Dissent among the ‘child-stealing’ tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists

We had some “interesting” responses to this blog post in which I highlighted the wild conspiracy claims by people like Brian Gerrish and Chris Jarvis. They seem to believe that social services, the police, the courts, CAFCASS, CAMHS and a whole slew of other agencies are involved in systematic removal of children into care. Not for child protection reasons, but in order to make money.

Having been involved in quite a few child protection cases, I actually find the proposal pretty laughable. Not only is the removal of a child a complex and difficult process, both legally and logistically, but some of the agencies supposedly in conspiracy together actually have quite dysfunctional relations with each other.

Brian Gerrish seems to have been touting this theory for some time. For reasons I’ve yet to fathom, he suggests it all involves a company called Common Purpose. Gerrish appears to believe it’s part of a conspiracy to use neuro-linguisitic programming to control the levers of power. Personally it looks to me like a slightly drippy provider of management courses for New Labour and David Brent types, but then maybe I’m just a dupe of the One World Government. I understand Mr Gerrish denies supporting the BNP, but from browsing various BNP blogs, they seem rather keen on him.

Recently he’s been teaming up with Chris Jarvis, whose children have been removed into the care of the local authority. His response to this was to mount a private prosecution against Leeds City Council for genocide. Mr Jarvis seems to be part of a movement that I’ve only recently heard of called the Freemen on the Land. To understand these “Freemen” a bit more clearly, here’s a segment from Rationalwiki.

Freemen believe they can declare themselves independent of government jurisdiction using the concept of “lawful rebellion”: that all statute law is contractual and therefore only applicable if an individual consents to it. They assert that what everyone else regards as “the law” doesn’t apply to them as they have not consented to a contract with the state,[4] even going so far as to claim they have a lawful right to refuse arrest if they do not consent. They insist that the government is a corporation, are obsessed with maritime law, and call themselves things like “John of the family Smith.” Essentially, they’re hilarious and somewhat less threatening sovereign citizens.

No freeman arguments have ever succeeded in court; some have even explicitly ruled that the term “freeman on the land” has no legal significance when the argument is raised.[5] Actually using the arguments gets people into worse trouble, including fines, asset seizures, contempt convictions and criminal records. However, this doesn’t stop freemen from claiming, without any supporting cases, that the arguments work.

With that in mind, it’s perhaps understandable that his prosecution for genocide was struck out on the spot as soon as it saw the light of an actual courtroom. But then that’s the trouble with going around saying you don’t believe in the law. Put that argument before the court, and you’ll quickly discover the law believes in you.

So, how’s their campaign going?

It looks like in the last couple of weeks they’ve had something of a falling-out. On Jarvis’ blog he publishes an e-mail conversation in which Jarvis accuses Gerrish of secretly being part of Common Purpose, and of being “a demon, a FREEMASON, and infact a man of DISHONOUR.” Gerrish in turn furiously denies the suggestions.

Chris

Very disappointed to see you trying to claim that I am Common Purpose.
Laughable and makes you look silly.

Not sure what your agenda is Chris but I am very disappointed in you
that as a victim of the system you attack others who are trying to help.

rgds Brian G

 

Jarvis goes ballistic back at him…

There is so much more, and so many people you have let down I cannot be bothered really going in to it all, but it is interesting that you only ever reply to people when it is for your COMMON PURPOSE.

We are all entitled to make the odd mistake here and there when seeking the truth, my mistake was trusting you at face value.

Everything you have purported to have stood up for like freedom of speech, you have in fact tried your best in a reverse FREEMASON style to undo, take for example your introduction of the thought crime “TROLL” not discriminating between abuse and constructive criticism in your labeling and judging of others

There’s more on Jarvis’ blog, if you have any particularly interest in reading incoherent rants in capital letters.

Oh well, as you reap so shall you sow. Mr Gerrish, you hitched your wagon to someone comes across as deeply paranoid, and presented him to the media as some sort of crusader and legal expert. And now he appears to have turned you. I can’t say I feel much sympathy.

More on the “Child Stealing” Tin Foil Hat Brigade

It’s all kicking off in the comments thread to this post, in which I looked at the legal campaign of Chris Jarvis. Mr Jarvis has had his children removed by the courts and social services, for reasons that he hasn’t specified. His response to this is to mount a private prosecution against Leeds City Council for genocide.

For some reason I can’t quite fathom, his prosecution was struck out on the spot by a district judge. He now plans to take his case to the London High Court.

Mr Jarvis seems to be presenting himself as something of a legal expert in certain conspiracy theory circles. In this blog post he extols the virtues of acting as a Mackenzie friend (a lay person who acts in lieu of a lawyer during a court hearing).

As he says in the above video, “If you wish to see the end of the law of the lawyer…then we must make these people redundant and surplus to requirements….Let’s make the lawyer something of yesterday.” He had acted as a Mackenzie friend to one Norman Scarth, who had been imprisoned for contempt of court after recording a court hearing.

Mr Scarth appears to be something of a colourful character in himself. A World War Two veteran who has stood for election on various occasions, though his electoral campaigning in the past has got him arrested for shouting abuse through a loudhailer. In 2001 he was imprisoned for wounding a bailiff with a chainsaw.

In his YouTube video, Mr Jarvis makes great play of the respect he was given in the court when applying for a writ of habeas corpus for Mr Scarth. I must confess to being somewhat surprised by this approach. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m given to understand that it’s considered a fairly easy thing to get out of prison for contempt of court. Basically what you do is go before the judge and say that you’re sorry and you won’t do it again, thereby purging your contempt.

Mr Jarvis links to the Bailii page for the court hearing. Curiously though, he doesn’t mention the outcome.

Conclusion on habeas corpus

    1. In the absence of any basis upon which it would be proper to conclude that the Claimant has been imprisoned unlawfully or that his imprisonment has become unlawful I could not grant the writ of habeas corpus. As I sought to point out to the Claimant in the hearing on 15 August 2011 his interests are much better served by an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I am satisfied from documentation referred to by the Claimant and sent to me in the post either by the Claimant or persons acting on his behalf that the Claimant has lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. It is that court, in my judgment, which should adjudicate upon whether or not the finding of contempt of court and/or the sentence imposed for the contempt should remain.
    1. I do not pretend that I have dealt with every point which the Claimant made during the course of a speech which lasted about 45 minutes. I have, however, dealt with all of the points made which I considered had any bearing upon whether the Claimant was detained lawfully.

Purging contempt

  1. During the course of his oral representations Mr Jarvis raised the possibility of the Claimant applying to me to purge his contempt. In some ways this was a surprising application since in his own representations to me the Claimant demonstrated nothing but contempt for the order made by HH Judge Rose and, indeed for the judge himself. Nonetheless I felt it my duty to consider this possibility. I did so upon the assumption that I had jurisdiction to entertain an application although Ms Lambert was not able to confirm that I enjoyed such jurisdiction. I reached the conclusion that assuming I had jurisdiction to deal with the matter I should decline to do so. It seemed to me that the appropriate forum for any such application would be the judge who had found the contempt proved and who was, far better than me, in a position to judge the seriousness of the contempt and the genuineness of the Claimant’s application to purge his contempt. Alternatively, such an application could be made to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a possible outcome of the appeal that the court will uphold the finding of contempt and also determine that a sentence of six months’ imprisonment was an appropriate one. Even in those circumstances, however, the court might be prepared to entertain an application to purge the contempt. I raise that possibility for the Claimant to consider. Whether he makes such an application and whether the Court of Appeal entertains it is not for me to determine.

Or, to summarise, “get stuffed and use the proper channels”.

Mr Jarvis is at pains to point out in this conspiracy theory podcast that Mr Scarth subsequently had his sentenced reduced by the court. What he doesn’t mention is that it doesn’t appear to be down to anything he did. Rather, he was released early because the judge decided that “the nature of his personality disorder means that he is not one of those who is likely to see the error of his ways and, to use technical language, purge his contempt.”

Perhaps the lesson is that unless you can’t get legal aid and can’t afford a lawyer, if you’re before the courts then you’re better off instructing the qualified professionals. In his video, Mr Jarvis quotes a legal maxim, “He who fails to assert his rights has none.” Maybe he should consider another, “He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and a lawyer.”

“Child Stealing” Conspiracy Theory Codswallop

Back in February I blogged about Brian Gerrish, a spectacularly deranged conspiracy theorist who peddles claims of “child-stealing” by a nefarious conspiracy of social services, CAFCAS, CAMHS, police and, for some reason, a management training company called Common Purpose. So that’s why children are occasionally taken into care? Not because of difficult and tragic cases where children have to be removed from their parents for their own safety, but because it’s a trafficking industry to make money?

Strangely enough, I had a conversation yesterday with a friend who spent this weekend at the Secret Garden Party festival. He told me, “That Brian Gerrish was on the lineup for Secret Garden Party, along with a guy who’s suing Leeds City Council for genocide.”

“What? Did you see this?”

“Nah. It was on some fringe stage called the R/Evolution Bunker. I was tempted to go see if for a laugh, but then I discovered his talk had been cancelled and replaced with an ex-Mafia bodyguard. So I went to a shamanic drumming workshop and watched some mud wrestling instead.”

From browsing the R/Evolution Bunker’s lineup, they have talks on hidden pyramids in Bosnia and on how the Arab Spring was caused by solar cycles. But Brian Gerrish was cancelled? Were his ideas too mad even for them?

But what’s this about a guy who’s suing Leeds Council for genocide? I did a Google search, and it turned out to be somebody called Chris Jarvis. Surprise, surprise, he’s had his children removed into care, and he’s come to the conclusion that this is genocide.

Leeds City Council to be prosecuted for ‘Genocide’ and ‘Crimes against humanity’

In modern language usage, brought about by use within the Courts, the word “care“, has become synonymous with the word “custody“.

A family is a group. The taking of children and moving them from one group to another is prohibited by UK and International Law, this is evidenced by the provision in UK Statute Law – “International Criminal Court Act 2001 – Schedule 8 – Article 6 – Genocide (e) forcible transferring children of the group to another group”

I wonder what the court made of his argument? Actually, I don’t need to wonder, because he posted on his blog that in May 2012 he turned up at Leeds Magistrates Court for a hearing.

It would appear that the information from the Draft summons was used to create a private hearing where Chris was not allowed his assistant, was not allowed his witnesses where he was placed in a locked Court room before a District Judge that appeared to have come to a predetermined decision based on previous correspondence to the Court and reportedly told Chris that he had presented no evidence to the Court and that his application had been refused.

This now allows the application to be taken to a higher level at the High Court in London, due to the multiple technical errors in Law that exist.

I can’t say I’m exactly surprised. The judge probably viewed him as just some pain in the bumhole pursuing a vexatious case in order to conduct a feud over the fact that his kids had to be removed. Good luck to him at the London High Court. My non-lawyer brain suspects that he’ll find it gets struck out on the spot there too, and then he’d be likely to be handed a massive bill for costs.

Perhaps I’m being too cynical. Maybe he’s genuinely the victim of a miscarriage of justice, rather than just some grubby child abuser? To show how badly he’s been wronged, he has various YouTube videos of him interacting with various social workers, council staff and police officers.

Well, that didn’t come across as paranoid, evasive or creepy in the slightest, did it?

He’s got another YouTube video, which I don’t intend to link to, in which he films the police and social services removing his child into care. It makes for distressing viewing. The police officers and social worker spend several minutes remonstrating with Mr Jarvis and his child. The child doesn’t want to go (this does not mean he isn’t being abused; removal into care is invariably distressing in the extreme), and is being exhorted by Mr Jarvis not to cooperate. Eventually, and inevitably, the police have to remove the child by force, leading to further distress for all concerned.

Interestingly enough, Brian Gerrish refers to Chris Jarvis on this podcast as being some sort of legal expert, like he’s some sort of amateur Perry Mason.

Good grief, where do these people come from?