michael doherty Thousands of men daily have to put up with these evil bastards jumping through hoops to accommodate ex-wives vile allegations along with their legal aid lawyers and crooked masonic judges abusing the law to help themselves to men's assets , homes and children. A rare occasion when this is caught on camera.


A historic day! July the 6th 2012 at Uxbridge Magistrates

2nd Private Criminal Prosecution - summons issued!!!!!

Uxbridge Magistrates, issued summons for officers (Detective) Stephen MacDonald & (Sergeant) Gareth Blackburn, to appear before Westminster Magistrates on the 14th of August 2012 at 10 am. The charges are;

- kidnap (max sentence life imprisonment)

- false imprisonment (max sentence life imprisonment)

- aggravated burglary (max sentence life imprisonment)

- burglary (max sentence 14 yrs imprisonment)

- affray (max sentence 3yrs imprisonment)

- Misconduct in public office (max sentence life imprisonment)

The hearing at Westminster will be simply to 'send' the case to the Crown Court. Most likely Southwark Crown Court. I would expect significant press attention at these hearings so do try to attend if you can as this case could have massive implications. Bring placards and banners As most of you will be aware the charges against these officers relate to their unlawful entry to my home in 2008.

Thank you to all the supporters who made the effort to get down, about 15 on this occasion. Public were barred from the hearing because the court was concerned audio recordings may have been made. (someone made such a comment on a public forum which the police defence team produced) The hearing in Uxbridge was quite something, indeed the jaws of the police barrister and federation reps hit the floor when the summons was issued. I have detailed records of this which will be released at the conclusion of the trial.

A picture of me outside Uxbridge Magistrates The discredited Independent Police Complaints Commission

The unlawful entry to my home was examined by the IPCC as part of their 'managed investigation', the other part of that investigation was the conduct of the police secretary who made false allegations. It will come as no surprise that the IPCC report, published in Jan 2010 stated there was no case to answer for the police, either criminal nor misconduct. Now on the very same evidence examined at the IPCC, I have started criminal cases in the courts. Both elements of this very costly IPCC investigation are now being pursued by way of private criminal prosecution. Both cases the court has confirmed there is 'a case to answer'.

This shows in full technicolour that the IPCC covers up police criminality and denies the opportunity for these matters to be properly aired before a jury, in a court of law. As a result I will be pushing for the resignation and then prosecution of Deborah Glass the Commissioner responsible for my investigation.

Defamation case

Still waiting propositions from the Met police for arrangements for mediation. Parliamentary Inquiry into the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) I will be sending in an addendum to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the IPCC explaining that it has been started, completely against the claims of the IPCC. Another glaring example of the corruption within this organisation and in particular with Deborah Glass the Deputy Chair.

Till my next update, Michael Doherty



    The compliant media would have us believe some guy that herds goats in the middle east is the biggest threat to our wellbeing. One look at who controls the media should warn us exactly who most threatens men and their family's stability.

    The judicial mafia, via their media lawyer lackeys, have being using the press and more recently tv and radio to mask their tyranny by distraction and scapegoating. You have more chance of winning the pools one thousand times over than becoming the target of a goat herder. However you have a very high chance of having your life totally and utterly destroyed by the scum and dregs of the earth who have been hand picked by Queen Lizzie to fleece the peasants of all their worldly possessions under the guise of family law.

    The royal parasites hand down orders to the Duke of Kent and his worldwide army of freemason droogies heavily embedded in the legal systems of the globe. All Bar associations answer to the Inns of Court in London were the International Bar Association resides and where the magical secret connection to the British Royals ensure the Queen alone owns the vast bulk of the world's land and property using the most devious and dangerous legal mafia the world has ever known.

    The gangsters, that have been documented throughout history, pale next to the vast plundering of a murderous judiciary who have overseen vast swathes of men dying of suicide with the appalling use of psychological torture and the expertise of inducing psychosis using every last psychological trick in the book. An evil satanic network of greed that has been plundering good men's estates for centuries on the back of their fancy robes, regalia and courts where the biggest criminals of all reside.

    Yet these evil bastards have given themselves sole authority over every contract and every asset in the world. A monstrous abuse of power that sees thousands of victims daily losing their homes and livelihoods thanks to the manipulation of laws manufactured by the freemason network of judges, lawyers and politicians who live opulent lifestyles through shuffling bits of paper around. THE BIGGEST DAYLIGHT ROBBERY ON THE PLANET.

    Every last one of the 'LAWS' governing divorce you can chuck in the bin. ALL OF IT or virtually 99% is hogwash created by a legal monopoly and irrelevant to natural law. Without fail the legal mafia across the globe meet to create what they call comparative laws that try to regulate divorce and how they can take an ever increasing piece of the pie from the men getting screwed everyday in these hell holes.

    What you see is a legal mafia that has corruptly lobbied crooked politicians to agree to an ever expanding glut of legislation that allows these evil bastards to take over men's lives, but most especially their finances. Women who marry can't expect to enjoy the spoils of marriage when they no longer want to be married , however the psychopaths who have taken over family courts make up 'laws' as they go along, and this has been verified by their own kind , to thieve on a scale so massive that even the world's manufactured debt pales next to what these scum are getting away with.

    This is NOTHING to do with ensuring women are financially secure after divorce, WHY should they be? If they do not want to be married then they , like everybody else have a duty to get off their backsides and find work that will provide the funds for them to survive, as the feminists are always saying they want equality. But we have been fooled by the controlled media to believe all of this is in fact legal when we have collated information over many years that proves the whole divorce system is a corrupt machine that robs men of their lives to fulfill the greed of lawyers running up massive bills via legal aid and to aid and abet gold diggers that have been jumping on the bandwagon turning themselves into millionaires on the back of corrupt judges and lawyers.

    These scum bags THINK they are entitled to strip men, entitled to live off of the back of men's graft, entitled to plunder men's estates and drive men into early graves on the back of laws manufactured by FREEMASONS heavily embedded in the legal structures of countries who ensure all men not connected with their craft are exploited and abused to satisfy their greed and corruption. So be warned all you young guys out there planning to set up home with a girl you have become embroiled with, the writing on the wall clearly states that you WILL without question be severely shafted if you do not take heed of the above and the world is strewn with men who found out to their cost the enormous damage these evil bastards can create when your former wife decides to leave and take everything with her thanks to her corrupt legal advisers. Learn how the system operates and learn that today men can only flourish knowing the consequences of daring to put themselves in a position to be captured by this outright tyranny.

    While the sheeple celebrate 60 years of the royal parasite few of them are aware how her freemason henchmen globally are behind this mass fleecing network, instead they wave their silly little flags celebrating tyranny and the biggest heist in history created by her Crown lackeys.

    repossession Through their partners in crime the press barons they would have us believe selling us estates is what banks do, with lawyers writing the contracts and judges (not juries) enforcing those contracts.

    However that is a blatant lie as the only way they can seize land and property is by selling us land and property in the first place. When America was colonized (seized) from the indians, who decided to draw up maps and impose their OWNERSHIP on the land? Freemasons embedded in the legal mafia enforced their 'laws' on land that was stolen and then SOLD to the unsuspecting immigrants who THOUGHT they were buying their homes.

    Look at the state of affairs presently in the USA as property is being seized en masse by government agencies and lackeys for the CROWN thieving back land they never had any right to sell in the first place. Property ownership is a massive scam of enormous proportions that so many victims have fallen victim to, assuming those controlling the mortgage racket are acting in our best interests. Until common law or at least laws that are JUST and PROPER are restored these vermin will continue to blind us by masonic run 'laws' that assure only their long term survival while everyone else will remain a victim to the mass seizure of everything we ever worked hard for.

    For any young man blinded by LOVE need to look in detail at the TRAP they may be entering into thanks to government and state legislation that turns many men into criminals through vile distortions of the law. Ultimately the freemasons resided over the administration of family courts gives them total power over your assets, homes and especially children. This is a sinister web of deceit that is probably the hardest contract to get out of. As many men, who are victims of this system can prove, marriage or divorce is the biggest killer and destroyer of men .

    We innocently forfeit our legal and parental rights when we purchase a marriage license.

    I wanted to pass along some VERY important information regarding marriage, the marriage contract, contract law, the state and children. This has helped me see the TRUE DANGER in getting married today. I have been studying the law intensely for the past few years and learned all about maritime law, contract law, trusts, corporations, policies, common law and how nearly ALL such "laws" today are not laws at all, but are merely Policies. They're operating under pretense of law. That is why police today are in fact called Police...because they enforce POLIC(E)-IES... NOT laws. They actually work for the insurance companies who are themselves owned by the banks, especially the Federal Reserve central banks.

    by Rich (

    The marriage license began in the middles ages as a private contract between two families. Most of the time this was recorded in the local church with or without eyewitnesses. Usually the word of a couple that stated they were married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - "Permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. They then charge you a fee (which is a bribe) to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

    So the state, in instituting any kind of licensing, is forcing you to contract with them and pay a bribe to do something that they claim is illegal. In Civil Law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture. As the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

    Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract." This contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that are attached to it. Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid. This results in an implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.

    It should be emphasized that this contractual consideration places the bride and groom in an inferior position (as defined-by-law) and makes them subject to the State. Very few people realize this. It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State. In this regard, children are regarded as "contract bearing fruit,".

    This was established in the US in the 1930's by two doctrines. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to put it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930's Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.

    This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State. But if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -i.e. the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.] The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship between the husband, wife and state. It's a trinity, just like a pyramid, with the State on top.

    Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage (a maritime corporation), to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage. Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction over the marriage, husband and wife, by the state, now separated, continues over all aspects of the marriage, including over marital property and the children brought into the marriage.

    That is why Family Law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage, because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. The marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people. This is why time and time again CPS feels that they can just come in and take over your children, because according to the marriage license (along with numerous other unrevealed contracts), they have legal jurisdiction over your children without you really knowing or understanding why. Much of this also goes back to the 14th amendment, your all capitalized name and each persons name being incorporated, thus giving the states and Feds authority over you.

    This is how we have all become enslaved once again, by these dangerous and unrevealed adhesion contracts, many of which, like the marriage contract, are always in force to some degree. Others include: Social Security, Drivers Licenses, Building Permits, Property Taxes, and SO many more. ALL of these items are adhesion contracts that have far reaching implications, without you knowing it. None of them are mandatory!!!!!

    Laughable if NOT so serious that the Royal ass kisser Harmsworth uses the Daily Mail to not only promote the royal parasites but also their hand picked judicial mafia who happen to be the biggest terrorists on the planet and who do more harm than all the rest put together, the impression they give in this article is that they care. They don't give a damn how many fathers they destroy in divorce courts due to the removal of juries and replaced by the Queens hand picked masonic henchmen disguised as judges and promoted as some sort of source for good. Trillions are wiped off of the millions of fathers assets caught up in the biggest daylight robbery on earth.

    Britons have an addiction to divorce fuelled by a 'Hello! magazine' attitude to marriage, a top judge has warned.

    Sir Paul Coleridge said family breakdown was 'one of the most destructive scourges of our time'. Citing growing evidence of harm to a generation of children, he said youngsters whose parents separated saw their educational achievements and job prospects damaged. In a highly unusual move for a serving judge, Sir Paul will tomorrow launch a campaign – backed by senior legal figures and Church leaders – to promote marriage.

    There was 'incontrovertible' proof that married couples were more likely to stay together, he said. Sir Paul, one of the most senior family court judges, voiced particular concern over what he called the 'Hello! magazine, Hollywood image' of marriage, saying: 'The more we have spent on weddings, the greater the rate of family breakdown.' And he also warned that a trend for older couples to split once children leave home was having an 'extremely emotionally disturbing' impact on families.

    Sir Paul's campaign is expected to be supported by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu and the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, while patrons of the campaign include former chief family law judge Baroness Butler-Sloss, family lawyer and academic Baroness Deech and Baroness Shackleton, the divorce lawyer who acted for Prince Charles and Sir Paul McCartney. The judge warned that courts had 'streamlined' family cases to contend with the growing numbers, making it too easy for couples to split – suggesting they should be required to go through counselling and mediation. 'We don't traditionally comment on matters of policy, but there are very few people who have had as much experience of what is going on as the family judiciary,' he told the Daily Mail.

    'We have watched it get worse and worse and worse. The time for sucking our teeth is over. Waiting for government or others to take action is merely an excuse for moaning and inactivity.' According to official figures, there were 400,000 cases heard in the family courts in 2010 and 120,000 divorces, up 5 per cent on the previous year. There were 241,000 marriages in 2010, a near 100-year low. Some 22 per cent of marriages in 1970 had ended in divorce by the 15th wedding anniversary, whereas 33 per cent of marriages now end in the same period.

    Cohabitation, meanwhile, rose from a million couples in 2001 to 2.9million in 2010 – and it is projected to rise to 3.7million by 2031. 'Marriage is not something that falls out of the sky ready-made on to beautiful people in white linen suits, it involves endless hard work and love'

    - Lord Justice Coleridge

    Referring to the 'Hello! magazine' attitude, he said: 'Marriage is not something that falls out of the sky ready-made on to beautiful people in white linen suits. 'It involves endless hard work, compromises, forgiveness and love. However right the person is, they might not be right two years later. It doesn't matter how wonderful you appear to be to your partner at the beginning, you will begin to display faults that we all have. 'In order for a relationship to last, you have to hang in there and adjust and change and alter and understand. Long, stable marriages are carved out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness and difficulties.'

    Sir Paul, 62, who has been married for nearly 40 years and has three children and three grandchildren, also warned of the rise in so-called 'silver splitters' – couples who separate late in life, often when their children leave home. In the past decade divorce among the over-50s has risen by 10 per cent. 'It is very sad that we now see such a huge number of people in their 50s, 60s and 70s getting divorced and carving up their estates and their lives,' he said. 'There has been a dramatic increase. The truth is that people think it's fine to do that once children are grown up. It probably isn't as destructive as when as child is 12, but if you speak to those in their 20s or 30s who experience their parents breaking up long after they have left home, they will tell you almost always that it's an extremely emotionally disturbing thing for them, and indeed for any grandchildren. It creates huge sensitivities. The tectonic plates of a family shift.'

    Sir Paul said he backed proposals to make it compulsory for anyone wishing to apply to the courts over an acrimonious separation to attend mediation or counselling. Tory ministers have suggested that separating couples should be made to understand the impact of conflict on children. But the judge suggested a wider shake up of the law, which he said dated back to the 1950s.

    'The law and the courts have undoubtedly played a part, because in order to manage the enormous flood of cases we have had to streamline the law and the process. There is no such thing as a defended divorce any longer. We see that the fight is no longer over the divorce itself, but over money and children,' he said. Sir Paul said he was not interested in 'preaching' or pronouncing moral judgments. And he defended the right of judges to speak out on issues of concern in which they had expertise. It was the same, he said, as doctors alerting the public to an epidemic they had detected. 'It would be irresponsible to remain quiet. This is an exceptional situation,' he said.

    The Marriage Foundation, the new campaign group he will lead, will accept divorce is sometimes unavoidable and will not argue that those who make a sustained commitment to one another outside marriage are in some way inferior. 'This is not going to be a cosy club for the smug and self-satisfied of middle England but, we hope, the start of a national movement with the aim of changing attitudes across the board from the very top to the bottom of society, and thus improve the lives of us all, especially children,' the judge said. Instead, the campaign will seek to promote marriage as the 'gold standard' for relationships that benefit couples, children and wider society.

    A report to be published by the foundation will say there is now overwhelming evidence that married relationships are more stable and the children of such relationships fare better. A baby born to cohabiting parents is more than ten times more likely to see its parents separate than one born to married parents. Among natural parents, almost 90 per cent of married couples were still together when their children were seven compared with just 69 per cent of couples who were cohabiting. Almost one in four children living with cohabiting parents as a baby, meanwhile, was in lone-mother families by the age of seven compared with only one in ten living with married parents. The costs and consequences for society, the foundation will say, are unsustainable.

    Half a million children and adults are drawn into the family law and justice system every year, with 3.8million children currently caught up in the family justice system. The financial cost to society of broken relationships is estimated to be £44billion a year. Research by the Youth Justice Board suggests 70 per cent of young offenders are from broken families. The positive benefits of marriage include higher incomes and greater accumulation of wealth, avoiding the loss of income that tends to follow a breakdown. Marriage also improves health, with one study suggesting the health gain may be as large as the benefit from giving up smoking.

    The five champions(that should say destroyers) of marriage

    The five key members of the Marriage Foundation have notched up some 204 years of married life between them.

    Senior: Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was the most senior woman judge in Britain until her retirement

    Tough: Nicknamed 'the Steel Magnolia' for her toughness, Baroness Shackleton has handled high-profile divorces, including the Prince of Wales and Diana, the Duke and Duchess of York and Sir Paul and Lady McCartney Senior: Baroness Butler-Sloss, left, was the most senior woman judge in Britain until her retirement, while Baroness Shackleton has handled high-profile divorces, including the Prince of Wales and Diana, the Duke and Duchess of York and Sir Paul and Lady McCartney

    Lord Justice Coleridge, 62

    Has been married to Judith for 39 years. They have two sons and one daughter. Sir Paul Coleridge was privately educated at Cranleigh School, Surrey, and called to the bar in 1970. He married his wife, a boatbuilder's daughter, in a simple ceremony – with a reception in a boatyard – in 1973. He has speculated that expensive weddings create a greater risk of family breakdown. He has previously said that 'splitting families is like splitting the atom. You get enormous quantities of pent-up emotional energies that spill out and are completely unpredictable, plus all sorts of collateral damage that nobody expected'.

    Baroness Deech, 69

    Has been married to Dr John Stewart for 45 years. They have one daughter. Ruth Deech was ennobled as Baroness Deech of Cumnor in Oxfordshire in 2005. Her father was a historian and journalist who fled the Nazis in Vienna and her family arrived in Britain on September 3, 1939, the day war was declared on Germany. Lady Deech believes the number of weddings has fallen to its lowest level since 1895 because 'religion is a waning force, women have financial independence, there is state support for lone parents, children are no longer classified as illegitimate, divorce is easy and there is no recrimination over sex and birth out of wedlock'.

    Lord Justice Toulson, 65

    Has been married to Elizabeth for 39 years. They have two sons and two daughters. Sir Roger Toulson was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in January 2007 after a distinguished 38-year career in the law. He is patron of several charities, including Time for Families, a Christian charity that supports families, and Keep Out, a scheme aimed at rehabilitating young offenders. In a case in which a morbidly obese man argued that his local health authority should fund his fat-reducing surgery, he said: 'Human rights law is sometimes in danger of becoming over-complicated.'

    Baroness Shackleton, 55

    Has been married to Ian Ridgeway Shackleton for 27 years. They have two daughters. Fiona Shackleton is the personal solicitor to Princes William and Harry. She has been nicknamed 'the Steel Magnolia' for her toughness and has handled high-profile divorces, including those of the Prince of Wales and Diana, the Duke and Duchess of York and Sir Paul and Lady McCartney. She has been quoted as saying: 'I like sticking up for people, making sure they are not taken advantage of. Even if they are incredibly rich.'

    Baroness Butler-Sloss, 78

    Has been married to Joseph Butler-Sloss for 54 years. They have two sons and one daughter. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was the most senior woman judge in Britain until her retirement. She made many controversial decisions, including blocking a man's legal battle to see his test-tube baby daughter, conceived after he broke up with her mother.


  • Why you should NOT get married! (VIDEO)

    The super rich are turning London into the divorce capital of the world.

    Foreign wealth has been flooding into the courts, thanks to multi billion pound legal actions by eastern European oligarchs. Immensely wealthy warring couples with homes around the world see a combination of Britain’s beneficial tax regime and family court justice as a magnet for “divorce tourism”. Multi-millionaire divorces attract the headlines and star divorce lawyers are now more sought after than ever.

    They include Helen Ward, whose client list has numbered record £48 million divorcee Beverley Charman, as well as Andrew Lloyd Webber and Caroline Spencer. Another is Fiona Shackleton, best remembered for having a jug of water emptied over her head by Heather Mills when she represented Sir Paul McCartney. Ms Shackleton has also acted for the Prince of Wales and was involved in the divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York.

    Ayesha Vardag represented Katrin Radmacher in one of three landmark cases that have made English divorce courts an attractive location in which to settle big-money separations. German heiress Radmacher’s divorce in 2010 from her French husband led to pre-nuptial agreements being accepted in English law on a similar basis as they are in Europe and the United States. The divorce of England footballer Ray Parlour from his wife Karen in 2004 was the first acknowledgement that stay-at-home wives could be eligible for a share of their ex-husbands’ future earnings. Karen Parlour, who had built up the family home in the face of her husband’s regular bouts of alcoholism, was awarded two mortgage-free houses, a £250,000 lump sum and £440,000 a year.

    Ms Charman was awarded the record payout of £48 million from her ex-husband John in 2006, when, for the first time, judges recognised a wife’s equal contribution to the marriage. Ms Vardag said that London lawyers were benefiting from the “community of super rich foreigners” that has built up here. “England’s global reputation for giving generous payouts to wives has also made it an attractive jurisdiction in which to file for divorce,” she said. However, the increase in non-British divorce cases also reflects the fact that 65 per cent of children born in London in 2010 had at least one foreign parent.

    by Peter Nolan

    With respect to ‘court orders’ you are being lied to with deceptive language. You are led to believe that ‘order’ means ‘instruction’ like a man in the army is required to follow ‘orders’. Why is he required to follow orders? Because he SIGNED A CONTRACT when he joined the army and he took an oath.

    But a ‘court order’ is not an instruction like in the army. It is an ‘order’ like you buy a big mac meal in McDonalds. What must you do after you ORDER your big mac meal and before you EAT IT? You must PAY FOR IT.

    So. Whenever you are given a court ‘ORDER’ it is an irrevocable order for services. It is the JUDGES/MAGISTRATES problem to find out the COST of the order before he/she orders it. Just like it is YOUR problem to find out the price of the big mac before you order it. If you don’t have the money you should not place the order. So when you are given a ‘court order’ you have a lawful right to issue a lawful BILL for the order. Until that BILL is paid? You have no obligation to fulfil the order.

    Here is proof this works. This is an ‘order’ for EUR6,000 per month. At the time of the BILL the ‘arrears’ was EUR150,000. So I issued a BILL for EUR1.5M and said I would be more than happy to pay the EUR150,000 just as soon as my BILL for EUR1.5M was paid. I have not heard from these people since October 2009.



    He won't have to worry, his masonic judicial pals will make sure his ex-wife gets the same vile treatment men usually get that are not part of their satanic network of power.

    The best-known High Court judge in the divorce courts is set to have his own marriage examined in a trial as he battles his ex-wife over their assets including a £6 million house.

    Mr Justice Mostyn has instructed lawyers as he prepares for his new life with barrister Elizabeth Saunders, 40, whose husband Mark was shot dead by police during a siege at their Chelsea home in 2008. Ms Saunders’s affair with Sir Nicholas Mostyn, 54, came to light in 2010 and he was granted a decree nisi from Lucy Mostyn, 53, last August. In a 30-year career at the Bar, he was one of the country’s most senior divorce lawyers, charging up to £500 an hour. His clients included Sir Paul McCartney, Earl Spencer and Karen Parlour, ex-wife of former England footballer Ray Parlour, for whom he won a £4 million settlement in a landmark case.

    Sir Nicholas was made a judge in April 2010 and now his own divorce after a 31-year marriage is set to hit the headlines. In the divorce papers adultery is cited as the reason for the break-up. At the heart of the dispute over the assets is the family’s 18th-century Grade II-listed home in a 117-acre estate in Hertfordshire. The nine-bedroom house, now on the market, has four reception rooms, an outdoor swimming pool, tennis court and extensive paddocks. Because Sir Nicholas is such a familiar figure at the High Court, a judge has had to be found to hear the case from outside London. Judge Stephen Wildblood QC will preside when the hearings start at Exeter on April 30.

    Sir Nicholas was born in Nigeria and brought up in both Central and South America before his parents divorced. His success as a divorce specialist barrister brought him the nickname “Mr Payout”. After becoming a judge he warned in 2010 that the “rosy, romantic” notion of marriage had been replaced by cold economics. He said he believed marriage should be attended by bridesmaids rather than lawyers, and that pre-nuptial agreements tended to lead to the “suppression” of brides. Sir Nicholas and Lady Mostyn have four children. Part-time magistrate Lady Mostyn was said to be a stay-at-home mother, running a livery business with the help of half a dozen stable hands.

    The business was launched in 2004 when the couple bought the farm buildings behind the house and is 99 per cent owned by Lady Mostyn. If the asking price for the property proves to be too steep for a single buyer, one option is to split it into four lots. Apart from the main house there is a three-bedroom cottage.

    Mass media only getting round to a subject we have exposed over many years how a myriad of doctors, psychologists, social workers and every Tom, Dick and Harry are pulled out of a bag by crooked legal aid funded lawyers to provide them with reports heavily weighted in favour of their clients whose only interest is to stop FATHERS from seeing their children. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS RACKET OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.

    The welfare of children is at the heart of the family courts system. These courts deal with incredibly sensitive, highly emotional cases, involving questions of custody, abuse, neglect, adoption and access.

    The futures of the most vulnerable in our society can be affected for ever by the decisions of judges, particularly where there is pressure to remove a child from the parental home. The awareness of such vulnerability has increased dramatically in recent years due to a string of well-reported cases such as those of Baby P, the 17-month-old boy from Haringey who was killed by his mother and her boyfriend, with a number of failings noted in those professionals tasked with protecting the child. Such cases have led to mounting anxiety about child protection.

    Consequently, it is vital the family courts have all the necessary advice and evidence so they can reach the best-informed decisions.


    The possibility that this is being compromised by psychological ‘experts’ who do not have the qualifications, skills or knowledge for this crucial role is extremely concerning. A number of these family cases require forensic or clinical expertise from expert witnesses, and yet this is not always evident in the experience of those asked to give their professional opinions. Where children’s lives and futures are concerned, the courts should rely on the very best expertise from psychologists and related experts, such as psychiatrists, who really understand issues like personality disorder, sexual offending and domestic violence.

    Yet, based on research I conducted as a forensic psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire and Mersey Care NHS Trust, this does not always seem to be the case. The study, carried out by a team at the university, was commissioned by the Family Justice Council, and explored in detail expert witness reports submitted by psychologists to family courts. The Family Justice Council was set up by the government in 2004 to ensure that children’s needs are met within the judiciary, and was keen to explore the quality of the evidence being submitted to the family courts.

    Having examined the files on no fewer than 127 cases from the family courts in which psychological ‘experts’ were involved, the results were concerning — indicating an absence of qualifications and competence across a number of areas. ‘Experts’ were found to be conducting assessments covering crucial family issues without having the experience to do so, and certainly without use of the most up-to-date and accepted methods of assessing risk. Equally concerning is evidence from the report that the majority of experts are not in practice, so they are not routinely treating clients or working as part of a wider service.

    Instead, there appear to be a growing number who are ‘professional’ expert witnesses, whose only practice is in providing assessments to a court. It certainly suggests a living can be made out of this work alone, even though the more traditional approach was for an expert in practice to be called upon by a court occasionally to provide their experience. It leaves a range of difficulties. Courts run the risk of utilising unqualified psychologists, or psychologists who are not qualified in the area they claim to be able to testify in.

    Courts rely on a single expert in most cases, so the selection of this expert is crucial. Our research indicated that at least one fifth of all these psychological experts were not properly qualified at all, in the sense that they did not belong to either of the two main UK bodies, the British Psychological Society or the Health Profession Council. Moreover, in conducting assessments of families, at least 20 per cent of them strayed far beyond their own field of experience, something that has the potential to be highly risky in child cases.

    For example, we found evidence of witnesses commenting on sex offenders even though they had not practised in this area, or commenting on mental illness without ever working in that field. Indeed, the study found that fully 90 per cent of the witness reports were written by ‘experts’ who were not actually engaged in psychological practice at the time. The quality of a large number of the reports was also low. Our analysis found that 65 per cent were rated as either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ — a remarkable statistic.

    The research team found a bewildering array of difficulties in how the reports had been conducted. Some ‘experts’ did not seem to value the importance of conducting interviews with those family members they had been asked to assess. There was also an overuse of psychological tests, many of which had no clinical value or were ‘made up’ by the psychologist involved. There was also evidence of antiquated intelligence tests — more than 20 years out of date — being employed.

    We also found evidence of witness reports comprised of a range of emotive judgments that were more opinions than professional assessments. For example, statements like ‘a self-centred young woman’ or, in rather quaint language, ‘an uncouth child’.


    One man was described as adopting ‘an over-familiar, conspiratorial manner’, while, in another case, a family dog was said to be ‘extremely well-behaved and extremely patient despite constant teasing from the children’. ‘She can be fun to be with’, read one rather unhelpful report. Sometimes the judgments were wholly inappropriate. ‘Miss X is an attractive mum and has a lovely personality.’ Others were chaotically structured, failed to answer vital questions, or just regurgitated previous assessments.

    ‘No numbered paragraphs, no glossary, nothing,’ was the verdict by my team on one such report. ‘Simply hopelessly confused,’ was another verdict. One could ask what encourages a psychologist to become involved in such work. Some will undoubtedly do it out of a desire to protect children. However, it is clear that a career and a living can be made from such work. On average experts charge £120 an hour for assessing families and compiling reports. So this is a well-paid profession with tariffs set far higher than for many psychologists working in a full psycho- logical practice.

    A complex two-parent assessment for a court case could easily bring in more than £4,000, as a minimum. In our study, one expert laid claim to writing more than 200 reports in the past year, while another put on their CV that they had completed ‘over 1,000 reports’. What family courts need from psychological experts are authoritative judgments, informed by the latest knowledge in the psychological profession within which experts practise.


    This is all the more important given the growing numbers of children who are now being taken into care in the wake of cases such as Baby P. Understandably, social services departments are now fearful of leaving children in the care of parents who pose any risk — which, in itself, could lead to the removal of children more quickly, and subsequently the involvement of experts in helping to assess such parents. In the past month alone, local councils made no fewer than 903 applications to the courts to take youngsters into care, an astonishing rate of 225 per week.

    In total in 2011/12, 9,299 applications for care were made by local authorities, an increase of 12 per cent on the previous year. Those figures show the vital need for the courts to be assisted to do their jobs effectively. But that will not be done while non-experts potentially mislead judges with evidence which is not up to standard. Family courts clearly operate within the confines of confidentiality in an attempt to protect the interests of children.

    This inadvertently may have allowed for experts to avoid the close scrutiny — from both their peers and the public — which they might be exposed to in other courts. In short, family courts — perhaps more than any others — deserve the best service experts can give.

    If you think you pay a fortune in fuel or alcohol tax nothing compares to the divorce or baby tax. Young men, who as yet have not been caught up in the divorce industrial complex, need to be aware how women know that having a baby to a man is a licence to print money . The state has made it so lucrative for a woman to break the marriage contract yet impose massive illegal financial burdens on men to prop them up ad infinitum. No contract that has been written throughout history is more absurd and financially profitable for the freemasons embedded in the judiciary and law societies to EXTORT money on a grand scale from unsuspecting men.

    This is nothing to do with justice but an enormous fleecing machine that spits out men after consuming all their worldly possessions. A merry go round of property sale and repossession(theft) that ONLY enriches freemasons running the divorce industrial complex and their own property portfolio's, on behalf of an evil crown. Isn't it any wonder that men are committing suicide en masse when faced with the massive burdens that the judicial mafia impose and that they make up as they go along. Even their own bar associations freely admit judges have NEVER been authorised to impose such enormous financial burdens on men yet have stealthily done so because of a cabal of masonic thugs planning their schemes behind closed lodge doors with no political lackey prepared to challenge the power they have given themselves , as they are in the same clubs.

    We regularly have to regurgitate these important issues as without something to counter the media propaganda and the constant promotion of marriage, young guys do not realise how destructive these evil bastards have made becoming a parent or partner . While the radical feminist agenda has been used to prop up the females that use divorce to enrich their own lives while destroying the men they once supposedly loved and now are happy to throw the legal wolves at them to gain maximum advantage from what is a campaign of terror waged against separated fathers by the utter scum and dregs of the earth.

    Some years ago, I was outside a pizza restaurant when a young woman turned up, pushing a pram. She was preceded by a small boy who must have been about four years old. He stopped at the door, whereupon she said: ‘Well, open the f***ing door, you little s**t.’

    I think my disillusionment with the idea that there was something sacred, sublime and beautiful about mothers and motherhood began on that day. Shortly after, I spent some years working in a truancy centre, where we tried to give a little general education to children who had missed years at school. In many cases, it was clear that the reason for these absences had been mothers who kept them at home either because the women were lonely or because they needed the children as babysitters.

    The point is that while there are many good mothers in the world, there are plenty of bad and often abusive mothers, too, yet we still have a Family Justice system that prizes mothers and motherhood, but devalues fathers. When David Cameron wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph one Father’s Day, he made a point of attacking absent fathers. I snarled with contempt and threw the paper across the room. He clearly had no idea that a very high proportion of fathers are absent because they are forced to be so by vindictive and possessive mothers, and the family (in)justice system that backs them up. David Cameron has young children, and he ought to consider what it might be like, if, God forbid, his marriage ever ended, to find that the courts are against him — and that any orders they made giving him access to his children were unenforceable.

    He might win the right to have them for half the time, but if Samantha withheld access to the children, there would be absolutely nothing he could do about it, except apply for another order she could ignore. Judges of both sexes are the kind of people who have never had to change a nappy in their lives, and don’t see why any man would want to. They also seem to have a strangely warped moral sense. Now that family (in)justice is under review, any male MPs with small children ought to take note of what might be done to them the moment their marriage or relationship goes wrong, as mine did two years ago.

    Since then, I have received many letters of support, many of them telling dismal and heartbreaking stories. The surprising thing is that most of them come from grandmothers. They write about their sons’ repeated breakdowns, caused by being separated from their children, or about how children are brainwashed to reject their fathers. This is called ‘parental alienation’ by those in the know. I have had letters from paternal grandparents who are desperate with grief, because ever since their grandchildren were abducted (as they see it, and so do I), they have never seen them again.

    Lest I seem misogynist, I should say that the passion you have for your children is the most powerful and overwhelming emotion you can have, and the behaviour of some mothers is entirely explicable because of this. One of the reasons I became a father was that a friend of mine told me that until you have had children, you know nothing of human love. I have since found out that he was right. The problem is that when you go through a break-up, this extreme passion results in an equally extreme selfishness with respect to sharing them.

    If I had my way, I would have my children all the time. I had a vision of how their childhood was going to be, and I was not going to give it up. The trouble is that your ex feels the same. Some people resort to dirty tricks, one of the commonest and most successful of which is to accuse the other parent of sexual abuse or violence. The authorities will take several years failing to investigate, during which time the accused will be allowed little or no contact with the children. A judge is then equally likely to rule that the children have got used to the separation from their parent, and should not be disturbed by having it reversed.

    It is not illegal or punishable for someone to accuse you falsely in this way, and nor is it illegal for a solicitor to suggest it as a tactic. The courts are seemingly unaware that women are almost as likely to be violent as men, and so the same accusations against them are less likely to be believed. As I once had a girlfriend who attacked me every time she got drunk, I am not inclined to fall for any myths about the gentler sex. Another dirty trick commonly employed by mothers is to move a long way away and take the children with her. In this way, while a man may have the right to have the children three days a week, if the mother has moved to the other end of the country, or even abroad, it makes fatherhood impossible.

    British Family Law doesn’t, in short, give a damn about men. A judge in Cambridge told me that he was appalled by how often men were simply treated as sperm donors and cashpoints. The more you can withhold the children from a father, the more maintenance he has to pay because the mother — having turned herself into the primary carer — is less likely to be able to work, and will have more costs to bear. There seems to be little expectation that mothers should make a financial contribution, even though we all know mothers who successfully go out to work or run their own businesses, and despite school hours meaning it’s perfectly possible to get part-time work. Middle-class mothers will be relieved to know they are considered too delicate to have to go and stack shelves in Tesco like everyone else.

    There is, therefore, a very strong financial incentive to make sure that fathers have their children as little as possible. A big part of the problem with Family Law, as practised at present, is that it is adversarial, and this has given rise to hordes of lawyers who exist to exploit the hurricane of emotions that overtakes you. They raise the level of aggression and acrimony, and some of them will clean you out of every penny you have. They are masters of delay and of creating new things for you to argue about and hate each other for, and the vituperation and litigation will not end until one of you cannot pay them any more.

    My solicitor was agreeable to the idea of mediation right from the start, and I estimate that her charges came to about one-third of what my ex had to pay. My solicitor and I were open-mouthed with amazement when, at one hearing, they turned up with three lawyers. Early on in the break-up, I found myself receiving orders from these enemy solicitors, who seemed to have a fantasy that they actually had some authority over me. I was to have the children every other weekend, and the weekend was to begin on Saturday morning and end early on Sunday evening. I was not to go and help out in my son’s nursery during the early days, when that was the only way I could get to see him.

    I said to my solicitor: ‘Why can’t I just go and kidnap them back?’ But I was advised not to get involved in open warfare. Even so, I am not the kind of person who reacts kindly to being told what to do by people who knew neither me nor my children, and who, I believe, just wanted my head as another trophy. Their firm’s propaganda clearly displays their pride in duffing over the eminent or rich. They began a prolonged war without it ever occurring to them to ask my ex if she thought she was really doing the best or the right thing.

    Luckily, the judge in Norwich wasn’t going to take any nonsense. The first question he asked was ‘What about a process of reconciliation?’ The second thing he said was that, with all respect, lawyers were part of the problem, and why didn’t we do everything by mediation? We did sort out the sharing of the children by mediation, which turned out to be quick, easy and cheap, although painful at times. During the inevitable rows, the mediator just looked out of the window until we had finished. My ex did not want to deal with finances by mediation, however, and that became a fantastically long and expensive ordeal that ultimately took no account whatsoever of the fact that a writer’s income fluctuates wildly from year to year.

    The general public may not know that family law is ‘judicial’. That is, it is made up by judges as they go along. There is no proper code of practice and no proper code of laws, except that judges tend to follow previous rulings. You are faced with a situation in which you and your solicitor have no idea what the likely outcome is, because, as I was often told: ‘It all depends on the judge. You might be lucky, and you might not.’ The judge in Norwich I have already described. The one in London dealing with the question of finance was mainly starring in her own show, immensely enjoyed her own robust humour, did not let me speak at all and did not let my barrister finish a sentence.

    So what is to be done? Any review of family law has to take account of the fact that times have changed. Fathers now do things that only mothers used to do. We enjoy it, we want to carry on doing it and we want to remove the anomaly and injustice involved in the judicial habit of thinking that mothers count and fathers don’t. Many countries have equality as a default position, and I have not heard of this causing any problems. Children are sometimes annoyed about having to live in two places at once, but that is all it is — a bit of an irritation. I’d be mildly vexed if I was halfway through a jigsaw puzzle and had to leave it at one house to go to the other, just as I am certainly vexed when I discover that all my children’s socks have disappeared because they are at their mother’s house.

    Equal rights: As women have struggled for equal treatment in the workplace, some men have taken on a more domestic role - and come to love it

    Women continue to struggle for equal rights in the workplace, and I have always supported them in this, ever since I became interested in feminist issues in the Seventies. Women were demanding that men should take more of a share of domestic responsibilities, so that their talents could flourish in the wider world. Well, we have — and a lot of us have grown to love it. I have my children half the time now, and I only feel truly happy when I have them in the house. The love exchanged between us makes any other kind of love a bit of a sideshow, which in some ways is a pity, but I wouldn’t change it.

    My ex and I live harmoniously not very far apart, and the more the legal horrors recede into the distance, the easier it becomes to get along. A pleasant friendship and companionship has reappeared, which help me to push away the anger and resentment that still frequently perturb me. There was, however, a time when I was utterly bereft. For some months, I was helpless with rage and frustration and an overwhelming sense of injustice, always aware that any extreme expression of my despair would inevitably be used against me in order to show that I was unstable. Of course I was unstable! Isn’t that normal when you’ve been thrown into Hades? I am very surprised that there are not more murders and suicides relating to parents separating, although there are many such.

    I was only able to carry on because I never gave up hope, and I knew that the most important thing was to give the children a good future. I was also given a cause to fight for. Our children, their fathers and their fathers’ relatives have got to have rights enshrined in law, because our pains and pleasures, our joys in our children, are as pure and profound as those of mothers and their relatives. The children need all of us.

    On Mother’s Day next weekend, I hope David Cameron publishes an article in a newspaper pointing out that it is more often fatherless children that become delinquent, not motherless ones.