2nd message

I did not say hi because it is a legal letter submitted to The Court of Appeal asking for documents relating to the case not a social letter. I am also fully aware you have referred to me in the chatroom as "some bitch who joined BCF just to have a go at Ronin whilst stopping him from seeing his own child".

As stated clearly I am not prepared to discuss two complex legal cases outside of court. I have asked you for required evidence of matters you are in no position to understand - knowing nothing of either case - and indeed are not entitled to be privy to.

I have asked you for the evidence, I have specifically NOT asked you to trawl through it because a) you haven't the faintest clue what you are looking for b) you have no legal training whatsoever c) you are completely unaware of the cases and the points of law they concern d) you are not a party to the case and therefore not entitled to be informed of any of the above and e) it is not a job suitable for anyone who does not have my extensive experience in this matter.

I am representing in this case - ie acting as lead Barrister. This has been agreed and accepted by The Court of Appeal and - as you were informed before - I have already won the right to Appeal in this capacity in The Court of Appeal itself. I gave you the date of the hearing and the name of the Lady Justice, both her decision and her Judgement are in the public domain and I am now part of UK case-law. I even gave you the details of where these items are to be found - ie the HMCS website. You are free to read any of it. As you apparently know everything about the law, the court process and the proceedings involved in Appeals I am surprised you need to be told this.

I have not sought to use "pseudo legal" terminology. I used plain english that described the situation and my requirements. I felt legal terminology and references to the pertinent legislation, Family Procedure Rules and Practice Directions that i have used in these cases to be surplus to requirements and further to far above your head.

I simply require the data itself for the time period given as I clearly specified. You have refused. That is your right.

This is an Appeal case which - as a pompous know it all - you will of course understand the processes of. In case you do not - following the Application for The Right to Appeal - which I have undertaken and won as my own barrister - it is a single hearing process without a Directions Hearings, Findings of Fact etc. The court itself will not therefore make directions for evidence to be submitted and merely use the evidence in the court bundles. Indeed - as you know everything - you will be familiar with the extensive legality of this and no doubt be familiar with FPR30.12(2)(b) and the further matters of PD30A. As I clearly stated before these are available on the HMCS website should you wish to brush-up on your apparently extensive knowledge of Family Law.

However, as stated in the above FPR and PD I am able to request the Court consider other evidence and - because of issues in the case that exist far above your understanding - your enlightening comments above are part of this. Whilst the comment above is sufficient to illustrate the Point of Law i am raising, it is poor practice to refer to a part of a body of evidence and not to view and discuss the remainder of that source, hence I have asked you for the complete logs.

As you have refused, my request and your response are sufficient for the court to understand that I have attempted to do this.

The entirely separate case that will arise as a result of the Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation will require the further logs. The Ombudsman's Office may well request these from you themselves and i will forward your costs breakdown to them. As it is an investigation they require all the evidence, not bits cherry picked by a layperson with no understanding whatsoever of the details of the case, Child Protection Policy, Cafcass procedures, their policies and codes of conduct and indeed the complex legislation and case-law surrounding 'Duty of Care'. Although I would have considered this to be somewhat obvious even to an outsider.

Following the Ombudsman's Investigation I am free to take separate action against Cafcass through the High Court. Having successfully brought 2 cases to The Court of Appeal, I will be doing this. As you seemingly know everything you will of course be aware already that Appeals are only granted in cases where the Appellant (me) is likely to be successful and - as I patiently explained to you before - these cases themselves are also of legal significance. As I also explained to you before The Court of Appeal is above The High Court so taking the case against Cafcass to The High Court is something now well within my capabilities and legal experience.

Again, since you know everything, you will be aware that the processes of the High Court differ from those at The Court of Appeal and Directions to submit further evidence before any Final Hearing can be made by the court.

As you are not prepared to provide me with the complete logs now I can request the High Court order them to be submitted in full at that time, and I will be doing so. As above, the matters involved far exceed your understanding and experience so the logs need to be complete.

As above, I have seen your comments and understand fully your views on violence against children. It is therefore my personal opinion that you are a cunt and have no desire whatsoever to speak to you in anything other than a professional capacity regarding this case and the future case in the High Court. That is why i did not say hi, and, to be completely clear, will not be doing so in the future. i hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

You have made your position clear and i trust i have done so with mine. I have no desire to have any contact with you aside from my initial request and your received response. Any further requests for evidence will be from The High Court following the conclusion of this case in the Court of Appeal and the separate conclusion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Investigation.

Rachel Waters
(Appellant Mother)