Royals - how guilty are they? CSA Inquiry note

We've established that apparently lovely people - Rolf Harris comes to mind - can do bad and stupid  things when they are unaware of the true facts. The Queen has worked indefatigably for Britain and her allies , since she was a child. My mother loved her, and we all grew up, loving the Queen. Prince Charles is RAF. Hard to fault anyone involved in the RAF. Anne has always been a great advocate for good. I don't know enough about the rest to pass any proper opinion. Like everyone else, I hope there is no Royal guilty of having raped a child. I think it's silly to implicate Price Charles - as lots have online - when clearly he was of the belief that he was helping a charitable man when he allowed Savile to entertain the family. I bet it was simply to promote his own agenda, to be seen with Royals allowed him access to vulnerable children. Savile cared nothing for young people, the good deeds were a conduit and a cover. He was all about exploiting and abusing. Not the man we liked to see make dreams come true on Jim'll fix it. We all looked forward to that show. It was nice to see kids being heard and treated and rewarded, credit where it's due.  I hope the kindness of the good Royal shines through and that the good Royals - who are innocent - are as patient and helpful as they are bound to be. I'm sure they are.  Sometimes, you have to do things because they are more important than you or your ego. We all love a libertarian Britain and we don't want to lose our liberty, our poetry and are love for each other - because - we do Love each other here in Britain - we believe in showing it in ways that we can and sometimes that means doing things a bit quietly and a bit hidden - which is police work really - get it right - cuz we must - for the sake of the bigger pictures. So anyway - have faith - people are trying to do their best and the best don't get paid well .

Princess Diana News - and note the Police - Are handling my computer, apparently (some text was changed after I wrote it on Facebook to 'Police' - interesting little stalker)

Well if that's the case, I hope they are investigating the origins of 'HM Queen' and the lies of the violent, blood-sucking, war-mongering, mass-murdering, fraudulent, demonic psychopaths that have stolen the line of Christ from the people of EUROPE, I truly hope so. God bless the Pope.

And was Diana really not a tormented Goldsmith? Was The gallant Lord Goldsmith fibbing about his vacation (said he wasn't there, we know different?) in order to promote peace? The truth is clear to most, Jemima (Diana's sister) and Zac (see Richmond Council) should really come clean about this. You are not God, you must stop the deception before you are dragged out by a revolt.

Ken Livingstone knows what's what and who is whom, sure as there is a nose on yer face! And HM Queen Elizabeth did not respond to this

Mother 4 Justice - Elizabeth Robillard blogs and shares truth and information

http://www.mama2.org/AO Ken Livingstone Fwd: FUAO Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Adriana C Ref: 05/A/01426/NP)‏

FAO Ken Livingstone Fwd: FUAO Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Adriana C Ref: 05/A/01426/NP)
Elizabeth Robillard   20/10/2005   Keep this message at the top of your inbox
To: mayor@london.gov.uk
Cc: chelsea.[]@hotmail.co.uk


Dear Mr.Livingstone,

I'm writing because my mother was a big supporter of yours. Please see below
(letter to Sir Rifkind) and my story (an open letter to the HRH The Queen)
here http://www.mama2.org [taken down]

I would also like to ask you to please investigate the incestuous nature of
RBKC. All charities bar one are subsidised- but always threatened with
funding withdrawal if a client of subsidise charity
should take the authority to court. This is a means of defeating the most
vulnerable.

Thank you for your time,

Yours faithfully,

Liz Lucy Robillard

HRH Queen Elizabeth
via email
26th November 2007 (copied to BBC)
Dear Madam,

Please pardon my temerity at writing and for this intrusion.

I'm writing as your servant and distant- relative (De Lucy, Robillard, Champagne) and as the daughter of J.G.L Robillard whom was decorated (by your father) for his efforts as a pilot with the CRAF and RAF during WW11.

Please review family court lawyers and judges acting 'in your name' - they are accountable to nobody (no governing body) and acting, in some instances, as power-crazed (sorry for the strong language) but they ought be judging their findings on evidence when at the moment they depend heavily on the words of social workers (children's services as of April 2007 also have no governing body) whilst all parties whom truly benefit (bar parents involved) are legal departments, all of whom make huge profit often with the hapless parent unaware of why children are taken from them etc .

 In an effort to understand this,  I took six months of university reading social sciences and dropped out due to is heavy bias toward communism and my refusing to put my name to work I was ordered to plageurise (communist bias)

 Also the training of social workers is often popular psychology (most is hypothesis very far from any fact) yet learned men and women willingly accept the view of these people, employed in your name, over that of your citizens and friends that actually know the families involved, wishing for fairness and openess in your public family courts, for their friends (eg friends - up to 20 in some cases, go to court as witnesses for the parent, but the power of authority to rule, outweighs that of any justice)

It would be refreshing to see such judges not depending on their perception of psychology e.g. a scoundrel knows to 'show remorse' (crocodile tears) will often release him from charges. This is common knowledge and I believe the judiciary are aware of this only recently.

 Sadly I have personal tragic experience of these public family courts and despite informing my MP (Sir Rifkind) very little appears to be done to stop the local authorities simply being able to march into any ones home and 'kidnap' children for the sake of filling the needs of job placements, such as permanent adoption and fostering officers and departments.

As a disabled mother and previously an actress, I am sad to find myself an unfortunate campaigner for public family law reform.
This job, separating families, surely ought to be one of a community, including free legal support for a parent in such a plight, as well as impartial support for the child? Too much communist influence is determining the lives of the British people as far as I can see.

The Children Act ultimately says 'the paramount interest of the child' but surely the abuse of that statement- leaving judges to disregard fact eg hundreds of hard fact evidence due to  a social worker or two urging it, is contrary to the paramount interest of the child?

Thank you for your kind observation and consideration

As always

your servant

Elizabeth C Lucye Robillard
-