DIVORCING MAN CROSS-DRESSES IN COURT TO TRY AND GET SOME JUSTICE
Paul's cross-dressing court date
EYEBROWS were raised in a Westcountry courthouse yesterday when a man turned up for a divorce settlement wearing a dress, wig and stockings.
Paul Cuthbert, 62, said he felt dressing as a woman would help him get a fairer hearing at Taunton County Court in Somerset.
Mr Cuthbert, from Taunton, says he is in dispute with his ex-wife over the value of their former home in the town, which is to be sold at auction.
Mr Cuthbert, speaking after the behind-closed-doors hearing yesterday, said: "Last time I was in court there was my ex-wife, two female solicitors and a female judge.
"They put the house to auction without letting me have a say at all. So this time I thought I'd go dressed as a woman.
"Maybe somebody will listen to what I have to say as a woman more than they would as a man."
He went on: "I bought the dress in a shop in Taunton. And I got the wig from the party place on the high street. I knew my size so I knew it would fit me.
"When I went up there this morning, people just weren't recognising me as a man.
"One person said they had their suspicions, but they weren't sure.
"I've been singing a bit of country music, because that's what I always wanted to do, and I've made a CD with six tracks on it.
"I filmed myself miming to Patsy Cline with all my gear on, so you never know what the future might hold."
He says the reaction in the courtroom was positive, and is pleased that the judge is awaiting confirmation from an estate agent over the market value of the property.
Mr Cuthbert said: "The judge was totally different to last time. The last time I didn't even get to have a say. She was quite nice this time."
The former lorry driver, who claims disability benefits after being crushed by a vehicle's tail lift mechanism, claims he will be left homeless if the judge agrees that the two-bedroom terrace is brought down in value to £120,000.
Because his share of the divorce settlement is based on the value of the property, he says a reduction in the asking price would not leave him enough money to buy a one-bedroom flat for himself and his beagle dog, Freddie.
Why NO cameras ? What are they hiding? We are followed everywhere in the UK with spy cameras yet the very place we expect justice in British courts they HIDE from public scrutiny. As you walk through the doors of British courts all means to record either audio or video are BLOCKED.
WHAT ARE THEY SCARED OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACCOUNTABILITY and Scrutiny?
Security guards at a magistrates court have been suspended amid claims they posed for pictures with comedian Jimmy Carr.
Jimmy Carr and the picture taken by him at Suffolk magistrates court Photo: PA
Four officers called in to step up security for the TV comic's court appearance in Sudbury, Suffolk, now face disciplinary action.
The guards were sent home from work and charged with gross misconduct.
Carr, 36, said about the bizarre incident on May 13 on his official Twitter page: "Weirdly all the security asked for photos. It was very friendly."
The cult entertainer also linked in an image of a court sign, situated inside the building on the first floor, in the Tweet which said it was an offence to take a photo inside a court building.
The stand-up star was later cleared of any wrongdoing by court officials who said the wording of the sign was out of date and have since said it will now be replaced.
Police said it was only a criminal offence if parties involved in the proceedings appeared in the picture.
But last night they were unable to comment as the latest revelation emerged. The guards are employed by Mitie, the second largest manned guarding company in the UK, and hold the contract for all courts.
A spokesman for Her Majesty's Court Service said last night: "Four security guards employed by Mitie have been suspended and are subject to Mitie's disciplinary procedures.
"That is all we will be saying on the matter."
Mitie refused to comment on the embarrassing incident.
Carr, of north London, was due to stand trial for a speeding offence.
But his celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, known as Mr Loophole, managed to halt the proceedings after 90 minutes of legal discussion.
Carr is due to return to Sudbury magistrates court for his speeding trial at a date to be arranged. He denies the offence.
MASONIC BRITISH CROWN,JUDGES AND LAWYERS CONTINUE TO DESTROY FATHERS
Despite all efforts by our forefathers to fight to improve the lives of us all, Britain has returned to a medieval form of slavery using draconian laws and courts that are on a par with Hitler and his gestapo mob.
Also despite the efforts of the fathers who have fallen victims to these evil brutal bastards , both the political and legal mafia's of the UK continue to conspire to fleece men of their livelihoods and homes. Even the corporate media have fallen in behind the exposure of the secret and ruthless tactics of the British crowns judiciary in its dispensing of a form of justice that psychologically destroys good fathers in the utter greed that system operates with complete impunity.
A legal system and judiciary that answers to NO ONE but themselves . With a form of independence that has stealthily allowed them to give themselves complete control of Britains assets founded on secret satanic masonic oaths and structures that allow the British establishment,behind the scenes , to rule over us using the power of those courts to deviously steal everything men have spent a lifetime accruing. In a few cases women married to masons suffer the same fate.
Family and civil courts in the UK are where the masonic consolidation of power is being harnessed at the utter expense of the many lives lost and destroyed by a power and control so evil it hides its brutality by leaving NO physical scars, only deep emotional and psychological scars. These also hide the growing suicidal statistics of the many men caught in their spiders web of deceit. We hear time again, through a complicit media that protects their crimes, about men who kill themselves and in some cases take their family with them. But they hide the fact that in some cases men have been struggling to survive the heavy burden of debt that accumulates through despicable and continued legal actions that begin to dominate and control a mans life to the point that it snuffs it out.
For any man who has been organised and structured he suddenly finds MASONIC judges ,lawyers and cops dominate every aspect of their life dictating what they must pay ,when they can see their children or at least until they are removed forever from them along with the mountains of court hearings and papers that distract attention away from the extreme crimes of corrupt judges and lawyers splitting up the family silver for their own financial greed. The legal aid board a major factor in
aiding and abetting the funding of these endless court actions that ensure judges and lawyers long term financial and professional futures.
Our courts have been taken over by masonic thugs and bully boys disguised in their robes and regalia and who, using media lawyers control the press into publishing few of their crimes, but ONLY the court actions that make them look good. Not the secretive civil actions that fleece billions from the unsuspecting public. Fortunately our group have many victims, both past and present, of their crimes who can provide substantial evidence to show the same scams used time and again to destroy families, particularly fathers while propping up their legal system with money stolen from the family silver.
THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR CRIMES FOREVER
Britain's most senior family judge has said that family courts should be opened to the media to dispel the “myths and inaccuracies” surrounding the system.
Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, told The Times that he favoured allowing the media into children's care cases, where there was “the strongest case” for greater transparency.
He supports allowing similar access to private family disputes over money and children, subject to the discretion of the judge. In all cases the anonymity of the children involved, and where appropriate the parties, must be protected, he said.
Judges should be able to exclude the media in certain disputes between couples where there may be “prurient” interest because of their “sensational” nature but where the facts were of no concern of the public, he said.
In a rare interview, Sir Mark also called for pre-nuptial agreements to become all but binding; deplored the Government's policy of charging big fees to litigants in civil and family cases; and backed greater legal rights for unmarried couples.
Sir Mark, 71, said that “often tendentious and misleading descriptions in the media have distorted the public perception of the legal process and inhibited its understanding of how that process works”.
But the balance, he said, “now seems to me to have come down in favour of increased openness by permitting the attendance of the media, subject to provisions to protect the anonymity of children, or indeed the parties in appropriate cases”. He admitted that there were concerns among some judges who dealt with these cases daily.
The likelihood was that the identity of people involved would emerge, even if local press reports preserved their anonymity, because within communities it would “become fairly widely known who was involved”.
There was a case, Sir Mark said, for saying that couples should not have to “wash their dirty linen in public” when they came to court to settle matrimonial disputes. “They might have a number of embarrassing issues to air that are of no interest whatever to the public ... save for sensationalism and prurience.” That was why, in such cases, judges should have discretion to hold hearings in private, he said.
But he added: “In an age of transparency and amidst largely misplaced criticisms of ‘secret justice', it is clear that the public ... should have confidence in the judiciary.” Laying to rest some of the “myths” about family justice, he said that it was “simply untrue” that parties were unaware of the case against them (for instance, when children were being removed into care) or that they were denied seeing the evidence before the courts. They had a right to see all the evidence, he said. They also had the right to appeal and were entitled to legal representation and legal aid.
Citing another area of reform, he said that he did not favour legislation to make pre-nuptial contracts binding - at present they are only “persuasive” in disputes over assets between divorcing couples. He favoured strengthening the authority of such contracts between couples, however, “as a sensible means of dealing with the fortunes of the rich”.
Sir Mark said: “I consider that great weight should be accorded to any such contract where the parties were legally advised at the time. It should usually be decisive.”
He said that he would retain a “long-stop” judicial discretion for the prevention of injustice, so that judges would not have to follow such contracts where, for instance, one side had not disclosed all their assets at the time; or circumstances had radically changed during a marriage in an unforeseen way.
Sir Mark also made clear his strong opposition to government policy to recoup the costs of running the civil and family courts through charging high fees to litigants.
The “dramatically large increase” for cases over whether a child should be removed from its home had already led to a drop in the number of care cases brought by local authorities, which gave rise to “considerable concern”, he said.
Councils were under a statutory duty to take proceedings to protect children. “It is not a question of a voluntary taking advantage of the system in the way that can be said of ordinary citizens going to law,” he said.
Although £40 million had been provided to compensate councils over court fees, this funding was not “ring-fenced”. He anticipated that there would be a similar damaging impact in the realm of private matrimonial disputes where it would “bear heavily upon those who, though above the exemption level [for paying fees] are of modest means and will not be able to stand the expense”.
The result, he said, would be that they would not be able to come to court to sort out problems over contact or access to children, for instance, or, “what concerns as a judge, they will proceed as litigants in person [without a lawyer]”.
That caused “enormous problems” both in procedure and the process of a case resulting in delays, because of the judges' need to give them full opportunity to express their points which counsel would express more succinctly, he said.
In another area of potential reform to family justice - the law on unmarried couples - Sir Mark made clear that they should have greater legal rights as proposed recently by the Law Commission, the law reform body. The Government has shelved the proposals for the time being, which was a “surprise and disappointment”, but the Law Commission had made a “totally convincing case”, Sir Mark said.
“Most people mistakenly assume metal detectors were installed in courthouses because of criminals and terrorists,” observes Dr. Stephen Baskerville, an assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College.
In fact, retrofitting courtrooms with metal detectors and other security enhancements was prompted by concerns over violence perpetrated by fathers whose families have been sundered and children have been stolen by what Dr. Baskerville calls “the divorce regime.”
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROPAGANDA MASKS "NO TRIAL BY JURY"
Why are the corporate international media OBSESSED with endless articles
on domestic violence?
Is it because, as the corporate media suggests, it is RIFE ? NO
This is to advance an agenda that allows masonic judges "NOT JURIES" to steal
mens children, assets and homes. Men face the most evil abuses of their rights when
dragged before MASONIC judges across the globe in territories that emulate the British
Crown and its obscene family court structure.
When a criminal act is perpetrated by anyone male or FEMALE there are CRIMINAL laws
and courts that include appearing before a JURY to ensure allegations or evidence can
be judged by an impartial tribunal. ONLY a jury can ensure impartiality NEVER a judge.
However the stealthy manipulation of family courts by high level masonic
judicial lackeys have left NON mason men wide open to the most enormous allegations
made in secret courts before lackeys of the Crown and state, prior to them fleecing you
of all your worldly possessions.
Never since the rise of the Nazi's has so much property and assets been stripped from
good men in the dens of inquity only a judicial mafia operate out of. We are witnessing
a conspiracy of a complicit media that is aiding and abetting EVIL court systems that,
only since the birth of the internet, are men actually realising how sinister and immense
this system has become. As with all corporate media, if they continually tell the same lie
over and over again endlessly and at every opportunity, eventually it becomes ingrained
in peoples psyche that it must be true.
The corporate media has become the propaganda machine for evil masonic judges and
crown, that has for far to long, been using the most absurd undermining of due process's
only seen in the star chambers of the middle ages. Now recreated by the controllers at
the Temple bar instructing bar associations worldwide to carry out these atrocities across
the globe for the corrupt lawyers and judges who are party to monstrous abuses of men
and their families . This organisation knows the ploys , knows the deceit
, knows the horrific persecution and harassment men have been facing only
for the benefit , greed and malice of a judicial mafia and their lackeys, the lawyers who
have taken away any hope of justice when good men are dragged into their sick and
sinister legal vortex.
Don't be fooled by their propaganda, this is a multi billion dollar industry that is the most
lucrative scam across the globe. Masons are consolidating their wealth and power using
family courts who ,at the stroke of a corrupt masonic judges pen, thieve your worldly
possessions. It is now time to take back courts that belong to the PEOPLE
and remove every last one of the mobsters hiding behind their robes and regalia and their
unelected and unaccountable power.
CUSTODY BATTLE LEADS TO FATHER THROWING HIS CHILD OFF BRIDGE VIDEO
This is a report of a man who apparently throw his child off a bridge in Melbourne,Australia.
Clearly the father has lost his mind and driven to despair in the same courts fathers have to
tolerate in the UK. Judges across the globe tarnished by the British Crown and English law
are EXPERT at psychologically torturing fathers in divorce actions.
We have been exposing the judicial mafia for many years and have reported on cases were
fathers have reached the end of there tether and took their own lives and sometimes the
lives of their families. There is something sinister and devious in how the corporate media
fail time and again to identify the cause and effect instead branding fathers who have been
driven mentally insane as monsters.
Any man who has suffered the wrath of ruthless family courts will know the anguish this man
must have gone through prior to taking such horrendous action against his own child.
NEW DRACONIAN MEASURES AGAINST SEPARATED FATHERS IN THE UK
MADMAN Purnell one of NWO Browns henchmen continue attacks on NON MASON dads . These new enforcements
wont affect Purnell's LODGE buddies only good fathers that the UK's political and legal masonic
mafia want to fleece to line the pockets of their masonic friends.
Asset stripping on a grand scale from the crooks like Purnell who are determined to destroy good
fathers and attack the poor.
Child maintenance enforcers will be able to strip "deadbeat dads" of their driving licences and passports without having to go to court, under legislation going to Parliament on Tuesday. Skip related content
And absent parents could have to do without their cars and trips abroad until they have paid their support for thier children in full, said Whitehall sources.
The old Child Support Agency has long had the power to apply for a court order to confiscate the driving licences of parents who refuse to pay for their children, and Parliament last year passed an act to give the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission the same power with relation to passports.
Now the Welfare Reform Bill will enable CMEC to bypass the courts and order absent parents directly to give up their driving licences and passports until they have met their financial obligations.
The Department for Work and Pensions said the move would be a "last resort" after other means of securing cash for kids have failed.
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said: "We are supporting parents in these tough times, but for those who choose not to support their own kids, we will not stand by and do nothing. If a parent refuses to pay up then we will stop them travelling abroad or even using their car.
"We want fair rules for everybody and that means giving people the support they need, but in return expecting them to live up to their responsibilities."
The controversial Welfare Reform Bill also includes measures to require many single parents and people on incapacity benefit to seek work.
Clive Anderson discusses the EVILS of family courts across the globe.
NON mason men and their families are being destroyed by MASONIC judges who in secret
hearings reminiscent of the star chambers of the middle ages STEAL mens assets, homes
NOT since NAZI Germany has so many families been fleeced by corrupt judges and lawyers
lining their own pockets and the coffers of the masonic lodges they operate out of.
SECRET COURTS RETURN TO THE UK CORRUPTED BY MASONIC JUDGES
Secret courts are once again routine in England in a way not seen since the days of Henry VIII and the Court of Star Chamber.
A justice system which once was the beacon of the world is being corrupted by senior judges.
Family Courts have created a system comprising a class of unaccountable people who - although paid out of public funds - cannot be scrutinised by the electorate or indeed the wider class of all those, including children and foreigners, who are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the English Courts.
Family Courts have granted themselves the dictator's freedom to operate behind closed doors while making decisions which claim to be done in our name.
Making legitimate and legally binding decisions requires public administration of justice which prevents injustice, corruption, perjury and rip-off lawyers. In Family law above all judicial discretion reigns supreme and the only check on judicial injustice and prejudice is public scrutiny.
English Family Courts ban the public's presence during court hearings - this creates rotten judicial discretion and corruption and wholesale damage to children and families whose interests the Courts are meant to serve. The paramountcy principle of the child's welfare is routinely dishonoured behind the safety of closed doors.
Those who suffer injustice at the hands of legal sharks inside secret family courts are forbidden from publicising what they have suffered on pain of up to 2 years imprisonment for contempt of court. It has even been made an offence to publish the mere orders of those courts or to publish the bare fact of proceedings taking place [s.97(2)(6) Children Act 1989].
Those who appeal and take their complaints to higher courts are denied the right to use their name henceforth by rubberstamp injunctions added automatically by court officials. A person's unfettered use of his own identity is removed from them.
The Courts forbid the press from identifying anyone who has been processed in these secret courts. When once a person was human he becomes the letter A, B or X,Y,Z, initialised into oblivion irrespective of his complaints or wishes: some judges even anonymise the names of expert witnesses and other judges involved in the case - the very people above all who should be identified and subject to scrutiny.
"If the authorities believe there is evidence to justify taking a child into care, they should present it in open court. If the judge thinks the child should not be named, that would be up to him or her, but the evidence should be tested in public." 1
Information that has been in the public domain, or has been printed in mass circulation newspapers, or is freely available on the Internet, now gets routinely gagged and injuncted.
The first show trials against major critics of this regime were stated in 2003, and are in court later in 2004. Dr M.J.Pelling who took a test case to the ECHR at Strasbourg and subsequently published his Children Act Judgment is being prosecuted by the UK Attorney-General.
Those who speak out or write about the evils of UK's secret courts have thus become criminalised.
SCUMBAG MOTHER BUGS DAUGHTERS TEDDY TO SPY ON EX-HUSBAND
Mother bugs her five-year-old daughter's teddy bear to spy on her ex-husband in custody dispute
A mother who 'bugged' her daughter's teddy bear in a bitter child custody battle is facing legal action from her ex-husband.
Dianna Divingnzzo placed a secret listening device inside her five-year-old's favourite soft toy.
It allowed her to record conversations between her daughter and her estranged husband William Lewton.
She hoped to use what she heard in the secret recordings in a court custody hearing.
The secret recordings went on for several months. Lewton only found out he had been bugged when his ex-wife tried to use the tapes in court as evidence that he was an 'unfit' father.
But her plan backfired when a judge in Omaha, Nebraska, threw out the tapes after saying they were illegally obtained.
Judge David Arterburn said under Nebraska Law at least one person in a conversation has to consent to being recorded.
Now Lewton, 46, is planning to sue his ex-wife for invasion of privacy.
'I just can't imagine the thought of someone taking that little bear's head off and implanting a device,' Lewton said.
'It's incomprehensible how someone could do that to a child's toy.'
Lewton said the soft toy, known as 'Little Bear', was his daughter's favourite. She carried the bear everywhere.
Lewton's lawyer John Kinney, said 'Little Bear' recorded dozens of hours of visits from at least December 2007 through May 2008.
Lewton said the recordings revealed nothing beyond the normal interactions between a dad and his daughter.
He and his 43-year-old wife and been involved in a custody dispute over their daughter for over four years following the end of their 10 -year marriage.
Lewton said the bugging began after he gained partial custody rights.
He is suing his ex-wife for more than £400,000. Others who were also recorded have joined his legal action.
Divorce is the main cause of family destruction today, and fatherless children are the principal source of virtually every major social pathology. Yet divorce is ignored by the mainstream media to the point of blackout. Now, Newsweek magazine offers a revealing exception that proves the rule. Newsweek's depiction of divorce is so trite and clichéd that it seriously distorts what is happening.
Most Americans would be shocked if they knew what takes place today in the name of divorce. Indeed, millions are appalled when they discover that they can be forced into divorce, lose their children and even be jailed without trial – all without having violated any law and through procedures entirely beyond their control. Comprised of courts, bar associations and federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most repressive and predatory sector of government ever created in the United States and today's greatest threat to constitutional freedom.
Yet, we hear not a word of this from Newsweek. As is de rigueur in journalism today, reporter Susanna Schrobsdorff begins not with objective facts or disinterested analysis but by publicly displaying her own divorce. And what a joyous occasion it was. Despite pretentious pathos (also obligatory in today's media), it is clear that no one forced her into this.
The usual assortment of divorce lawyers and feminists are then trotted out to mouth the standard clichés of the divorce industry: parents must "cooperate" and "put the children first," caring courts are now generous to fathers, etc. "Their dad and I had read the divorce books and rehearsed our speech about how none of this was their fault, that we loved them," she recounts. "All of this was true, but it seemed insufficient."
It was insufficient (by her own account, the children went berserk) because it was not true. Love demands we put the needs of those we claim to love before our own desires. If divorce proceeds from love, then the word has become meaningless.
Fifteen-year-old Amy Harris, quoted in the Sunday Times, offers a scathing rejoinder to Ms. Schrobsdorff's rehearsed speech: "Parents always say they are not leaving because of the children. Is that supposed to make the children feel better?" she asks. Amy continues:
Does that take all the guilt off the child's shoulder? No, it's all rubbish. Children feel that they weren't enough to keep their parents, that their parents didn't love them enough to keep them together. I know I did not drive my father away, but I did not keep him either.
Newsweek offers no recognition that parents who oppose divorce in principle are simply divorced without their consent, whereupon their children (with everything else they have) are seized without any further reason given. What Newsweek presents as cooperation "for the children" in reality means "cooperate with the divorce if you ever want to see your children again."
The mendacity is especially glaring regarding fathers. "Changes in child-support laws, and a push by fathers for equal time, are transforming the way this generation of ex-spouses raise [sic] their children," claims the carefully worded headline. Yet, Newsweek provides no evidence of any such changes; in fact, it concedes that "Most often, children still end up living primarily with the mother" and that "moms are the official primary residential parent after a divorce in five out of six cases, a number that hasn't changed much since the mid-'90s."
One divorce lawyer claims that "most states have provisions that say gender can't be the determining factor in deciding who is going to be the primary custodial parent," but he does not tell us that such provisions are ignored.
The magazine's account of child support is likewise distorted. Advertised as providing for children who have been "abandoned" by their fathers, child support is in reality the financial engine driving divorce, offering generous windfalls to mothers who break their vows, while criminalizing fathers with debts most have done nothing to incur and that are far beyond their means.
"Most states have passed legislation that ties child-support payments to how much time a child spends with the nonresident parent paying the support," says Newsweek, commenting that "if a father spends more than a given threshold of nights with his kids, he can have his child support adjusted according to formulas that vary by state." No, what this means is that he is less likely to see his children, because both the mother and the state government will lose child support money. Both have a financial incentive to reduce his time with his children as much as possible. Child support makes children fatherless.
A lawyer from the American Academy of "Matrimonial" Lawyers claims that men want custody half the time so that they can pay half the support. This dishonest slur on fathers constitutes an open admission that child support payments vastly exceed the cost of raising children.
Divorce destroys many more families than same-sex "marriage" – which itself has arisen only because of the debasement of marriage through divorce. It is time for the responsible media to expose the unconstitutional divorce apparat. Otherwise, our professed concern for marriage and the family will ring hollow.
My ex-husband, Nigel, is a high-ranking freemason.
I did masses of research and eventually found out his solicitor was a freemason
and the judge in our divorce hearing was also a freemason. My husband lied through
the entire proceedings and got away with it. And he knew the outcome of the court
hearing before the judge handed it down. He came out keeping the family home, all
the assets, the Bentley, the Mercedes, his pension and his business: I got the child, a
Mini, and a caravan to live in.
No maintenance was awarded even though it was his affairs and constant abuse that
caused the marriage breakdown. He now lives the same opulent lifestyle we once
shared while my son and I are near destitute.These people are EVIL. VH, Newbury
LONDON'S DIVORCE JUDGES TO BE REINED IN ON EXCESSIVE SETTLEMENTS
Laws must stop London divorce capital
JUDGES awarding divorce settlements in London need to be reined in by new laws, a Tory think-tank urged today.
The Centre for Social Justice called on Parliament to legislate to stop London being the divorce capital of the world, after a string of celebrities and wealthy individuals have headed to court in the capital for rulings.
The group, set up by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, is demanding restrictions on judges' decisions on financial awards and access to children.
The call comes in the wake of Heather Mills being awarded £24.3 million in her divorce settlement with Sir Paul McCartney, and Guy Ritchie hiring Britain's top children's lawyer in his impending battle with Madonna.
Mr Duncan Smith said: “There is so much leeway around what a judge will decide on. That allows huge territory for the legal profession to have a field day.” The system was “hugely adversarial”, with children “pawns” in the process.
RADICAL FEMINIST AGENDA CAUSING DEATHS OF BRITISH CHILDREN
As any separated man knows the despicable gender bias shown by British social workers
sees the biological fathers rights being stripped away due to draconian court process's.
It should come as no surprise that children separated from the protection a biological father
can give, leaves thousands of children vulnerable while with dysfunctional mothers and their dodgy
boyfriends who are sometimes used to inflict abuse on a child to get back at the separated father.
The evil manner social workers in the UK operate, creating reports for family courts that ensure the asset
stripping can continue to feed the legal vultures that are all part of the massive theft of the family silver.
Those reports castigate the father and Britains masonic judicial mobsters then use restraining orders to
ensure both good fathers and their children are completely isolated from each other.
There is also a masonic agenda behind social services. Managers are mostly masons or are controlled
by masons higher up the management chain and those reports to family courts ensure fathers are also
separated from not only their children but virtually all their assets in a massive land grab of what wealth
a father has created during his working life prior to separation.
The political and legal windbags know the underlying problems of children dying through abuse but fail
time and again to resolve the issues that are causing the deaths. There is far to much money at stake
for all those with their noses in the family trough. This is a multi billion pound racket that wont stop,
as ever more children face continued abuse and in some cases death, thanks to the horrors
created by all those who serve the family courts and the evil masonic judges who play a major part
in ruthlessly exploiting the father while torturing them by removing their children.Maybe the most destructive
force fathers and children will ever face .
Until the underlying issues are resolved more deaths will occur as those charged with child welfare have
a hidden agenda and that is to prop up the masonic coffers as thousands of families are stripped of their
lives. A sinister network of power and control doing irreparable damage to family life across the UK.
Marriage, as conceived by God, is a good and fruitful thing. Marriage, as conceived by the state, is an evil man-trap designed to deprive men of their property and their children.
For as the Ohio State Bar Association helpfully explains, the marriage license is:
... a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.
This contract grants the third party jurisdiction over all the property owned by the first two, as well as anything produced by the other parties, including children. And it is this marriage license which gives the state legal power to dictate who gets what in the case of a divorce.
The explosion of divorce in the latter half of the 20th century and the commonplace abuse of men in the family "courts" (which are actually fraudulent executive-branch entities that operate in total violation of the constitutional law's separation of powers) is bad enough. But since feminists have discovered how the power of government can be used to forcibly transform civil society to their liking, they have been emboldened to make even more creative use of the state's power over marriage.
In Spain, for example, a law is being passed to force men to do more housework. Since the vast majority of Spanish men – 81 percent – are traditionalists who believe that women with school-age children should stay at home and not work full-time jobs, Spanish feminists are waging war against them through the national legislature.
As the law's sponsor, Margarita Uria, helpfully explains:
The idea of equality within marriage always stumbles over the problem of work in the house and caring for dependent people. This will be a good way of reminding people what their duties are. It is something feminists have been wanting for a long time.
No doubt they have. Because, according to Marian Salzman, described by the U.K. Observer as a "trend-spotter extraordinaire," women are "rejecting equality in the workplace and prefer the idea of becoming full-time housewives – but not ones who actually do housework ... women are happy to abandon the workplace, but not if it means spending all day at home cooking, cleaning and looking after children. Instead, they want to play the "role" of housewife with a little help from, for instance, a nanny, and someone who does the ironing."
Her warning should sober even the most infatuated man. "Women think: 'What's mine is mine, and what's his is mine.'"
Since the U.S. Supreme Court now sees fit to take international law into account when deciding what is and is not constitutional, it can only be a matter of time before a woman's right to force her husband to do the ironing or breast-feed the baby is discovered in an emanation or a penumbra. After all, someone has to do the housework when mommy is busy sitting on a corporate board, which she'll be doing as soon as the Norwegian concept of sex-based affirmative action for company directors crosses the Atlantic.
Young men are already responding to the increasingly odious burden of marriage by delaying it or avoiding it altogether, but for the most part, they are doing so without conscious design. It is time for men to become aware that as the more economically productive class, they are the natural prey of the government and its family-control machinery. The courts have already demonstrated that a man – any man – will do for their purposes when child support is required, even if that man can be proved to have no relationship to the child.
For non-Christian men, the answer is easy: Avoid marriage at all costs. Marriage only weakens your legal and emotional positions vis-a-vis a woman, and since American women will freely provide companionship, sex and children upon request, to marry is to give up a great deal for what is literally less than nothing.
A Christian man, on other hand, cannot freely engage in non-committal sexual relationships, and so must marry. He can improve his odds, however, by marrying a Christian woman who is not on the career track. This will significantly increase the chances that he will not find himself at the legal mercy of a sociopath obsessed with momentary happiness ?ber alles, but blessed by a traditional wife committed to building a family and a life together with him instead.
But is it possible for a Christian couple to avoid the state's machinery of control and still marry before God? Yes, according to pastor Matt Trewhella. "What's recorded in a family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their family Bibles. So should we."
HERCULES, our Double Decker HR’s Warrior is going to UNESCO in Paris on the 60th of the universal declaration of human rights: 1948-2008
LONDON 30 October 2008:
The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being commemorated
in a year-long campaign by the UN. The motto of this campaign is "Dignity and Justice
for All of Us".
Particular attention will be paid to new ethical and social challenges linked to Human
Rights, notably in regard to four rights which are within UNESCO’s direct competence:
Right to Education ( Art. 26 )
Right to take part in cultural life ( Art. 27 )
Right to Freedom of opinion and expression, and including the Right to seek, receive and impart information (Art. 19 )and its Coalition of warriors for a new Britain. The Coalition formed by several groups of Victims of the British Legal System is an initiative born on August18th. when on board of HERCULES we establish a network of groups in different England’s cities, all sharing experiences in order to improve and fight against the "Absolute Power" in the hands of Corrupted, unethical Judges in Great Britain.
The ultimate objective is to involve the society in a common struggle against the A B U S E S of "D" Legal System in GB through an International Coalition and support.
Departure: December 6th on route to Paris
Dec 7th.: Mega Protest at "Notre-Dame"
Dec 8th: Barroque’s Concert and Demostration at Champ de Mars at Eiffel Tower.
Dec 9th:Protesting through Paris and…
At UNESCO: On December 10th to Present UN with a Testament of Violations and unethical Judgements from GB’s Judges.
The Lord Chancellor to be RECUSED and for the Queen to be accountable and liable for all miscarriage of Justice.
The Return of thousand of children taken away from their families arbitrarily.
For a Response for Jersey’s Historical Genocide.
For Tony Blair to be tried for crimes against humans during his time in office.
Removal of the Doors at Court’s Room which are use only to protect the "MAFIA" that operates inside the Court Rooms in GB.
For the liberation of thousands of mothers,parents and grandparents detained in Prison or Mental centres for voicing their Injustices.
For financial compensation for all the victims of this decadent, medieval, barbaric Legal system in GB.
For devolution of Respect and Dignity expropriated from all of us by the ones who are suppose to protect us:Police, Social Services, Lawyers, Counsellors, and Judges.
THE UK'S DIVORCE RACKET HEADED AND CONTROLLED BY MASONIC CROOKS
Slowly one or two of the UK's newspapers are exposing the MASONIC JUDICIAL crooks who are thieving mens assets with impunity in secret family courts.
The allegiance of the British media to judicial corruption is the main reason they have been getting away with murder for so very long.
The bulk of the British media ,with a few small exceptions, is allowing a fascist system to destroy families and their fathers while fleecing billions from the unsuspecting victims of an evil system of law. ALL of it controlled by high level masons in the judiciary,law society's ,legal aid board's, social services, chief constables and a myriad of masonic place men in key positions to ensure the billion pound land,business and property theft continues unabated . Not forgetting the most important children who are removed from fathers on a whim.
We ask how much of this is covered up by key masons in the British mass media? How much longer do they think they can get away with protecting the destroyers of our families?
Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, Stephen Baskerville, Cumberland House 2007, 368 pages, $24.95
Until it happens to them, very few people realize the power family courts have to ruin their lives and their relationships with their children. In Taken into Custody, sociologist Stephen Baskerville exposes increasingly out-of-control bureaucratic machinery that functions without accountability or oversight. "The separation of children from their parents for reasons that have nothing to do with the children's wishes, safety, health, or welfare is now routine," as Baskerville proves.
When fathers "lose custody" of their children, most people assume the fathers did something wrong. But women actually initiate at least two-thirds of divorces. "No-fault" divorce usually means divorce against one spouse's will. Since judges give custody to mothers over 93% of the time, fathers now routinely lose access to their children through literally "no fault" of their own.
Baskerville shows that policies intended to protect abandoned low-income wives and mothers have actually created huge financial incentives for middle- and upper-class women to divorce their husbands. With the near-certainty of child custody, and of gaining control of most of their husband's income through child support payments, divorce becomes a power play, and for many women a much more attractive option than making the marriage work. The government deplores the divorce epidemic at the same time that it perpetuates it.
The book carefully and exhaustively documents the extent of abuses against fathers' and parents' rights. In most states, a mother can get a restraining order against a father without demonstrating that he has done anything wrong. As months go by and it is illegal for the father to come near his own children, the already small likelihood of joint custody steadily decreases. Family courts subvert due process by punishing fathers who have not broken any law.
What Baskerville describes as a "war against fathers" is also a massive expansion of state power. "The criminalization of the father is, quite simply, unavoidable so long as we are willing to enforce unilateral divorce with children," he says. "With the father an outlaw, the children may be in the 'custody' of the mother . . ., but it is more accurate to say that ultimately they have become wards of the state, which establishes what amounts to a puppet government within the family."
Every American needs to know about the horrifying abuses of power this book exposes.
THE GOVERNMENT , DIVORCE AND THE WAR ON FATHERHOOD
by Todd M. Aglialoro
Taken into Custody: The War against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family
Stephen Baskerville, Cumberland House, 352 pages, $24.95
For whatever reason, social conservatives focus considerable political effort on abortion, gay rights, and obscenity, but pay scant attention to divorce. Perhaps they think that ship has sailed for good, whereas other battles still offer winnable stakes. Perhaps too few look at our "family courts" and see a culture war; or perhaps too many lack the conviction to fight it. And when conservatives do target divorce, rather than lobby for legal reform of the "no-fault" divorce system, or changes in the way courts award custody or child support, they have preferred to employ the tools of ministry, treating divorce primarily as a moral problem rather than a political one; its attendant social evils as a consequence of sin, not of bad policy.
This is a grave mistake, says Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at Patrick Henry College and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. In his startling new book, Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, he asserts not only that reforming America's divorce paradigm deserves a far higher priority among conservative culture warriors, but that our divorce courts today are agents of radical sexual ideology, occasions of shameless graft, and instruments for the expansion of governmental power at the expense of Constitutional rights.
As unique as it is disturbing, Taken into Custody strikes notes from all over the conservative/libertarian spectrum to compose a sort of hybrid thesis: that big government and anti-father feminism have teamed up to promote divorce, tear apart families, pauperize and criminalize fathers, and swell the power of the state.
The marriage contract today is a legal anomaly, the author muses, in that our government directs nearly all its efforts and resources toward dissolving rather than -- as with other contracts -- enforcing it. In what he calls the "totalitarian regime of involuntary divorce," unfaithful parties are not punished, and faithful ones not rewarded. In a perverse twist, it is the faithful party -- the one seeking to hold the marriage together -- on whom the guilt and suspicion are cast.
With the advent of no-fault divorce (before which divorces required cause, and fault could be assigned proportionately), "the fault that was ostensibly thrown out the front door of divorce proceedings re-entered through the back." Working from the "therapeutic" (read: morally relativistic) premise that both parties must be equally to blame -- which is to say, not at all to blame -- for a marriage's failure, divorce courts begin with an "automatic outcome" and then set out to find or manufacture evidence to support it.
How is that evidence obtained? Via "extensive and intrusive governmental instruments whose sole purpose is intervention in families." Having quit the marriage-enforcement business, government has turned the full weight of its resources and coercive powers to the divorce-enforcement business.
The main area in which government brings to bear those resources, and the red thread of Baskerville's book, is in assigning custody of children. With two-thirds of divorces initiated by women -- thereby immediately casting the man as the "defendant" -- and with courts overwhelmingly biased toward mothers already (in a paradoxical inversion of feminist doctrine, women are held both to be and not to be more naturally suited to nurturing and child-rearing), in practice the custody process typically amounts to a "power grab" by which fathers are forcibly separated from their children. The children, for whose benefit the process ostensibly exists, are then used as leverage by the prying state and as trophies by the custodial mother.
The fathers may have committed no crime; they may in fact be more dedicated than the mother to the marital stability that's in their kids' best interest, but no matter. The mother is rewarded for courageously having taken the "initiative" in the divorce -- for having invited, that is, the power of the state to arbitrate in the most private areas of their family life. Maneuvered by skilled lawyers, abetted by social-science "experts" steeped in anti-father ideology and myths, and followed by media more interested in soap-opera storylines than justice, she can by the very hint of a suggestion of an accusation -- of physical or sexual abuse, for example, or mental or emotional cruelty -- rob a man of his marriage, his children, and his livelihood.
This is not the only disquieting contention Baskerville makes, but it is the central one: that right under our noses, massive systematic injustice is being visited upon fathers, threatening the very fundaments of family, society, and democracy. This thesis seems at first incredible, and initially I couldn't decide whether it's because the author doesn't convince, or because I didn't want to be convinced.
It's not a reviewer's place to connect every dot of an author's argument -- especially for a book that, despite its modest size, is richly presented, containing nearly a thousand end notes and not a single uneconomical sentence. But I do want to touch on a few satellite points that attend Baskerville's thesis, by way of giving a well-rounded representation of it.
This ongoing travesty is rooted in two main causes, which build upon each other: a big-bucks "entitlement industry" that grows ever-larger and more voracious, and the influence of radical feminist ideas and power.
According to Baskerville, the business of divorce is part of a bloated bureaucracy, a $100 billion industry in which judges "dispense patronage" to psychological "experts," lawyers feed on the bank accounts of divorcing couples, social workers wet their beaks in welfare cash, and courts send out bounty hunters to bleed dry blameless but unlucky dads. And, naturally, the more each party prospers, the greater the demand for even bigger money: more divorces requiring more expert witnesses to demonize more fathers, and more intrusive measures to coerce their behaviors and attach their wages; more taxpayer money to fund more programs for counseling and sheltering more unhappy wives (in what he calls "one-stop divorce shops"); more state agencies (the "child protection racket") to insert governmental authority ever more deeply into the sacrosanct privacy of the family.
So follow the money we certainly can. But Baskerville believes that we might never have gotten to this point without the influence of an anti-father strain of feminism, representing a "degeneration of feminist idealism" that first aims to make political what is personal (by casting conflict between the sexes in the historical context of political oppression and the movement for liberation) and, secondly, is motivated by "a specific animus against men and marriage."
True: As regards divorce and child custody, there is some dissension within radical feminist ranks. Some would prefer to see the man left with the children, burdened with domestic chores, while the woman goes off free to pursue whatever empowers her. Others likewise fear that winning the battle for power in the household only sets back the fight for power in society. But the majority has happily accepted and run with what seems to be a paradox: on the one hand, rejecting outright any notion that a woman "belongs" at home with her children, but in divorce court asserting that children belong at home with their mother. Similarly, one notes the paradox in feminists' claimed desire to have more domestically "involved" fathers, and their sense of entitlement to be the "center of their kids' universes."
Why do they smooth over the contradiction? Most of all, power, says Baskerville. By scooping up the children and the money, divorcées scores a tag-team victory -- along with the courts and their experts, trained in feminist therapeutic precepts -- over men. The current divorce paradigm also dovetails nicely, he says, with other planks in their ideological platform:
Deep-rooted antagonism toward men and fatherhood. As Dale O'Leary and others have shown, anger and resentment toward their own fathers is a common thread among lesbians and radical feminists.
Long-term replacement of the family with a system of government caretakers. "It takes a village," after all.
Conscription of children as fellow soldiers in the battle against patriarchal tradition. Hence the modern movement naming "children's rights" as a corollary to women's rights.
The separation of the political interests of men and women. This is essential to preserving the model of ongoing political conflict between the sexes.
The larger society allows this to occur, and politicians enable it, Baskerville says, because of a carefully constructed set of myths that steers our sympathies toward the mother and casts suspicion on the dad. "He must have done something," we say to ourselves. We all know the stereotypical stories of the abusive or "deadbeat" dad.
Baskerville dismisses the bulk of these notions as pure myth, asserting that most women seek divorces for reasons related to emotional fulfillment, not physical abuse, either of herself or their children. (He cites statistics here showing, among other things, that children are most likely to be abused by a single mother or by her live-in boyfriend; tragically, then, courts are in fact removing kids from their natural protectors and abetting the real predators.) There already exist laws to punish violent criminals, but these laws -- and the due process that goes with them -- are being ignored in favor of the secretive, unjust, and cruelly punitive family courts, which work with politicians, agenda-driven experts, and the media to "foment hysteria" about a non-existent epidemic of child and spousal abuse, and then prosecute fathers -- not with criminal statutes but restraining orders, onerous child support, and character assassination.
Similarly, the divorce industry enjoys the full cooperation of politicians and the media in stalking "deadbeat dads." But he too is a "mythical creature," Baskerville claims, "created by those paid to pursue him." The "national demonology" of the deadbeat is a useful fable, providing spotlight-seeking pols with a "risk-free target" for tough-sounding talk and filling state coffers with federal money (after all, they need programs to track down and punish all those wicked dads, and propaganda campaigns to educate the public about their wickedness). In other words, they get a cut of the booty -- an "entitlement coerced from the involuntarily divorced."
Baskerville pointedly concedes that there must be some true "deadbeats," just as there are some true abusers. But in both cases the numbers are small. Most dads pay up, and those who can't have a good reason (he notes that they tend to be the type of unfortunate fellows whom the government would ordinarily be spending money to help, not impoverish -- alcoholics and drug addicts, the homeless and mentally ill, and those with minimal education and job skills). And millions of others eke out a living in the fringes: fighting to stay out of jail while they watch their reputations and credit ratings crater.
The great irony here, Baskerville says, is that "child support" is advertised as a way to make fathers "be responsible" for their children, yet it is coerced from them only after they have been forbidden by the state to exercise that responsibility in the ordinary way: by being fathers -- protecting and providing for their sons and daughters on a daily basis in a common household. Or as Baskerville puts it, child support is about "making fathers finance the filching of their kids."
In addition to lamenting their inattentionto divorce reform, Baskerville specially indicts social conservatives for unwittingly perpetuating such myths. Making the "sentimental assumption" that male promiscuity is the nub of all fault, fatherhood groups and religious-right leaders focus the large part of their efforts on exhorting fathers to live up to their spousal and parental responsibilities -- ignoring the plight of fathers whom the courts have forbidden to do just that, and implicitly reinforcing the common misconception that most divorce stems from the husband's sins, and most fatherlessness from paternal cowardice.
Small wonder, then, that many feminist groups, "cynically invoking the need for fathers," lend their support to organizations and initiatives that on the surface promote paternal involvement, but which in reality only serve the system that keeps dads from their kids. Baskerville calculates, for example, that government and faith-based "fatherhood" programs actually direct a majority of their resources toward the child-support collection industry. They don't want his presence; they just want his money.
Baskerville winds up his book -- and locates his thesis -- deep in the heart of a quasi-totalitarian state, by offering an eccentric but thought-provoking take on the now-settled fact that children of divorce exhibit more problem behaviors than those from intact families:
The family becomes in effect government-occupied territory. The children experience family life not as a nursery of cooperation, compromise, trust and forgiveness. Instead they receive a firsthand lesson in tyranny. Backed by the courts, police, and jails, the custodial parent now "calls the shots" alone -- issuing orders and instructions to the non-custodial parent, undermining his authority with the children, dictating the terms of his access to them, talking about him contemptuously and condescendingly . . . all with the blessing and backing of the government.
Having thus become "wards of a police state," he says, forced to live in and be formed by an environment of gross injustice, how can children not develop a "chronic disrespect for authority"?
In the occupied family of forced divorce, parental and political authority are unnaturally intertwined, a process that results in both kinds of authority being simultaneously abused and weakened. Discipline and civility are the first casualties, since it is difficult to teach children to say "please" and "thank you" when we simply issue orders (or court orders) to Dad. . . .
This peaks in adolescence, when natural rebelliousness coincides with the realization of how one or both parents have abused their authority by setting their own desires above the needs of their children. . . . It is this adversarial relationship imposed on the children towards virtually every form of authority that I believe best accounts for the horrifying statistics on juvenile emotional and social problems that correlate more strongly with divorce and single-parent households than any other factor.
Baskerville stresses that change won't come through the efforts of government or non-profits, but by militant popular activism: nothing less than a "rebellion" that radically re-establishes the family as the primary rival to government power, not a building block for it. Only then can we hope to achieve particular strategic goals: legal limits on no-fault divorce, based on a judicial re-commitment to enforcing the marital contract rather than shredding it; a preference for awarding joint custody, which would both "dismantle" the custody/child-support industry and likely reduce the divorce rate (since it removes the motive for one spouse to wield custody as an instrument of power); and greater legal protection for parents rights, which, Baskerville surmises, might require nothing less than a Constitutional amendment.
That last prescription underscores the gravity and urgency that permeate Taken into Custody. Indeed, it sometimes crosses the line into stridency, such as in the author's comparisons of family courts to Nazis, Stalin, the Eastern Bloc, the Weimar Republic; his references to Orwell, Marxism, "human sacrifice," and so forth. But Baskerville himself seems aware of the gap between his claims and popular understanding -- even the understanding of pro-family, limited-government conservatives who are usually sharp about such things. He realizes that the evidence he has marshaled is either flat "mistaken," or else it "amounts to a reign of terror."
If Baskerville is mistaken, then he may just need a little time off, somewhere out of the sun. But if he's correct -- and his book compels -- then we have been blithely sitting on the sidelines of a critical civil rights struggle; perhaps the most critical of all.
Taken into custody: The war against fathers, marriage, and the
family by Stephen Baskerville .
In 2008, America has
substantial numbers of single mothers very angry at the state for micromanaging
their lives and for threatening to remove their children from their homes. America
also has substantial numbers of divorced fathers very angry at the state for
separating them from their children and making them pay substantial "child support"
to their ex-wives who, in about 70 percent to 80 percent of the cases,
unilaterally initiated their divorces.
What these seemingly disparate
mothers and fathers have in common is that both have lost their parental
rights to the state without the due process that is supposed to be required
for the removal of such fundamental rights. Indeed, the state and its agents
increasingly are acting as if they are the superior parents while the biological
parents are subject to review and removal by the state at will.
This is the theme of Stephen Baskerville's masterful new book--Taken Into Custody:
The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family--which explains in detail
how a man's (or woman's) home no longer is his or her castle, that parents no
longer have the right to determine how and under what conditions they may rear
their children. Rather, these rights have been usurped by the state acting
through an extraordinarily complex and interlocking nested set of professionals
(including psychologists, social workers, lawyers, and judges), and enforced
by civil bureaucrats (often armed) with police powers.
This book makes a major social contribution by exposing a massive, yet
heretofore hidden, divorce and "child protection" industry with its negative
impact on children, mothers, fathers, and society. If read widely, it has the
potential to become a powerfully paradigm--shifting work with an impact on
both public opinion and public policy.
MASS MEDIA DEFAMES FATHER IN WAR WITH FAMILY COURTS
We have first hand knowledge of this case. We know this man was pushed to the edge and lost everything and the lawyers,police and mass media have similarly stitched up many men ,using the same tactics , by STEALING their homes,assets and children on a grand scale.
THE SUNDAY MAIL rag fully supports the evil of Scotlands family courts and fails to recognise the psychological torture that good fathers endure .
1.The Sunday Mail senior staff are part of the Speculative society a high level masonic group who have been covering up establishment child abuse at Dunblane before the mass murders of the children by MASON Thomas Hamilton.Senior judges and lawyers are members of that group.
2. The judges and lawyers involved in thieving the assets of the family and the final theft of the family home are all members of the Speculative Society or masons. B.A.Kerr the sheriff principal of a large area of the West Coast of Scotland has ruthlessly used OUR courts to steal massive amounts of land and property .The Scottish Legal Aid board controlled by MASONS are also part of this massive theft of assets and are implicated in this case.
3. The MASONIC controlled Scottish police force and sheriff officers are part of a MASSIVE conspiracy of defaming men while thieving their assets, homes and children.
4.Every single individual involved in this case have been getting away with murder for far to long. This is now creating an all out war against mobsters that make the Gestapo pale by comparison.
5. Scotlands media implicated in the cover up of a MASONIC agenda to repossess vast swathes of land ,business and property under the guise of Scottish civil law while condemning and defaming anyone who tries to stand up against this brutality.
6.NONE of the press asked for the alternative story or anyone who was assisting the male in this case. Only the female side and as in Heather Mills divorce to Paul McCartney if the media ONLY published one side we would all have thought Paul was a monster. However he is now a member of the establishment of the UK and protected by their media friends fortunately for him his KNIGHTHOOD ensures loyalty to them while they reciprocate .
Deranged dad threatens to kill wife then booby-traps home with firebomb
A DERANGED dad threatened to kill his ex-wife and booby-trapped their home with a firebomb on the day the locks were to be changed.
Thomas Strain crawled out of a back window and watched as police and sheriff officers forced their way in.
Inside they were confronted by petrol bombs, nails and lit candles.
Former TA soldier Strain went on the run after he rigged the family home in Irvine to explode but was caught months later and has now been jailed.
He also told former wife Morag that he would kill her forcing her to flee their home town with their three children.
A friend said: "It has been a living hell for Morag. The guy is a monster. She still trembles at the mention of his name."
Lorry driver Strain, 46, had been fighting a legal battle to see his children and appeared in court last week wearing a T-shirt with the misspelled message "RITES FOR DADS".
Lawyer Graeme Cunningham said: "He has gone through an acrimonious divorce.
"He said he felt that by igniting the petrol it would engulf his home and draw attention to his plight but he accepts others could have been placed at risk.
"He made good his escape and did not carry out his plan.
"He feels that there is a conspiracy to remove him from everything he has of value, be it monetary, his home or his children."
Strain admitted having an explosive substance with intent to endanger life, leaving a bag of nails next to a petrol canister, leaving candles lit and unattended and making a petrol bomb with a bottle and rag.
Afriend of Morag's said: "He said he would kill her and take the children from her.
"She has tried to sever every link with him and burned their wedding album.
"The police had to take the only photo, which her son had kept, in a bid to track him down."
The friend said Strain had made Morag's life hell since they divorced in 2006 after 15 years of marriage.
They added: "Morag had to be careful 24 hours a day. He was always following her, threatening her and accusing her of ruining his life.
"He threatened to kill her when he thought he wasn't going to get to see his children.
"Then he had the audacity to walk into court with a T-shirt on declaring his rights.
What about Morag's rights?
"Thank God he's behind bars and she can sleep easier at night."
Strain was jailed for 22 months at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court after admitting the bomb plot.
We will always try to twist the evidence to fit our theories. Especially when we are wrong
When groups - police, medics, politicians, social workers, the Family Court apparatus - get together, convinced of their own righteousness, the facts (like Timothy Evans) can go hang. They are certain that they are right, certain they are just and often, you know, they really are. But when they are not, they will never ever admit it, digging themselves in more and more deeply.
A local authority that has taken your children away can never admit it did so wrongly. And every fact that shows that it did needs to be twisted around until it shows that it didn't. That is what is happening all the time, behind the close doors of our Family Courts, beyond scrutiny.
There's only one way out. That is to allow others, those without a stake in the righteousness of anyone, to shine a light on proceedings. Not to do so is inexcusable. It is an affront to justice and the rule of law.
Every parent fears losing their child. Except for those who have hit rock bottom, having a son or daughter taken into care is a desperate experience. The social workers, medical experts and judges who decide to remove children sometimes save lives by doing so; sometimes they ruin them. That is a grave responsibility. It means that the child protection system should be accountable and transparent. Shockingly, it is neither.