See also:
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/deborah-slurper-mahmoudieh-loses-it
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/deborah-slurper-mahmoudieh-loses-it/#comments
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/another-illegal-video-to-report
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/trolls
HOAXTEAD RESEARCH 
Oops! Sabine forgot to put her address or the address of her firm at the top of that legal document. D’oh!
LikeLike
Anyone can read the law and misinterpret it. Doesn’t make you a specialist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry I put the above comment in the wrong place. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s hilarious. I’m an expert. No I’m not an expert. Still time to change your mind again!
I bet her credentials as ‘cannabis expert’ are much better. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well she’s made a right “hash” of everything so far!
Ba-dom-tsss!
LikeLike
Ends up looking like a proper ‘dope’!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I knew someone would go there, haha.
LikeLike
@Deborah Mahmoudieh
Answer our questions, Slurpy.
Why are you supporting known child abuser Abraham Christie?
Why are you supporting Belinda and Sabine, who have business links with convicted paedophiles?
Why are you committing child abuse yourself by publishing details of two vulnerable children?
What are your legal qualifications?
Why did you backtrack and claim not to be a legal expert when it states on your own witness statement that you’re an “EU law specialist”?
Where does it state in law that a child has to be believed, no matter what they say?
K go…
LikeLike
from the comments before they were disabled – continued on g+
susan banga commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly – Yesterday 10:39 PM
I could not find the bit you are talking about in section 26-30 on continuing the investigation even if the child retracts. I did however, find this, which shows there is provision and caution suggested around malicious claims: The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked [in order] to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.
Read more
Defender of children’s rights = ‘criminal-fugitive’ ?
1
Hide comments
Hennie GerdiYesterday 10:51 PM+2
3
2
+susan banga She is talking out of her arse….she knows nothing about the law, just another self appointed wannabee, so fits in well with the fake McKenzie Friends Belinda and Sabine
Show less
susan bangaYesterday 10:56 PM+2
3
2
ah, thanks. thought so.
Deborah Mahmoudieh10:41 AM
+susan banga there are specific translations of the text in terms of practical use and in 26 it DOES say that ‘Investigating offences and bringing charges in criminal proceedings should be facilitated, to take into account the difficulty for child victims of denouncing sexual abuse and the anonymity of offenders in cyberspace. To ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative.’ The officially accepted and correct application of this section (which is also clearly written in another report) is that emphasis of belief is given to witnesses (because of the fear-factor) AND to “ensure successful investigations” ALL reports of child abuse must be investigated even if reports are withdrawn BECAUSE; investigations and “their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative.” The legal translation of HOW the law works is ACCURATELY presented in my video and ALL the EU Directives are even more clearly presented in the UN CP Directives. In truth, i have not gone into ALL the negligence i.e. section 29 says ALL child abuse victims are to be given an independent legal guardian IUMMEDIATELY, those children have NEVER had that.
Show less
Hennie Gerdi10:43 AM
What is the law about identifying children. ..in abuse cases? You don’t seem to know that
Sound Affects11:13 AM
+Deborah Mahmoudieh LOL, even in your own quote it says nothing about children having to be believed. You can’t even lie properly, haha!
susan banga11:15 AM+1
2
1
+Deborah Mahmoudieh why have you turned your comments off? what are you scared of? in your answer to me, above, you go from a para in that doc specifically relating to offences committed online – it says quite specifically: ‘in cyberspace’ – that the victim may not even know about, or report. that is what it was intended for, ie to enable prosecutions of online offenders without their young victims having to be aware or taking part in the action against the perpetrator. obvious child centred law, good. but you broaden it out to a different meaning, which is wrong and misleading: ‘The officially accepted and correct application of this section (which is also clearly written in another report [which report, section?] is that emphasis of belief is given to witnesses (because of the fear-factor) [unless they have retracted and the claim is found to be malicious – as i already outlined in extract from para 28: The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked [in order] to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.] – so your assertion that all reports by children should warrant belief is plain wrong. as was your EU law interpretation, which i only bring in here to show your lack of grasp of the law is a pattern, ie not a single mistake.
you go on…’AND to “ensure successful investigations” ALL reports of child abuse must be investigated [there was an investigation, it lasted two weeks] even if reports are withdrawn BECAUSE; investigations and “their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative.” [in cyberspace, when the victim is not aware of the offence, when evidence is available at source, ie digitally, as already discussed above….d’oh] The legal translation of HOW the law works is ACCURATELY presented in my video [ sorry, it isn’t, you are patently wrong in your ‘interpretation’, in the EU law case i got a barrister to check and he laughed at your ‘interpretation of the law’. are you even trained in law, or are you just spouting off and trying to con others as to your erroneous beliefs?] and ALL the EU Directives are even more clearly presented in the UN CP Directives. [reference please?] In truth, i have not gone into ALL the negligence i.e. section 29 says ALL child abuse victims are to be given an independent legal guardian IUMMEDIATELY, those children have NEVER had that.[that is another point entirely and one i cannot comment on since we are not privvy to all the facts, but perhaps you are right in this particular point, i don’t know.
Show less
Hennie Gerdi11:24 AM+1
2
1
I think Deb is just another self appointed meddler. ..just like the questionable belinda and Sabine appointing themselves into various positions. …hey Deb…no one takes you serious
Sound Affects11:27 AM
+Deborah Mahmoudieh At the end of the day, Debbie, you’re just a dolphin in a square tank.
+jon crossland
Show less
susan banga11:32 AM
+Deborah Mahmoudieh cont from my last comment, another mistake from you at the bottom: section 29 says nothing about independent legal guardians being appointed immediately in all cases as you suggest perhaps you can actually copy the text you are referring to. i only found one instance of guardian in that document, and that is in s 31: ‘Assistance and advice should be considered to be extended to parents or guardians of the child victims *where they are not involved* as suspects in relation to the offence concerned, in order to help them to assist child victims throughout the proceedings.’
…which is quite a different meaning from the one you state. again. that para relates to advice to ‘member states’, just btw.
Read more (14 lines)
Hennie Gerdi11:38 AM
1
Reply
And while doing that Debbie can you link us a copy of your certificate. .licence to practice please…that should cause you no problems as it should be available for all to peruse
LikeLike
hahahha…..There is one self appointed law expert…a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Did she think she could fool EVERYONE ??!! She might fool the fruitloops – but she fails to realise NOT all of us are nutters, and can see through her pathetic attempt at trying to make herself look important.
Any lawyer would RUN HER OUT OF TOWN !! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unbelievable! Still denies it even when the proof is clear to everyone who can read! – EU LAW SPECIALIST.
Hahahaha..!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: More insights into Deborah Mahmoudieh’s warped mind | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Pingback: Legal expert Barbara Mahmoudieh offers her insights | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Pingback: Deborah’s Epic Meltdown | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Pingback: Feedback on Belinda, Part 3 | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Pingback: Deb Mahmindhasleftmeh is on the rampage…again! | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Pingback: Focus - To All Structured Settlement Brokers - For Bangun Omah