Lunatics still running divorce courts with £54m going to ex-wife in biggest ever divorce payout
A divorced wife was today awarded £54 million by a judge — the biggest payout in a contested marriage split.
The award, in the case known only as M v M, beats the previous record of £48 million to Beverley Charman by insurance magnate ex-husband.
Only brief details of today’s case, heard by Mrs Justice King, were available at the High Court where the former wife was represented by Mishcon de Reya’s family partner David Lister.
The Charman award was made in 2006 after the husband had initially offered just £6 million out of the couple’s total assets of £131 million.
But today’s new record could be beaten soon by a former Miss Malaysia, who is claiming up to £500 million after splitting from her multi-millionaire husband.
Pauline Chai, 66, who lives in the couple’s former family home on a 1,000-acre estate in Hertfordshire, is seeking half the fortune of Khoo Kay Peng, one of Malaysia’s wealthiest businessmen. The case got under way in the High Court last month.
London has long been considered the divorce capital of the world for its high concentration of big-money settlements awarded to the poorer spouse in a split — usually the ex-wife.
Far bigger payouts have been made around the globe in uncontested divorces, including Tiger Woods and Rupert Murdoch.
The justice system undermine families while enriching lawyers and social workers.
"Nowadays men are guests in their own homes." writes Richard Doyle. "Fathers are becoming intimidated afraid to dispense discipline, afraid of offending wives (or even the children) and of being evicted as a consequence."
by Richard F. Doyle ("Open Letter to the Legal Profession" abridged by henrymakow.com)
This article is directed at domestic relations judges and lawyers, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of divorced men and fathers. ...
Nowadays, men are but guests in their own homes. evict-able at a mere whim of their wives, with no practical recourse, unless they are wealthy. Thanks to "no fault" laws, there is no right or wrong; anything goes. Husband #1 can be kicked out to make room for #2, or so a wife can "find herself." For all practical purposes fathers can forget about obtaining child custody. You couldn't do much more damage to a child than to sentence him or her to life in a single-mother household.
Just a cursory examination of Men's Defense Assoc. files shows the following
2/3ds to 3/4ths of divorces are initiated by wives, justifiably expecting to be awarded custody, alimony (largely disguised as "child support"), the house, etc.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more like to end up in prison
Why are these children fatherless? Because their fathers ran away? Not very often. More often they were evicted by a judge pandering to a disgruntled, defecting wife.
To quote from Professor Emeritus Daniel Amneus, USC, Los Angeles:
"A judge may try a divorce case in the morning and place the children in the mother's custody. He may try a criminal case in the afternoon and send a man to prison for robbing a liquor store. The chances are three out of four that the criminal he sends to prison grew up in a female headed household just like the one he himself created that morning when he tried the divorce case. He sees no connection between the two cases."
It would make more sense to jail divorce court judges and other system-connected culprits than the young criminals their policies have created.
Fathers in intact families are becoming intimidated. afraid to dispense discipline, afraid of offending wives (or even the children) and of being evicted as a consequence. The forcible removal, and probable alienation, of one's own children is almost the greatest crime that could be committed against a person.
"The State" does it to men routinely. Suicides among male divorce victims are very high. Many, if not most, skid row men are divorced.
Prejudice harms children as much as fathers, if differently. Even if they were so motivated, all the cops and social workers in the world can't replace millions of evicted fathers, the natural disciplinarians. Unless these trends are reversed, the ghetto will become the pattern for our society.
What motivates judges to render such brutal, stupid decisions? Public opinion? Fear of political incorrectness? Indiscriminate chivalry? Fantasizing themselves as Galahads rescuing damsels from distressful marriages? Probably all of these. Admittedly judges are largely following the dictates of widespread public prejudices, but that is no excuse for ignoring all principles of justice and Constitutional law.
Torn loose from any pretense of equity, divorce practice is the single most egregious and overlooked form of wealth redistribution in America today. And its scope is rapidly increasing. Thanks to judicially-provided incentives, half of all marriages end up in the trash heap.
The law profession shows little interest in reforming such a lucrative system, despite its epidemic ravaging of society. Why should they? The take is around $200 billion per year, perhaps the biggest in the entire profession. Removing the incentives would threaten the racket; any judges so inclined would soon find themselves seeking another field of endeavor.
According to Professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, "They (judges) sit at the top of a very large patronage network. And they can dole out a father's income and many other goodies to an assortment, an entourage, of judicial courtiers who also profit from having children taken away from their parents... St. Augustine said that 'without justice, States are nothing but great robberies; and this is exactly what we are seeing in divorce courts. If States have the power, if government has the power to seize control of children, and micromanage the private lives of citizens who have done nothing wrong, there is no stopping the State."
Nor can we look to "law" itself for immediate relief. The halls of Congress are crawling with taxpayer-funded feminist lobbyists seeking ever more favor for women; sycophantic or complicit lawyer-legislators are giving it to them - at the expense of men, children and families.
"Non-support," and "Deadbeat Dad" have become the ubiquitous battle-cry of the sanctimonious.
Certainly fathers have a responsibility to support their children; but does this continue to apply when a father's children have been forcibly taken away and, in many cases, effectively brainwashed against him? Civil disobedience seems the only option of a poor man. When Big Brother so completely runs a man's family, shouldn't Big Brother also assume the man's other obligations? Like mules need hay, fathers must have enough left of their paycheck to eat, pay rent, keep warm, get to work, and (Heaven forbid) maybe raise another, more loyal family.
Draconian alimony and child support measures are like the Maginot line, a mighty fortress with guns pointed in the wrong direction. The solution is not to persecute men further but to begin treating them fairly. This would have two desirable results. First, around half of divorced fathers would have custody.
Second, those who didn't, being treated fairly, would be much more inclined to pay their just obligations.
Fairness to men is the ONLY measure that hasn't been tried extensively. Where it has been tried, even in a limited manner as in shared parenting, support collections have increased dramatically. All other measures have failed - and will continue to fail.
Delay is costly. Even immediate restoration of rights and authority to fathers will take generations to repair the damage.
For over 30 years all appeals to reason have fallen upon deaf ears, and produced only lip service to equal treatment under the law. The MDA hopes the culprits responsible for the present unacceptable situation will clean up their own houses, so that this burden does not devolve upon victims. But if it does, so be it. There is a rising groundswell of justifiable anger and resentment, enough to make Shay's Rebellion look like a picnic. It would not be prudent to ignore Les Miserables. Heaven forbid that Dick,
The Butcher (in King Henry the Sixth, IV, ii 86) had the right idea. These words are harsh, but how else can one adequately address harsh realities'?
Beneath the corruption, our political institutions are creations of wise and prudent men, and repositories of much that is good. It is these very institutions that make our society function, however imperfectly.
Contrary to Marx, we should build a superior social order upon the basic structure, rather than the ruins, of the old.
Thanks to Tony B for sending this.
First Comment by Asim:
Read your latest article with sadness and can only agree 100% with what Richard has to say. I work with vulnerable and disaffected young males for a local council, and unfortunately, over here in the UK, we have made a complete profession out of the misery of such broken fatherless families.
I case manage up to 25 young males with multiple barriers and every single one of them-ex-offenders/drug addicts/mental health issues-have come from a fatherless home. Yet what is most tragic, is that they are forced to seek 'help' from other professionals, or be sanctioned by the state.
Most of these 'professionals' are women, who, for a lot of them, themselves have come from broken relationships. I have referred many young males to see social workers who are butch, male hating lesbians, and the shock and horror expressed on these poor lads faces says it all.
Many jobs are wholly dependent on the breakdown of such families and such strategies are set in place to ensure that this remains the case. As an example, one of my young males aged 13 currently has a social worker; youth offending officer; education welfare officer; educational psychologist; school counsellor; young people's support worker; youth worker; connexions personal adviser; mental health nurse and clinical psychologist. Say no more!!!!!
Second Comment from Michael:
How true Mr. Doyle.....Not only have I witnessed this atrocity as a Police Officer and Court Investigator for 30 years plus.....but I have had the pleasure to be evicted from my home by my then wife of 19 years.... who was and is a Social Worker who has done work in the past as a Guardian Ad Litem in probate and family custody issues....
When she turned 41 and decided she was 21 again....and realized additional men met her needs..she requested a divorce and that I leave my children and home...I refused to leave..And.
Over the period of 6 or 7 months I was there 24/7 with my children as she explored her new enlightenment...finally I agreed to leave and was granted an order by the court for custody of one of my children and was to leave on a Monday...on the previous Friday afternoon I arrived home and was packing my car with my daughter when three police vehicles appeared with three very prejudiced Law Enforcement Officers..two women with a Restraint Order and Order to Leave The Premises Immediately....
She had lied to the court informing them I was abusive and had numerous weapons in the residence....
She had this done in front of my three children in an effort to make me appear a danger...Not only did the Officers look throughout the house...They conducted and Illegal search of my vehicle. .My daughter and I left and my son soon followed...They have chose to live with me...In the Law Enforcement world we call this the "Weekend Annulment" as on Saturday one of her many boyfriends ...a Social Worker himself...came to visit her...
This incident backfired as the children who are young teenagers were going to testify against her and her behavior...I thank God everyday for her stupidity and selfishness....A word to all Police Officer's....the RO will come during a battled custody issue......
The cloak of secrecy will be lifted from family courts (but NOT the injustice)
We have been exposing this vile system for decades while the compliant media protected the system, now Murdoch's Sun
and Harmsworths Daily Mail take credit for the changes despite them being controlled by the very lawyers behind its protection
while the crowns judicial mafia and not juries make the judgements. Compliant media also claiming credit for what they have protected for so long, crooked
lawyers and judges who control them.
The cloak of secrecy will be lifted from family courts: Councils and witnesses will routinely be named in cases where evidence can decide whether homes are broken up
New rules will ensure court decisions are under public scrutiny
Councils and experts will be named in controversial care and adoption cases
Family courts currently hold many hearings in private
A breakthrough in the battle against secret justice will see thousands more court judgments made public.
Councils involved in controversial care and adoption cases will routinely be named in court documents, along with expert witnesses whose testimony can decide whether homes are broken up.
The Family Division makes thousands of rulings a year about whether children are adopted or put in care, and the access arrangements for separated parents – as well as ruling on contested divorces.
In the Court of Protection, life- or-death decisions about patient treatment or care for those unable to make choices are currently taken without public accountability.
Now new rules, due to come into force later this year, will mean thousands more of their judgments are published and subject to public scrutiny.
The updated guidelines set out that the vast bulk of cases in both courts should result in a published judgment ‘unless there are compelling reasons why it should not’.
In all cases involving expert witnesses and public authorities, these should be named unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ not to.
Results of divorce proceedings are also likely to be published, unless they involve children – but names will not be released.
Launching the new rules, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said they were designed ‘to bring about an immediate and significant change in relation to the publication of judgments’.
He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.
‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.’
Family courts are criticised for holding too many hearings in private and not publishing the results.
This can mean families whose children have been taken away unfairly are unable to tell their stories and get redress using the media.
On some occasions injustices are not exposed until the cases go all the way to the Court of Appeal.
Several secret care cases have been exposed by that court which has criticised the local authorities involved.
‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.’
One, in 2008, saw a senior judge criticise East Sussex County Council for its ‘wholly unacceptable abuse of power’ by rushing through the adoption of an 18-month-old child and blocking a challenge by the child’s natural father.
Last year the Daily Mail reported how life-changing decisions about the care of children were routinely being made on the basis of flawed evidence.
A study for the Family Justice Council revealed that a fifth of ‘experts’ brought in to advise the family courts are completely unqualified but they can still make thousands of pounds a year in fees from local authorities.
Murdring tory scumbag Chris Grayling said: ‘We have been clear that there needs to be more openness in the Family Courts and the Court of Protection. This draft guidance will begin the important public debate we need to have about transparency in these courts.’
Last month the Supreme Court launched a stinging attack on secret justice, saying it is ‘not justice at all’. Its president, Lord Neuberger, said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.
Dirtiest tricks of divorce and crooked lawyers who encourage ex-wives who then BOTH screw the ex-husbands
Written as if lawyers aren't the major influence in this vile behaviour
Bugging the car, payback spending sprees and the woman who secretly sold her husband's piano: Top lawyer shares the dirtiest divorce tricks
After 30 years as a family lawyer, nothing surprises me anymore.
I have seen clients display outstanding generosity and compassion towards their former partners.
However I have also witnessed vengeful and mean-spirited behaviour.
Some people make leaps and bounds towards new, contented lives. Others are unable to shake off the hurt and hatred, which consume them.
I long ago concluded that divorce arises and is propelled by uncontrollable human instincts including self-preservation, protection and survival.
People are not perfect.
Human instinct in a survival situation isn’t about continuing to hunt with the rest of the pack, meekly obeying society’s customs.
It is about making private decisions to tackle lonely challenges. Not all those decisions are wise and for certain people, divorce brings their very worst qualities to the fore.
Here are some of the dirtiest divorce tricks I have encountered.
I would like to emphasise that I do not recommend any of the courses of action outlined here.
Some are even illegal!
10. Moving the spouse to a different country, in order to obtain a more favourable divorce settlement
This may sound far-fetched, but this happens more frequently than you might think. The trusting spouse does not realise that the promised life of sun and fun is never destined to materialise.
Instead, a divorce looms in a country in which financial settlements are far more modest than in rainy England. And you may be legally stuck, unable to return with your children to England.
If your spouse encourages a move abroad, make sure that you agree beforehand what will happen if your relationship falters. Before leaving the country, consider entering into a postnuptial agreement (like a prenuptial agreement, but one that takes place after the wedding), which sets out where a divorce would take place, where the children would live and how a financial settlement would be worked out.
9. Covert surveillance of a spouse by bugging the phone, the car, the office - or by employing an enquiry agent
One client told me that her husband would wait until he was in the car to discuss his affair with friends, or with the Other Woman herself.
The wife placed a recorder beneath the car seat, and recorded all his telephone calls. Although it gave her satisfaction, I questioned the need in law.
This type of conduct can backfire: it isn’t necessary for a divorce and, if you go to these lengths, the judge may be left wondering about your character.
8. Secretly photocopying every scrap of financial information in the house and office which belongs to your spouse
Or downloading everything from a spouse’s computer, then pretending that he or she didn’t realise what the computer was doing. It is illegal to hack into a computer in this way, and risks prosecution. Likewise, it is not permitted to intercept and open post before it has been delivered to the correct address.
Each spouse is entitled to confidentiality and privacy and has an obligation to give full frank and honest disclosure in the divorce.
Documents obtained illegally cannot be read by your solicitors and must be immediately forwarded on by them to your spouse's solicitor who has a duty to disclose all relevant documents. Penalties may be imposed upon spouses who obtain information in such a way. There could even be separate civil and criminal proceedings launched too. The law is very complex and should be fully understood by you. Don't act in haste or you may repent at leisure.
7. Salting away as much money as possible, ready for that 'rainy day'
Many clients know that they are going to get divorced long before proceedings are set in motion. They decide to take pre-emptive action and hide their money. Wealthy people do this by shipping it offshore into untraceable bank accounts, drawing upon a warren of trusts and companies onshore and abroad.
The less well-off do it by depositing funds into the bank accounts of relatives.
The most extreme case I have encountered was that of a man who had siphoned more or less everything the couple owned into an offshore trust. He then began to borrow against all the remaining assets onshore. Fortunately his wife became wise to his ploy. She was able to injunct him and put a stop to it. In other cases, assets are sold and proceeds spent long before the divorce takes place, or afterwards when it is too late to do anything more about it.
6. Damage, destruction or sale of the household’s most valuable contents - particularly those the spouse wishes to keep
Lady Graham Moon has gone down in English family law history for acting like a milkman, except that she was delivering to her neighbours the contents of her estranged husband’s valuable wine cellar.
Cases I have personally encountered include a wife who sold the Steinway piano without the knowledge of her pianist husband, a wife who sawed the legs off a Chippendale cabinet and delivered it - along with its removed legs - to her husband and a wife who ran a bath of scalding water and bleach, into which she dumped all her husbands’ suits and ties.
Some clients claim to have sold assets at for remarkably low prices. Miraculously, these same assets reappear in their ownership once the case is over. I have known this to happen with valuable jewellery, art - and even a plane!
5. Spending money wildly, as a form of 'payback'
In my experience, this form of revenge tends to be the preserve of spurned wives. Some women decide to spend as much as they can on their husbands’ credit cards before the husbands realise what is going on. One wealthy client of mine received a credit card bill for £30,000 of luxury clothing purchased by his wife from Bond Street. A further £20,000 had been taken off his card, to pay her lawyer’s bills. In such cases, household bills may well be left unpaid. The court does have power to add back money that has been wasted in this way, so all is not lost.
4. Hitting the 'Send' button late at night
Imagine the scene. The wronged spouse, a bottle of wine and the Internet. As the night goes on the lonely spouse gets worse for wear, all those grievances pile up and hey! Why not? Vengeance is sweet. It may give you the greatest satisfaction informing every single person in your spouse's company across the world of an affair with an employee. But it could certainly result in adverse publicity, the loss of your spouse's job impacting on your finances and a massive claim against you. If you are prone to brood and plot late at night, instal an override function on your computer.
3. Using a friend as a spy, to gain access to the lawyer’s office and learn firsthand what is going on
This is the height of sneakiness. A girlfriend pretends to befriend the wife, offers a helping hand with the lawyers, gets to know the tactics and advice - and then reports everything back to the husband. Again, this happens more often than you might think. As a result, I discourage my clients from coming to see me with 'friends' in tow.
2. 'Conflicting out' the spouse’s lawyer
This is when it is inappropriate for a solicitor to advise a client, because of previous or ongoing work or involvement with another person involved in the same case. Because a good lawyer can bring about an extremely successful outcome, some spouses decide to get that lawyer onside, or make sure that the lawyer is placed out of the other side’s reach. Many times I have been aware that this is happening to me. On one occasion, a man telephoned ahead for an emergency appointment and was prepared to fly over from the Caribbean to see me ahead of his wife. Another time the husband paid a retainer, never turned up and divorced his wife offshore.
1. If all else fails… running off with the divorce lawyer!
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and this has been known to happen. It certainly gives an unfair advantage, with vastly reduced legal fees. I can recall one case in which the husband began an affair with his divorce lawyer. Having paid out his wife, he swiftly married his well-to-do new love!
Secret court jails father for sending son 21st birthday greeting after he was gagged from naming him
A COMPLICIT MEDIA FINALLY GETTING ROUND TO EXPOSING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DEMANDING FOR OVER A DECADE,
TO STOP THE EVIL MASONIC JUDICIAL MAFIA'S ATTACKS ON MEN IN SECRET FAMILY COURTS. THEY SAY THIS ONLY HAPPENS TO
A SMALL NUMBER WHICH IS A BLATANT LIE .
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF SEPARATED FATHERS TREATED ABYSMALLY,THAT IS
UNLESS YOU ARE A LODGE BUDDY OF ONE OF THE MASONIC JUDGES WHO ABUSES THOSE POWERS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Homosexual judges and legal mafia behind the terrorizing of heterosexual fathers.
Garry Johnson breached gagging order stopping him publicly naming son
46-year-old brought up his son and still lives with him
Judge sent father to prison for contempt at a closed-doors family court
Case certain to fuel concerns about Britain’s network of secret courts
A father has been jailed at a secret court hearing for sending a Facebook message to his grown-up son on his 21st birthday.
Garry Johnson, 46, breached a draconian gagging order which stops him publicly naming his son, Sam, whom he has brought up and who still lives with him.
In a case which is certain to fuel concerns about Britain’s shadowy network of secret courts, a judge sent the former music executive to prison for contempt at a closed-doors family court hearing in Essex at the beginning of last month.
He was not arrested by police or even represented by a lawyer.
The order silencing Mr Johnson – which follows an acrimonious divorce eight years ago – means he cannot mention either of his boys, 21-year-old Sam and Adam, 18, in public, even by congratulating them in a local newspaper announcement when they get engaged, married or have children in the future.
The extraordinary gag is set to last until the end of his life, although his boys are now adults. Last night they condemned their father’s jailing as ‘cruel and ludicrous’.
After their parents’ divorce, the two boys chose to live with their father, following a series of rows with their mother over her new boyfriend.
But within a year of the divorce, Mr Johnson’s ex-wife made allegations to Essex social workers that he was neglecting the children and not feeding them properly at his smart family home.
An investigation by social workers cleared him of any wrongdoing and said the boys were fine.
A year later, in 2006, she made further allegations to social workers that he was mentally unfit to care for the boys.
Medical documents show Sam and Adam reveal that Mr Johnson was examined three times by a local psychiatrist hired by social workers. The doctor wrote to social workers saying:
‘There is no evidence of mental illness. I cannot understand why there are concerns about Mr Johnson’s mental health.’
Social services refused, as a result, to get involved.
In 2007, the ex-wife started private care proceedings to remove the boys from their father. A judge put the boys under a ‘living at home with parent’ care order.
It meant they would continue to live with their father, but under supervision by social services.
This care order was accompanied by the gagging order to stop an increasingly anguished Mr Johnson talking about the case publicly.
Even naming his sons in the most innocuous circumstances – such as on Facebook – became a contempt of court.
The care order on Sam expired on his 18th birthday three years ago. The one on Adam in October last year when he reached 18. Normally, a gagging order imposed by a family court judge on a parent expires at the same time as a care order on the child. This one did not.
Mr Johnson was imprisoned at the height of campaigns against jailings by this country’s network of secret courts.
The secretive family court system, which jailed Mr Johnson, deals with custody wrangles, children’s care orders and adoption.
Mr Johnson received a letter in late April from Chelmsford County Court officials ordering him to go to Basildon Magistrates’ Court building on May 2 for a hearing regarding his children.
He was not warned he might face imprisonment or that the hearing was about his Facebook message, posted on Sam’s birthday a few days earlier on April 23.
On arrival, he was escorted by court security guards to a private room in the building for a half hour hearing under family court rules before His Honour Judge Damien Lochrane.
He was not warned that he might need a lawyer.
At the private hearing, Mr Johnson learned he had breached a gagging order, imposed by the family courts in 2007, by sending the Facebook message.
He informed the judge that he had had four heart attacks and was awaiting a triple by-pass operation. But he was sentenced to 28 days’ jail and sent down to a court cell to await transport to Chelmsford prison.
In the court cell, he had a heart attack caused by the shock. Rushed to a local hospital by ambulance, he was then shackled and handcuffed to a bed while on oxygen and receiving morphine.
A team of prison officers were put on 24-hour shifts beside his bed to make sure he did not escape.
He recovered and was sent to prison two days later, serving two weeks of the sentence before being released. Details of the horrifying case were made public by his sons, who are not subject to any gagging order according to their Essex-based lawyer, Alan Foskett.
The jailing provoked a horrified response from MPs last night. John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP who has campaigned against the secret courts, said: ‘This is yet another example of how the secret courts are stopping freedom of speech. I have never heard of a gagging order of this kind going on into adulthood. This is a surreal case.’
Mr Johnson’s local MP, John Baron, said: ‘I have helped Mr Johnson and his sons – who always wanted to live with him – over several years. To find he has been imprisoned for sending a birthday message to one of them is troubling.
‘Whilst I appreciate the need to protect children, the family court system often ignores the legitimate wishes of families. This needs to change, and quickly.’
Sam, a telesales manager and former professional footballer, said last night: ‘My dad is a good father and has never been in trouble with the police. He was treated like a criminal. This ludicrous gagging order should not exist and must now be lifted.
Both Adam and myself are adults. This cruel ruling is now hanging over my father to silence him about the sons he loves for the rest of his life. That is a terrible thing in what is meant to be a free country.’
Mr Johnson was imprisoned a day before senior judges, on May 3, reacted by saying they planned to stop courts jailing defendants in secret for contempt.
The Ministry of Justice this week said that it does not count up people jailed by the family courts because the numbers are ‘so small’.
A spokesman said of the courts: ‘It is very rare for anyone to be imprisoned for contempt of court and it only ever happens in extreme circumstances when a person has continually disregarded legally binding requirements made by the court and clearly communicated to them.
‘A person accused of contempt of court will always be given their full legal right to defend himself or herself at a hearing will always be heard in an open court.’
However, it is estimated by campaigners and MPs that up to 200 parents a year are imprisoned for contempt by the family courts. Because of the controversial secrecy rules, some have been sent to jail for discussing their case with MPs or charity workers advising them.
HOMOSEXUAL JUDGES DESTROYING HETEROSEXUAL FATHERS IN SECRET FAMILY COURTS
Divorce stings instigated by crooked lawyers
Millions more men destroyed by these EVIL bastards than ALL the terrorist nonsense and distractions put together
Rising costs together with poor quality legal services are adding to the stress and misery of divorce, the law watchdog has said.
According to the Legal Ombudsman for England and Wales, the cost of a divorce can spiral out of control as emotions take control.
‘The price of separation: Divorce related legal complaints and their causes’ report has been produced to illustrate the sorts of issues which can arise in divorce.
“Even the most consensual separation is likely to involve feelings of sadness, disappointment, and guilt, and separation may be non-consensual, involving allegations of betrayal, abuse, and infidelity. Strong emotions can naturally colour and shape the customer's approach to their legal service,” says the report.
“In addition to the emotions involved, there are some very immediate and practical issues to sort out. There is often a house to be dealt with, possessions to be divided, children, pets and friends to be negotiated about. And then there's money: savings, present income and future income to be calculated and suitable arrangements to be made.”
Eight case studies reveal the stories of real people who got divorced and then needed the Legal Ombudsman to help resolve an issue with their lawyer.
“Often, lawyers are able to help guide customers sensitively through the emotional and practical minefield that is the divorce process, enabling them to focus on what is in their best interests. However, there are some occasions where the quality of service falls short,” the report adds
Four of the case studies are about the way the cost of a divorce can spiral out of control: poor cost information, excessive bills, and the financial consequences of a lawyer's mistakes.
Two focus on the quality of the service provided, including one case which examines the misconduct of a lawyer to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
The final two look at the unrealistic expectations with which some customers approach lawyers and where they blame their lawyer for the outcome of a case rather than a mistake they themselves have made.
CHILD ABDUCTION: NOT A CRIME YOU'LL REPORT IN THIS POLICE STATION ! VIDEO
Police refuse to take report of a Crime and threaten informant with arrest - This is the state of police in the UK today when police are refusing to take reports of evidenced crimes against agents of the state.......
You will hear the Sergeant state "This is not a crime you will be reporting in THIS police station"
You will also hear him state in reference to a copy of the legislative ACT of Parliament, The Child Abduction Act 1984 - "That is just a piece of paper" [complete and utter disregard for the law]
At no time does he state this is NOT a crime, just that he will be refusing to take the report and carry out the obligatory investigation.
Michael Doherty attended Hillingdon central police station in Uxbridge on 29th May 2012 and recorded events for the record.
This matter is still progressing through the 'police complaints' system, a blatantly ineffective system used to protect police from allegations of wrongdoing. Their professional standards dept has already dismissed the complaint stating that the station CCTV was unavailable to corroborate my account....
Of course they completely ignored the FACT that it is agreed the police refused to take the report of a crime in the first instance, a requirement that they are DUTY bound to do.
Fortunately, personal CCTV evidence is available.
Importantly to note, the police 'professional' standards dept in the course of their 'investigation' did not take written accounts from the officers involved... typical of their deliberate attempts to avoid accountability.
LAWYER EXPOSES MOTHERS AS MAIN ABDUCTORS OF CHILDREN ABROAD VIDEO
Yet the BBC ALWAYS use the mother as the victim of child abduction???????
Loving Parents Despair - exposing the SS (Social Services) VIDEO
Two parents - filmed anonymously out of fear of the Social Services - share their emotional abuse and torture at the hands of the UK state. When the SS told them that their third child would be taken away at birth, they made the heart-crushing decision to have a termination rather than face again what they had seen their other two children endure.....they know that they are not the only ones to have suffered this horror.....our hearts go out to anyone who has faced, or is facing, that situation. We urge everybody to start working together against these atrocities.
LEGAL AID : FOR MEN THIS IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM VIDEO
NATO Chief Security Consultant's daughter snatched by the UK government!!! VIDEO
British judicial mafia ignore the Hague convention
FAMILY COURT JUDGES BEING ATTACKED BY VICTIMS OF THE SYSTEM
Justice ministry under pressure to curb attacks on family court judges
Official records reveal 26 incidents in a year, including assaults
Parents in custody disputes spit and throw chairs at judges
Family courts deal with issues including parental disputes over the upbringing of children and some aspects of domestic violence.
Judges dealing with sensitive issues – including child custody – in the family courts have had hate mail sent to their homes, been physically attacked and been victims of attempted assaults in court buildings, according to information obtained by the Guardian.
In the 12 months up to January this year, 26 incidents were recorded, including one direct threat to life and three physical attacks. The Guardian understands – from another source – that one of these involved a judge who required hospital attention after being knocked to the floor and beaten by a parent over whose case she was presiding.
Family judges recently took the highly unusual step of admitting widespread concerns about their safety to the Guardian but this is the first time official details have been disclosed listing the actual risks faced by judges in England and Wales.
Despite the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) saying it had "a robust security and safety system to protect court users and the judiciary", families whose cases were being heard were able to throw chairs and water at judges. Other judges reported being spat at. Six received abusive or threatening correspondence.
There are likely to have been more attacks than official records reveal, however. Judges said they were reluctant to speak out publicly about the violence they encountered in the courts or make official complaints for fear of increasing the threats.
"It is part of judges feeling exposed and unprotected, I suppose," said one judge speaking anonymously. "We all have what is meant to be a hotline to the police in case of trouble but I'm not sure it works. A judge told me he rang it and absolutely nothing happened. It was not a hotline at all in his experience.
"There is also a problem of people putting horrible stuff on the net, including threats. Judges have made orders for them to stop but I don't know if they do."
A number of freedom of information requests submitted by the Guardian revealed that at least five district judges have received threatening correspondence in the past year related to hearings they have presided over. One letter was sent to a judge's home address, three messages were posted on social media sites and one abusive email was received – the last two incidents suggesting the writers were able to discover and access the judges' private email addresses and social media pages, such as Facebook.
Family courts deal with parental disputes over the upbringing of children; local authority intervention to protect children; decrees relating to divorce; financial support for children after divorce or relationship breakdown; some aspects of domestic violence and adoption.
Another judge told of an incident in which a judgment was secretly taped. "A man who promised me he was not recording the hearing did so, then posted the recording online," said the judge.
"His page was full of stuff about a judge, not nice, not me. I warned that judge and made a lot of it because I thought he was a threat. A high court judge made orders about it."
Any subsequent breaking of a court order could lead to the offender being sent to prison or fined.
The HMCTS refused the Guardian access to reports regarding the incidents and said it was not known whether any of the perpetrators' actions were reported to the police or how many cases went on to criminal proceedings.
But, said another judge: "The trouble is that no one will do anything about it. Clearly, that is not right and in my view the Ministry of Justice or the attorney general should do something but I'm not aware of it happening. If the case is still ongoing, the judge running the case can deal with it, but if the case is over, and it is often when a final decision is made that these things happen, then in my experience nothing happens."
However, another judge said: "For over a decade, I have been interfering in people's lives in the most drastic sense and I've not been seriously abused or threatened. Perhaps that is surprising?"
The HMCTS said it took security within courts extremely seriously and had "a robust security and safety system to protect court users and the judiciary".
"This system includes mandatory bag searches, metal detectors and surveillance cameras, as well as court security officers who have legislative powers to protect all those in the court building. The powers of the court security officers include the ability to restrain and remove people from the building should there be a need," it said.
"Our security system is continually monitored to ensure that it is effective and proportionate and mitigates against the risks faced."
UK'S JUDICIAL MAFIA JAILING MEN DURING DIVORCE NOW
As we have been warning for many years the freemason judges running the courts are taking extreme measures to get a hold of
mens assets who have dared to challenge their illegal powers. Men need to unite to rid this country of the mobsters using
divorce to thieve with impunity for the vile British crown and its head old Lizzie. A warning for any young man who thinks
marriage is good for the soul when many who did are now languishing in jail. Gold digging ex-wives and their lawyers
are being allowed to get away with murder thanks to masonic tyranny.
I can't believe I'm locked up with killers and rapists over a matrimonial matter: Jailed tycoon hits out at his 'ridiculous' punishment in divorce row
The property tycoon jailed for refusing to reveal his finances during one of Britain’s biggest divorce battles has described his punishment as ‘ridiculous’.
Scot Young, 51, a one-time ‘fixer’ for the super-rich, has claimed he ‘lost’ his £400 million fortune and insists he is penniless and unable to pay maintenance.
‘I can’t believe I’m locked up with murderers, drug dealers and rapists for 22 hours a day over a matrimonial matter,’ he said.
His estranged wife Michelle, 48, claims he has hidden his fortune abroad.
Earlier this month a High Court judge lost patience with the tycoon for failing to explain what had happened to his money and jailed him for a ‘flagrant and deliberate’ contempt of court.
Young, who counts Topshop entrepreneur Sir Philip Green and Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky among his friends, once enjoyed an enviable lifestyle, travelling by private jet and owning lavish homes, luxurious cars and a yacht in Monaco. For his wife’s 40th birthday, he gave her £1 million worth of Graff diamond jewellery.
But Mrs Young left him in 2006, claiming their ‘volatile’ marriage had become unbearable, and for the past two years has received almost no maintenance.
Describing life at Pentonville prison in North London, Young said: ‘I’m sharing a cell with a complete stranger and have nothing but a bunk bed and toilet to look at.
‘I’m trying to keep up my spirits over this but it is hard. I never thought in a million years my life would have come to this.
‘Luckily I’ve managed to lose 5lb by being able to work-out in the prison gym which has saved my sanity.’
The decision to jail Young was seen as a signal that judges are prepared to take a tough line on spouses who defy court orders. Young called it a ‘black day for the marital justice system.
The father of two claims his fortune disappeared after a Moscow property deal collapsed three years ago.
At an earlier hearing, he was ordered by the court to pay £27,500 a month in maintenance for Michelle and the couple’s daughters, Scarlet, 20, and Sasha, 18. But he ran up an unpaid maintenance bill of more than £1 million.
A court ordered him to explain where his money had gone but he gave no explanation and simply accused Michelle of trying to have him jailed out of malice.
As he was sentenced, his fiancee of three years, fashion designer Noelle Reno, 29, watched in tears from the public gallery.
After visiting him in jail last week, she said: ‘I was in tears because it is really hard to see Scot in prison.
‘I took him in some fresh clothes which he appreciated.
‘He tells me he is locked up for hours on end and is only allowed out of his cell for an hour’s exercise a day.
‘At the moment he says the prison gym is shut so can’t use it which he has been used to so it is really hard for him.
‘We were allowed a hug but nothing more. I’m trying to stay strong for him and we are determined prison will not break us.’
Young and his wife married in 1995 and before their split owned Wood Perry House in Oxfordshire, which they sold for £14 million.
Their daughters were sent to private school and their weekly shopping was delivered by Harrods.
BANNATYNE'S 'GOLDDIGGER' WIFE CAUSE OF REDUNDANCIES AND HEART ATTACK
Dragons' Den star Duncan Bannatyne blames his 'gold digging wife' for making staff redundant as he laments finalisation of costly divorce on Twitter
Duncan Bannatyne has revealed that his divorce has been finalised - and claims that the cost of the separation has forced him to sack members of staff from his businesses.
The Dragons' Den star took to Twitter yesterday to announce the formal end of his marriage to Joanne McCue, and appeared to accuse her of being a 'gold digger'.
He has previously complained that the cost of his divorce has affected his business empire, even blaming a trip to hospital with a suspected heart attack on the stress of legal proceedings.
Last night Mr Bannatyne - currently a contestant on a celebrity version of the Great British Bake Off for Comic Relief - told one of his Twitter followers he had 'no spare cash' after the divorce.
Darren McQuade asked the businessman if he would be willing to guarantee the future of a shop near his home in Teesside.
Mr Bannatyne replied: 'I can't do that as have no spare cash & having to make staff redundent [sic] due to cost of divorce'.
He then added: 'I just received my Decree Absolute by email, isn't that nice? #DivorcedForMoney by a #GoldDiggingFamily'.
A decree absolute is the document that legally dissolves a marriage.
Mr Bannatyne and Ms McCue married in 2006 and have two children together. They split in December 2011.
The tycoon later apparently took another opportunity to attack his ex-wife as he responded to messages of support from online well-wishers.
'Yes I have great support & a great future, just want the world to know what disgusting parasites they are,' he wrote.
Last year, reports emerged that Mr Bannatyne, whose fortune has been estimated at £430million, would have to sack 43 employees due to the cost of his divorce.
He later reassured staff at his business empire, which includes bars, gyms and fitness clubs, that he was taking all necessary steps to safeguard their jobs.
In October he was taken to hospital after suffering chest pains which were thought to be signs of a heart attack.
After he was discharged, he said: 'It was a pure stress attack as I have been under a lot of stress. It was very scary but I am feeling much better now.
'The businesses are all going really well, that is not a problem. It is the divorce. I have another High Court date coming up.'
He previously admitted he struggled from depression after the breakdown of his marriage to first wife Gail.
The 63-year-old has four children from his first marriage as well as his two with Ms McCue.
'A handful of redundancies were confined to the new projects team as Duncan consolidates the business in line with the cost of the divorce and market conditions,' a spokesman for the businessman said.
'However, investment continues in order to grow established business streams and key performance areas including the call centre operation in Darlington.'
MP JOHN HEMMING EXPOSES THE VILE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM
HANSARD ON THE CRIME AND COURTS BILL
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):
There are some very good things in this Bill, but while I
declare my interest in justice for families and concern
about miscarriages of justice in the family courts, I have
to say that it is also amissed opportunity. Lord Bingham’s
excellent book “TheRule of Law”identifies eight principles
for the rule of law. The first two are that the law should
be accessible and not depend upon judicial discretion.
That underlines that law should be comprehensible to
non-lawyers and hence it should be possible to identify
miscarriages of justice even when appeals are not allowed
by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal should
not be seen as having a form of papal infallibility.
My academic qualifications are in science rather than
law, and that is where my concern about family court
proceedings comes from.Rachel Pullen’s case—I recently
assisted her to send it to the Grand Chamber of the
European Court of HumanRights—is a perfect example
She was deemed on the basis of a single expert
report to have a significant learning disability and not
to have the capacity to instruct a solicitor. I am, however,
lucky enough to have had access to a second expert
report, the comments of her GP and an IQ assessment
for employment, and to have met her. All those things
point to the original expert being plainlywrong. However,
the case has been considered by the county court, the
Court of Appeal, the House of Lords Judicial Committee
and the initial Chamber of the European Court of
Human Rights without that being picked up.
Sadly, that case is not unique. I have spoken previously
inWestminster Hall on 21 March—at column 244WH—
about other people whose mental capacity has been
wrongly removed from them and I will not repeat those
697 Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] 14 JANUARY 2013 Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] 698
details now. If a case can travel through the appellate
system to Strasbourg without the scientific facts being
properly determined or even open to challenge, there is
a serious problem.
A more recent case is unique because the mother kept
her capacity, having faced its removal after an allegation
of querulous paranoia by her barrister. She had been
asked to spend £3,880 on an expert’s fee, even though
theNHShad previously found no diagnosable conditions
and her employer stated that she seemed fine. Nevertheless,
she managed to win the battle as litigant in person with
the assistance of a McKenzie friend. That does, however,
raise serious questions about equality of arms.
in the Bill will improve the situation when many people
have their capacity wrongly removed or improve the
quality and accountability of scientific expert evidence.
There are two possible solutions: a Daubert procedure
would assist for a case-by-case review, while allowing
academic access to secret proceedings, as I suggested in
my family justice private Member’s Bill, would provide
a level of quality control currently lacking.
The proposal in the Bill to allow proceedings to be
broadcast could help to improve the integrity of the
legal system. Early-day motion 536 refers to a case
heard on 2 May.
Initially, the McKenzie friend who
assisted the mother in that appeal told me it had been
allowed, but after I chased it for six weeks’, a transcript
was found stating that it had been lost, which caused me
concern as I had been told that it had been allowed. I
therefore wrote to the court in July requesting that I be
allowed to listen to the official recording, but I got no
Hence in October I wrote to the Minister. I then had
a response from both the Court and the Minister saying
that the rules had been changed and that I could not
now listen to the hearing. I wrote asking for the reasons,
and it was only in late December that I was told by the
judicial office that the Judicial Executive Board had
decided not to allowpeople to listen to official recordings.
Its argument was that in theory a recording in open
court could include legally privileged material. I would
argue that someone speaking in open court who knows
that everything is being recorded would not expect the
conditions needed for privilege. The judicial office has
also said that the JEB is not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act, and hence we have no idea who
participated in the meeting that made this decision or
when it was taken.
To me that looks like a cover-up, but we do not know.
If it is, we need to know who was involved, how high it
went and why. It is puzzling that people have failed to
saywhen this rule change happened. If the pronouncement
of the judgment was broadcast, under clause 28, we
would have an independent copy of the hearing and
would be able to check why there was a discrepancy
between the report of the hearing and the official transcript.
Another thing missing from the Bill is a proposal to
make theJEBclearly subject to theFreedom of Information
Act. It is arguably caught by the Judicial Studies Board
being subject to FOI, but that is not made explicit in
The difficulty in obtaining transcripts of judgments
is an important problem that is causing difficulties in
ensuring that the appellate system operates properly.
There were two cases in Birmingham recently where
there was no transcript on the file. It took almost three
months to obtain the transcript in one of these cases.
The Bill does nothing about this. Furthermore, an
appeal from the family proceedings court to the county
court can exhaust domestic proceedings.
That might be
good for anyone wishing to take a case to Europe, but it
raises a further question about the integrity of the legal
system if the Court of Appeal cannot look at something
before it leaves the domestic jurisdiction. The Bill, in
creating a single family court, might deal with this, but
it is a matter of detail that needs to be sorted out.
I have helped litigants in person with three cases that
involved appeals in the Court of Appeal where the
appeal was allowed. I will not go into the details,
because I do not have time, but all the appeals were
allowed. One can have no certainty that any of these
appeals would have gone before the Court without my
involvement, and I am not a lawyer. I see many cases
that I think would win appeals, but it is simply the
procedural complications of getting the paperwork together,
including access to the original case files and judgments,
that prevents this.
I am also aware of a number of cases where a party is
frightened to appeal because they are likely to face the
judge in the Court of First Instance again and fear the
use of judicial discretion to punish them for appealing.
To me, appeals that have the potential to be allowed but
which are not heard are miscarriages of justice just as
much as the case referred to in early-day motion 835—a
case where the parents were banned from talking to the
media in any way. The Bill does nothing to deal with
any of those situations.
The Bill does deal with conflicts of interest relating to
judges—in paragraph 8 of schedule 9—but it remains
the case that a firm of solicitors can act for parents in
one case against a local authority and act for the same
local authority in a second case, even with the same
individual solicitor doing the work. That is a clear
conflict of interest and gives rise to what is known as
repeat player prejudice. I have seen a number of cases
where this conflict of interest appears to have had an
effect on the advice given and the consequent outcome
for parents. A social worker previously told me how he
had colluded with parents’ solicitors to ensure that the
parents lost. However, this conflict of interest appears
to be tolerated by the system, and the Bill proposes no
The House of Commons often does not manage to
scrutinise proposals effectively where there is not a proper
party or adversarial division. This, even if I rushed my
speech, is one of those areas.