Formal Objection to Court of Appeal: Rejection of Corrupt Enforcement & Notice of Public Disclosure

Filed with Court of Appeal via CE-File (Senior Courts Electronic Filing)

Subject: Formal Objection to Enforcement Proceedings

Give me back my son. Now.

To the Court of Appeal,

1. I write to formally and unequivocally object to the initiation of enforcement proceedings in relation to the costs order arising from the proceedings under appeal in this matter.
2. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not a procedural irregularity. This is judicial corruption. I hold metadata, forensic evidence, and a contradiction matrix proving flagrant, despicable judicial corruption at every level of this case. What has unfolded is not a legal dispute — it is a public emergency. It has continued to deprive me abusively and my son of our human rights, and it now escalates further. I am preparing a full public exposure of this case, in the public interest, with no holds barred. This will take time, and I have taken shelter for safety. But make no mistake — the record will be revealed.
3. The enforcement application now being pursued is not only unlawful — it is a direct extension of the corruption my appeal challenges. It seeks to enforce a costs order that:
   1. Was issued in proceedings I was not lawfully served notice of, conducted while police held my devices and blocked access to court systems and justice.
   2. Relied on fabricated evidence, including a falsified “Approved Note” that contradicts CE-File chronology and bundle contents.
   3. Was justified using a High Court refusal ghostwritten by the opposing party’s counsel, Clare Ciborowska – 1 Crown Office Row (1COR), and the mother’s solicitor, Jennie Apsey of Dean Wilson LLP, then fraudulently published under the name of HHJ Sonia Harris.
   4. Was never lawfully reviewed by the Court of Appeal, which failed to assign a judge, issue a sealed order, or provide lawful disposal of my appeal.
   5. Instead, the Court of Appeal issued a manipulative and knowingly false administrative rejection, mischaracterising the nature of my appeal and denying my right to judicial review. I did not appeal the classification of the High Court decision alone — I appealed the wrongful refusal of permission to appeal, which was procedurally defective, authored by the opposing party’s counsel, and published without lawful basis. The Court of Appeal’s rejection ignored this entirely, falsely claiming I had no right of second appeal, despite clear statutory and procedural grounds to the contrary. This rejection was not a judicial act — it was a bureaucratic suppression designed to shield judicial corruption from scrutiny and prevent escalation. No judge reviewed the substance of my case. No lawful determination was made. The appeal remains live, unresolved, and cannot be lawfully enforced.
4. Moreover, the Court of Appeal itself confirmed that I did correctly appeal all orders, including those arising from HHJ Bedford’s proceedings — thereby demonstrating that the High Court’s purported refusal is fundamentally flawed and baseless. There will be no getting away from HHJ Bedford’s corruption at the core of all proceedings, as I have stated previously.
5. I have repeatedly demanded the return of my devices and data from the police. I was never charged, and I was released not on bail. My most recent request for the return of my devices and data was ignored by the police — and immediately thereafter, these new purported enforcement proceedings were initiated. This is not coincidence; it is the same coordinated pattern that has persisted for over a decade, with every agency and authority complicit in kidnapping my son and covering up the mother’s molestation and battery of him. The devices contain my legal materials, evidence, and communications. Their continued detention is a direct violation of my right to a fair hearing, and a breach of both domestic and international human rights protections. This is not law enforcement — it is obstruction of justice.
6. Police retention of seized property extends beyond electronic devices. The police also unlawfully took my passport, refuse to return it, and thereby breach my human right to freedom of movement and travel.
7. Most recently, I was drugged and overdosed, and the police — fully aware of my condition — left me for dead. They did not intervene, did not safeguard, and did not provide medical assistance. This was not neglect; it was deliberate abandonment. My human rights are not merely compromised — they are being actively violated. I am unsafe, and this reality is directly relevant to the purported enforcement proceedings now being pursued. It is not a legal process — it is a public interest emergency.
8. I also previously made numerous formal applications for disclosure and access to HMCTS and CE-File court files. These were ignored. Yet, in a grotesque twist, the very existence of these applications was referenced in the supposed High Court rejection of my appeal — a document that was itself unlawfully authored and published. I now formally reiterate all those applications and demand the following:
9. An immediate judicial order for full disclosure from all relevant parties, including:
   1. The police: all data, seized devices, body-cam footage, interview audio, and transcripts to date; and the immediate return of my passport and all other seized property.
   2. The courts and HMCTS: all orders, judgments, internal case files, sealed documents, internal communications, and case management records relating to myself or my son.
   3. The Local Authority and schools (past and present): all safeguarding records, communications, meeting minutes, assessments, and internal reports.
   4. The mother’s solicitors and 1COR counsel: all communications, drafts, emails, and filings relating to this case, including any documents used or relied upon to draft alleged judgments or “Approved Notes”.
   5. The Administrative Court: all internal records, communications, decision-making documents, and logs relating to my applications.
10. I further demand:
    1. The immediate return of all seized devices, data, and passports from the police.
    2. Full access to my and my son’s medical records.
    3. That all disclosures be made by CE-File or email only — I will not receive postal correspondence and am not at the listed address.
11. The enforcement papers themselves are a contradiction matrix. Every line exposes procedural impossibilities, factual distortions, and jurisdictional fraud. They do not merely undermine the legitimacy of the enforcement attempt — they prove the very substance of my appeal, which the High Court dismissed as “totally without merit” in a decision that was itself a product of collusion and corruption.
12. Examples of glaring contradictions and procedural impossibilities include (this list is illustrative, not exhaustive):
    1. Court orders state I am banned from all courts — a central part of my appeal grounds which alleges unfair hearings, malice, predetermined outcomes, corrupt parallel proceedings, and the High Court’s fraudulent rejection of my application for permission to appeal. Yet the enforcement proceedings paradoxically require that I attend court. Which is it — am I banned or not? If I am banned, why, given that police disclosure confirms the court itself recorded I made no threats? Police already possessed my emails and confirmed no threats were made, yet they unlawfully seized my devices, data, and passport, unlawfully arrested me, and — in collusion with the court, [maternal family], BHCC, the mother’s counsel, the school, Cafcass, the ICO, and other agencies — removed my son. The court’s contradiction of its own orders demonstrates that my appeal grounds were not “totally without merit” as claimed, but instead reveal substantive legal and factual issues requiring proper judicial scrutiny.
    2. The court states I can expect to be cross-examined by the mother in future hearings, yet I was denied the same opportunity to cross-examine relevant witnesses during the proceedings under appeal. This disparate treatment of parties demonstrates procedural unfairness and supports my grounds of appeal regarding unequal treatment and prejudgment.
    3. The court demands production of my bank account evidence (affordability) for costs, yet the court maliciously imposed vexatious and abusive costs without properly considering or requiring such evidence at the time. This retrospective demand undermines the High Court’s purported rejection and highlights inconsistent, after-the-fact reasoning. I provided ample evidence of significant debts and lack of income in the bundles filed on CE-File — evidence ignored or suppressed by the courts. These contradictions show the High Court, Court of Appeal, and lower courts are inconsistent and that fresh evidence exists which supports my appeal.
    4. The enforcement relates to costs for HHJ Bedford’s proceedings — directly contradicting the High Court’s purported rejection which claims the appeal does not concern HHJ Bedford. The High Court’s rejection is irrational and self-contradictory because it repeatedly relies on factual and procedural issues arising from HHJ Bedford’s conduct while simultaneously asserting the appeal does not concern him.
    5. The police have not complied with orders for disclosure of the transcript of my interview, despite its central relevance. All parties are aware of the corruption involving HHJ Bedford and others, and their collusion to conceal it. Fair hearings require full disclosure; the court’s failure to enforce disclosure and its apparent toleration of police non-compliance is further evidence supporting my grounds of appeal.
    6. The court repeatedly ignored my applications and participation, and refused me access to HMCTS systems, the CE-File bundles, and the records required for a fair hearing. These systemic denials of access to justice — deliberate suppression of filings and evidence — are core grounds of my appeal. My son’s and my human rights remain intentionally deprived systemically by the parties named, including the UK judiciary.
13. I made the High Court aware, upon emergence of evidence of corruption during my appeal application (including collusion with the mother’s counsel), of my intention to take the matter to the Court of Appeal; at that point the High Court should have ceased further action. Instead, they completely ignored my filings and proceeded with what was a demonstrably preconspired rejection. The High Court referenced my communications, but not their content or the corruption they exposed, and ignored my declared intent to pursue the matter by via the Court of Appeal. The entire rejection is further evidence of corruption.
14. I have received continued harassment and abusive communication from the mother’s solicitor, Jennie Apsey of Dean Wilson LLP, whom I have already identified as a corrupt actor litigating criminally within this corrupt case. Her conduct is not merely unethical — it is part of the same judicially sanctioned abuse. All communication from her is corrupt, coercive, and abusive, and is coordinated under the protection of the Court of Appeal and the wider judicial system.
15. She emailed me a purported official transcript of judgment. I did not read it — she is a criminal, and I do not engage with unlawful communications. However, the timing is telling: this document was sent after my appeal to the High Court, after the corrupt rejection, and after my appeal to the Court of Appeal and its own unlawful rejection.
16. If the document is the same as the previously circulated “Approved Note”, then it is further evidence of fraud and corruption. If it is different, then it is new evidence of judicial fabrication. Either way, it is procedurally invalid and substantively corrupt. Its existence alone constitutes grounds for appeal, escalation, and fresh judicial review.
17. The appeal stands. It is live. It has not been lawfully disposed of. It cannot be enforced.
18. Key issues and outstanding defects include (not exhaustive):
    1. Ghostwritten High Court refusal
    2. Fabricated “Approved Note”
    3. Transcript trap and transcript suppression
    4. CE-File sabotage and denial of access
    5. Section 7 report fabrication by mother’s counsel
    6. Parallel proceedings and jurisdictional manipulation
    7. Costs order abuse and retrospective inconsistency
    8. Service violations and incorrect addresses in filings
    9. Transcript timing contradictions and failure of disclosure
    10. Contradictory narratives across courts and agencies
    11. Suppression of evidence and failure to disclose material
    12. Judicial bias, prejudgment, and collusion
    13. Harassment and coercive communications by the mother’s solicitor
    14. Failure to assign or disclose the judge responsible for disposals
    15. Administrative disposals masquerading as judicial acts and misrepresenting legislation
    16. Fresh evidence ignored and suppressed
    17. Human rights violations including unlawful seizure of devices, data, and passport; deprivation of liberty; and denial of access to justice
    18. Systemic corruption across all levels of the judiciary and associated agencies
19. Corruption across all levels of the judiciary:
    1. Lower court: HHJ Robin Bedford and HHJ Ross Talbot
    2. Administrative Court: concealment and delayed or ignored judicial review applications; active collusion that sabotaged my ability to obtain timely relief
    3. High Court: ghostwritten refusal, fabricated documents, HHJ Sonia Harris
    4. Court of Appeal: administrative suppression, refusal to assign judge
20. I gave all parties — the courts, counsel, police, and administrative bodies — ample opportunity to avoid this outcome, as evidenced in the bundles filed via CE-File. They chose instead to continue acting corruptly, suppressing evidence, and obstructing justice. They will, in due course, be visited by a new kind of justice — one built not on secrecy and collusion, but on transparency, accountability, truth, and evidence.
21. I now formally declare that I will be whistleblowing in the public interest, without restriction or restraint. I will publish all details, all names, all organisations, all courts, all agencies, all social workers, all teachers — everyone involved. I am not confined by law, because they destroyed the rule of law.
22. I have established the infrastructure for full public whistleblowing. The full release has not yet begun — but once I am safe, it will. The record will not be buried.
23. Give me back my son. Now.
24. I have compiled a comprehensive forensic submission that will expose, in addition the the bundles on CE-File:
    1. The fabrication of judicial documents
    2. The manipulation of CE-File records
    3. The use of contradictory narratives across jurisdictions
    4. The procedural sabotage of my right to appeal
    5. The collusion between counsel and judiciary in authoring decisions
25. This submission will be published imminently. However, in light of the enforcement attempt, I must now assert the following:
26. Any attempt to enforce the costs order at this stage is unlawful, procedurally invalid, and will be treated as further evidence of institutional corruption.
27. I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the Supreme Court and beyond — and to publish a full public dossier documenting every contradiction, fabrication, and abuse of process.
28. I request immediate confirmation that enforcement proceedings are suspended pending lawful judicial review of my appeal, immediate disclosure as requested above, and the immediate return of all seized property including electronic devices and my passport.
29. I also note I have not yet filed my full rebuttals to the High Court or Court of Appeal rejections, nor my complete appeal materials in response to those unlawful disposals. I sought permission to appeal which was unlawfully refused by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, yet the refusals remain in force without lawful disposal. This correspondence today is a high-level statement, intended to broadcast my intentions and to assert the continued public emergency caused by flagrant judicial corruption, the destruction of the rule of law, and the urgent need for my son’s immediate return and proper judicial scrutiny.
30. Full exhaustive details will be published online and distributed in due course.

Yours faithfully,

[Father]

Appellant