this is what we wrote August 2011. we were able to do this even without a crystal ball.
Collusion Conspiring Colaboration and Misconduct HHJ Tyzack Leicestershire Social Services
For the attention of Lord Wall Head of family division
HHJ Tyzack at the hearing Exeter County Court
22nd August 2011
OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THE COLLUSION, CONSPRING, UNOFFICIAL COLABORATION AND MISCONDUCT OF HHJ TYZACK
OFFICIAL REQUEST TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TO REMOVE HHJ TYZACK FROM THE CASE
IN THE CASE OF
ANGELA BAGGALEY, V DR A H KAZEEM AND LEICESTERSHIRE SOCIAL SERVICES
· His Honour Judge Tyzack, the court, Mark Williams (solicitor for the guardian) and John Ingham (the guardian) have been colluding and collaborating in this case since 2010 to remove A (child) from the care of the mother. The mother is aware that outside of court meetings have taken place and the mother alleges that the above have conspired in order to make orders that would enable the court to place A in Devon. Orders that are in the majority of cases unfathomable and without any fact.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack, the mother alleges, has purposely ignored expert evidence and has forced Leicestershire County Council social services by way of constantly rejecting sound assessment reports unjustly, to give into pressure forced onto them by HHJ Tyzack to change their positive attitude toward the Baggaleys as good parents for the child. HHJ Tyzack bullied the social worker into changing perfectly sound 26 page and 16 page assessment reports simply due to their being in the Baggaleys positive favour.
· The evidence of this in particular was where on one statement from social services. His Honour stated that on every single page of a 26 page document there were issues raised that caused concern for the welfare of A. This statement was not just a gross over exaggeration but was simply untrue. The assessment was a full and thorough 26 page document that had no comments that would have raised any concern to any judge who was able to remain unbias. HHJ TyzacK has never explained what these concerns on “every page” are leaving the mother with no chance of appealing, which is a breach of the appeals act.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack contacted the Director of Leicestershire County Council and told him to make sure A was not placed in mothers residence whilst in interim care, even though His Honour had no legal right to state where the child lives whilst in interim care. This action alone is above and beyond the realms of a fair justice and caused harassment to the mother and child. The judge abused his powers to cause emotional harm to the child and harassment to the mother.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack was transparently discriminate against the mother when making unfounded allegations that the mother and step-father had emotionally abused A. No finding of facts has taken place and the professionals assessing the child were stating the complete opposite.
· In May 2010 His Honour Judge Tyzack was told by the guardian allegations made by the father regards A care whilst living with us in Hinckley. His Honour, at that time stated these allegations were not allegations that amount to a risk of significant harm to the child. Yet in November 2010, some 6 months on, with exactly the same allegations His Honour stated that they were issues of risk of significant harm. This is a clear mismanagement of the case.
· Since November 2010 His Honour Judge Tyzack has reacted to and accepted every word told to him by the guardian usually in a knee jerk reaction. This is without question, without finding of facts, without any evidence, factual or physical being presented to the court by the guardian whom His Honour knows has only met with the mother and step-father for a total of thirty minutes in a 17 month period and has never assessed A with the mother and family.
· Therefore His Honour is fully aware that the guardian has, is and always will provide a one-sided on-going assessment to the court. The mother alleges that that His Honour’s blinded acceptance of the guardian’s one-sided on-going assessment is not only mismanagement of the case but in fact proof of corruptness within these proceedings. The mother alleges the judge is not acting in the correct conduct. The judge must show the same justice to all parties, however by refusing to take action regards the guardian not assessing us and then simply taking the guardians word for everything and acting upon the words in a knee jerk reaction the mother alleges this is misconduct. This is because the reaction of the judge usually has a profound and lasting effect upon the child and the mother, in total HHJ Tyzack has taken 15 months to take both children away from both parents, The judge can not for one second say his work in this case has been of a positive nature for either the children or each birth parent, and the stepfather. It is the judges disregard for the Baggaleys and discrimination against them that has led to a family being wiped apart, yet this case for the previous 5 years was kept together by HHJ Robertshaw. The outcome so far alone shows a judge intent on wrecking the family life of these children.
· His Honour has consistently stated certain things in hearings and then at following hearings has refused to accept that he stated it or simply and wrongfully states that he did not say it, however the mother notes for the period that His Honour has been involved that this does not seem to apply to the other parties in the case.
· An example of this is where His Honour Judge Tyzack stated in one hearing that it is obvious that Nigel Baggaley should be made party to the case to enable him to question and answer to allegations that involve him directly yet at the following hearing where the actual application was made simply asked the other parties “do you agree to Nigel Baggaley being made party to the case”. They disagreed and His Honour simply ruled Nigel Baggaley could not be made party to the case, simply going against everything that was stated at the previous hearing. This was and remains an abundantly clear mismanagement of the case. The fact all allegations that have led to the child being taken into interim care are solely surrounding Nigel Baggaley for the umteenth time in this case shows the judge mismanaging this case. It is essential Nigel Baggaley is able to answer to and question the allegations made against him by parties who live 200 miles away from our home, consider the allegations were made once again by a (father) who was having his 7th mental breakdown at the time (and sectioned later) it is mismanagement of the case that no finding of facts hearing has been allowed. The mother alleges the judge is purpously avoiding a finding of facts hearing as he and the other parties in the case can not and will not be able to find fact on allegations made originally in May 2010 that the same judge staed catorgorically “these are not issues that relate to allegations of a risk of significant harm. When the judge is fully aware the issues are exactly the same in November 2010 when this time the judge states they are allegations of significant harm, the judge has used the time since the child has been in interim care (10 months) to witch-hunt the mother and family in order to shore up the case against the mother. The mother alleges the judge helps the other parties, in their case against the mother and family.
· Some of the decisions made by His Honour Judge Tyzack are simply non-understandable and below an expectable standard for a judge of the high vourt.
· in the light of the evidence before the court. A was placed in interim care in December 2010. The mother has consistently asked His Honour, face to face in court to provide her with the reasons and evidence for placing A on a section 37 order and secondly the evidence used for the welfare safety checklist calculator.
· On every occasion His Honour Judge Tyzack has refused to comment or bypassed the mother’s requests by either shouting at the mother or changing the subject, refusing to answer the questions. The fact is and the mother alleges this officially, the mother believes His Honour does not actually know why he made the original order or cannot remember why. These actions by His Honour to refuse the mother any explanation puts the mother’s case at a clear disadvantage and prevents the mother from appealing the decision on the section 37 and interim care order due to the fact that the mother is blind as to the reasons. This is clear mismanagement of the case and a clear abuse of the process by His Honour Judge Tyzack. The mother is entitled to know the reasons for the courts decisions
· The mother alleges that His Honour Judge Tyzack and the guardian have chosen to ignore serious and severe harm caused to the children by the father DR. A.H. Kazeem.
· The mother alleges the court, the guardian and Torbay Social Services have conspired to protect Mr. Kazeem in the hope to return the boys to their father in the long-term.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack has purposely taken no action regards the emotional harm the children suffered when living with their mentally ill father. All parties except the Burtons and Leicestershire County Council have shown no concern whatsoever regards what actually took place with the children in the father’s care. In specific the father was telling the children the mother was dead for 6 months and not having a proper sense of whether he is well or delusional.
· The court simply allow the father open contact for as long and as many times as he wishes. Considering this was the father’s 8th sectioning and still not fully recovered from his last release from a psychiatric ward it is clear the court have no qualms leaving the boys in his care alone at a time when if this case was managed correctly the children would not be allowed within 10 feet of the father. This is clear mismanagement of this case and His Honour Judge Tyzack is prepared to put the children at further risk from their father, his honour shows a clear favorotism for the father,whom can not put a foot wrong.. There is no psychiatric opinion before the court stating that the father is safe to have unsupervised contact with the children. No psychiatric reports were sought before allowing contact to go ahead.
· At the same time further mismanagement of the case is abundantly clear where His Honour takes no action to protect the children from a father who it is agreed has caused emotional harm to the children and the evidence is abundant. Yet the court has no evidence regards the mother or step-father causing emotional harm to either child. Yet this case is so badly mismanaged that the mother and step-father are treated by the court as though the court has evidence as it does in the case of Mr. Kazeem. However the court does not have said evidence and therefore the court is in fact acting in a discriminate and persecuting manner against the mother and step-father. This is misconduct and mismanagement of the case.
· The court further mismanaged the interim care order of A in that the court refused to accept evidence from Miss. G, A's support teacher, refused to allow David Charleton, probation officer, to attend court to give evidence and has simply refused to acknowledge that all professionals who worked within A's life…. not only had no concerns but those professionals made it clear that A should remain where he was in Hinckley with the mother and family. This leaves the mother to make the allegation officially that the court in specific His Honour Judge Tyzack acted in an unjust and unprofessional manner by ignoring all of the professionals working with A except for one-Mr. Ingham, the guardian.
· The court should have managed this case in a fairer manner to the child and to the mother and family but instead chose to pursue a course of action that no matter what lack of evidence there was, no matter what the working professionals stated and no matter that the court was in possession of 5 separate social service assessments it is the opinion of the mother who alleges, His Honour Judge Tyzack had pre-arranged along with the guardian and Mark Williams what the outcome of this case would be.
· The mother therefore alleges His Honour has acted in a corrupt, unprofessional and devious manner, which the mother alleges amounts to misconduct. The mother makes this official allegation both to the court, Lord Wall and the Lord Chief Justice. This will also form part of an official complaint to The Office For Judicial Complaints. The mother is officially seeking a full and thorough investigation into this case since the involvement of His Honour Judge Tyzack and also seeks an official and thorough investigation into her allegations of corruptness and collusion between His Honour Judge Tyzack, Mark Williams and John Ingham.
· This official request for an investigation will also be copied into an application for a judicial review that will be made in the next 7 days and an application for appeal to The Royal Courts of Justice for appeal against orders relating to the interim care order where also an application will be made to The Royal Courts of Justice for the case to be restarted and transferred to the courts of London.
· The mother alleges His Honour Judge Tyzack and the guardian have conspired to make this case prolonged and protracted in order that social services became involved in the matter. The mother alleges this was done to prevent A living with the mother and the mother’s family for the rest of his childhood. The mother does not make these allegations lightly.
· The mother fully understands that these allegations are of the up most serious nature. The mother seeks that His Honour Judge Tyzack either remove himself or be removed from the case in full and not able to return to it.
· The mother is seeking the Head of The Family Court Division take steps to have investigators meet with the mother and step-father to take full statements and to see evidence
· The Mother also seeks The Head of The Family Division remove His Honour Judge Tyzack from the case and replace with Her Honour Judge Robertshaw or transfer the case to any court outside of Devon.
· HHJ Tyzack clearly has an agenda in this case that HHJ Robertshaw did not.
· The mother is aware of a connection between ex-detective sergeant Blair, John Ingham, Mark Williams, Val Reeves (cafcass), Stephen Williams (cafcass) and His Honour Judge Tyzack. These people are connected outside of their professional capacities. The mother alleges that there is sufficient cause of concern regarding the relationship between these professionals that it has an impact which is negative and discriminate against the mother and step-father.
· The mother is also seeking an independent inquiry/investigation into the lies given to the mother and Leicestershire County Council between the 18th August and 22nd August 2011.
· The Judge, the court office staff and Mark Williams all told blatant lies between these dates regards the court hearing due to take place 22nd August 2011.
· From the communications the mother has in her possession it is clear that the above parties colluded in an attempt to stop the hearing on the 22nd taking place. It is apparent they reached a decision together outside of official boundaries but then forgot what they told each other the reason was for the hearing not taking place.
· Because of this the mother received two completely different stories, one from the court and one from Mark Williams.
· The court stated the hearing for the 22nd August had been adjourned in June 2011, this was clearly untrue,
· a lie as the solicitor for Leicestershire County Council stated the court had only e-mailed her about the hearing the week previous regarding the hearing for the 22nd.
· Mark Williams at the same time said no listing had taken place what so ever for the hearing on the 22nd. When the mother pointed this out to all sides the discrepancies in each sides story the hearing was miraculously put back on.
· However HHJ Tyzack then made an order that he knew would prevent mother from attending the court by stating the mother would need to apply for step-father to attend the hearing. This was ordered knowing that the mother and step-father make a 400 mile round trip to appear in court.
· HHJ Tyzack knew the mother and step-father would not risk that amount of time and expense to be told the step-father cannot attend.
· This was a clear mismanagement of the case, the Judge had only previously in June 2011 stated that Mr and Mrs Baggaley are classed by the court as a singular unit,
· “Mr Baggaley can attend hearings and both Mr and Mrs Baggaley can address the court”.
· The mother states this is a typical example of HHJ Tyzack in the past 18 months. HHJ Tyzack’s inability to do what he says he will do from one hearing to the next hearing is unfair and unjust but it must be stated and the mother alleges that HHJ Tyzack’s forgetfulness or inability to link what he says from one hearing to the next somehow only seems to affect the mother. HHJ Tyzack’s memory is perfection for the other parties.
