Filed with Court of Appeal via CE-File (Senior Courts Electronic Filing) and served via email to the Civil Appeals Office (Family), the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Family Division.

To the Court of Appeal, the Civil Appeals Office (Family), Sir Geoffrey Vos (Master of the Rolls), and Sir Andrew McFarlane (President of the Family Division),

I am filing this notice following the Court's selective approval of my latest supplementary filing, which follows a prior procedural u-turn where the Court initially approved my application and preliminary bundles. However, upon my filing of more substantive evidence in support of my grounds as stipulated, which also included an undeniable blueprint matrix of systemic national corruption documenting institutional misconduct and the involvement of named perpetrators, the Court abruptly moved to unlawfully reject the appeal itself and the subsequent core evidence. This recent move to selectively approve my latest evidence—which follows my explicit warning that further rejection would be treated as a further act of criminal concealment—fundamentally exposes a fatal procedural contradiction and destroys the basis of all previous rejections. The Court cannot logically maintain the position stated in the correspondence from Mrs Levey and Mr Peter Cobourn—claiming that 'this matter is at an end' and that no right of appeal exists under Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and Wasif [2016]—while simultaneously admitting and approving evidence that proves the very harm and judicial collusion I have alleged. This selective approval proves that their prior reliance on these statutes was a fraudulent misrepresentation of the law designed to facilitate an administrative perversion of the course of justice. This is a de facto admission that the prior rejections were criminal acts of concealment and a denial of access to justice. I formally object to this ongoing procedural filtering and the Court's recent selective approval of my latest evidence—a move that follows my explicit warning that further rejection would be treated as a further act of concealment—and I demand the immediate reinstatement of the multiple bundles filed, including the evidence detailed in Evidence of Child Abuse and State Collusion: Submission to the Court of Appeal and my Formal Objection to Court of Appeal: Rejection of Corrupt Enforcement & Notice of Public Disclosure. The Court's reliance on Wasif and Section 54(4) is a demonstrable lie; they proceeded on the cynical assumption that as a vulnerable Litigant in Person with a lack of capacity to litigate—a fact that is a ground of my appeals—I would be unable to identify that their claim that 'In these circumstances there is no further right of appeal because there is no appeal from a decision of an appeal court (in this case Ms Justice Harris) to allow or refuse permission to appeal to that court (see section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 30A, paragraph 4.5)' is a fraudulent legal impossibility. Mrs Levey's claim is a deliberate attempt to suppress my right to a second appeal to the Court of Appeal; the lower courts directed me to appeal via the High Court specifically so they could utilise a TWM certification to bury the case and then falsely claim no further right of appeal exists. The appeal was on orders by the lower courts, and I lodged the appeal with the High Court exactly as directed to in HHJ Ross Talbot's fabricated final order, which proves the manipulation to move me toward a TWM dismissal. Wasif actually confirms exactly what I asserted: that while a TWM classification itself cannot be appealed, the High Court's wrongful refusal of permission to appeal can be challenged where there is a fundamental procedural failure. My appeal against the High Court's wrongful refusal renders the TWM certification irrelevant, as a successful appeal quashes the underlying order entirely; the Court's misrepresentation of this law was a failed attempt to deceive me into accepting a fraudulent administrative rejection; they failed. I never accepted their fraudulent narrative, I continued to file evidence, and I maintained my appeal rights as live and not lawfully disposed of—a fact I stated to the Court of Appeal which they also rejected. My appeal remains live and has not been lawfully disposed of; no judge has reviewed the evidence, and the case cannot be enforced. These documents record the systemic fraud, collusion, and concealment of child abuse by various officials and institutions—including but not limited to the Court of Appeal, HHJ Sonia Harris (High Court), HHJ Ross Talbot (Hastings Family Court), HHJ Robin Bedford (Brighton Family Court), Sussex Police, Brighton & Hove City Council, Clare Ciborowska (1 Crown Office Row), Jennie Apsey (Dean Wilson LLP), and the other named perpetrators—which forms the actual grounds of my appeal and proves a coordinated fraud upon the Court.

The Court has now approved my latest evidence of harm, which proves the harm occurred and invalidates the lower court's fraudulent claim that my position was "delusional"; maintaining the rejected status of the core evidence filed while approving this latest PDF is another procedural ruse to sanitise the record of judicial fraud. This evidence is not the extent of the harm, abuse, and risk, but merely the starting point of it; all evidence of reported harm was systematically seized, covered up, and lied about, including my son's ongoing reports which the Court has criminally prevented from being heard. This evidence represents the absolute destruction of the Court's entire purported basis for removing my child's right to safety and my own parental rights. I possess documented proof that the mother's counsel fabricated reports under the guise of Cafcass' Lisa Pauling, which—alongside the fabricated notes of judgment—were used to retrospectively claim my views were delusional and harmful as a post-hoc justification for the staged and ambushed parallel proceedings used to remove my child. This evidence proves that the "delusional" label was a criminal fabrication utilised to pervert the course of justice, violate my son's fundamental right to protection, and issue corrupt injunctions and a fabricated Totally Without Merit (TWM) order to block my appeal. It proves the lower court's criminal abuse of the Section 91(14) order was a deliberate mechanism to silence me, prevent my access to justice, and stop me from protecting my son; they abused the Section 91(14) process and law to ratify their corruption, knowing full well I would appeal to the High Court who would then corruptly reject it as TWM. What they did not anticipate was me catching them out with forensic metadata proof showing the mother's counsel fabricating the entire record during the High Court appeal stage, nor did they expect me to expose the High Court's cover-up of that corruption, the Court of Appeal's ongoing complicity, or my forthcoming whistleblowing of this entire decade of institutional corruption. The supposed basis for the criminal abuse of legislation to ban me from making applications and dismiss the legal case was an irrational and fraudulent invention—utilising the mother's own vexatious applications in a fraudulent attempt to frame me—designed to cover institutional failure and sabotage my son's rights and my own. This includes the Court of Appeal's ongoing manipulation of the process, my appeal, my rights, and my evidence—further repeating the very abuses documented in my appeal in plain sight by seeking to again manipulate what is put on the record. I do not accept any part of this criminal rejection, all of which will be whistleblown on Corrupt UK in the exercise of my right to expose institutional corruption in the public interest; my son remains in immediate danger placed with his abuser and must be returned to my care and protection immediately with both our human rights restored.

Any order upholding the removal of my child while dismissing the evidence of the very harm and corruption I was accused of "delusionally" reporting is a criminal act by the Court, and the Court is on notice that I possess the forensic metadata proof and police disclosure confirming the mother's police statement was a retrospective fabrication. This was not merely relied upon by HHJ Bedford in error; it was utilised in active collusion with Brighton & Hove City Council, Children's Services, Sussex Police, and others to pervert the course of justice, as documented in the evidence rejected by the Court of Appeal which I demand be reinstated immediately. The police disclosure further confirms that, contrary to HHJ Bedford's orders and the fabricated final hearing judgment, the mother repeatedly approached the police to make false allegations during the proceedings. This was a coordinated effort to frame me for her own abuse, facilitated by a deliberate procedural bait-and-switch where HHJ Robin Bedford cancelled a scheduled fact-finding hearing under the guise of only hearing contact arrangements—explicitly banning me from filing evidence—only to then issue a fabricated judgment and ignore my appeal. Since that time, all parties including the mother's counsel in multiple filings have falsely claimed a fact-finding had occurred, as per the appeal and materials filed via CE-File which were all administratively rejected by the Court of Appeal. I further possess the defining forensic metadata proof that the mother's counsel, Clare Ciborowska (1 Crown Office Row) and Jennie Apsey (Dean Wilson LLP), collaborated to fabricate a "note of judgment" weeks after the final hearing and after my appeal was filed, making 74 edits to the document. In an act of criminal sabotage to pervert the course of justice, Jennie Apsey then filed this fraudulent document directly into my own appeal at the High Court to circumvent my legal arguments and sabotage the process. The High Court then actively covered up my formal complaints and requests regarding this criminal interference and proceeded to issue a predetermined, ghostwritten and demonstrably irrational refusal order, contrary to the evidence—fraudulently published under the name of HHJ Sonia Harris—to classify my appeal as Totally Without Merit (TWM) and block an oral hearing; a fraud and cover-up of criminal sabotage that the Court of Appeal is now actively continuing. Furthermore, the Court is on notice that I possess the child's medical records documenting the full extent of his injuries over several years—evidence which has been systematically suppressed and lied about by the local authority. This includes child protection medical findings covered up by Brighton & Hove City Council and HHJ Robin Bedford in the purported final hearing judgment and then Cafcass and HHJ Talbot in the mother's next vexatious proceedings, all to facilitate a fraudulent narrative. I further possess evidence of the numerous vexatious applications made by the mother which the Court has used to frame me as the harasser, leading to the criminal abuse of process via injunctions and the fabricated TWM High Court order designed to prevent me from seeking justice. The Court is on notice of existing audio-visual evidence in my possession, including the child's first-hand account of the battery he suffered, which has been suppressed by HHJ Robin Bedford, HHJ Ross Talbot, HHJ Sonia Harris, the Court of Appeal, and the mother's counsel to facilitate a fraud upon the Court, as fraud unravels everything.

I formally demand an immediate stay of execution on all lower court orders and enforcement (including the removal of my parental rights, contact restrictions, and costs) while the Court is in possession of documented proof of fraud, as any further reliance on or enforcement of these orders is an act of harassment.

I am placing the Court on notice that due to this systemic fraud, the Court has forfeited its claim to legitimacy; while I am now focused on public disclosure at Corrupt UK, the Court remains under a mandatory remedial obligation to immediately stay these corrupt orders and reinstate the record. The Court must act to prevent further criminal harm and correct the public record before any further proceedings can be considered lawful. I file this notice so that the senior judiciary cannot claim ignorance of the fraud currently being sanitised by this Court. This notice, along with the specific evidence of institutional misconduct and the identities of the officials involved, is being published imminently to the public dossier to ensure a transparent record of this systemic sabotage and the specific jurisdictional fraud detailed herein.

[Father]

Appellant