. Is that the new journalism? The msm knew about Savile and others for decades yet sat on it until he and those others were dead or nearly dead, while most importantly Savile and Co were allowed to carry on with their perverted ways against children/juveniles – as well as vulnerable adults and even the dead in the case of Savile and no doubt similar such sickos in high office.

    It’s becoming ever more and crystal clear to me that such release of ‘news’ years/decades/generations later is being used as a way of distracting the sheeple while protecting the ‘high ups’ in the sick establishment, who have past paedophile (or even worse) form’ as well as from what is obviously still going on and is rampant in the present.

  5. The blogger who tells the whistleblower kids story in Dutch has a good set of slides to illustrate how money is at the root of all evil, but that means the CREATION of money and the charging of interest. Learn and understand: https://donquijotte.wordpress.com/about/ and https://donquijotte.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/hampstead-satanisch-kindermisbruik-schandaal-en-doofpot/

  6. Tim Veater says:

    All High Court Judges, on appointment, must take the Judicial Oath (or Affirmation) which is as follows:
    “I, (name), do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm (or colony), without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
    Reading this, and now being informed at length in a public document, of Lady Pauffley’s judgement and how she came by it, it is hard not to conclude she has breached her oath of office! Even were this not to be a criminal act (as it surely must or what would be the point of it?) it must be the most serious impediment to her continued occupation of the public position that she holds, and undermine any confidence the public might have in her holding it.
    She observes that the interested public must be “evil and/or foolish”. She also states prominently in the “Introduction and Executive Summary” that, “It is inevitable that a large proportion of those (the 4 million who had viewed the material on-line) have a sexual interest in children.” The fact that she bases these observations on no more than intuition, is sufficient to question her judgement of fact. It should also be regarded as a clear breach of her oath to, “Do right …. without fear or favour, affection or ILL WILL”.
    Nor can the manner in which Judge Pauffley undertook the “fact-finding sessions” support the notion that she fulfilled her Oath of Appointment, insofar that BIAS is clearly apparent, both in the proceedings and judgement. A fair and just assessment of the facts was plainly impossible without a “balance of arms” and transparency of proceedings in the case. The mother or her representative were not present; the proceedings were carried out largely in secret and unreported; children themselves were not apparently met, interviewed or allowed to give evidence. To rubbish their testimony as “hearsay”, when much of it was first-hand testimony of what they experienced and a failure to follow up on the specific allegations, clearly demonstrate an abrogation of her oath and the most basic rules of natural justice.
    Her failure to fulfill her oath to “do right without fear or favour” is illustrated, but not exclusively, in her treatment of the genetic father and “step-father” in the case. Only one paragraph (Para. 63) is devoted to the former’s denial of all accusations against him. This despite specific and repeated allegations by both children; objective police evidence of a propensity for violence and animosity to his former partner; evidence of earlier breaches in complying with court orders; circumstancially supportive factors such as geographical connections and business interests, including specifically participation in films of a sado-masochistic nature. All this is regarded as irrelevant and not even worth mentioning, before giving him a “clean bill of health” in the conclusion, “Neither child has been sexually abused by … Ricky Dearman” she concludes.
    In contrast no less than 39 paragraphs (paras. 69 to 108) relate directly or indirectly to the involvement of the step father, leading to the extreme conclusion, “Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper”!
    I hold no truck for Mr Christie’s behaviour, methods or child rearing skills. Indeed I was disturbed by an apparent aggressive and unsympathetic manner demonstrated in some of the recordings but this does not negate the testimony of the children themselves, consistent and detailed to a number of different interviewers at different times. Nor should mistreatment by him, even if proved, be used to distract or absolve those that are principally accused. Yet again this is clear evidence of a failure to fulfill the solemn oath to implement English justice “without fear or favour”. Indeed quite the contrary, it appears to indicate the most obvious and damning bias!

    • Tapestry says:

      If only 4 million viewed the children’s allegations online, why did my profile in google plus get viewed 27 million times in the week they went out? They don’t normally inflate the figures. I presume that not all viewers wanted to see my profile, so maybe 50 million saw the videos on my channel. They went out on dozens of others and can still be found online. The number of people seeing them will be far higher than 4 million by any calculation. Youtube has carefully doctored the numbers at around 100 to 1, it would appear. But they forgot to watch profile views at the same time.

    • Susan Johnson says:

      Tim Veater, I agree with everything you have said. I call into question the Pauffley Piffle-ator’s credibility and ability to judge this case if she has clearly labelled the deeply concerned British Public following this case as evil or foolish. I take that as a personal insult, together with the way she has twisted everything to suit her obvious biased opinion.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.