Friday, 7 August 2015

July 29, 2015 Letter to [PP]* JUSTICE PAUFFLEY - by Drifloud


* [PP]  Judges of The Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London are showing their TRUE NATURES week by week as CSA cases are being brushed off, as the nation's BIGGEST Paedophile Protectors [PP].


What an interesting choice of words Justice Pauffley !!  


Poster quote:  "Mrs Justice Pauffley conclusion"

"Within many communities newly arrived in this country, children are slapped and hit for misbehaviour in a way which at first excites the interest of child protection professionals."

"Excites!!"  Indeed !! ??  


Is this your attempt at "hiding something in plain sight" ??
Sorry...  That little magick trick doesn't work anymore !!






To: Barry Clark (Clerk to Mrs Pauffley) and Mrs Pauffley


Mrs Pauffley, stated in her judgement, para 47: 

“On 9 February my clerk notified the parties, by email, that there would be a hearing the following day. Ms Draper failed to attend court on 10 February when mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were made against her.” 

But you, Barry Clark, did NOT notify Ms Draper "that there would be a hearing the following day” in any lawful or legitimate way, did you? 


What you ACTUALLY DID was to send an email to Suzannah Hargreaves - a HOSTILE LITIGANT to Ella Gareeva (formerly Draper) - REQUESTING Hargreaves to inform Ella there would be a hearing in 24 hours! 


This is what you wrote to Ms Hargreaves at 13:08, 9th February 2015: 
“Dear All, Mrs Justice Pauffley has decided to hear this case tomorrow, Tuesday, 10 February at 2.00pm. May I please impose on Ms Hargreaves to ensure that all concerned are made aware. Thank you. Regards...” 


This is in NO way a legitimate or lawful means to request the attendance of someone at court. 

Your email was a reply to Suzannah Hargreaves’ email to you/Mrs Pauffley, in her capacity as a lawyer seeking to obtain an injunction against Ella Gareeva. 



This is an excerpt from the email solicitor Suzannah Hargreaves sent to you, Barry Clark, on 9th February, 2015 at 12:15.

“At the time of writing, the Papa Kills Babies mobile phone footage that has been uploaded onto You Tube has been viewed by nearly 163,000 people. The other 2 videos which are on You Tube also have been viewed by thousands. 
“The London Borough of Camden are taking legal advice about what steps they may need to take to address issues that arise for them from the dissemination of this material. 
“It would seem clear from the events of the end of last week that both Ms McNeil and the mother are in contempt of court for publishing material which forms part of the evidence in these proceedings on the internet and, by posting the videos of the children, together with numerous references to their first names, thereby causing them to be very easily identified as the subjects of these proceedings.” 


It is clear then that the INTENTION of Ms Hargreaves in trying to obtain a court hearing, was to obtain an injunction against Ella Gareeva for being in “Contempt of court for publishing material which forms part of the evidence in these proceedings on the internet and, by posting the videos of the children, together with numerous references to their first names, thereby causing them to be very easily identified as the subjects of these proceedings.” 


Firstly this is a SLANDEROUS allegation.  Ella Gareeva was and is entirely innocent of this accusation. But she was given no legitimate or lawful opportunity to defend herself from this accusation. 


Ella was unable to defend herself because you had UNLAWFULLY and ILLEGITIMATELY left the responsibility of informing Ella that her presence was required in court IN 24 hours! to a HOSTILE LITIGANT, who was seeking to obtain an injunction against her. 


Furthermore, lawyer Suzannah Hargreaves names Ms McNeill in her email to you as one of those she considers in contempt of court for publishing those videos, yet she does not include McNeill as one of those Cc’d in that email – only Ella is Cc’d in. And in your reply to Ms Hargreaves, you also omit to Cc in Sabine McNeill. 



Was Sabine McNeill, the ONE WHO WAS ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE for publishing the material online, ever notified she had to attend court on February 10th?  

Or was the order made by Mrs Pauffley that day “to remove all offending materials from the internet by 16.00 on Friday 13th February 2015, as well as to refrain from any further harassment of the 2nd Respondent/the father,” SOLELY INTENDED for someone who was entirely innocent of publishing those “offending materials” - namely, Ella Gareeva? 


What is more Barry Clark, you were sent a letter from Belinda McKenzie for Mrs Pauffley,
16th February 2015 

RE: LB Barnet v. Draper and Dearman and Child A & Child G / Case No. ZC14c00315 


In this letter, Belinda McKenzie clearly and unequivocally states: 
“I wish to say to you and will say publicly, that the mother herself is entirely innocent of publishing materials online since the case has been the subject of family court proceedings and has repeatedly requested, throughout the period that the Association of McKenzie Friends has been involved in her case, for stringent confidentiality to be maintained regarding her children’s identities. So she is naturally extremely shocked and disappointed that their faces are now all over the internet.”


This is an AFFIRMATION, an AFFIDAVIT, clearly proclaiming Ella Gareeva’s innocence regarding the matter of publishing those materials, and PROVING the injunction made her against her by Mrs Pauffley to be completely UNJUST and groundless



I, as a conscious living being known as Drifloud : 

INSIST that you, Barry Clark, NOW make known to the public, that Ella Gareeva is entirely innocent regarding the publication of those materials online. 

I INSIST that you Barry Clark, publicly declare NOW that the injunction made against Ella Gareeva on February 10, 2015 by Justice Pauffley was/is utterly groundless, and is therefore null and void. 

I INSIST that you, Barry Clark, declare publicly WITHOUT DELAY that there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever for any court, or the police to seek Ella’s arrest - or to even seek to question her about this matter. 


I, Drifloud, wish the contents of this email to be made, this day 29th of July 2015, a matter of public record, and wish to proclaim publicly that Ella Gareeva is indeed, entirely innocent regarding the publication of those materials online, and that the injunction made against Ella Gareeva on February 10, 2015 by Mrs Pauffley was/is utterly groundless, and is therefore null and void. 


All recipients and readers of this email are witnesses to this AFFIRMATION



I hold only to that which is lawful, and do not consent to the transmutation of any living beings I have mentioned (including myself) to that of “legal person” status, or to any legal interpretation of my words whatsoever. 

All words and combinations of words used by me carry solely the meaning I intend them to convey [Without Prejudice] which is to tell the truth to the best of my ability and to bring about an end to the brutalisation, torture, rape and murder of innocents - as I know such things to be contrary to the laws of humanity. 

From a conscious living being, Drifloud 


29th July 2015 





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.