david thursfield 

and Linda thursfield A warning to any young guy thinking of a long term relationship or marriage. This is a harsh lesson that many men learn about way to late that the freemason judicial mafia can take total control of your estate on behalf of a golddigger. They can lock you up so they can help themselves to your money and property)

Ford Tycoon makes legal history as he is jailed for two years for hiding money from former wife in divorce battle
  • David Thursfield, 67, is a wanted man after a High Court judge sentenced him in his absence to two years’ jail for failing to disclose his alleged hidden wealth
  • Lawyers say the prison term will serve as a stark warning to husbands who try to stop their ex-partners sharing their riches

  • A tycoon accused of hiding a multi-million-pound fortune from his former wife in an acrimonious divorce battle has been sentenced to two years in jail.

    Lawyers say the prison term, the longest of its kind, will serve as a stark warning to husbands who defy the courts in an effort to stop their ex-partners sharing their riches. The man at the centre of the case is David Thursfield, a 67-year-old cigar-chomping former boss at the Ford motor company. He was nicknamed Darth Vader by colleagues for his role in closing Ford’s Dagenham factory in 2002.

    His fearsome reputation for cost-cutting helped him earn a salary of up to £1.2 million a year and a jet-set lifestyle which included the use of a string of luxury properties in exotic locations around the world. But he is now a wanted man after a High Court judge sentenced him in his absence to two years’ jail for ‘a continuing failure’ to disclose his alleged hidden wealth in a case which his ex-wife of 27 years brought against him. Last night Mr Thursfield’s ex-wife Linda, 61, a British-born dental surgeon, blamed the break-up of the marriage on her husband’s interest in Rachel Measures, 40, whom he married after their divorce settlement was finalised in 2005.

    Speaking from her home in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, she said: ‘I’d moved all over the world with David and I’d given up my profession for him. It was like I’d passed my expiration date and he was trading me in for a younger model.’ The Thursfields met when he was a plant manager with British Leyland in the Midlands in the Seventies. The couple married in Birmingham and during his career he landed top jobs in Australia, Spain, Essex, Germany and the US.

    Mrs Thursfield filed for divorce in the US while her husband was based at Ford’s Detroit headquarters. In 2005 she agreed a cash settlement of £1.1 million and their heavily mortgaged mansion in a Detroit suburb. Mr Thursfield was awarded a grand property named Prospect House in Cheltenham, which he has since sold for £1.6 million. After the settlement Mrs Thursfield hired private detectives and a forensic accountant to track her husband’s alleged wealth to a bank account in Switzerland and a family trust fund which, allegedly, is being used to control his fortune for the benefit of his third and latest wife.

    In 2011, Mrs Thursfield took her case to the High Court where she successfully obtained a freezing order against her husband – to stop him disposing of his property or money. She was entitled to sue in this country because the High Court agreed there was sufficient relationship between Mr Thursfield and his assets and British jurisdiction. Mr Thursfield was deemed to have breached the High Court judge’s order to disclose details of his alleged wealth.

    In the legal proceedings it was claimed that he had recently been given £3.5 million in payments from one of his former employers, Cerberus Capital Management, a New York private equity firm. Mrs Thursfield’s investigators said that he also bought a £1.5 million property in an exclusive Bahamas harbour-front development called the Ocean Club – where scenes from the James Bond movie Casino Royale were filmed. But Mr Thursfield told the court he was now ‘virtually penniless’ and said the £31,000 cost of his third wedding and £118,000 in school and university fees for the daughter he had with Linda had contributed to his fall from riches to rags.

    He also claimed the running costs of the property in the Bahamas between 2005 and 2010 were £200,000. According to the High Court judgment, when he was asked in 2009 by a Michigan court about reasons for ‘strange dealings’ with a £2.5 million loan deposited into a Swiss bank account, he said: ‘Because I did not want to be encumbered by you people and constrained on what I do with any of the money that I earned or borrowed. It becomes tiresome when you meddle in my affairs.’ High Court Judge Charles Purle QC ruled that Mr Thursfield ‘deliberately refused to say what had happened’ to the £3.5 million from Cerberus.

    The judge added that ‘millions of dollars appears to have vanished . . . I am satisfied that the husband is deliberately refusing to reveal what happened to it.’ Ruling that Mr Thursfield was in contempt of court, the judge said he was imposing a punitive sentence ‘as a coercive measure in order to encourage full and prompt compliance hereafter’.

    Last night Amanda McAlister, a family law expert at international law firm Slater & Gordon, said: ‘This judgment undoubtedly will send shivers up the spine of husbands and wives whose strategy is to hide assets.’ Last night a spokesman for Mr Thursfield said: ‘David is appealing [against the prison sentence] and maintains that the original settlement was more than adequate.’

    Ruthless family court judges worried about their safety . No jury hearings ensure the queens hand picked lackeys can steal a mans wealth , properties, business and especially children with impunity.They can access a vast arsenal of weapons via their cop henchmen only to happy to destroy men for profit. With a compliant media only to happy to provide bias reports heavily weighted in favour of these poor judicial souls.

    Family court judges in fear of parents: Number attack inadequate security as they speak out following several incidents

    Family judges across the country fear attack in court by angry parents because of inadequate security, it emerged last night.

    A number have spoken out following several incidents of mothers and fathers attacking judges in court – including one female judge who was seriously injured. They have taken the unusual step of speaking out in the hope of preventing further violence at the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD) in central London as well as district courts around the country. Judges told of parents shouting threats at them, as well as throwing books and cups.

    Speaking under condition of anonymity, one said: ‘I have been threatened. A very angry father stood up and shouted antisemitic threats at me. ‘Another father threw a cup of water across the courtroom (CUP OF WATER!!!!!!!!!!). ‘Another parent threw a book but fortunately I was too far away for it to reach me.’ Another judge said of the PRFD: ‘I’m constantly, constantly exposed when I work there.

    'There’s no security in the courtroom. None. Sometimes we are in the courtroom alone with a parent.'


    A family court judge

    ‘There’s no security in the courtroom. None. Sometimes we are in the courtroom alone with a parent. ‘Most commonly, we sit with a clerk, who, in my experience, is always an elderly woman. ‘If anything went wrong, believe you me, she would not be the one defending me.

    ‘We shouldn’t have to walk in the public corridors of a building where we have just removed someone’s child for ever.’ They added that there were no private corridors for judges at the PRFD, meaning they were constantly walking through public areas. They said: ‘I feel uncomfortable every time I have to do it. I’m very aware of the constant risk.’

    A third judge said colleagues were at risk because they were often required to hear cases in chambers with no-one else present. And one circuit judge, who sits in county and crown courts and also in the family division in London, warned of a ‘disaster waiting to happen.’ They said: ‘It will take one serious incident and someone will wake up to the fact that the current system is not safe for family judges.’

    The comments follow a recent incident during which a female judge was seriously injured by a parent in the courtroom. The judge has confirmed the violent and deliberate attack but preferred not to give details. Judges complained that in many cases, county courts do not provide both a courtroom and a retiring room for district judges.

    This means district judges have to hear cases in their chambers, with those involved sitting in close proximity. The lack of a retiring room mean judges have nowhere to go if they have to escape an aggressive parent. 'It will take one serious incident and someone will wake up to the fact that the current system is not safe for family judges.'

    District judge Nicholas Crichton, founder of the family drug and alcohol court at Wells Street family proceedings court in central London, told The Guardian it was a ’recipe for flashpoint’ to compel judges to walk through public areas and share corridors. He said: ‘Emotions run high. These parents are coming to court feeling criticised about how they treat their children and terrified they’re going to have their children removed.’

    There are no publicly available statistics for the number of attacks on judges but a spokesman for the judicial office at the Royal Courts of Justice said: ‘While we have noticed no recent increase in the level of significant incidents, security continues to be treated as a serious issue. The judiciary monitors security regularly, with input from a broad range of judges in different locations and courts.’ A spokesperson from Her Majesty’s courts and tribunals service added: ‘HMCTS takes the issue of security within courts extremely seriously. Our security system is continually monitored to ensure that it is effective and proportionate and mitigates against the risks faced.’

    joint bank account A BIG BIG warning to any young men that may foolishly fall head over heels in love and think sharing everything with their new bride is the ideal way to start a marriage. When it comes to your financial situation NO ONE, especially a stranger you may eventually fall for, can be trusted to SHARE your hard earned cash, Gold diggers are particularly good at spending any MUGS money that is prepared to cater for all their needs. A crooked lawyer and judge will provide the legal machinations for them to do it with impunity

    If you are one of the very lucky few who remain married for life good luck to you but as many men find to their cost the first thing an ex-wife will do, after seeking advice from a crooked lawyer, will be to get an order to close any joint bank account . You then become vulnerable to attack when weakened by having no access to funds you may have laid aside for an emergency and by god when these evil bastards move in to take what you have spent a lifetime accumulating they will ensure anything that can be locked down to block your access will be. Over and above shutting down your ability to bank you will then be hit by a restraining order so the lawyer that is attacking you can do virtually anything and if you raise a hand to protect your life they will use that to lock you up as if you are a criminal but without a jury to hear what is being done under the guise of the LAW.

    The police spend all their time and energy abusing men during divorce as it is such a lucrative way for freemasons, their hired thugs, to get hold of your possessions and when you are stripped bare they will all share in the spoils from their twisted legal moves . Many women get railroaded into believing they will gain from exerting maximum pressure on their former husband but find in time this is NOT being done for her benefit but to give these crooks additions to their ever expanding property portfolio's that will be used to sell to their next gullible victims of a massive worldwide mortgage scam that convinces the unsuspecting public they are buying property.

    They are loaning you that dream until they rein it back in when your relationship falters and you will be very fortunate not to be attacked at some point during your life by these murdering bastards as when the stats on divorce are properly dissected they all show a rapidly descending drop in marriages that survive a lifetime.

  • Joint bank accounts a nightmare when divorcing
    Men dying in their droves thanks to draconian measures being meted out in Crown courts

    Trapped: the former couples who can't afford to move on

    Stuck in the 'struggling middle', more ex-partners are unable to take on the burden of running two homes. And the problem is creeping up the income ladder, counsellors warn

    Middle-income couples, recently identified by the Conservatives as the "struggling middle", are increasingly unable to afford to separate when their relationships end, according to a new study. Almost half the 2,000 counsellors at Relate, the charity that specialises in relationship counselling, say an increasing proportion of the 150,000 clients they see each year are being forced to remain living together despite having decided to split up. Couples with children are more likely to find themselves trapped than those without, but both groups are increasingly finding it impossible to bear the cost of setting up different homes.

    "When we talk about Relate's clients, we are not talking about people on low incomes. We're talking about people in employment, on average to above-average incomes," said Ruth Sutherland, the charity's chief executive. Sutherland said the charity, which was founded almost 25 years ago, had never seen this demographic of clients struggling with their finances to such an extent that moving into two homes and getting on with their lives was an impossibility.

    "These are people who could previously afford to move away from each other when their relationship broke down," she added. "But now, they are stretched just to pay their mortgage on top of the rising cost of living. When their relationship breaks down, they find they can't afford two mortgages, on top of the cost of running two homes." Sutherland said that for parents, the cost of childcare was another devastating factor. Parents in the UK spend an average of 27% of their salary on childcare, compared with a European average of 13%. Twenty-five hours of nursery care a week for a child aged two or under costs on average £5,000 in England, rising to between £6,000 and £15,000 in London.

    "To pay for the increased childcare demands that come with being a single parent has become a pipe dream for many people, even those in well-paid jobs," said Sutherland. Richer couples could find themselves in the same predicament as the difficult economic climate continued, Sutherland predicted. "I would not be surprised at all to see the problem creeping up the salary band," she said. "This era of austerity we're in is not like other hard times we have lived through.

    "In the past, we've had a dip and then recovery, but now we're in unknown territory about the length of time people are going to have to cope with debt, job insecurity, pressure from work and the mounting cost of childcare. "The only thing we know is that people are going to have to cope with these problems for longer than they would ever have done so before."

    At least 40% of Relate counsellors said they were seeing more couples split up than two years ago, with money worries cited as a major cause. "It's vital for the future of our children, and thus the future health of our nation, that estranged parents manage their separation well," said Sutherland.

    "Children learn about relationships at home. If they see their parents undermining each other, arguing and being vindictive, then that's the foundation on which they will build their own relationships. It's not only the adults who, if stuck in a toxic situation, are going to be damaged." Which is why, said Sutherland, she was so concerned by another finding in Relate's survey: that separated couples are increasingly unable to afford to complete their counselling courses.

    At least 80% of counsellors said increasing numbers of clients were unable to afford to "properly start or conclude" their counselling programmes, despite being offered short, intensive courses of four to six sessions, charged from £6 to £45 an hour, depending on their income. Over 70% of Relate counsellors said money problems including debt, a lack of disposable income, unemployment and rising living costs had worsened for their clients in the last two years.

    Almost 90% of counsellors said money worries made their clients depressed, with 80% saying couples argued more as a result and 65% saying it affected their clients' physical health. "Let's all be clear about the real cost of austerity: the impact of being in a relationship that isn't working is toxic. It is harmful to your children and it permeates every other aspect of your life," said Sutherland. "If the government wanted to protect the mental health of the country, both now and in the future, they would target these cuts differently."

    The rate of family breakdown in the UK was revealed in October statistics from the Department of Work and Pensions showing that 79% of children under one live with both birth parents. This drops to 55% by the time the children reach 15. Nearly a quarter of people have continued to live with a partner, or know someone who has, because they couldn't afford to live apart, according to a 2010 report from Shelter. "We also know that relationship breakup is a major cause of homelessness," said Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter.

    The 2012 total cost of family breakdown to the UK was £44bn, up from £42bn in 2011, according to a recent study by the Relationships Foundation. The study looked at the cost of family breakdown in five key areas of public policy: tax and benefits, housing, health and social care, civil and criminal justice, and education and young people not in education, employment or training (Neets). It concluded that the annual cost for each taxpayer was now £1,470. "The government's austerity policies are making things worse, and it doesn't make sense economically," said Sutherland. "What we want is for them to do a relationship and family impact assessment for every policy they consider introducing."

    Robb said the "shortage of affordable housing in this country is being felt further and further up the income scale". "We're hearing from couples moving in together too fast to help with housing costs but then unable to move out if things go wrong because they can't afford to live on their own. This has a huge impact on people's home lives," he added.

    Robb said the housing crisis is "the result of … more and more people chasing fewer and fewer homes, which has pushed up house prices and rents far faster than wages have risen. "Our research also shows that more and more people are putting off having children because they can't find an affordable home," he said. "Something is badly wrong when people who are working hard still face a constant struggle to get a decent place to live."

    Caroline Davey, director of policy at Gingerbread, the charity for single-parent families, said families in the low- to middle-income bracket were "increasingly struggling financially". "When a couple separates this financial squeeze can make it impossible for them to forge new lives separately," she said. "With wages stagnating, higher risk of redundancy, spiralling living costs, and many families without any savings to speak of, it can be simply unachievable for a separating couple to afford to run two homes rather than one. The only alternative for some families is to continue living in the same home but as separate households."

    Davey warned: "This situation could become more commonplace in future as the financial downturn bites even harder on families across the income scale." She added: "Action is needed across a number of areas, for example strengthening the role of local authorities in supporting access to private rented accommodation, reversing the harshest housing benefit cuts, and sustained job creation."

    A spokeswoman for the Treasury said: "The government has taken action to help people with the cost of living, including freezing council tax and fuel duty and cutting income tax for 25 million people by raising the personal allowance. Action taken to reduce the deficit has helped to keep interest rates near record lows. And we have extended the offer of 15 hours free education and care a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds, to cover an extra 130,000 children."

    andrew davies

    Debra Ann Davies, Lord Justice Thorpe and Andrew Davies

    Are the UK's barmy masonic judiciary finally getting the message about golddiggers in divorce?

    Judge hits out at wives who demand 'completely inappropriate' payments as hotel boss battles £2.75m divorce case

    Lord Justice Thorpe said 'big' payouts should be consigned to history
    He made comments while presiding over a case involving multi-millionaire hotel boss Andrew Morris Davies

    The days of wives receiving multi-million pound divorce payouts from wealthy husbands could be numbered after one of the country's top family judges slammed such claims. Lord Justice Thorpe said payouts in 'big money' divorces, where wives feel it is 'reasonable' to ask for millions to maintain the lifestyle they are accustomed to, should be consigned to history, adding: 'We only talk about "needs" when there isn't a lot to go round.' The judge made the comments when presiding over a case in which multi-millionaire hotel boss Andrew Morris Davies, is battling to get a £2.75million divorce payout awarded to his ex-wife Debra Ann Davies cut.

    Mr Davies was 'in love' with his business, The Cardiff Hotel, in exclusive Norfolk Square, Bayswater, West London, and described himself as 'a force of nature' to Judge Martin O'Dwyer who made the award to his ex-wife. She helped run the hotel for 13 years before the couple split, and in August last year, Judge O'Dwyer recognised her contribution to the success of the business when he awarded her a £2.2million lump sum, plus the £550,000 former matrimonial home, in Friars Way, Acton. That payout was largely made up of a one-third share in the £6m value of the hotel building and business.

    Mr Davies reacted angrily to the award, insisting that - whilst his wife was 'the second best receptionist' he ever had - she should not get a share of the hotel's value because she was just a paid employee who 'simply did her duties'. Today he asked Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Rimer and Lord Justice Elias sitting in London's Appeal Court to slash her payout. Mr Davies, 50, married his Australian wife, 39, in 2005, and they had two children, but the couple had been together- with Mrs Davies working up to 17 hours-a-day helping run the hotel business - since 1997. However they split after just four years of marriage.

    The court heard the hotel had been passed to Mr Davies and his two sisters by their parents, and Mr and Mrs Davies bought out his siblings' shares during their marriage. Having heard that Judge O'Dwyer had assessed Mrs Davies' claim, 'in terms of pure need', at £1.55million and had then upped her payout to £2.7million because of her contribution to the success of the hotel, Lord Justice Thorpe said: 'Any mention of needs is completely inappropriate in a case of this scale. We only talk about needs when there isn't a lot to go round.

    'In a case like this, which is loosely categorised as 'big money', needs should not make much of a contribution to judicial reasoning. 'The bigger the family fortune, the less relevant needs became. In big money cases, the wife will often get twice what she needs. I don't see what bearing needs have in this case.' Peter Duckworth, for Mr Davies, argued that the hotel had been a 'gift' by Mr Davies' parents, Morris and Gwyneth, to their children, and the judge had over-estimated the value of the ex-wife's contribution.

    'The affairs of the Cardiff Hotel were at all times kept separate. The wife had no say in how the business was run, or any share in the profits - rather, she was paid a wage,' the barrister said, adding that judge O'Dwyer had been wrong when he found that the business was 'entirely valueless' in 1997 before Mr and Mrs Davies began working there together. Saying that, before the wife had any input, the business had produced a post tax profit of £250,000, the barrister said: 'The judge found that the hotel was wholly valueless in 2007. In reality it was a cash generator.' Insisting that the couple had done no more than take advantage of the valuable gift provided by Mr Davies' parents, the barrister added: 'They didn't add value to the business- they just took what was there and exploited it.

    'Judge O'Dwyer accepted the wife's evidence that she had basically turned the business around - She takes credit for the great rise in company turnover. 'But the value of the hotel business has varied in relation to the state of the economy, and there was nothing to suggest that the wife contributed to the value of the business,' Mr Duckworth said. In her evidence to Judge O'Dwyer, Mrs Davies said she and her husband had 'worked ceaselessly' to transform a 'dowdy and unwelcoming' hotel with 'no sense of customer service' into a successful and lucrative business.

    'We threw ourselves into it wholeheartedly,' Mrs Davies told the court, explaining why she felt she was entitled to a share of the value of the business. 'Mr Davies was burning to make the hotel work. He was in love with the hotel. His characterisation of his wife was as a good employee. He said she had been the second best receptionist he had.'

    Judge O'Dwyer

    She said she had built and designed the hotel's first website and transformed its advertising, as well as working extremely long hours, whilst living with Mr Davies in a 9'x8' room on the premises before they bought their home. Jonathan Cohen QC, for Mrs Davies, said: 'The husband in his case was seeking to diminish the wife's contribution and in that he failed squarely.' He added that, by virtue of her hard work at the hotel, as well as raising a family, the wife deserved every penny of her award, regardless of whether or not her 'reasonable needs' had been over-estimated.

    'When one comes to look at fairness, which is the touchstone of all these cases, this award is at the low end, bearing in mind that this was a lady who made a very active contribution to the business for 13 years and when the marriage broke down was left with two children,' said Mr Cohen. Judge O'Dwyer, in his ruling last year, had acknowledged Mr Davies' fierce love for his business, and observed: 'There is a third party in the relationship- the Cardiff Hotel.' 'Mr Davies was burning to make the hotel work. He was in love with the hotel. His characterisation of his wife was as a good employee. He said she had been the second best receptionist he had.'

    Although Mr Davies had at one time been 'head over heels in love with her', the judge said there was now 'no real acknowledgment by him of her commitment to him both before and after the marriage.' 'He has a great love of the hotel and a strong sense of entitlement to it.'

    Dealing with Mr Davies' view of his ex-wife's role at the hotel, the judge said: 'It was his case that, because she had been paid as an employee, she had simply done her duties.' Lords Justice Thorpe, Rimer and Elias reserved their decision on Mr Davies' appeal, to be delivered at a later date.


    'I did it for my children': LAWYER reveals why she spent millions in custody battle with ex-husband (They get a taste of their OWN vile system of law)

    They were the wealthy solicitors who spent five years and most of their fortune battling over the terms of their acrimonious split. But Anna Kavanagh has insisted she had no choice but to lock horns with her ex-husband after he applied for custody of their three children. She and her former husband Giles spent millions of pounds on barristers and court hearings, losing their £3.2million home and ending up with only £90,000 between them.

    At the time, a judge criticised the couple and their lawyers for ‘wrecking the ship of their marriage, then turning their attention to the lifeboats’. But yesterday the 47-year-old insisted she had simply followed legal advice. ‘I didn’t choose to go to court – my ex-husband issued proceedings to take custody of the children,’ she added. ‘If someone issues proceedings against you, you have no option but to go to court.

    ‘You don’t know how long that process is going to be or how much it’s going to cost you at the beginning. You only see that with hindsight. At what point do you walk away? After the first month of negotiating? After the sixth month? ‘Thinking “I’ve already spent so much, it must be worth hanging on in there for another month”.’ She admitted that the financial toll still ‘torments’ her, adding: ‘Do you not think that I wake up at four o’clock in the morning thinking about the fact that I’ve lost half a million pounds and with that money I could have bought myself a house? Of course I think that.’

    Mrs Kavanagh, who is living in rented accommodation, also pointed out that while the couple have been criticised, their lawyers had got off ‘scot free’. ‘I acted on my barrister’s advice, that’s what I paid him to do,’ she said. ‘Does that mean I’m a fool?’ The couple, who had been married for more than ten years, lived in a £3.2million seven-bedroom home set in half-an-acre in Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, until their split in 2007.

    Mrs Kavanagh had given up a promising career at prestigious firm Simmons & Simmons to raise their three children, while her Cambridge-educated husband earned more than £485,000 a year as a partner in a law firm specialising in aerospace litigation and insurance. Neither has revealed what drove them apart. They tried to settle their differences in a county court, the High Court family division and the Civil Appeal Court. By 2008 the couple had already spent £879,000 on legal costs, £545,000 on Children Act proceedings, £303,000 on financial proceedings, and £32,000 on Family Law Act applications.

    Judge Clive Million, who had previously presided over the case in the High Court’s Family Division, criticised the couple in his judgment last year for ‘wrecking the ship of their marriage, then turning their attention to the lifeboats’. He added: ‘The ship of marriage may founder, but they have driven theirs full-tilt on to the rocks.’ And in September, family judge Lord Justice McFarlane, sitting at London’s Civil Appeal Court, said their legal expenditure had been a ‘tragedy’ for the family’s finances.

    The hearing was to decide whether Mrs Kavanagh, who is doing part-time legal work, should get more than the £48,000-a- year spousal maintenance she is receiving until 2014. The judge ruled in her ex-husband’s favour, who has been left with ‘net debts’ by the dispute. Yesterday, Mrs Kavanagh called for family law to be ‘completely, totally, absolutely’ reformed, with greater co-ordination between the process of deciding custody of children, child maintenance and spousal maintenance. At present, they are dealt with separately.

    Mrs Kavanagh also demanded in the Sunday Times there should be a presumption of shared custody of children when parents split. And she suggested that counsellors and trained psychologists should play a major role in mediation, not just ‘ruthless’ lawyers. She said of barristers: ‘They will do anything to undermine you, to make you flustered, to make you lose your temper – it’s their job.

    ‘To put someone through that process when they’re desperately upset about losing their children, their home or about their relationship breakdown... is terrible.’ Mrs Kavanagh has no regrets about her divorce. Asked if she wished she had stayed married, she said: ‘No way.’ Mr Kavanagh could not be contacted yesterday.

    In the UK MASONIC 'restraining orders' are used by crooked legal aid lawyers and judges to severely stifle a man from protecting his home, estate and family . The whole family court structure is founded on satanic freemasonic mass extortion campaigns against men not part of their sinister gangster network. More EVIL than all petty crime put together and why ONLY crooked masonic judges and lawyers have the power to steal the most expense purchase, your HOME!!!!!!!

    The Duke of Kent operating out of UGLE on behalf of the Royal parasite Queen Lazy heads the global freemason network that controls every lawyer and judge across the world connected with the Inns of Court in Central London and at the centre of their racket is the Temple church founded by the world's first bankers, the Knights Templar.

    "The Ex Parte [law] is a dastardly and unconstitutional weapon misused by the family court system not only in my home town of St. Louis, MO, but throughout the USA. "

    Sid's wife was brainwashed by a "Bible Study" group she attended. by Sid (

    The greatest joy in my life was spending time with my children. I had the luxury of doing so as a successful 43-year-old independent business owner. Able to make my own hours, I was always there for the children since the day they were born. We loved each other very much. I also enjoyed spending time with my wife, a stay-at-home mom. We started out as college sweethearts and had been together for over 20 years and rarely ever disagreed about anything.

    Something changed though in 2009. My wife became reclusive and there seemed to be a sudden breakdown in communication. We became distant. Still, I thought our relationship was strong enough to withstand the bumpiness. I had underestimated troubles ahead. The only socializing she did was with her bible study group. As a Christian, I had nothing against this. But in retrospect, I believe that she was developing some ideas that were possibly occultish in nature. Instead of just understanding and practicing the bible, her studies lead her to the supernatural. It's hard to put into words and something that needs to be witnessed to be fully understood. (See Note Below)


    In December of 2009, two police officers showed up at my door to serve me with what is known as an Ex Parte Order of Protection. The order gave my wife the right to throw me out on the street. This Draconian Law assumes guilt until proven innocent. Based on simple accusations, the protection order was fully enforceable. Her accusations were lies. But even if true, there had been no criminal charges filed, no trial, and no conviction. Furthermore, the accusations themselves were not criminal. My children and home were taken away from me based on baseless complaints. The Ex Parte is a dastardly and unconstitutional weapon misused by the family court system not only in my home town of St. Louis, Missouri, but throughout the USA.

    The Order sets into motion a whole series of events that makes it convenient for lawyers to extort huge fees. What parent (almost always the father) would not spend almost any amount of money to be with their children? So the court essentially uses the children as bait in a complete emotional and financial raping. It is pure evil. No government agency should be able to take your children away without a criminal charge, trial, and conviction! The right be a parent is fundamental and God-given.

    I thought often not only of my need to be with my children, but also their need to be with me. I was tortured by the thoughts that my young daughter had to deal with the loss of her father under these terrible circumstances, a father whom she always trusted and loved. Now I was simply gone, and she was left to believe whatever lies her mother was telling about me.


    Several weeks after the filing of the Ex Parte, a court hearing was held to determine whether or not I would be allowed to return home. When the day finally arrived, I felt confident that this whole thing could be resolved. My wife was actually happy to see me. She gave me a big hug in courtroom hallway. However, there was not to be any "hearing" at all. The lawyers simply went into the judges chambers and emerged with a deal for me; I was not going to be allowed to return home and would only be able to see my children at the complete discretion of a court appointed guardian. Had I not accepted this offer, the Ex Parte Order of Protection would have been converted to a Full Order of Protection. The Full Order would have been a hell from which there was no escape. It would have been no different than having to prove my innocence from jail. There would have have been no end in sight to my children being held hostage. So, I agreed to it. As it turns out, it made little difference. I would not see my children for five months. The guardian would not permit it for arbitrary reasons and ruled with the force and intrusiveness of a Gestapo officer. In fact, the whole thing was arbitrary.


    There is also a slightly strange component to all of this. I mentioned that my wife seemed to be developing some "alternative" ideas about spirituality. I believe these ideas contributed to her decision to extricate me from her life. Perhaps her bible study group with whom she confided, was encouraging the move. I sensed a growing amount of feminism and perhaps her group was one source of it. After the hearing, for no particular reason, I reached down into my pocket and found a small, red, piece of paper with a number 13 on it. I wondered if my wife had slipped it into my pocket for some reason, when she hugged me. The strange thing, as I later found out, is that number 13 is the Tarot Death Card. Looking back, five months without seeing my children was a fate worse than death. So maybe it was a appropriate. If inserted by my wife, maybe she knew that I was going to be screwed by the court. It made me think that this was somehow related to my soon-to-be ex-wife's new form of spirituality. I'll never know for sure. I can only speculate. As I said, see my Note below.


    I would encourage anyone who wants to learn more about corruption in the family court system to read Steven Baskerville's book, "Taken into Custody." It is the most comprehensive literature on the subject that I have found anywhere. Also, I would like to suggest that people be wary of the power of the Ex Parte. You do not need to be criminally accused of anything for it to be used against you, to rob you of your most basic freedom.

    People can change over time. Someone that you trust with your life, has the potential to ruin your life with an Ex Parte. Having knowledge of this law may help you prepare for it as you would for any potential tragedy in your life. I had no knowledge that it existed and as a result, was totally unprepared and emotionally destroyed when it was used against me. Finally, get the word out about this ghastly law. It divides and conquers families by preventing the communication necessary to reconcile differences. It is a direct attack on family, the basic building block of our society. And for what? More money for lawyers? Know that the Ex Parte is used everyday in this country. Mine is not an isolated incident by any stretch. Seek out support if it happens to you.


    December 23rd, 2012, two days before Christmas, will be the third anniversary of the Ex Parte Order. My divorce, after a total of nine depositions and countless correspondences, was finalized in March of 2012. My ex-wife and I each spent about $150,000 to settle the case. The lawyers made out like bandits. She got full-custody and 60% of the marital assets. On the bright side, I was able to repair my relationship with my children. Now 12 and 15 years of age, they were eventually able to understand that I am the same loving dad that they grew up with. I see them often, although they don't live with me. Someday, I would like to discuss what happened in greater depth. But for now, I just try to make sure that every moment spent with them is of quality. They are innocent victims in all of this. I have pretty much moved on. Except, I like to tell my story so that someone else may benefit. I'd like to start a new relationship in the near future. The important thing to always stay positive and ask God for help.

  • Why so many men in the UK now live on their own to avoid the ENORMOUS cost of divorce and separation


    Bitter divorcees are top tax informers pushing payouts to informants up by a fifth

    Bitter ex-wives are being paid for tipping off the taxman that their former spouses are evading tax. Official figures show that the rewards given by HM Revenue & Customs to informants have risen by a fifth in the past year, to reach almost £375,000. Experts say that most of those who call HMRC's confidential hotline are vengeful divorcees and disgruntled business partners.

    They can demand cash payments in return for supplying details of hidden offshore bank accounts or undeclared incomes that allow the authorities to recover millions of pounds in unpaid tax. And HMRC is more likely to agree to their requests as it seeks to deliver an extra £7 billion a year in tax revenue to the Treasury by 2014-15. Adam Craggs, tax partner at the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, said: 'If the divorce is acrimonious, it is not uncommon for a spouse to turn HMRC informant. HMRC is under intense pressure to increase the tax yield for the Exchequer.

    'And they are increasingly resorting to unorthodox methods to get the job done, such as paying informers for tips.' Mr Craggs, who worked at HMRC for 15 years, said estranged partners may even threaten to report their husbands to HMRC as 'leverage' to get a bigger share of a divorce settlement. Official figures show there were 74,000 reports made to the Tax Evasion Hotline last year, a slight fall on the previous year. But the amount paid to informants rose by 20 per cent from £309,620 to £373,280.

    Informants are paid by the taxman's Affluence Unit – which focuses on millionaires suspected of not paying enough tax – and its High Net Worth Unit, which focuses on individuals worth at least £30 million. Sources must ask for rewards and HMRC decides how much their secrets are worth. The HMRC said: 'All information is analysed and a decision is made on the most appropriate course of action.'

  • Unannounced visit by HMRC THUGS to client at 9pm
    Most men are blissfully unaware that the biggest risk to their lives is the power of ' judges

    Who is choosing the ' chosen ones '? by Peter Markan

    If the methods used in anglo ' legal ' system were adopted in other areas of human endeavours we , as humanity , would be still living in the stone age . No search for truth , no discovery process , no logical analysis of facts , no reasoning , no rationality , no sensibility . Instead - lies , pretentions , deceptions , hypocrisy , play acting , faking , falsifying , rigging , doctoring , concocting .

    Enormous amount of power is put into hands of some publically unknown , unelected but secretly selected , ' trusted ' people . Who really selects them , who trusts them and WHY ? They are selected to the most exclusive club ( in large extent ' hereditary ' ) in conspiratorial/Mafioso style arrangements and not ' democratic ' . They do not have any qualification , training , competency test or any sort of exams or assessments for the position they are given ! No scrutiny of their characters , no verification of their suitability to play effectively ' top dog ' in the community . BUT they are given absolute dominance in the society ( to both make and invalidate laws , and to control other people`s lives ) - over legislatures , the executive branch , and the people who elected these representatives . They are given ' discretionary powers ' !

    For an observer from the outer space they would look like a bunch of hereditary dictators and cruel sadists in the sea of ' democracy ' . The power of judges ( lawyers ) is not compatible with democracy ! ( Most men are blissfully unaware that the biggest risk to their lives are the power of ' judges '. At some point in their life's almost all men face the consequences of courts and laws , devised by freemasons within the legal system , to destroy men who are not part of their creepy satanic cult. )

    It is a structural problem with something what was designed to perform different functions than those which are presented for public consumption - and that appears to be unmendable problem at least to those who are involved with that system one way or the other . Other possible explanation is that this is the system devised in the Middle Ages , an archaic and feudal system with supposedly a benevolent master knowing the best what and how to do everything - and the flunky`s irrevocably had to accept the masters decision . Regardless how idiotic and illogical it was they were obliged to praise the master for his wisdom .

    Anna-Marie Harvey Kavanagh and Giles Kavanagh

    Two wealthy lawyers have “tragically” squandered almost £1 million fighting each other through the divorce courts, it emerged today.

    The couple have been criticised by a judge for “wrecking the ship of their marriage then turning their attention to the lifeboats”. Judge Clive Million, in a county court judgment delivered last December, said Anna-Marie Harvey Kavanagh, 47, and Giles Kavanagh, 52, had “spent almost all their assets in litigation”, despite both being practising solicitors. He said: “The ship of marriage may founder but this couple have driven theirs full tilt onto the rocks.”

    Today they were in court again to argue before Lord Justice McFarlane at the Civil Appeal Court over the level of maintenance payments Mr Kavanagh should pay his ex-wife. The couple, who lived in a £3.2 million, seven-bedroom house in Kingston until they split in 2008 after 10 years of marriage, were left with just over £90,000 between them after years of acrimonious court appearances over money and their three children. Despite Mr Kavanagh earning £485,000 a year as a partner in a law firm, he was left with “net debts” after their home was ordered to be sold and the proceeds split between the couple.

    Jonathan Tod, Mrs Kavanagh’s barrister, told the court today: “This is a very sad case in which the parties have spent almost all their assets in litigation. "This court is asked to consider whether in fact one party has been given a financial lifeline and the other left holding onto a mooring buoy waiting to be saved.” He argued that Mrs Kavanagh’s annual maintenance of £48,000 should be raised to between £66,000 and £80,000 because Mr Kavanagh had received a pay increase “of over double the average annual wage of a man living in the south-east of England”.

    Insisting that Mrs Kavanagh deserved “compensation” because her career was put on hold during the marriage, Mr Tod said: “The wife gave up a promising future to give birth to and raise three children. Her career, but for marriage and raising children, may well have been as successful as her husband’s.”

    Lord Justice McFarlane said the litigation had been a “catastrophe” for the family and ruled in favour of Mr Kavanagh. He refused to increase maintenance payments, saying that he already paid school fees of £36,000 a year.


    Divorce laws in England and Wales are so "incomplete and uninformative" that judges receive no guidance about the fairest way to divide a couple's property, the Law Commission has said.

    Judges get no proper guidance on whether to divide a couple's assets equally or according to each partner's needs, and there are no proper rules on how to divide belongings accumulated before the marriage began, the organisation cautions. There is also no legal definition of what constitutes the financial needs of a spouse or clarity about the extent to which divorcees must carry on supporting one another.

    Highlighting fundamental flaws at the heart of the family courts system, the Law Commission is launching a consultation on Tuesday on the reforms necessary to improve outdated regulations. The divorce laws have not changed since their liberalisation in 1969 despite a succession of landmark cases and the advent of pre-nuptial agreements. "When two people bring their marriage or civil partnership to an end it is vital that the law is able to help them resolve their financial arrangements as quickly and fairly as possible," said Professor Elizabeth Cooke, the law commissioner leading the review. "The current law creates too much potential for uncertainty and inconsistency." The consultation paper is highly critical of the deficiencies of the current legal framework. "There are detailed statutory provisions about the orders that the court can make in these circumstances," it states, "but the statute does not say what the court is to achieve by making these orders.

    "The judge in the family court has been compared to a bus driver, who has been told how to drive the bus and told that he must drive it, but has not been told where to go, nor why he is to go there. "Couples who do not go to court have to make their own financial arrangements by agreement. In doing so they need to know what their rights and obligations are, and the fact that the law is incomplete and uninformative does not help them." As well as considering needs, the consultation will look at the law governing the allocation of "non-matrimonial property" – the possessions a couple bring to their marriage or inherit rather than acquire together in the course of the partnership.

    Current rules are unclear but generally state that once needs have been met, such non-matrimonial property "is less likely than other property to be shared on divorce or dissolution". Three possible objectives for the courts to consider in divorce are set out in the consultation paper. The first option would be to compensate the needs of the less well-off spouse, so that he or she can attain the living standard they would have achieved but for childcare and other marital choices. Alternatively, the courts could consider providing support "to enable a transition to independence" that equalises the living standards of the couple for a lengthy period.

    The third possibility, the commission suggests, is "to create incentives for independence" rather than "encouraging dependency" on ex-partners. Artificial time limits for support might help but the commission says it is not attracted to Scotland's system of placing a three-year limit on support following divorce. The commission is due to publish recommendations for reform based on the consultation next autumn. It will include an earlier consultation on the enforceability of prenuptial agreements and form the basis for a draft bill to be introduced to parliament. Law firms expect the number of prenuptial agreements to rise sharply. Their legal status was bolstered by the supreme court's ruling in favour of the German heiress Katrin Radmacher in October 2010.

    Andrew Newbury, head of the Pannone legal firm's family, private client and wealth management division, said: "Prior to 2000, the main logic behind divorce settlements in England and Wales was meeting the needs of the financially weaker spouse. That changed with a ruling in the case of Martin and Pamela White, which introduced the idea of an equal share based on someone's contribution to the success of a marriage. "In recent years, a great many multimillion [pound] settlements have been based on the same rationale, arguably along with the reputation of our courts as being 'wife-friendly'. "The Radmacher ruling effectively said that individuals should be held to a properly drafted prenup, as long as it met their needs and they had signed of their own volition, even if the division of assets seemed unfair.

    "If the Law Commission proposes that the government enshrines that position in law, it will only fuel what we have seen in the last 18 months or so – an increase in the number of prenups being taken out by those seeking to protect their wealth and those embarking on second marriages." Pannone says it has seen a fourfold rise in clients taking out prenuptial agreements since the Radmacher ruling.

  • Pannone
    Scott Brown We recommend EVERY former husband should take a lesson from Scott Brown and stop money grabbing golddigging adulterous ex-wives from using masons running evil family courts to help themselves to mens wealth, time for the scum to be put in their place.

    Husband spent £50,000 gameshow winnings in just four months so he wouldn't have to share it with his estranged wife
    * Scott Brown cleared £15,000 debts, spent £4,000 on a second-hand Jaguar and put £2,000 aside to pay for divorce legal fees
    * Wife Rachel took him to court as soon as the episode of Deal Or No Deal was shown on TV
    * Mr Brown had been sleeping on the floor at his parents' house after the couple split

    After Scott Brown held his nerve to win £50,000 on Deal Or No Deal, he was determined that his estranged wife should not get a penny.

    But with only four months before the TV gameshow was screened and she found out about his windfall, the father-of-two knew he had to spend it fast. The 33-year-old sign manufacturer and fitter said he used £15,000 to clear all the debts he and his wife Rachel, 29, had from credit card bills, loans and bank overdrafts. After setting aside almost £2,000 to cover legal fees for his divorce, he bought clothing, toys and household items for their two young children. Mr Brown also used some cash to ‘live off’, having being signed off from work because of ‘depression’.

    But he admits he spent most of the rest on ‘having a good time’, including an iPad, a holiday in Mexico and the outlay of £4,000 on a second-hand X-type Jaguar estate car. The final part of his winnings went days before his own August 21 deadline to pay for an electrician’s course, so he could start a new career. As it turned out, Mr Brown was right to suspect that his wife, who he says asked him for a divorce on Christmas Day last year when he allegedly found she had been having an affair with a truck driver she met over the internet, would want to cash in on his lucky break.

    As soon as the Channel 4 programme was broadcast, she went to court in a belated bid to ensure she received a share. The case went before a district judge at Doncaster County Court last Thursday, when Mr Brown was ordered to detail in writing how the money was spent; an injunction imposed days earlier ordering him not to spend his winnings – if any remained – was kept in place; and the case was adjourned.

    The couple, who are in the process of getting divorced, neither looked at or spoke to each other throughout the brief hearing. Outside court, Mr Brown told the Daily Mail how the show, presented by Noel Edmonds, changed his life when he was at his lowest ebb, saying: ‘I was over the moon to have won that amount. I was told Rachel could lay claim to it so I decided, “She is not getting a penny”.’

    Mr Brown married customer services adviser Rachel in the Dominican Republic in September 2009. The couple already had one child, now aged six, and decided to have another baby, now 22 months old. The family moved to rent a bigger house near Doncaster but their debts began to mount.

    Mr Brown said his wife told him late last year she ‘didn’t love him any more’ and by the time he found out he was going on the gameshow in April, Mr Brown had moved out and was sleeping on the floor of his cramped parents’ house. He said he was ‘absolutely disgusted’ by his wife, saying: ‘How does she have the right to this money? My life has broken apart, I can’t see my kids every day any more and I have lost everything I have worked for over 11 years.’ Mrs Brown refused to comment.

    On Deal Or No Deal, contestants pick one of 22 sealed boxes containing hidden amounts of cash ranging from 1p to £250,000, then eliminate the other boxes one by one. Mr Brown gambled by turning down offers of £22,250 and £13,000 from the show’s mysterious ‘banker’ to ‘deal’ and quit the game, instead carrying on until the end to win the £50,000 in his box.


    Forget about the Military Industrial Complex(MIC) the DIC has far more power than all the military might across the globe. In the dim and distant past the ruling mafia would not hesitate to send in their troops to wipe out a town or village and steal the peasants land and property, today they have to be far more subtle and that is were the divorce industry comes in as the alternative to early feudal tyranny.

    The ruling mafia are parasites who believe they have the god given right to live off of the rape and pillage of the peasants, as they have done throughout history. But things are changing as the world wakens up to the evil mechanisms they use to exploit the world's resources for themselves at everyone else's expense, especially MEN.

    The biggest threat to men above ALL ELSE including wars, terrorism, the banking collapse and a myriad of other DISTRACTIONS is the threat from the freemason judiciary. Globally there is a united front in how the judicial mafia have conspired to give themselves power over men's lives, family and assets. NONE repeat NONE of their use of the 'LAW' is legal , all of their machinations of those 'LAWS' are created behind secret satanic doors where a small group of the most evil bastards on the face of the earth have taken thievery to another level.

    An example of how they do this would be if a war broke out and there was only one place left in the country to get a loaf of bread , while the peasants fight over the few crumbs, this mob would create a 'LAW' that would bring in an armed guard to 'PROTECT' that supply with an entourage of limousines conveying these mobsters in and out to gorge on the only source of food available .

    It is the same with the family court 'LAWS' where they use divorce to ring fence a mans hard earned wealth and plunder with impunity under the guise of fairness and justice. Every single individual who works for the state whether in government , politics, police , lawyers and especially judges are all in this massive CRIME WAVE together. NEVER has so much wealth been STOLEN with little impact in the complicit compliant media , other than when a man commits suicide with or without involving his family. Then they do their outmost to smear and castigate men who have been tortured into taking what they see as the easy way out from the monstrous abuse of those 'LAWS'.

    There are many men with their heads buried in the sand that know deep down there is something seriously wrong with the world but are not prepared to stand alongside the many male victims who have lost everything, in many cases their lives, because of this tyranny. Until they do many more lives will be destroyed by the utter scum and dregs of this earth living a life of opulence on the back of the biggest most murderous scam on the planet.

    WOMENS AID Without a doubt one of the most vile organisations on this planet are WOMEN'S AID.

    Bugger all to do with helping women and plenty to do with providing the ammunition for crooked CROWN divorce judges and lawyers to help themselves to mens' assets, homes and children. Also to aid the golddiggers who make themselves millionaire's on the back of laws instigated and operated by freemasons who totally control the legal system.

    Women's aid is full of man hating lesbians only to happy to provide really dodgy reports for crooked lawyers and their massive claims for legal aid . Rubber stamped within the legal aid offices by homosexuals like Douglas Haggarty who enjoy the company of rent boys . Lawyers who are homosexuals, lesbians and radical feminists who fund, behind the scenes, these supposed independent organisations who are a front for massive fraud and corruption and the excuse to help relieve men of their hard earned wealth.

    The BBC are forever giving platforms to these odious groups who, through government subsidies, make a living from defaming, denigrating and smearing men as the bad boys come divorce time. For to long men have been shafted by a conspiracy that encompasses some of the most vile individuals on the planet starting at Queen Lizzie and down through her command center at the United Grand Lodge of England to the Duke of Kunt who masterminds the judicial mafia in a global sting that makes all other thievery pale next to what these evil bastards get up to on a daily basis.

    Destroying men for profit has been the age old way the ruling mafia have profited from the machinations of the law that they themselves do not follow. Princess Diana was a perfect example of how despite being married to the second richest despot on the planet after MUMMY she walked away with a fraction of what she should have been entitled to under the modern tyranny of divorce. It would be an interesting scenario to see what Old Phil the Greek would get if he decided at his ripe old age to divorce Lizzie.

    All of her wealth held in TRUST to ensure NO ONE absolutely NO ONE can touch her with a barge pole and the fact she controls every last one of her freemason controlled judicial mafia NO ONE has a hope in hell of taking her to court in HER MAJESTY'S courts and for her pleasure. We have no democracy when a single individual is free from being dragged into the very hell holes all the rest of the peasants are finished off in just to keep her and her ilk in the lifestyle SHE thinks she deserves. A revolution is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG overdue.


    PART 2 PART 3 PART 4
    There are few more ruthless bastards on the face of the earth than family court judges. They have used and abused divorce to give themselves power over men's assets and homes but when it is their turn to face the divorce courts they use every trick in the book to avoid what they force other men to endure . ONLY JURIES WILL RESTORE SANITY TO THE MADNESS AND POWER OF THE FAMILY COURT MAFIA

    £50m court battle derailed after top judge criticises lawyers who represented his ex-wife in their divorce

    One of the country’s top judges has caused controversy by making disparaging private remarks about a barrister involved in his own divorce battle. Mr Justice Mostyn criticised Charles Howard QC, who represented the judge’s former wife during their acrimonious split. He made the comments after Mr Howard appeared before him at the High Court in an unrelated divorce case involving Mark and Jennifer Evans, who were battling over their £50 million fortune.

    Following Mr Justice Mostyn’s remarks, Mr Howard pulled out of the case – and warned that his withdrawal would have ‘serious consequences’ for Mrs Evans in her legal fight. Mr Howard also suggested the judge’s comments were motivated by a ‘personal animosity’. It is not known exactly what Mr Justice Mostyn said to upset the QC. But court papers show that Mr Howard claimed the judge ‘remarked disobligingly’ on his conduct and that of London firm Hughes Fowler Carruthers, who are also on Mrs Evans’s team. After the comments, which were made in messages to Mr Justice Mostyn’s ex-wife Lucy on April 5, Mr Howard and his team withdrew from the case. Mr Howard said this left Mrs Evans ‘without representation in relation to the finances’. Following an appeal, Mr Justice Mostyn’s £26 million settlement in the Evans case was set aside by the president of the family division of the High Court, Sir Nicholas Wall.

    At the time of the controversial remarks, Mr Justice Mostyn and Lucy were still thrashing out their own divorce, which was finalised in May. It caused shockwaves in the legal world in 2010 when Mr Justice Mostyn left his wife of more than 30 years for divorce lawyer Elizabeth Saunders. Mrs Saunders’ alcoholic husband Mark, who was also a barrister, was shot dead by police marksmen in 2008 after he drunkenly fired a shotgun from the couple’s £2 million Chelsea home.

    The extraordinary discord between Mr Justice Mostyn and Mr Howard was laid bare in a written submission to the court made by Mr Howard, supporting Mrs Evans’s attempt to block her divorce being finalised until a ruling has been made on how much she should receive. In his submission, Mr Howard stated: ‘The remarks were later described to the wife [by her solicitor] as “indicating that Mr Justice Mostyn had personal animosity towards Charles Howard QC, my firm, and possibly me”. ‘As a result of the actions of Mr Justice Mostyn . . . she [Mrs Evans] will be placed in a materially different position at the retrial, namely that she will be an ex-wife of the husband. That might have serious consequences for her.’

    The Evans case received widespread publicity last week when Appeal Court judge Lord Justice Thorpe accused the couple of ‘almost puerile’ behaviour. Mr Evans, 47, and his wife, 46, were penniless when they wed in 1985 but made a fortune from a computer software company. They separated in July 2010 and in April last year, she was awarded assets of £26 million.

    But as a result of Mr Justice Mostyn’s ruling being overturned in May, they are still waiting for the courts to decide how their financial assets should be split. Mr Justice Mostyn was nicknamed ‘Mr Payout’ because of the huge settlements he obtained as a divorce lawyer for celebrity clients such as Sir Paul McCartney. His own divorce was finalised on May 8. Mr Howard withdrew from the Evans case on April 17, according to his submission. He has since returned, however, and last week represented Mrs Evans in her Appeal Court bid.

    A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office, which represents judges and magistrates, said an agreement had been in place since July 2011 which meant ‘there would be no conflict of interest’ if Mr Justice Mostyn heard other cases which involved ‘the solicitors and barristers acting for Lady Mostyn in their divorce proceedings’. The spokesman added: ‘The private remarks about Mr Howard and Hughes Fowler Carruthers were made after he had heard and given judgment in the case of Evans v Evans.’ Mr Howard and Hughes Fowler Carruthers declined to comment.

    : Lindsey Brillant-Marcoux; Karen Brillant-Marcoux; and father Jocelyn Marcoux The complicit media always use the suicide of a father driven to destruction by ruthless family court judges to smear men as murderers . He like many other men took his children with him and makes it EASY to point the blame away from a judicial mafia and onto a father who was pushed to the limit , as many millions of fathers are all across the globe. This is NOT an isolated incident and will remain a major problem until the evil that emanates from family courts are resolved.

    MONTREAL - It didn’t take long for Nadine Brillant’s friends to learn that the Quebec City woman’s two children and former partner died Tuesday is an apparent double-homicide and suicide.

    After hearing the news on television, a distraught Brillant used Facebook to notify those close to her of the tragedy. “My ex has killed my children, I am crushed,” she wrote. An hour earlier, Brillant had posted that she’d heard on television about a fire in Warwick on the street where her former partner and her children lived – and hoped everything was okay. Hours after the bodies of Jocelyn Marcoux and the couple’s two children were found Tuesday in a burned-out shed behind their home, reporters discovered an angry diatribe against the family court system on Marcoux’s Facebook page.

    “I swear by my heart of a father,” he wrote, “that my children will never be mistreated ever again, not even with the blessing of a hypocrite judge.” While many people couldn’t fathom posting such intimate details of their private lives online, the surge in popularity of social media sites like Facebook has made the website an accepted place to express joy and sorrow, experts say. “People are using Facebook like a personal journal or diary where they express their deepest feelings,” said Pierre Trudel, a Université de Montréal law professor, who studies social media. “There is a tendency to use Facebook as a communication tool, instead of the telephone. We are seeing this more and more. People know if they go there, someone will be listening.”

    More and more, parents involved in child-custody battles and youth protection cases in Quebec are using social media sites to denounce court ruling that they are unhappy with. Last year, Quebec’s youth protection officials sent letters to some parents demanding they remove personal information about their children that they had posted on websites. Quebec law prevents anyone from identifying children who are being followed by youth protection. Posting too many details about custody battles can be risky because it can used against the parent when the case goes to court, Trudel suggested.

    While Facebook may offer parents involved in child custody fights a forum to vent, problems can arise when one parent begins to receive feedback from friends who encourage them to maintain their stance and not compromise with their partner. “People can respond and encourage them to do things that are not in the child’s interest,” said Abe Worenklein, who teaches psychology at Concordia University and Dawson College. “They say things like: ‘That happened to me and don’t give up.’ The person (posting on Facebook) feels validated, but for the wrong reasons.”

    Across Canada, 90 per cent of child custody cases are settled out of court. However, the 10 per cent that drag on through the courts are often acrimonious. “In many of these cases, emotions cloud judgment,” Worenklein said. “Communication between parents is so important.”