The word ‘Family Court’ is fraudulent language to deceive the public to think the process is legal and heard in a just settings of 'a Court’. The process is not truly Lawfully legal as the process has been set up without the authority and agreement of the pulbic. The press have labelled the hearings the ‘Secret Courts’. The hearings are conducted by State appointed administrators acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner. Administrators rarely find against the 'Directives' of Police social service employees. Appeals are conducted in a similar fashion. Rarely do appeals overturn the "findings" previously made by fellow hearing administrators.

 

The following provides some reasoning as to why Family hearing administrators are ruling in favour of state employees and against victim families in cases were Police social service employee collusion to incite violence has led to murder and or suicide. This example relates to the murder of Jason murder and will be relevent to other such cases.

 

Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines on Joint Enterprise

 

“Where two persons, D1 and D2, have a common purpose to commit one crime, such as burglary (crime A), and, in the course of committing that offence, D1 commits another offence, such as murder (crime B). D2 will be liable for crime B as a secondary party if he foresaw that D1 might commit that offence with the necessary intent. D2's liability is justified on the ground that, by continuing with the common venture after realising that crime B might be committed in the course of it, he will have sufficiently associated himself with the commission of crime B and will from then on be considered a secondary party to that offence”

 

The film posted on this site provides evidence of an agreement between (D1) what Police labelled their informant (mentally ill mother). (D2) Her Police handlers Jon, Eddie, Joanne, Phil, Lisa, Barbara and (D3) social workers Joan, Sue, Barbra, Michele and Lisa. Parties D1, D2, and D3 all entered into an agreement to attack and deprive the father of his freedom, children and property. D2 and D3 knew this was in direct violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. D2 and D3 did so to serve a common purpose, effectively to destroy the fathers personal life.

 

Although the informant (D1) agreed to this plan. D1 was unaware D2 and D3 had a separate plan to what D1 believed. D2 and D3 were encouraging D1 to commit numerous crimes against the father to provoke the father to violently retaliate against D1. Any retaliation against D1 would give D2 Lawful reason to take robust action against the father, including, for example, Police reporting that a deranged father kidnapped his children and they had to use. What could have appeared to be. The Lawful reason to shot him dead.

 

Any retaliation from the father against D1 would also give D3 what they intended to present in the family courts as the legal right to remove his children from his care for life. To achieved this D2 and D3’s paramount plan was to protect D1 from prosecution at all cost.

 

In pursue of the common purpose. When D1 sent the father repeated extreme racist threats to kill text messages. It suspected D2 committed a criminal offence of Perverting the Course of Justice by deleting the Crown Prosecution Evidence (texts messages). It’s since been reported that a bug in Police expert software deleted the crimes.

 

In pursuance of the common purpose D3 committed a criminal offence of Perjury by submitting a Social Service report to the Family Court in which numerous lies were submitted to the Court. The crimes committed by D2 and D3 maintained D1’s psychosis which was subjecting the children to prolonged periods of horrific child abuse. Jason later being executed trying to stop the exploitation of the mothers psychosis and the institutionalised child abuse.

 

Derek Twigg MP repeatedly informed D2 and D3 of the child abuse and Threats to Kill from D1. Both D2 and D3 ignored crime A. This being to incite and encourage D1 to attack the father. In the course of committing crime A. D1 has committed crime B .The planned murder of the father and his brother Jason. Correspondence from Derek Twigg MP and files held by Liverpool Police, Social Services and the CPS. Proves D2 and D3 foresaw D1 might commit crime B murder.

 

As the Law states D2 and D3 “as a secondary party if he foresaw that D1 might commit that offence with the necessary intent. D2's liability is justified on the ground that, by continuing with the common venture after realising that crime B might be committed in the course of it, he will have sufficiently associated himself with the commission of crime B and will from then on be considered a secondary party to that offence”

 

The films posted on this site provides evidence D1 ordered the planned multiple murders of Jason and his brother, the children’s father. Efforts by D2 to put another person Mr Woodford on trial for ordering the murder of Jason as a “Shadowy, sinister, powerful gangland figure who ordered the execution of Jason”. Was to further protect D1 from prosecution by suggesting the planned multiple murders was somehow linked to crime. This being D2's attempt to divert attention away from D1 and the true motive, the custody battle.

 

Derek Twigg MP was in contact with D1’s Police handlers for seventeen months prior to the execution of Jason taking place. The MP’s contact with D2 related to D1’s Threats to Kill Osu family members.

 

The convicted murderers would have agreed a place they felt safe to exchange murder vehicles. They exchanged the murder vehicles in D1’s relatives Street and yards from an address D1 has frequented for more than 30 years. It is a Street surrounded by D1’s family, friends and relative’s addresses. D1 had knowledge of the concealed bridge used by the gunmen. Police have confirmed the convicted gunmen had never lived in the area. The gunmen would not have had knowledge of the concealed bridge they used to escape unless a person with local knowledge and motive in murder suggested the bridge a safe place to exchange murder vehicles.

 

The execution of Jason took place on the very day Jason was originally due to give evidence against D1 in the custody battle. D1’s motive to murder was prevent both brothers from giving evidence against D1 in the custody battle for D1 to retain custody of the children.

 

Six weeks prior to Jason being “shot dead”. A letter was sent by Jason’s family to each of the 17 members of Liverpool Police Authority. It stated that D1 was sending repeated threats to have Osu family members “shot dead”. The refusal by D2 to take any action against D1 was to allow the shooting dead of family members to take place.

 

The Chief Constable of Cheshire (Mr Whatton) has since reported to Liverpool Crime Commissioned (Jane Kennedy MP) that the lifesaving letters were thrown in the bin. On the instructions of the Police Authority Chief Executive. And therefore did not reach their intended recipients. The Chief Constable (Mr Whatton) has not pursued criminal charges against the Police Authority employees relating to the crime of interfering with Royal Mail.

 

The fundamental basis of our criminal justice system is for the public to preside in trials (as jury members). To judge on ones guilt or innocence. This fundamental principle. The very foundations of our criminal justice system. Was denied and rejected by D2 (Police). This was to avoid charging D1 and placing D1 before a jury. For the jury to decide on D1’s guilt or innocence.

 

The reason D2 has continued to protect D1 from prosecution is because. If D1 was charged with the execution of Jason. On the basis of D1’s countless statements to D2 (Police) D3 (Social Services & CPS) raising D1’s own concerns regarding her own psychosis. And pleading for psychiatric help. D1's legal team would have reason to obtain an in-depth psychiatric assessment.

 

Such an assessment could well provide evidence that D2 and D3 had rejected D1 pleas for psychiatric help. To allow her psychosis to deteriorate to such a point D2 and D3 could established control over D1’s actions with the consistent threats of removing D1’s children.

 

Although D1 was married and in relationship for 16 years to a black man and had two mixed race children. D1’s racist text messages could well prove. That whilst under D2 and D3’s control. D1 was converted into an extreme racist killer. The control of D1’s psychosis by D2 and D3. Caused D1 to believe she had authorisation to subject her own children to prolonged periods of horrific child abuse and orchestrate the planned multiple murders of her children’s father and his brother.

 

We have provided the filmed evidence on social media to ask the public. On the basis of the filmed evidence. If you were a jury member and heard this evidence. Would you agree D1 should be charged? If so, the charges would ensure D1 would not face imprisonment but D1 almostly certainly would receive the psychiatric help D1 and the father repeatedly requested from the outset. Such an assessment and treament would bring the on-going child abuse to an end.

 

Some may agree that it is those still controlling D1’s psychosis. That ought to face the courts for their involvement in manipulating a mentally ill mothers psychosis and using her to kill. We have recently obtained new evidence which confirms the mentally ill mother not only ordered the planned multiple murders. But also took part in the planning and preparation. We do not believe the mother should face imprisonment but rather she receive psychiatric help and treatment she has been denied.