BY RECORDED DELIVERYPenryn,

36 Springfield Avenue,Holbury,

New Forest District,Hampshire SO45 2LP,

United Kingdom.Monday 18th December, 2006

http://www.ukcorruption.euhttp://cafcassarecorrupt.com

http://www.cafcassareneonazis.comSign Petition To The United Nations => http://www.un1503petition.com

Mr. Anthony Douglas,The Chief Executive,CAFCASS,8th Floor,Wyndham House,189 Marsh Wall,London E14 9SH,United Kingdom.

Dear Chief Executive Of CAFCASS/ Mr. Anthony Douglas,

Re: The Abuse, Cover-ups & Perjury Of CAFCASS Continue

CAFCASS’s Racist, Pro-Mother, Anti-Children And Anti-Father Stance

I am aggrieved by your failure to once again to personally respond to my letter of the 28.12.05(press/others see above website) dispatched by recorded post. Passing CAFCASS's abuses to yoursubordinates to answer is effectively covering YOUR back from what is YOUR responsibility andaccountability as the Chairman of CAFCASS.

Again, I also sincerely believe that CAFCASS are persistently using the will of time to wilfullyabuse the Human Rights of my mixed race children and myself, a black Asian father. Despitewhat CAFCASS might want to think, the issues in my letter of the 28.12.05 will NOT GO AWAYWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME or to decoy letters such as 17.02.06 (attached and responded to – atback of this document), but are effectively more provocative untruths and stalling tactics in theexpectation that I get fed up and go away.

Once again, I am re-attaching my letter of the 28.12.05 as CAFCASS has deliberately failed torespond to the issues I have raised. As CAFCASS purports to be a independent public body, andas a accountable lucratively paid public servant, I require you to PERSONALLY respond FULLYhonestly, openly & publically to ALL the issues I have raised in my letter of the 28.12.05including CAFCASS's unrelenting support for a mother who has been severely criticized by severalLord Justices at the Court Of Appeal [1][2][3][4] as:-

“inconsiderate”, “manipulative behaviour”, “discourteous”, “unfeeling”, “not the way decent parents behavetowards each other”, “deplorable”, “disruptive”, “she should be ashamed or herself”, “extremely hostile”,“thoroughly deceitful” and acting against the best interests of her very own children. ….

LJ Ward [1] also stated that: “I will direct that a copy of this judgement be prepared and sent both to the fatherand, more importantly, to the mother; more importantly, because I think that she should read it, reflect upon itin the deep dark hours of the evening, and ask herself whether this degree of hostile conduct to the father is infact beneficial for her children.”

Page 1 Of 19

Further, I believe that whilst, not making the following statements lightly or without duecare and consideration or without hard factual proof, your CAFCASS Guardian, a Mr. Paul D.Bishop is thoroughly biased and has acted unprofessionally. He has wilfully acted the againstthe best interests of the children for the mothers sole benefit, as has been the case withCAFCASS from day-1 and knowingly allowed by children to be abused. Again, the administrationof the UK Family Courts will NEVER say anything against its eyes and ears called CAFCASS, solong as they abide my the covert State policy rules of greater than 95% [Sir Geldof and TheTimes] custody to mothers – figures yet unchallenged or more importantly, disputed openly bythe UK Court Service, DCA [7] or others. A perfect symbiotic relationship, CAFCASS promotemother custody at all costs and in return they get protection & appropriate deafness fromsome of the seriously misconceived Judiciary. And as an added bonus for CAFCASS, they alsoget unfettered access to the bottomless Legal Aid Board fund. It is my belief, that Chairman,you are FULLY COHESIVE IN THE MATTER, but your lucrative renumeration and possible prospectsof promotion ensures your absolute personal reticence in the matter.

Your unprofessional Guardians transgressions include (I welcome the International and NationalMedia wishing to expose the corruption contained in these letters):-

1. Like your “liar” and deceitful Miss Christine Leslie, who stated in Court Before a LawSociety Expert Witness (Dr. Badsha) that she was there for the mother and one who fileda report in contradiction to the Court Of Appeal findings and WITHOUT seeing orconsulting the black father, your “Guardian” has done exactly the SAME !!!!! YourGuardian had over 6-solid calendar months to arrange this meeting, as HISRESPONSIBILITY as a “Guardian” to make arrangements and not otherwise he would liketo deceitfully portray to cover-up his failings, giving adequate notice to his meeting ANDbefore serving/filing ANY report. SO NOW, CAFCASS HAVE TWICE FILED REPORTS INTOPROCEEDINGS FAILING TO MEET WITH MYSELF TO DISCUSS THE CHILDREN'S WELFARE.This is a breach of my children and my rights, including:-

The UK Children Act (1989)The UN Convention Of The International Rights Of A Child (1998) Articles INCLUDING art-2Including Art-14 HRA (1998)Race Discrimination Act (1976 & 2000)Sex Discrimination Act (1975)Equality BillProtocol 12, ETS-177The Data Protection Act

2. For the record, I making known clearly your Guardian has gone against the wishes of my3-children (aged 9 downwards), who clearly 1st stated they wanted to stay with thefather, then the father again. Your unilaterally selected and appointed childPsychologist stated this and the Guardian confirmed this in his very own report. It shouldbe clearly noted, that after 4-years of being with their mother, not for once did thechildren say they wanted to stay with her. For the record, CAFCASS have wilfullyabused and gone against my children's Human Rights. I refer CAFCASS to the SundayTimes article 23.07.05 (by Alexandra Frean) where you as Chairman stated that CAFCASSwould follow the children wishes of where they want to stay, including:-

“Most children over the age of 7, 8 or 9, depending on their emotional development, will have avery clear view of what they want to happen. That view should stand unless there aresafeguarding issues or some other overriding welfare issues.”

This is what CAFCASS's own unilaterally appointed Psychologist said, and supported yourown Guardian, regarding myself (see below) and there WAS NOT A SINGLE POSITIVEcomment regarding the mother that I aware of:-

“The children seemed to interact slightly less with the mother than their father”

Page 2 Of 19

“Boys were absorbed with their father and he was child focussed throughout”

“H said that she would like to spend more time with their father”

“They clearly enjoy spending time with him both at his home and the outing they have together”

“I have no doubt that contact are a very positive experience for H, B and T. Their reaction totheir father suggests that what I observed is their usual experience of him”

“It is clear that Mr. Chauhan is skilled in both entertaining, stimulating and caring for thechildren.”…

“Mr Chauhan was able to engage in a developmentally appropriate was so as to entertain andstimulate the children.”

“As previously suggested father was flexible in his engagement with his children and showedgood quality engagement”…

“In general, the children were very relaxed and responsive to the father, with the father beingequally responsive to the children and able to move between the children...”

“It is unlikely that she (the mother) would be able to take on other aspectsrelated to the children’s developmental needs as regards giving them apositive image”

Yet despite all of this, my children's own wishes who stated they wanted to stay withme and who are aged in this bracket mentioned by YOU as CAFCASS chairman, CAFCASSstill goes against their wishes. Clearly your interview to the press was just mere mediahype and perjury. Rather than listen to the children's views, CAFCASS has backed aimplacable, deceitful, manipulative mother who is on record for holding racists views.This is the role model that CAFCASS wants to raise impressionable children, to I purportproactively perpetuate child abuse and promote widespread destruction of the nuclearfamily unit. Whilst the Government has weapons of mass destruction, CAFCASS has massweapons of destruction and lies, bent on the destruction of families.

Here, I cite the case of Mark Harris where £750000 (¾ of million pounds) of hard earnedtax payers monies wasted by the UK Legal services (from the Legal Aid Board fund freelygiven to CAFCASS and mothers) to enforce mother custody and keep away their father.This is a well known case in which where at the end the day, the children voted withtheir feet and went to stay with their father (Plymouth Sunday Independent 2003).

I/We the real tax payer, would like to know how much profit CAFCASS and itsagents have gained by using the state Legal Aid slush fund in my case to goagainst the wishes of my children and to fully support a thoroughly deceitful,hostile, manipulative mother who acts against the best interests of her childrenand supports racist views?

3. The Legal Aid Board fund scam does not end there, CAFCASS's agents who aren't evenmentioned in the unilaterally made and out of Court, Court Order, even at one pointclaimed to be the formal acting Solicitors for my under-aged, un-consulted children, evenwhen there had been NO Court Order to this effect. Their intent, as is my belief thatCAFCASS are fully aware of, is to ensure that ANY opposition to mother custody wassystematically CRUSHED and at the same time, as a reward for assisting CAFCASS, theycould freely milk more monies from the Legal Aid Board slush fund. Its not surprising why

Page 3 Of 19

the Legal Aid Board is in such a dire state, monies all derived from hard earned taxpayers to promote child abuse.

4. At the last full hearing in February-2006, your Guardian was solidly entrenched for everyreason under the sun to PROTECT mother custody at all costs. I cite the case of AngelaCannings' (white and female) who was jailed, had her children taken into alternativecare, and then instantly reunited with her child when wrongdoings were exposed inher case. Further, in another recent case (July-2006), the House of Lords, overturned theruling in favour of a lesbian partner (implication being they had more rights thanbiological fathers in custody cases), immediately re-uniting the children with theirbiological recalcitrant mother.

In my case, even the Court Of Appeal has quite forcefully stated that the mother isdeceitful, dishonest, manipulative, acting against the best interests of her very ownchildren, the mother has even made several malicious false allegations to have mearrested, imprisoned and permanently removed from the children's lives. Even thechildren have responded to your agents that they wanted to stay with myself (black andmale). Yet YOUR CAFCASS GUARDIAN and his unilaterally appointed agents areemphatically opposed to ANY CHANGE OF RESIDENCE !

5. Your Guardian deliberately failed to disclose as your Miss Christine Leslie, that I amCACHE/NCMA ICP qualified in Child Minding Practice together with first aid skills forbabies and children. Your Guardian was fully aware of this as during his observationsession of the children in my loving care, he carefully scrutinised my formal qualificationsfor several moments (this was also in my statements if CAFCASS have ever bothered toread them). I purport the Guardian, omitted that I am a qualified child carer in his reportbecause he wanted nothing to jeopardize mother custody, as is the CAFCASSorganisations pro-mother stance which its trade Union NAPO fully endorses.

6. For the record, your Guardian ambushed me with CAFCASS's statement, not at the startof the day of the hearing as the mothers legal team have done in the past, but well intoactual course of proceedings, giving me (a LIP) already under tremendous pressure of theproceedings, zero time to read through and understand a statement bristling with caselaw, legal arguments and deceptions. There is no doubt in mind that your Guardian wasacting UNPROFESSIONALLY, maliciously and abusing the judicial process to ensurethat I (a LIP) would have zero time to mount any defence in the best interests of thechildren. Your Guardian should have filed his statement at-same time as the contestingparties did and not as '3-nano-seconds' before my surprise cross examination announcedby CAFCASS's Guardian, supposedly a professional, who has also for the record written forNAPO. Also by filing so late, your Guardian will have had sight of both parties statementand arguments before tailoring his statement to cover-up for the mother. This is breachof Human Rights articles including 3, 6, 14, 17 HRA(1998), Art-13 ECtHR and to put it verysimply in my view, CORRUPT. Please state in writing how many other times thisGuardian (and other CAFCASS Guardians) has/(have) used this mastered techniquebefore in other cases?

7. Your CAFCASS Guardian has been caught doctoring the case trial bundles (and caseSummary doctoring) which he unilaterally made-himself bundle custodian of. Furtheryour Guardian wanted to unilaterally filter and decide what went into the trial bundles -LJ Thorpe (unreported) stated that it was upto the contesting parties to decide whatwent into the case bundles. Never mind the contesting parties, here we have a CAFCASSGuardian who unilaterally decides what does and what does not go into the trial bundles!I purport the CAFCASS Guardians aim is to maintain full control and use highly refinedoppressive techniques for the mothers sole benefit. Plus, addition to fixing the bundles,and as a reward, CAFCASS and its agents will have gained vast amount of monies for

Page 4 Of 19

creating this extra work for themselves – again free liberal abuse of the Legal Aid Boardslush fund monies.

8. Despite having fully notified CAFCASS of its trial bundle (and case Summary) doctoring,your Guardian went on to deliberately fail to supply the trial bundles long before thehearing.

I purport your CAFCASS Guardian failed to supply the trial bundles and/or updatedfinal index beforehand – because he knows I would have immediately identified andalerted the authorities to the fact he left OUT 2 FULL VOLUMES OF EVIDENCECONTAINING SEVERAL ARTICLES OF EVIDENCE TO THE MOTHERS WRONGDOINGSINCLUDING HER MOTIVES FOR DIVORCE (SOLE PERSONAL BENEFIT AND FINANCIALPREMEDITATED FRAUD – to date of around £250000). For the record and the partiescopied to this letter, the deliberately excluded Volumes contained a true untwistedchronology of events, several letters of the mothers previous hostilities, abuse of thechildren by the mother, the mothers rich mantra of false allegations and perjury to severthe children's links with myself, communication from her very own parents welcoming meinto their house during and a greetings card from the mother herself to me (both duringdivorce proceedings and allegations against me) - these smack directly in the face of herfalse allegations. The volumes also contained proof that she even rejected birthday cardssent to her own 5-year son, her premeditation including valuations of the formermatrimonial home to sell-up and move, her financial fraud or large money moves, astatement from myself at CAFCASS's own request (to Mr. David Angus, another CAFCASSManager), stating clearly what the mothers plans were back in April-2002, etc., etc.,etc....

Please state clearly whether techniques of bundle doctoring, omitting evidence anddeliberately supplying late the trial bundles is a standard taught practice within CAFCASSorganisation for its officers and Guardians? Also please disclose how many times thisGuardian has acted in this manner before to other unwitting parents?

9. These 2 trial bundles that were maliciously omitted by CAFCASS were specificallyOrdered for the trial by Recorder Phillips and your Guardian and your unilaterallyappointed agents were ALL fully made aware of this. These are the same 2 bundles thatthe CAFCASS Guardian said before witnesses went missing from the Bristol Court. For thebenefit of the others copied to this letter, this is the FOURTH (4) time my documentshave gone conveniently missing from the UK Family Courts or more “coincidental”occurrences as some at the UK Court Service HQ have already tried to elude. For therecord I am making it absolutely clear these 2 bundles were supplied to him andSPECIFICALLY instructed to be included in the final trial bundles. Had I supplied theCAFCASS Guardian the “original” bundles (not copies) as he had first requested, thenI am no doubt that this evidence would have been irrevocably been lost.

In Lille & Reed, in both courts, criminal and civil, found that exculpating one party by omittingevidence, “She edited out what she though was irrelevant, for example matters favourable to Mrs Reed, exonerated herself of any liability”.

In the case of Re-J (Care proceedings: disclosure) [2003] 2 FLR 522 FD, the court stated theconcealment in an attempt to mislead the absent parent and the court, cannot be justified. Weare talking of the principle “in the best interest of the children”.

10. In fact, I recall when I stated I was going to use these trial bundles as Ordered byRecorder Phillips in the full hearing in 2006, so intent was your CAFCASS Guardian thatthis didn't happen, he immediately forced through another unnecessary and lucrativelyfinancially rewarding (as CAFCASS and his agents have free unfettered access to the LegalAid Board slush fund), a Kangaroo Court emergency hearing (21st-July-2005) at less

Page 5 Of 19

than 24-hours notice to make himself the custodian so that he could continue to carryhis premeditated and unfettered bundle doctoring, case Summary doctoring andother abuses to the children under the guise of the Court and the Law. FurtherCAFCASS knew from my previous statements and Court papers that my employers (awell known Dutch electronics Company) were totally “peeved” & exasperated as the factwhether I was or was not going into work, now rightfully required from me at-least at-least 7-days notice to any leave of absence from my employment duties andresponsibilities. CAFCASS knew this fact fully well from documented evidence alreadyin their possession and I purport wanted to doubly ensure that I could not attend thishearing to minimize any opposition to their covert plans to support mother custody at allcosts. At a previous Kangaroo Court hearing at the Salisbury Court in December-2003(there have been several in this case – more random, singular 'coincidental'occurrences that some at UK Court Service HQ would again like to elude), it led to theHuman Rights (1998) abuses of my children and myself (upheld Court Of Appeal – LJWard [1]). This is what LJ Ward stated then:-

“Where therefore does that leave Mr C? It leaves him, not surprisingly, protesting to me thathe did not receive a fair trial of this important matter. Whether he relies on Article 6, as hedoes, or whether he relies on fundamental principles of English law, there is veryconsiderable force in his submission. On any showing he has been rail-roaded into thishearing, given limited notice, presented with additional documents and given very littleopportunity to marshall his opposition to what is for him and the children a fundamentalchange in their lifestyle.”

Obviously Human Rights are an alien concept to CAFCASS (with the exception of aliencontact centres they promote for parents – yet it amazes me that CAFCASS have theaudacity to refer to Human Rights articles on their website to give themselves credibilityas purveyors of truth and justice (see my earlier letters attached). At the last fullhearing on the 23.02.2006 in Bristol, I even recall the CAFCASS Guardian giving generouscredibility to this Salisbury Court Kangaroo Court hearing in breach of Art-6 HRA(1998)and Common Law to protect mother custody!

11. For the record, at the totally ex-parte Kangaroo Court hearing (21.07.2005, fullytranscripted) initiated by your Guardian and solely attended by himself, he has on recordacted impartially, made what I believe to denigrating remarks against myself and takenmeasures to “fix” the full hearing to protect mother custody, in this case a mother who ison record as acting against the best interest of her very own children – Court Of Appeal[1][2][3][4].

The Fascicle Full Hearing Of The 23.02.2006 At Bristol County Court

12. At the start of the day of the hearing, there was a round table discussion and as hasalways been the case, CAFCASS were adamantly opposed to any other form of custodywith the exception of sole mother custody. All parties with the exception of yourGuardian, were frank and open and stated that no questions would be asked or be anycross examinations. Your Guardian was less than open in that not only did he not declarehe would be AGGRESSIVELY cross examining myself, but he didn't even give or evendeclare CAFCASS's hidden and undisclosed statement that they would be filing into theproceedings revealing CAFCASS's true pro-mother position. I purport this is purepremeditated and tactical oppressive technique that this CAFCASS Guardian has masteredover many years of abuse against children's and fathers like myself, and all appropriatelycontained behind the secrecy of the ulterior motivated UK Family Court.

13.Well into the formal proceedings, your professional Guardian waited till the last nano-second before declaring that he would be cross examining me and then outside the Court

Page 6 Of 19

room, he then ambushed me (a Litigant In Person) with CAFCASS's statement and then Irecall the Guardian stating – the mother been just given this statement too. Verymisleading, as the mother has nothing to be concerned about because CAFCASS have atrack record of backing this mother for her sole benefit since day-1 back in 2002, all atthe expense of the children. CAFCASS fully know the Law and that they should havefiled their statement AT THE SAME TIME AS THE CONTESTING PARTIES. It is my beliefthat by filing so late, the Guardian was expecting CAFCASS's pro-mother views wouldremain unchallenged given the zero time to respond and the document would be formallyaccepted into the case archives. This was done to minimize any later redress such asCAFCASS's ACADEMIC and Satanically engineered, incestuous, self-executed, self-audited,self-concluded, behind closed doors and exceptionally extended, no accountability,cover-up farcical complaints process.

This is the covert behaviour of CAFCASS's finest professional Guardians who also writtenfor your Professional Association Group in NAPO publication. This unprofessionalbehaviour by your Guardian for monetary reward was witnessed by several peopleincluding A Law Society Expert Witness, my scribe, myself and others. I would like toremind CAFCASS that in Raja v. Austin Gray [2002] EWCA Civ 1965, para-12 the Court wasof the opinion that where there are professionals being financially rewarded, they shouldact professionally. Please state how many times before this CAFCASS Guardian hasdeliberately withheld his true position regarding cross-examination and served/fileddocuments late into legal proceedings and contesting parties?

14. For the record, the pro-mother CAFCASS Guardian was opposed TO ANY CHANGE OFCUSTODY from the mother, even flatly refusing myself joint custody recommendation ofthe children who are of mixed race. This is even despite what has happened to date andthe mother has been severely criticized for acting against the best interests by LJ Ward,L Thorpe and Justice Munby [1][2][3][4]. This is all witnessed by several people includinga Law Society Expert Witness. I purport CAFCASS rather than doing the right thing for thechildren, would rather see them being abused by their mother, then to go against amother and admit a failure on their behalf. CAFCASS's actions are in direct contradictionto the slogan they like use 'Putting children first...', but the reality is should be moreappropriately renamed to 'Putting, deceitful, hostile, manipulative and racist mothers first'.

15. At the Court hearing (23.02.2006), its no great surprise to me that the CAFCASS Guardianand his agent sat immediately very close and side-by-side to the mother. This alignsperfectly with the NAPO stance on fully supporting mothers to the hilt for their solebenefit and the support of anti-hetero sexual relationships as is their NAPO trade unionstance (for the benefit of the press – see my previous letters attached regarding theNAPO stance).

16. The perverted cross examination (interrogation as described by others) I receivedwas fierce and AGGRESSIVE, with your Guardian deliberately trying to slip in lies,twist and contort and deceitfully cover-up for his malicious acts and it was blatantlyclear your GUARDIAN was acting no different to the deceitful mothers barristers that Ihave had the misfortune to experience. At end this curtailed interrogation I felt thoroughly abused by your Guardian. All this is factually witnessed (including by aLaw Society Expert Witness) and is fully transcripted.

17. For the record, your Guardian, having already granted himself previous extensions(including at the ex-parte Kangaroo Court Hearing solely attended by himself), filed hisreport some 1.5-months late without meeting me as he required to do so by Court Order.

Page 7 Of 19

I do not accept his excuses that he was waiting for the psychologists report – alignmentand plagiarism comes mind, but MORE IMPORTANTLY this tells me that all he wanted todo was simply align himself and simply rubber stamp his agents work and relief himself ofany accountability and fail to carry job as required by roles and responsibilities of a trueindependent professional Guardian.

Your Guardian deliberately filed his report late in breach of the Court Order, I purport towilfully drastically reduce the time allowed for the contesting parties (both LIP) to writetheir responding statements regarding his biased report and with the full knowledge thatthe Court would be unlikely to move the long awaited hearing date. For the record, yourGuardian had over 6-solid calender months to write his report and meet with myself.Again, mother has no qualms with CAFCASS filing late, because CAFCASS are a pro-motherorganisation and have backed her 100% to date. As a direct result of CAFCASS'sengineered actions I was not given an opportunity file a full comprehensive statement.

Let us not forget, that the CAFCASS Guardian has been well financially rewarded fromthe Legal Aid Board fund to carry these tasks. Again in Raja v. Austin Gray [2002] EWCACiv 1965, para-12 the Court was of the opinion that where there are professionals beingfinancially rewarded, they should act professionally. Please state clearly how manytimes your professional Guardian has deliberately filed his report late and wilfullybreached Court Orders?

18. For the record, in the unilaterally consulted (mother only) and deliberately delayed childwelfare report by your professional Guardian, I am making fully known, he wilfully misledthe Court by stating that the one (of many) local School I was proposing to send thechildren, should I be granted custody of the children, was marked for closure. This is agross incomplete untruth, as this professional Guardian should have gone onto say thatthe infant and primary/junior schools on the same grounds were simply beingamalgamated under a new name.

19.The mother has already made know her racists views to myself and in Court(transcripted). In fact even before your own unilaterally appointed child psychologist saidshe stated that her very own children of mixed race and complexion 'were white with asun tan'. Sick. Your appointed Psychologist even suggested racial therapy for her for herto realize the needs of her children of mixed race. But at the full hearing your CAFCASSGuardian made every possible excuse on her behalf to free the mother for the need ofany racial counselling, and as I recall the reasons YOUR GUARDIAN put in the mothersmouth and which CAFCASS backed was a suddenly a lack of funding for the mother toreceive this mandatory treatment for the children's benefit. Yet, whilst CAFCASS wereclaiming and putting words in her mouth that she did not have the money for racialcounselling, CAFCASS were pressing the Court with all manner of OTHER totallyunnecessary counselling, therapy etc. in my view, to use my children for some seriouslysick minded social experiment to irrevocably totally screw-up their lives andnecessitating long term therapy for life. Monies ALL coming directly from the Legal AidBoard slush fund that CAFCASS have tapped into for themselves and your aligned agents. Ipurport, he CAFCASS Guardians secondary aim was to ensure that there would not be, yetanother wrongdoing on their recalcitrant mothers historical record. So, we now haveCAFCASS refusing to first and foremost, remove mixed race children from the arms of aknown racist and then as a secondary measure, arrange mandatory racial counselling forthe mother who also holds racists views and making all efforts ensure this does not go onher already tainted record. The point that CAFCASS first raised on behalf of the mother isthat she has no money for her counselling, to which the mother readily agreed. Another

Page 8 Of 19

untruth, as the mother has premeditated [Upheld [1] LJ Ward] severance of themarriage together with financial fraud of around £250000+, further CAFCASS are unwillingto use the Legal Aid Board fund for a genuine purpose.

20.As CAFCASS is fully aware (from my predictions sent to CAFCASS's Mr. David Angus atSalisbury back in April-2002), the mother has taken the children of mixed race to an areaof predominantly Caucasian race (Devon/Cornwall), and as a result the children will besubjected to racial torment and denial of their dual cultural heritage. Even your ownCAFCASS Guardian personally witnessed the mother lying to him when she claimed thatthis was not an issue as there was a large immigrant population in Callington, Cornwall.Your own Guardians research showed that the School in Callington had ALL WHITE pupilsand NO OTHER ethnic groups mentioned and the mother was clearly lying. Even yourdisgraceful officers in Salisbury (Mr. Richard King-Li and Ms. Judith Kennard) witnessedthe mother lying back in 2002 (stated in their pro-mother report), yet despite this,CAFCASS bow to her every personal want. For the record your Guardian stated thechildren had 'Asian features' in his report, but despite this and the duality of theirheritage he not deem it necessary for the children of mixed race to learn theirbilateral Asian tongue. Obviously race, language and cultural ethnicity are not importantissues for CAFCASS, an organisation whose 1st priority is supposedly meant to be lookingafter 3 children of mixed race and dual heritage. It is a pity that CAFCASS have ensuredthat the children's Caucasian heritage, language etc. have been carefully maintained andnurtured, whilst they have paid less than scant negligent regard to the children's dualAsian cultural heritage and language (see Gaskin v UK 1989 Series A no 159 p16 §39).

It is with deep regret that at in April 2006, my fears have been confirmed and the motherhas finally admitted AFTER the Court hearing of 23.02.2006 that the children of mixedrace are being harassed/bullied at their School in Gunnislake since the start of this year(in my view quite likely to be much, much earlier than this). CAFCASS were advised ofthis in my short statement for the February 2006 Court hearing, but again theyknowingly choose to ignore this fact and backed their mother SOLIDLY, whocoincidentally lied again on oath and stated that there was no such problem(transcripted).

BASED ON FACTUAL EVIDENCE AND BEHAVIOURS (McPherson Report from StephenLawrence Enquiry [8]) OF CAFCASS TO DATE, I AM IN NO DOUBT CAFCASS ARE PURERACISTS AND IN MY VIEW, CAFCASS HAVE NO QUALMS ALLOWING YOUNG CHILDREN OFMIXED RACE TO BE KNOWINGLY ABUSED.

21. Under CAFCASS's pro-mother well-engineered cross examination, the mother once againcommitted perjury in Court and under oath, stating she was always fully cooperative, andshe was the nice-nice pleasant truthful and caring mother... I must admit CAFCASS did anexcellent job and brought out the mother well to portray her in a very co-operative,constructive and positive light. If the CAFCASS Guardian had bothered to read and to anyof the documentation in his possession, as is the responsibility of any true professionaland forensically examined ALL the evidence in this case, then he will have known themother has a track history of hostility, lies and false allegations. However I am of thebelief he knew this and tried to cover-up for her. Another recent example of themothers deceitful behaviour (directly after the hearing in Feb-2006) is that the motherclaims to be fully co-operative, nice and pleasant always acting in the children's interestsin Court, yet then immediately after the hearing, she then covertly writes to the Court tocircumvent a discussion that she should have had with me regarding the children'sarrangements! Again, CAFCASS have have just simply cast aside my words and moreimportantly the words of LJ Ward, LJ Thorpe and Justice Munby [1][2][3][4] who ALL

Page 9 Of 19

describe the mother as deceitful, dishonest, disruptive, manipulative and acting againstthe best interests of her very own children.

22. Well, CAFCASS, UNLAWFULLY got what they wanted from the February 2006 hearing, aSection 91(14) Order. This Order refuses any further applications to the Court, asCAFCASS's feminist, Mrs Christine Leslie initiated this at the recalcitrant mothers solerequest on the basis that it was undermining the mother. The Children don't come intothe equation for CAFCASS. Remember, that BOTH Miss Christine Leslie the CAFCASSGuardian have BOTH written welfare reports WITHOUT meeting the myself as theyare required to do by National And International Law for the best interests of theChildren. So now, using the UK State Legal Aid Board slush fund, CAFCASS have grantedtheir role mother, who holds racists views, who has been forcefully criticized by theCourt Of Appeal as acting against the best interests of her very own children, a freelicence to continue to abuse the children however she wants, for her sole benefit andgratification, with the full knowledge that her transgressions will be covered-up byCAFCASS. PURE CORRUPTION are too politer words to describe by views and feelingshere.

It is my belief that CAFCASS are expecting the mother to use this time wisely to herbenefit by totally poisoning the children's minds (a concept known as Parent AlienationSyndrome – PAS [5] recognised by the rest of planet Earth), further they are relying onthe fact that the children will become so entrenched in the locality, the next time theychildren are asked where do they want to stay by CAFCASS, they will say the mother, andthis time, CAFCASS WILL ACT to totally remove me from the children's lives.CAFCASS's hatred of PAS is shown by the extreme extents the Guardian went trashPAS and its experts in this case. But, akin to the ulterior motivated (money) tobaccoindustry and the BSE scam, they must trash the concept of PAS, because to acknowledgeits true existence, then makes it impossible for them to continue mother custody at-all-costs, and for once they might really have to think about the children's welfare first.

Historical Record For Redress Under Statutory National And International Law

For the record I am making known that that CAFCASS are in full support of a mother who notonly holds racists views, but even had racial counselling recommended for by their ownappointed Psychologist to raise impressionable children of mixed race. This is a mother withsome serious problems and in in my view - denial, one who describes her children of mixed raceand complexion as “white with a sun tan” and one where CAFCASS's own psychologist describesher “It is unlikely that she (the mother) would be able to take on other aspects related tothe children’s developmental needs as regards giving them a positive image”. Rather thantaking first priority and removing the children from a known racists arms, CAFCASS' would ratherback a racist mother, and jointly together deny the children their Human Rights to experiencethe duality of their heritage.

For the record, CAFCASS at you own requests were advised (Mr. David Angus in 2002) clearlywhat the mother would do, step by step, which included denying the children their culturalheritage. CAFCASS have no qualms, no conscience whatsoever that the children of mixed raceare being abused by their racist mother for her sole benefit, in fact CAFCASS are so pervertedthey abet and aid the mother by fully supporting her. There is no doubt that The welfare of thechildren is paramount CA(1989) has been substituted for the mother by CAFCASS's actions todate. For the benefit of others copied to this letter, here are the actual list of concerns I sentback to to CAFCASS in April-2002 (at the CAFCASS's Managers, Mr. David Angus of Salisbury'sCAFCASS's request), which CAFCASS wilfully ignored for the sole benefit of the mothers:-

● Her strong desire to return to Devon. Current status - executed

Page 10 Of 19

● My lack of access to my children. Current status – executed● My children’s access to their Asian family & heritage. Current status - executed● Her ongoing lack of care of the children. Current status - Ongoing torment abuse of the

children

It should be noted for the record that the Salisbury CAFCASS Manager, Mr. David Angus in latercommunications claimed that he knew nothing about the relocation of the mother. Liar.

The mother’s ongoing lack of care, her neglect of the children’s welfare and needs has beenproven time and time again. She appears to have no qualms in using and abusing the children toachieve her own purely selfish desires. These circumstances will persist until the authorities actto prevent it from occurring.

Whilst most true professional proactive learning organisations, put right their wrongs, learn fromtheir mistakes and put into place corrective measures, CAFCASS have adopted a radicallydifferent and novel approach, that is to persistently COVER-UP and commit perjury.

For the record, CAFCASS have to date, treated myself, the black Asian father with guttercontempt and CAFCASS continues to fully support a mother who:-

● Several Lord Justices at UK Court Of Appeal [1][2][3][4] have described the mother as: “inconsiderate”,“manipulative behaviour”, “discourteous”, “unfeeling”, “not the way decent parents behave towardseach other”, “deplorable”, “disruptive”, “she should be ashamed or herself”, “extremely hostile”,“thoroughly deceitful” and acting against the best interests of her very own children. ….

● A mother who PREMEDITATED (upheld LJ Ward[1]) severance of the marriage whose sole purpose for divorcewas financial gain (£250000+) and so that she be closer to her other divorced girlfriends in Devon/Cornwall,using the children as mere sacrificial porns for her sole personal gain.

● A mother who even covertly sells the roof over the children's heads without making any future planswhatsoever for them (my prediction passed to CAFCASS from day-1).

● A mother who not only covertly sells the children's roof over their heads, but wilfully and maliciously cutstheir contact with myself, over 60% contact reduction (figures seen by LJ Ward [1]).

● A mother who states in Court that the children can freely talk to me over the phone, yet when the childrenhave freely phoned me, the mother immediately terminates the calls (these calls will be itemised &logged).

● A mother who demands money from her very own children (all aged 10 and below) if they want to speak totheir father (sick) and also to act as painful deterrent to make contact with myself.

● A mother who has made racist remarks including 'its in the Asian culture to abuse'.● A mother who describes her own children of mixed race as 'white with a sun tan' when they are clearly

NOT.● A mother who deliberately and out of guilt, brings her own child (aged 3) into Court for the sole purposes

of using him using him as a Weapon and Shield to covers-up for her wrongdoings (Salisbury Court July 2003).● A mother who manufactured false and malicious allegations of physical and verbal violence in large open

place, to have myself arrested, imprisoned and permanently removed from the children's lives (handoversmonitored under the Common Law right to protect myself, evidence later provided to the Court).

● When the children don't want to return to her, a mother who makes false allegations of physical violence,verbal abuse, perjury etc. and then makes emergency Court applications and appearances before the Courtto sever the children's links with myself and their cultural heritage (monitored, fully documented andtranscripted).

● A mother who continues to proactively tells the children's Schools, to refuse myself any access as regardsthe children's welfare (breaching Court Orders).

● A mother who persistently abuses Court Orders to pass on any information regarding the children's welfare.● A mother who to date has been using every conceivable method to remove/cut the children's contact with

myself, even so recently as February-2006 witnessed by CAFCASS's own Guardian.● A mother who uses every opportunity/technique to thwart/discourage indirect contact with myself.● A mother who drags away screaming and cuts-off mid-stream a telephone call where here very own 3year

old son, who has speech problems is desperately trying to sing nursery rhymes to his father (pure evil).● A mother who also rejects birthday cards sent by myself to the children (sick).● A mother who states in Court that the children don't want to see their father (Salisbury Court).● A mother who has made ALL MANOR of false allegations under the sun to remove myself

(documented/transcripted).

Page 11 Of 19

● A mother who persistently lies under oath, allowing her own children to be racially harassed, bullied andphysically hurt in School to protect her own position for sole financial gain.

● A mother who knowingly denies her very own children immediate private medical cover for the solepurposes of disrupting and minimizing the children's access to their dual cultural heritage, their extendedwider Asian family and their myself (recent).

● A mother who wants money for the children's to travel, the situation of extra distance created by herself,for herself, to which CAFCASS fully were alerted to from day-1 in 2002, but who simply choose to back herown personal wants.

● A mother who persistently commits perjury to get her own way, witnessed several times by CAFCASSthemselves!

● A mother who even CAFCASS's own unilaterally selected Child psychologists stated that she cannot meet thechildren's social and emotional needs.

And the best that your unprofessional Guardian, Mr. Paul D. Bishop, who writes forthe the CAFCASS professional Association Group in NAPO, comes up with is that hesees no evidence of any wrongdoing by the mother! CAFCASS ARE CORRUPT.

To add to this, YOUR Guardian even admits in his unilaterally consulted (mother only) reportthat the children will have a more better life with myself (their father), but obviously fromCAFCASS's interpretation the welfare and well-being of the children are secondary to theirwhite racist and implacable mother.

The press and public should be aware that is the typical behaviour of the best of the best inCAFCASS, and who I believe is a member of NAPO (an organisation with pro-mother views, falselylabelling men as perpetrators and supporting anti-heterosexual policies), having written for their“professional group”. In addition to this, CAFCASS have filed welfare reports without seeing methe father as required by Law, the CAFCASS Guardian has been caught red-handed doctoringbundle contents, omitting/ignoring that the famous UK Family Court “Status Quo” argumentcould not be used for the mothers benefit, omitting evidence, omitting 2-full case volumes ofevidence, doctoring case summaries, arranging Kangaroo Court hearings for the mothers benefit,abusing myself with statements well into the proceedings, acting deceitfully, misleading theCourt, aggressively questioning me, making denigrating remarks against myself in absence, fixingthe full hearing in my absence, abusing statuary National and International Law including the UNInternational Rights Of A Child, The Human Rights Acts etc..

Lets not also forget, that CAFCASS have refused to make a clear simple yes/no statementwhether they recognise mother and father as equals. I have a letter from from of your seniormanagement, Ms. Ann Chan who claimed that CAFCASS operates within the framework of theLaw. Liar. Its no great surprise that this and several other documents from CAFCASS did notappear at CAFCASS's contested full disclosure under the Data Protection Act which they wilfullyand knowingly breach because the Data Protection Office (DPA) Office remains very reticentabout taking any action against another UK Public (partner) body. Even, your Mr. David Angusstated in private that he himself (the manager for Salisbury CAFCASS), as with his subordinateMr. Richard King-Li, that they DID NOT RECOGNISE mother and father as equals. Even Ms.Christine Leslie, who wrote a welfare report without meeting me as required by Law, stated in aCourt Of Law and before a Law Society Expert Witness that she was there for the mother. Mr.Richard King-Li is on record as stating that mothers and fathers are not equal. The custody rateto mothers in the UK is greater than 95% (The Times and Sir Geldof). As chairman of CAFCASS, Iam require YOU to show me where in the Law does it states that CAFCASS are permitteddiscriminate against one gender (fathers) and also where it states that CAFCASS canpromote child abuse for the sole benefit of mothers?

It is sincerely sad that despite the children saying that they want to stay with myself (theirbiological father), CAFCASS are totally against this and have pulled out all measures to preventthis ever happening. It clearly shows than in the year 2006, some 45+ years later, CAFCASS are

Page 12 Of 19

still DEEPLY ENTRENCHED in the prehistoric and flawed Maternal Deprivation “Tender Years”Theory by Bowlby that helps promote the greater than 95% mother-custody in the UK. For therecord, the “Tender Years” theory was been DEBUNKED by the World Health Organisation(WHO) in the 1960’s AND FURTHER DEBUNKED by the outstanding works of ProfessorMichael Rutter [5] in 1976, for which he received a knighthood in the United Kingdom.

It is my belief that behind the scenes, the CAFCASS management have covertly instructed abiassed Guardian, using the state Legal Aid Board fund hired an extremely well known pro-mother agents/solicitors (who are also on record for committing perjury for mothers in othercases) to allow my children to be thoroughly abused, for exposing CAFCASS's abuses in the publicdomain.

Based on your continuing actions to date, prove without any doubt, CAFCASS, aPublic organisation that PROACTIVELY promotes child abuse, gender discriminationand CAFCASS are RACISTS and in line with my previous communication, its policiesare perfectly aligned to Neo Nazi groups such as the Ku-Klux-Klan and NationalFront.

In the most recent Government funded research published in January-2006 by the Sheffield-Hatfield University, the research showed clearly that 80% of those who terrorised theirneighbourhoods came from single parent homes where the mother was the sole carer andTHERE WAS NO FATHER….

In the Victoria Climbie and also with the Chloe Murray enquiries, amongst many other childrenthat have died and are being killed, Lord Laming [9] stated that “such behaviour ofprofessionals is most surprising” – “Marie Theresa Quoto (aunt and primary carer) had beenabusive to the child, however, her explanations were believed by the professionals involved”.The situation is no difference in this instance and this case and CAFCASS have backed themother to the hilt.

Principles underpinning fraud are clearly laid out in Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App.Cas. 337,Lord Herschell said that “fraud is proved when it is shown a false representation has beenmade: (1) knowingly; or (2) without belief in its truth; or (3) reckless or careless whether itbe true or false”. But not according to CAFCASS, they have taken all steps to ensure that themothers fraud is never unravelled, and actively taken steps to cover-up and abet her fraud toinflict more abuse on the children.

In Nuutinen v Finland [2000] ECtHR the Court stated “What is wrong from the beginningcannot be validated by the passage of time” and “Nobody should profit from his or her ownwrongdoing”. But, again CAFCASS are knowingly doing exactly the opposite, they are rewardinga mother who is on record acting against the best interests of her very own children [1][2][3][4]and one who holds racist views. The children are mere objects of collateral to CAFCASS, as theyhave clearly substituted the welfare of the children for the welfare of the racist and recalcitrantmother first.

Not if, but when Society recognises the wrongdoings by some of its seriously misconceivedand bent administrators (together with its purely financially excited/motivated agents)against children and fathers, I purport this WILL lead to mass genocide trails, making theNuremberg Nazi trials look like a quaint summer English tea party by comparison. BEABSOLUTELY SURE THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR THE BENT ADMINISTRATORS (OR THEIR FAMILIES) TO HIDE.

CAFCASS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NOTHING WILL STOP ME EXPOSING THE PRO-MOTHER,CORRUPT AND RACIST CHILD ABUSING ORGANISATION THAT IT STANDS FOR.

Page 13 Of 19

Now, finally, as CAFCASS purports to be a independent public body, and as YOU are a lucrativelypaid public servant, I require YOU to personally respond honestly, openly & publically to all theissues I have raised with yourselves, OLD AND NEW.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. R.R. ChauhanCEng MSc BSc(Hons) ICP Dip MIAM MIEE

Stop The Child Abuse & Sign The Petition To The United Nationshttp://www.un1503petition.com

References Used:-

[1] Lord Justice Ward April-04’, Neutral Citation Number [2004] EWCA Civ 512 Re C – this case[2] Lord Justice Thorpe July-04’, Neutral Citation Number [2004] EWCA Civ 874 Re C – this case[3] Lord Justice Thorpe & Mr. Justice Munby July-04’, Neutral Citation Number [2004] EWCA Civ 1056 – this case[4] Lord Justice Thorpe Nov-04’, Neutral Citation Number [2004] EWCA Civ 1723 Re C – this case[5] Rutter M. 1971, Parent-Child Separation Psychological Effect On The Children. Journal of Child Psychology &Psychiatry Vol-12, Pages 233-260.[6] Parent Alienation Syndrome, pioneered by Dr. Richard Gardner, 1992, 1995. Recognised in Internationally, exceptby UK's CAFCASS and some of the UK Court Administration who together promote greater than 95% custody tomothers.[7] DCA – Department Of Constitutional Affairs, UK – formerly The Lord Chancellors Department[8] McPherson Report from the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, defined racism as ‘Institutional racism consists of thecollective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of theircolour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount todiscrimination through unwitting prejudice ignorance, thoughtlessness and racial stereotyping which disadvantageminority ethnic people’ McPherson Report to the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry'.[9] The Victoria Climbie Enquiry by Lord Laming January 2003 can be found at www.victoria-climbie-inquiry.org.uk/

Copies To Including:-

CAFCASS BoardChildren's Minister - Ms. Beverly HughesDr. Ludwig F. Lowenstein, UK's Leading Expert On Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS) www.parental-alienation.infoChairman, Mr.Trevor Phillips, The Commission For Racial EqualityThe Hindu Forum For Great BritainMelanie Phillips, The MailJoshua Rozenburg, The Daily TelegraphClare Dyer, The GuardianOther Known National And International Media

Attachments: My first response to CAFCASS's diversionary letter of the 17.02.2006.

Page 14 Of 19

Page 15 Of 19

Page 16 Of 19

Page 17 Of 19

Dear Sir/Madam, I acknowledge the receipt to your letter of the 17.02.2006 (attachedabove)

For ease of reference I have numbered your letter and my response to the keyissues (I reserve the right to respond to other points in future correspondence) inyour letter is as follows:-

4. You claim that you fail to understand my conclusions then, perhaps if CAFCASScarefully investigated the the issues rather than just playing lip-service to them,then you may understand the should carefully read the letter with some help andanswer the each and every question raised to date, something which CAFCASShave persistently not done to cover-up. Unlike the welfare reports that CAFCASSwrites, my conclusions are based on evidential facts.

5. You claimed that I should raise any child concerns issues with your Guardian. Themain letter answers this statement, as with Mrs Christine Leslie of CAFCASS, yourGuardian has too failed to meet myself as required, and they have both filed pro-mother reports. This is a breach of CA(1989), The UN Convention On The RightsOf A Child (1992), National and International Law.

6. My observation of how CAFCASS responded and the manner they responded, isthat CAFCASS managers know this is a genuine case of wrongdoing by CAFCASSand as such nobody in CAFCASS wants to take accountability for the abuse theyhave caused to my children, hence the fact it was bounced around and returnedto you to answer.

7. You state issues should be raised in Court. I disagree as the UK Court Service is onrecorded of inflicting racial, gender abuse and Humans Rights abuses against mychildren an myself. Further the greater than 95% (Sir Geldof and The Time)custody rate to mothers speaks volumes Family Courts true motives something Iam certain that CAFCASS are party and instrumental to.

8. To re-iterate my letter of the 28.12.2005, CAFCASS's complaints process isACADEMIC, Satanically incestuousness, self-executed, self-audited, un-questionable, self-concluded, non-transparent behind closed doors and is simplyCORRUPT. As CAFCASS has stated it is a independent public body, then you shouldfully answer the issues I have raised. The reference to the ParliamentaryOmbudsmen is well known diversionary trick from CAFCASS who are hiding fromits accountability and the fact they know that another govt agent will rarely takeaction against CAFCASS operating under covert State Policy mandates of mothercustody at all costs.

9. And 10) CAFCASS have never made a full Data Protection Act disclosure to date.The exceptionally delayed disclosure (breaching DPA guidelines) was INCOMPLETE,highly filtered and when I challenged CAFCASS, CAFCASS were adamant thedisclosure was complete. Yet only weeks later, CAFCASS did a partial U-Turn byreleasing more information as a result of the Durant case. This is all carefully andwell documented. CAFCASS freely abuse the Sect7.0 of the Data Protection Act,because they know that DPA office are reticent about ever taking action againstanother public body operating under covert unlawful State mandates. Further, to

Page 18 Of 19

date the DPA office has failed to challenge and/or taken any major punitiveaction against CAFCASS for writing factless fabricated template reports (as in thiscase) its churns out, resulting in the widespread and systematic abuse of childrenand gender discrimination.

With reference to response to my letter of the 02.12.2005:-

11.I am perplexed that CAFCASS are now claiming that Ms Leslie wrote the report inrelation to the Court Order, especially when the Court application I made for forchild custody and the matter was clarified in Court where it was first raised and itwas crystal clear in the paperwork. Secondly, whatever CAFCASS claims to cover-up for its neglect of duties, it does not detract from the fact that Ms ChristineLeslie failed to meet with me, the father as required by CA(1989), National AndInternational Law. She also filed the report directly into the Court breaching theData Protection Act.

12.For the record, you CAFCASS officer Ms Christine Leslie stated before myself and a Law Society Expert Witness (Dr. K.S. Badsha) that she was there for the mother atTruro County Court before HHJ Vincent on 13.08.2004. If CAFCASS claim that it isnot important, or misleadingly claim that its is out of time, or simply a matter forthe secret and covert Family Courts, then I and others would disagree. It clearlyshows that Ms. Christine Leslie was more concerned about the welfare of themother than the children. This statement by Ms Christine Leslie is also a breach ofthe laws including; Art-14 HRA(1989), the CA(1989) Act, Art-2 The UN ConventionOn the Rights Of A Child, The Sex Discrimination Act (1976) and otherInternational Law.

For the record Ms. Christine Leslie failed to ratify her notes as you claim and she alsofailed to automatically provide a copy of her notes as promised in writing by Mr. MartinGladwin who stated that it was her normal practice. I will confidently under state thatMs. Christine Leslie is in breach of the Perjury Act (1911) if she claims otherwise. Asregards you offer for a copy of the retrospective notes, my response is that the damagehas already been done to the children as a result of this and secondly I have littleconfidence they WILL BE ACTUAL COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES. The point here isthat CAFCASS have persistently said one thing and then done another, ie. they LIE. Forthe record, the first CAFCASS officer, Mr. Richard King-Li conveniently destroyed hisnotes so that he could not be pulled-up on his perjury or the harm caused to mychildren.

My facted concerns regarding your corrupt Guardian are detailed in the covering letter.The greater than 95% custody to mother speaks volumes as to why the wrongdoings ofthe Courts unilaterally nominated agents will ever be addressed under the secret FamilyCourts process.

Regarding point 15. I have no interest in your your farcical, academic and Satanicallyincestuous cover up complaints process. BUT, what I do require is honest and truthfulresponses something that I have not had to date want honest answers to ALL the issues Ihave raised.

Yours faithfully, Mr. R.R. Chauhan December 2006.

Page 19 Of 19