Expert witnesses in family cases are to be named under the next stage of opening up the family courts to the media, although social workers' anonymity will be protected, ministers have announced.

Jack Straw intends a two-stage process in which the media will initially be denied the right to publish sensitive material under proposed legislation for the next Parliamentary session. Under the first phase, which will last 18 months, the media will be able to name professional expert witnesses but not social workers, unless judges direct otherwise. If that is successful, there will then be a move to an open reporting system, but with the anonymity of children always protected.

The two-stage plan will go some way to appeasing judges, magistrates and lawyers who were opposed across the board to initial plans allowing the media access to confidential court papers and to name parties in a case, subject to protecting the confidentiality of a child. The new clauses in the Children, Schools and Families Bill build on changes announced in April that allowed the media to attend most family proceedings for the first time. The legislation aims to balance the need to make family courts open and accountable against the need to protect the welfare of children and families involved in family proceedings.

The first phase will allow reporting of family proceedings, including placement proceedings for the first time, with a strict indefinite ban on the publication of the identity of children and families involved. It will also prohibit sensitive personal information from being reported, unless the court directs otherwise. The Ministry of Justice said: “In the interests of open justice and to improve public confidence, experts who are paid to provide evidence to the court may be named. The legislation will not change the current rules that permit applications for access to court documents.”

“The overall aim is to move to an open reporting system where information would be reportable unless the court specifically prohibited it in an individual case, whilst still protecting the anonymity of the children. “ A review after 18 months will judge whether some or all the reporting restrictions could be removed in the interests of greater transparency, whilst maintaining a total ban on identifying the children and the families involved. The second stage, which might then allow the lifting of restrictions on witnesses and sensitive personal information. would require a vote of both Houses of Parliament.

Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, said: “We want to create a system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.” He added: “Greater media access to family courts will lead to greater trust in family courts. Finding the right balance among many strong views will take time, which is what this Bill will allow us to do.”

He welcomed comments by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, earlier in the week, asserting the importance of media access to the courts. Lord Judge said in a speech to the Society of Newspaper Editors: “Just as an independent press can expose the errors made by local authorities and governments, so too, the administration of justice in the courts should be open to the public scrutiny which an independent press provides. “You have the right to be present in court unless the right has been taken away. Unless the right has been expressly taken away, your right to be in court is no different to and no less than the right of the lawyers, the advocates, even the judge himself or herself. You are not performing the same function as the judge, but you have a valued function to perform.”

    alec baldwin by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

    IN 2007, THE MEDIA HAD A FEEDING FRENZY around a voice-mail message actor Alec Baldwin left his daughter. He screamed at her for not answering her phone. The public was shocked: many assumed that he was yet another self-absorbed celebrity, with neither control over himself nor regard for his daughter. But in fact, Baldwin had been caught in the web of the totalitarian nightmare known as the American family court system. His book, A Promise to Ourselves, tells his particular story, while Stephen Baskerville's book, Taken Into Custody, presents the general problem of which Baldwin’s story is a particular case.

    Alec Baldwin is a divorced father, who had been fighting for six years to have some semblance of a normal relationship with his child. Baldwin's estranged wife, actress Kim Basinger, had been using the family court system to prevent him from doing what most fathers take for granted: seeing his child, talking with his child, and watching her grow up. A Promise to Ourselves chronicles in sickening detail how the court system serves the most vindictive and ruthless parent.

    Even without the book, astute observers of this case realized that something was slightly strange about the claims that Baldwin should be denied access to his child. For instance, who released the tape of the call to the public? None other than Basinger and her attorney, in an attempt to smear Baldwin. What kind of mother would use her daughter as a pawn in a spiteful power game with the child's father? And, what was the “back story” to this particular phone call? Despite having court authorization for phone contact with his daughter, her cell phone would be turned off for long periods of time. On this particular occasion, she was on spring break with her mother and her phone had been turned off for ten days. Moreover, isn't this odd all by itself that a father who has committed no crime has to have court permission to speak to his own child?

    Now, what the media made Baldwin out to be is conceivable: an abusive, out-of-control father who has inflicted irreparable harm on his daughter through verbal abuse. Yet even if the worst about Baldwin were true (by the way, he offers no excuses for yelling at his daughter), his portrait of the Los Angeles County Family Court remains imminently valuable, as it reveals the extent of power that family courts wield over ordinary citizens. His account cannot be easily dismissed, given the extent of detail that he provides and the fact that it accords with too many other reports of family courts. As he tells his story, the leading character and the true villain is the Los Angeles Family Court system, Lady Macbeth, Iago, and Shylock all rolled into one. Even from the viewpoint of a wealthy and famous man, Baldwin generates plenty of sympathy for the obscure and the less wealthy of both sexes who are caught in the grip of the family court. He first noticed the financial intrusion. During “financial settlement conferences,” both husbands and wives must reveal all their assets. While Baldwin accepts the necessity of preventing people from hiding their true net worth, he noticed this side effect: “The lawyers on both sides now know, inarguably, how much money you have and, therefore, how deeply into this hole you can go. And they do not hesitate to throw you down as deeply as they possibly can.” Throughout the rest of the story, the lawyers extract as much money as possible from him.

    But money isn't the half of it. Baldwin had to continually look over his shoulder at the court and its representatives to ensure that he did not run afoul of their requirements. He tells of the menagerie of minions appointed by the court to manage the divorcing process and the inevitable post-divorce conflict: forensic accountants, custody evaluators, therapists, visitation supervisors, parenting class instructors, anger management instructors. These are all professionals that most people normally never see, but who have abnormally large impacts on the lives of divorcing families. Think of this: the courts and their appointees are controlling the day-to-day lives of a man innocent of any wrongdoing. A negative report from any one of these professionals can jeopardize a father's chances of having more time with his own child. Baldwin does not discuss the ease of divorce ushered by the no-fault divorce revolution. Like most Americans, Baldwin has probably made peace with no-fault divorce, believing easy divorce to be an enhancement of individual liberty. But Baldwin's story of his life after Basinger decided she had no use for him illustrates that the opposite is more true. Easy divorce opens the door for an unprecedented amount of government intrusion into ordinary people's lives. This unacknowledged reality is the subject of Taken Into Custody, by Stephen Baskerville. With penetrating insight, the political scientist exposes the truly breathtaking consequences of no-fault divorce for the expansion of state power and the decline of personal autonomy.

    First, no-fault divorce frequently means unilateral divorce: one party wants a divorce against the wishes of the other, who wants to stay married. Kim Basinger dumped Baldwin for no particular reason, unleashed the power of the Los Angeles Family Court system to inflict pain on him and, in the process, inflicted untold damage on their child. Second, the fact that one party wants to remain married means that the divorce has to be enforced. Baldwin wanted to stay married and to continue to be a husband and father. Yet, the coercive and intrusive machinery of the state must be wheeled into action to separate the reluctantly divorced party from the joint assets of the marriage, typically the home and the children. Third, enforcing the divorce means an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life. People under the jurisdiction of family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America. Baldwin ran the gauntlet of divorce industry professionals who have been deeply influenced by the feminist presumptions that the man is always at fault and the woman is always a victim.

    Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which most Americans thought was supposed to increase personal liberty, has had the consequence of empowering the state. Some might think the legacy of no-fault divorce is an example of the law of unintended consequences in operation. That assumes its architects did not intend for unilateral divorce to result in the expansion of the state. But Baskerville makes the case in this book—as well as his 2008 monograph, “The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics,” in The Family In America—that at least some of the advocates of changes in family law certainly have intended to expand the power of the state over the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

    Who are these people? They are the Marxists, who call themselves advocates of women: the feminists. Unbeknownst to the general public, the Marxists have had marriage in their cross-hairs from the very beginning. Frederick Engels, Karl Marx's closest collaborator, dreams of the mythic, pre-historical, pre-capitalist time in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884). Not only was there primitive communism in which property was owned in common, but there was also group marriage, in which the collective raised the children. Men and women lived together in harmony in groups, having sex without becoming possessive and without caring about the biological relationship between parents and children. Sin entered this Garden of Eden, not through a serpent and an apple, but through the rise of private property and capitalism, monogamous marriage, and patriarchy. This background ideology explains why the Left—whether the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 or the Socialist government of Spain in 2005, both of which placed the liberalization of divorce law among their first items of business—has spent so much effort attacking the family in general and marriage in particular. The goal is to return women into “social production” outside the home, where they can be completely independent of the oppression of men. This of course, requires the collective rearing of children. It also requires the obliteration of the distinction between the private sphere of the home and the public reach of the law. Many conservatives, who otherwise are very alert to Leftist ideology, have no idea about this entire effort at centralizing power and insinuating the control of the state into the lives of ordinary people. Baldwin closes his book with an interview with Jeannie Suk, author of an important 2006 Yale Law Journal article, entitled, “Criminal Law Comes Home.” In this article, Suk expresses second thoughts about some consequences of feminist jurisprudence. For this reason, Baldwin thought the young Harvard law professor would have some sympathy for his situation. Nonetheless, even this relatively sensible law professor has drunk deeply from the feminist fountains. As Baldwin comments after his discussion with her family law class of eighty students: I was surprised to hear a number of women and men—many more than I would have expected—say that women generally are at risk of male violence. A few students, male and female, even thought the law should view the sex act as subordinating of someone and should assume that sex is rape unless women explicitly and verbally give their consent.

    Note the Marxist undercurrent here: the sexual act is a special case of class conflict, with the man as the presumed oppressor and the woman the presumed victim. More troubling is what Professor Suk admits in her interview with Baldwin:

    # Governance feminism is the idea that feminism, which once criticized the law from the outside, is today actually in charge in many places in the law—among police, prosecutors, lawmakers, judges and other legal actors. The feminism that often 'governs' today is that strand developed by legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon and that focuses on the subordination of women by men, particularly in intimate and sexual relationships. Her influence on our legal system's understandings of men and women cannot be overstated.

    # The overwhelming majority of domestic violence arrests are for misdemeanor crimes, which, by definition, do not involve serious injury . . . . The definition of violence itself has expanded to include a lot of conduct that is not physical violence.

    # Family law is an area where we've seen feminist developments that prefer wives over husbands and mothers over fathers . . . . The legal vision of the home has increasingly become that of a man being violent toward his wife.

    # The legal system has little means to distinguish (protective) orders that actually protect endangered women from those sought for strategic reasons.

    Suk doesn't seem to realize how indicting these statements sound to someone outside the Feminist Legal Theory Game Preserve. In fact, her Yale Law Journal article reveals that feminists specifically attack the lines between public and private in the interests of protecting women from domestic violence. She at least recognizes that the law has gone too far. But her principle complaint is that women's autonomy interests are compromised. Once the Domestic Violence Machinery has been set into motion, even the victim herself cannot stop it. She reports that approximately 80 percent of domestic violence victims recant or refuse to cooperate after initially filing criminal charges. But she can’t bring herself to point out the injustice to men of being excluded from their own homes, often with minimal evidence. She has absolutely nothing to say about the harms done to children from being pawns in their parents’ quarrels with each other and with the state. The inertia of forty years worthy of Marxism posing as champions of women is so strong that even someone like Professor Suk cannot bear to distance herself from the term “feminism.” Likewise, despite the explicit ideological position of the Harvard law students, Baldwin cannot bring himself to be angry:

    I was fascinated to hear some of these law students talk about the world as though men inevitably have the upper hand in relationships and women's fear of sexual violence is prevalent and normal, not unusual. This picture was so interesting and so foreign to me. In my own experience, women have lots of power of various kinds, and sexual power works both ways. Baldwin seems reluctant to conclude that the feminist worldview is not based upon verifiable facts or empirical evidence. The strongest description Baldwin can conjure against the law students is “fascination” and “interesting.” So mesmerized by the terminology of “feminism” that he cannot see that the attitudes of Suk's students are the very toxins that poisoned his life.

    Fortunately, we have Professor Baskerville as the great theorist of the feminist influence within the divorce-industrial complex. He sees Marxist feminism for what it is: a totalitarian movement that seeks power and control over every aspect of people's personal lives. The claim of its foot soldiers to be the sole authentic advocates for women has been questionable for some time. But until Americans see that the goal of modern feminism is raw power, even its victims like Alec Baldwin will have trouble freeing themselves from its iron hand. Dr. Morse, a former professor of economics at Yale and George Mason University, is founder and president of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage, in San Marcos, California.

  • Alec Baldwin at ELLE's Women in Hollywood Event
    Foreign women en masse coming from the Phillippines, Thailand and Russia are using the internet to get a meal ticket to the UK where they are fleecing the plonkers that marry them, who end up out in the street thanks to corrupt family courts and a legal mafia who are making these illegal orders up as they go along and for their own financial gain.

    Marrying a rich man is not an alternative to getting a career, barrister tells women.

    Women should not be able to marry men for their money as an alternative to a career, a leading family law expert said yesterday. Baroness Deech said women should expect to work and that the law should be changed to prevent them living in comfort for life after a short marriage to a wealthy man. She called for pre-nuptial agreements, which allow couples to plan before they marry what will happen to their children and assets if they divorce, to be made legally binding.

    She said: 'If you marry a captain of industry, you become one yourself for all time, at least as far as the standard of living is concerned.' Lady Deech, a lawyer and former head of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, is chairman of the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers. She said divorce laws as they stand signal that 'getting married to a well-off man is an alternative career to one in the workforce'.

    She added that pre-nups were 'an immediate and attractive model for reform in this country. 'It is hard to see why adults should not be free to contract at the point of marriage for the financial consequences of any divorce, subject to built-in fairness tests,' she said. 'There would need to be provision for children, if any, and a definition of what assets were to be included.' Her comments came in the latest of a series of lectures she is giving pressing for radical changes in divorce law.

    Last month she condemned divorce settlements that give wives half of their husband's assets. She has also warned that over-generosity to divorcing women has made England the divorce capital of the world. In another lecture she said that marriages are too easily broken up and that schoolchildren should be taught the value of marriage just as they are taught about the dangers of smoking or the risk of poor diet.

    But her views have put her at odds with some other prominent advocates of marriage and traditional family life. Last week liberal commentator Christina Odone said that 'real women' do not want to commit themselves to careers and that the state should do more to allow stayat-home mothers to be supported by breadwinning husbands. Judges have traditionally been wary of pre-nup deals, which have been seen as tending to undermine a marriage from the start and giving undue advantage to the most powerful partner - usually the husband.

    However, the scale of some settlements after short marriages recently has given weight to the arguments put forward by Lady Deech. Heather Mills, the former wife of Paul McCartney and mother of his daughter Beatrice, was awarded around £24million after only four years of marriage last year. But in July Appeal Court judges set a new precedent by upholding a prenup in a divorce that saved millions for one of Europe's richest women.

    Katrin Radmacher, a 39-year-old German heiress, will avoid £5million in payments to French-born researcher Nicolas Granatino after the judges agreed to take into account an agreement the couple signed before their 1998 marriage.

    divorce cake Even the rich toffs are losing their mansions by illegal decisions of the Crown's corrupt judges.

    Judge orders husband out of 'ancestral home'

    A member of the landed gentry worth £10 million has been ordered out of his "ancestral home" in Sussex by a judge. Anthony Arbuthnot Watkins Grubb must make way for his five children and former wife, Jennifer, who suffers from depression because of his "abusive, domineering and controlling" behaviour. Lord Justice Wilson gave him just 14 days to leave Mayes House on the Mayes Estate at East Grinstead, after refusing him permission to appeal against the occupation order made in the High Court Family Division.

    The appeal judge said Mr Grubb had a "strong sensation of life-time stewardship of the estate which had been in his family for over a century. "The sensation is in principle wholly admirable but unfortunately, as the (High Court) judge was required to investigate as a result of his defence of the suit for divorce, the sensation of stewardship has expanded within the husband's mind beyond all rational proportion." The judge said Mr Grubb's stewardship ambitions "infected married life for many years and ultimately destroyed it".

    Lord Justice Wilson repeated the findings of High Court judge Her Honour Judge Hughes QC that it was "worthwhile to note the length of time for which the husband has been trying to bully the wife into submission in relation not only to her financial claims following divorce in general but to her claims referable to accommodation in particular". The appeal judge added: "From an early stage of the marriage, particularly when the wife conceived more children than the husband had apparently expected her to conceive, he had sought to insist that she should make an equal contribution to the educational costs of the children, albeit, if necessary, by initial borrowing from himself.

    "So, if you please, he had purported to create a loan account in which he had recorded the increasing level of indebtedness on the part of the wife to him in that respect. The response of the wife to the extraordinary degree of harassment to which the husband had thus subjected her was, with hesitation, regret and apprehension, to issue her petition for divorce." The High Court judge had found that Mr Grubb's behaviour had left the wife suffering from depression and she needed separate accommodation.

    How government colonizes the family by Stephen Baskerville

    In 1947, with the baby boom in its infancy and few disposed to hearing of family crisis, Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman saw the long-term reality: the family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Whenever the family shows signs of dysfunction, Zimmerman observed, “the state helps to break it up.” During the 19th century, “law piled on law, and government agency upon government agency” until by 1900 “the state had become master of the family.” The result, he wrote in Family and Civilization, was that “the family is now truly the agent, the slave, the handmaiden of the state.”

    Today we might regard 1947 as a golden age for the family. Without perceiving it, each generation has become acculturated to family deterioration and added to it. We now accept as normal what would have shocked our grandparents: cohabitation, illegitimacy, divorce, same-sex marriage, daycare, fast-food dinners. Indeed, shocking the previous generation is part of the thrill of filial rebellion. What should shock even the liberal and the young—but today does not much disturb even the conservative and the old—are destruction of constitutional protections and invasions of personal freedom and privacy by the government’s family machinery. Some four decades ago, the Western world embarked on the boldest social experiment in its history. With no public discussion, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that ended marriage as an enforceable contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family.

    Few stopped to consider the implications of laws that shifted the breakup of private households from a voluntary to an involuntary process. Unilateral divorce involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes and seizing their property. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life. The most serious consequences involve children. Through involuntary divorce, a legally unimpeachable parent can be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. He can be charged with domestic violence or child abuse, without evidence that he has committed either crime. He can be hauled before a judge for not paying child support without proof that he actually owes it. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist whom he has not hired. No formal charge, no jury, no trial required. To justify this repression, the divorce machinery has generated hysterias against fathers so inflammatory that few dare question them: child abuse, wife-beating, nonpayment of child support. The accused parent simply loses his family and finds himself abandoned, with everyone terrified to be associated with an accused “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”

    Our passivity before repression this serious is stunning and the starkest example yet of the erosion of that civic virtue that has been integral to American political thought since before the founding of the Republic. Conservatives have labored this idea into a cliché. We preach that people must be more virtuous, less selfish, and more devoted to the public good. But these exhortations earn us nothing but contempt when we remain silent in the face of real tyranny, which, as usual, has appeared where we least expected it and are least equipped to resist it. Instead of resisting, we lament a decline in “culture” and declare there is very little we can do. But as Linda McClain writes, families are “seedbeds of civic virtue” and “have a place in the project of forming persons into capable, responsible, self-governing citizens.” The family is where parents and children learn to love sacrificially, to put others’ needs before their own desires, to sacrifice for the welfare and protection of the whole. If this does not begin with one’s own home and loved ones it, does not begin at all. People unwilling to sacrifice for their own flesh and blood will not do so for the strangers who comprise their country. In the family, children learn to obey authorities other than the state—God, parents, clergy, teachers, coaches, neighbors. By accepting these, some of whom they love, children learn that government is not the only authority and is one that can and must be limited.

    Conservatives have recently been eager to declare marriage and the family to be “public” institutions, largely in response to homosexual insistence that families are purely private and therefore may be defined according to the whims of individuals. But it is more precise to say that the family mediates between the public and the private, ensuring each its proper sphere. In the family children learn to distinguish and defend private life from encroachment by public power. Involvement in public affairs, which is important, begins as an extension of private responsibilities as parents, homeowners, neighbors, and parishioners. Citizens participate in public life as amateurs with a stake in their families, homes, and communities, not as professionals with a stake in a government program or ideology. Children raised without intact families do not as readily absorb concepts such as family privacy, sacrificial love, parental authority, limited government, or civic virtue. For their rules and values come not from parents but from government officials, who have ultimate sovereignty over their lives: courts, lawyers, social workers, forensic therapists, public-school bureaucrats, and police. These are the figures they must obey rather than their parents. Thus children whose authority figures are government officials cannot distinguish the private from the public and come to see the public sphere as a realm not of civic duty and community leadership but of abstract ideology, government funding, professional employment, career advancement, and state power, in whose growth they acquire a vested interest. It is no accident that the traditional family is described as patriarchal and that civic virtue traditionally suggested masculinity. It is also no coincidence that fathers are the ones marginalized by family decline.

    Enormous attention has been devoted to the crisis of 24 million fatherless children, a phenomenon directly linked to every major social pathology from violent crime to substance abuse and truancy. Because these ills justify almost all domestic government spending, fatherlessness has resulted in a huge expansion of state power. The Obama administration aims to promote virtue with programs preaching “responsible fatherhood” and nagging men to practice “good fathering.” The Bush administration used similar schemes to argue for the importance of marriage. The result is the same: bewailing other people’s moral failings at taxpayer expense. There is certainly truth in the connection between fatherhood and civil society. “Fathers play a key role in developing and sustaining the kind of personal character on which democracy depends,” writes Don Eberly of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Government therapy, on the other hand, cannot create virtue because it requires no sacrifice. Federal funding only gives officials incentives to perpetuate problems, so it is hardly surprising that not only have these programs done nothing to improve either fatherhood or marriage, they have exacerbated the breakdown of both. Eberly’s point connecting fathers and freedom contains a larger truth. While families require sacrifice from all members, it is fathers whose sacrifice may extend to their very lives. Children deprived of their fathers by state officials therefore lose more than a parent. They lose the parent who connects them with the civic order. When the father protects and provides for his family, he will resist the state’s efforts to assume those roles. Under his leadership, the family is a force for limiting state power.

    The single mother does not resist the state’s encroachment. On the contrary, she is our society’s principal claimant on a vast array of state services, without which she cannot manage her children. When the state usurps the roles of protector and provider and disciplinarian, the state becomes the father. This is the story of modern politics: increasingly centralized police, plus the regulatory and welfare states that also promise various forms of protection. These paternal—and increasingly maternal—substitutes brought massive bureaucracies, fulfilling Tocqueville’s prophecy that democracy would lead to increasingly bureaucratic intrusion into private life. These agencies expanded by creating problems to solve. As police functionaries, they had to create criminals and newfangled, nonviolent crimes that most people (such as juries) could not understand and required “experts” to adjudicate—crimes that were safe for female police, crimes that could be committed only by men. Fathers whose children are taken away by state officials do not heroically rescue them or organize opposition to the divorce machinery because the enervating power of the bureaucratic behemoth makes resistance pointless. Men are thus politically neutered and, as a result, often despised by their own children and the rest of us.

    That most people do not regard these practices as tyrannical may be the most alarming aspect of all. Government agents seize control of children and property of vast numbers of law-abiding citizens through literally “no fault” of their own, and we accept it because of jargon that makes it all appear banal: “custody battle” and “division of property.” Fidelity to one’s word—let alone one’s spouse—is disdained. Basic civilities become irrelevant because family members can be made to obey through court orders. Family wealth—traditionally used to leverage both obedience from children and limits on government—is useless for both purposes. In divorce it is simply confiscated. So vast numbers of children now grow up believing from the earliest age that it is normal for government officials to assume control over their family life, to order their parents about as if they were naughty children. This is causing more than social chaos. It is destroying our freedom and our will to defend it.

    terrorists All we have had shoved in our face for years now, is the need for US ALL to be spied upon and tracked from cradle to grave to protect us from the TERROR threat. Those who proclaim to require those powers are in fact the REAL terrorists as we have presently in the UK senior figures within our legal system NOW stating that JUDGES have been making up laws as they go along.

    In Britain there is a multi-billion pound scam going on behind closed secretive doors that all those party to the UK's legislature are using to fleece the public of their worldly possessions. THEY do not require spying laws to protect us, THEY require spying laws to protect themselves from their corruption and the growing army of victims who now know that the British crown and its legal, political and banking mafia have sworn oaths ONLY to serve the British monarchy at the utter expense of the public who throughout history have been used and abused by the Westminster pirates to feather their own nests.

    Let us NOT forget how the British Empire was founded . Vast armies of evil, twisted and devious masonic controlled troops were deployed to all quarters of the globe in a vast rape of the world's resources. Is it any wonder so many of the lands conquered have fought to get independence from CROWN power that has now turned in on the citizens of the UK to plunder, as the rest of the world removes itself from its clutches.

    There is NO DOUBT billions are being stolen in courts across the UK aided and abetted by the MP's who have consistently turned a blind eye to crown powers that are handled with an iron fist by the masonic judicial mafia hell bent on stealing our homes, business's ,assets but especially our children. Men have faced the most evil psychological torture these monsters use to destroy men and their families NOT PART of the creepy satanic agenda that the judical mafia require to carry out this vast plundering.

    To conclude DO NOT BELIEVE a word flowing from the traitors that fill Westminster. ALL the major political parties are hand picked goons for their masonic benefactors who control them behind the scenes. Rothschild has been CAUGHT time and again providing them succour , as Labour and Tory politicians have been caught regularly visiting the Rothschilds, if not on their luxury yachts then at their luxury mansions dotted all over the Mediterranean.

    judges We now finally have absolute proof of what all men, who have been victims of the masonic judicial mafia in the UK, have known for a very long time. That British judges have been robbing NON mason men for over 40 years in divorce courts. Women married to masons have suffered the same fate, as we now have clear proof British judges MAKE UP laws themselves and those laws play no part in the legislation that is supposed to be drafted , vetted and voted through parliament. One reason why they have spent so long keeping the press out of those secret courts where a modern day feudalism is taking place, removing men from their land , business, property, but especially their children as the monarchy have a history of doing throughout the middle ages.

    Ruth Deech, chairman of the Bar Standards Board , stated that "a law imposed on us by the judiciary, without any reference to Parliament" and " she blamed judges for creating a 'half-and-half' divorce law without any reference to Parliament". Now for the millions of men who have been separated from ALL their worldly possessions this will come as no consolation. Many men utterly destroyed by a tyranny that does NOT even create a 50/50 break. For the men fleeced in these courts know that the half that is supposed to be kept by them is eaten up in the ex wives lawyers fee which men for years having been paying dearly for. Even when they cannot afford their own lawyer who usually ensures the man will run out of money to feed the legal vultures who prey on men across the UK and how many men have taken their lives because of this ruthless bunch of crooks who work for the corrupt crown of the UK.

    This system operates primarily through secret societies were most of the judges are masons or speculative members who conspire with fellow lawyers and chief constables to thieve as much as they can for themselves and why many judges have a MASSIVE portfolio of land and property gained from the bankruptcy of the victims of their utter corruption. One of our members has lost many millions in land that found its way back into the hands of the judge that stole it via those corrupt courts. This group aims to firstly inform ,expose , take action and finally provide a platform and a means to restore the billions of pounds stolen by the crowns corrupt judiciary and who for far to long have been destroying millions of families lives through their utter greed and criminality. THEY NOW CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR CRIMES ANY LONGER when even insiders within the system like DEECH have openly condemned their ruthless tyranny in secretive star chamber courts, NEVER JURIES .

    As we have said for many years the solitary signature of a masonic judge is a far more powerful tool for fraud and corruption than any other form of criminal activity. The very crooks charged with providing justice in courts are thieving more than all other criminals combined.

  • Psychiatry & Politics: Labeling Political Dissidents mentally ill (especially in the UK)(VIDEO)
    heather mill As this group has been saying for many many years, UK judges have been MAKING UP divorce laws with criminal use of their powers they should be arrested for. NO JUDGE has the right to make laws up to suit themselves, corrupt lawyers and the golddiggers that have been getting away with MURDER for far to long.

    Equally we know of women treated as badly and usually if they have been married to a member of the UK establishment,or is a mason or a member of the armed forces. For some reason judges are scared to find against an RAF jet fighter pilot who might be carrying missiles on their jets and might redirect them to the doors of these evil courts used to thieve billions every year through their criminality. MOST OF THE COMMENTS SAY IT ALL.

    This is a senior figure within the lucrative divorce industry who now admits the whole thing is a sham and what many men have fought for years and died in extreme cases when they have lost their lives,homes,jobs but especially children through malicious propaganda created in those secretive courts. For every one of the women genuinely abused by a partner another 1000 decent law abiding men suffer the psychological torture metted out by the murdering judiciary in their secret courts.

    "An additional factor is the rise in 'mail order' brides which has resulted in a system where many women from Asian and East European countries now deliberately exploit the ease and financial benefits of divorce, hitching up with older lonely men, and then splitting up with them after a year or two to get half their income, property and pension rights etc. "


    Scrap the 50-50 divorce payouts that rob men, says law chief

    The rich ex-wife: Heather Mills was awarded around £24m after four years of marriage to Paul McCartney Divorce settlements that keep ex-wives in comfort at the expense of their former husbands should be scrapped, a legal expert has said. Baroness Deech condemned the doctrine of the divorce courts which says a divorced woman should get a half share of the couple's wealth. It is unfair to men and demeaning to women, she said.

    And she called for tougher divorce laws generally to protect children from the damage caused by family break-up. Lady Deech, one of the country's most senior family lawyers, said 40 years of divorce law reform had increased the number of divorces and hurt families. She said the idea of fault should be brought back into proceedings. Those who ask for a fast-track divorce on the grounds of adultery or unreasonable behaviour should be made to wait for 12 months before they can remarry or settle their maintenance.

    Children, who learn about the dangers of smoking and poor diet at school, should also be taught about the value of marriage, she said. Lady Deech spoke out after a series of multi-million-pound divorce payouts to wives who have been married to rich men for only a short time. Last year Heather Mills, the former wife of Paul McCartney and mother of his daughter Beatrice, was awarded around £24million after four years of marriage.

    Lady Deech said women of working age without young children to support should be expected to look after themselves. And she blamed judges for creating a 'half-and-half' divorce law without any reference to Parliament. Earlier this month a legal firm claimed that women are trying to get their divorces heard in the south of England and men in the north because of differing approaches to division of assets.

    Northern courts apparently tend to hand out one-off 'clean break' settlements while southern judges are increasingly likely to give a lifelong income to a wife. Lady Deech, a crossbencher given a life peerage by Tony Blair in 2005, said: 'The notion that a wife should get half of the joint assets of a couple after even a short, childless marriage has crept up on us without any parliamentary legislation to this effect..' She added: 'It is no wonder that England is the divorce capital of Europe and out of step with other European countries.'

    Women who expect equality at work should not suddenly be treated as kept women when they divorce, she said in a public lecture at Gresham College, an independent educational institution in London. Lady Deech said the law should be reformed to discourage 'quickie' divorces.

    'It is far more difficult to terminate those other pillars of a stable life, employment and a tenancy, than marriage.' She added: 'It seems to be an unspoken political decision that attempts to make divorce more difficult are totally unacceptable. 'Any other situation that is known to harm children, sometimes not nearly as much - for example school food or paedophilia - attracts legislation and extensive public campaigns without dissent.

    'But even when public debate focuses on the plight of single parents and their children, the fact that over half of them are created by divorce and separation is overlooked. 'It is astonishing that no government seriously considers divorce as an issue while expressing anxiety about single parents, their children and society's health.'

  • SOURCE and additional comments
    ruth deech A dose of common sense on divorce

    We have never been slow to criticise that pillar of the liberal Establishment, Ruth Deech, for some of her more controversial decisions when she was chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. But today she deserves nothing but praise for blowing a blast of fresh air into the debate over Britain's unjust and socially-destructive divorce laws. In a lecture packed with common sense, the chairman of the Bar Standards Board argues that huge divorce settlements, which require husbands to give half their wealth to their ex-wives, are both unfair to men and demeaning to women.

    Ruth Deech claims current rules regarding divorce settlements are demeaning and unfair

    Why, in this age when women demand equality at work, should ex-wives expect to be kept for life - even after short marriages that produced no children? Disturbingly, as Baroness Deech points out, this is yet another example of a law imposed on us by the judiciary, without any reference to Parliament. But it's on the wider issue of the easy availability of divorce and the damage it causes that Lady Deech most strongly challenges the received wisdom of the liberal consensus that dominates so much social thinking in modern Britain.

    With only slight exaggeration, she says that after 40 years of 'reform', it's now easier to end a marriage than to terminate a tenancy or an employment contract. Yet study after study has shown the huge harm divorce does to children and society at large. So why do politicians duck this issue, when they are so quick to legislate on other less serious threats to children's wellbeing?

    As Lady Deech puts it: 'It seems to be an unspoken political decision that attempts to make divorce more difficult are totally unacceptable.' Isn't it time MPs took a long, hard look at that unspoken decision?

    Lady Deech suggests Parliament should reintroduce the idea of fault into divorce, making those who want their marriages dissolved on the 'quicky' grounds of adultery or unreasonable behaviour wait a year before they can remarry or settle their maintenance. How eminently sensible - which is one good reason why our politicians will almost certainly ignore her.

    children A recent United Nations report advocates giving mandatory instruction in masturbation to children as young as 5. "Sexuality education is part of the duty of care of education and health authorities and institutions," according to the U.N. Entitled "International Guidelines on Sexuality Education," the document is published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO. The entire document is a manifesto for governments to assume control over the "sexual education" of children, to inculcate in them politically correct ideas about sex and sexual politics, and to undermine and marginalize their parents.

    Among the "key stakeholders" in this mass sexualization of children there is no mention of parents. Indeed, throughout the document parents are dismissed for their multiple inadequacies and failures. "Sexuality education is an essential part of a good curriculum" in the schools, we are told, because "parents are often reluctant to engage in discussion of sexual matters with children because of cultural norms, their own ignorance, or discomfort." How the authors are able to peer into millions of homes to see what parents "often" do is not made clear, and no documentation is provided for this claim. Lip service is paid to parents, but they are to be permitted only such authority as state officials deem good for their children: "Teachers and school managers are called upon to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children."

    Suffused throughout with impenetrable jargon and politically correct buzzwords ("rights-based, culturally sensitive, respectful of sexual and gender diversity"), the paper spouts platitudinous wisdom that often takes the form of peculiar and unsupported axioms centering on sex, which it is keen to promote: "'Being sexual' is an important part of many people's lives." (Who is being quoted here is not disclosed.) "Young people want and need sexual and reproductive health information." "Getting the right information that is scientifically accurate, non-judgmental, age-appropriate and complete, at an early age, is something to which all children and young people are entitled." Entitled? By whom? By what authority is it asserted that children have a right to be exposed to sex "at an early age"? To know, at the age of 5, about masturbation? Since when are children not "entitled" to the innocence of childhood and to be protected by their parents from sexual predators, whether individual or bureaucratic?

    For indeed, if anyone else exposed young children to sex it would be classed as child sex abuse. It is a stark example of how bureaucrats not only create the problem they are supposed to be solving; in this case, they are creating a problem – in bureaucratized and politicized form – where none exists, so that teachers and social workers become government child molesters. But what may be most revealing and disturbing is how "sexual education" is inseparable from political indoctrination. Paralleling the step-by-step program of "age appropriate" sexualization is a similarly systematic learning sequence of instruction in feminist ideology. From age 5, children are to be instructed against the evils of "gender roles" and "stereotypes." Beginning at age 9, they are to be indoctrinated to believe that "gender role stereotypes contribute to forced sexual activity and sexual abuse." (How precisely?) At age 15, children will be required to participate in "advocacy" campaigns as part of their "education" and forced to promote political agendas, including "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion."

    It is no accident that children are being sexualized and politicized at the same time. As they are pried away from their parents, children become vulnerable to manipulation as political tools. Their adolescent rebellion, which begins sexually and often as a rebellion against parental authority, is easily expanded into a political rebellion against all traditional authority. At the same time, this sexual-political liberation from traditional authorities may be accompanied by an authoritarian loyalty to the officials, ideologies and state machinery that facilitates their independence from their parents and in whose power they increasingly acquire a stake. UNESCO appears to have pulled the document in response to public anger, but this cannot disguise the fact that the U.N. – as is also plainly visible in campaigns such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child – is promoting an extremist and totalitarian agenda based on the exploitation of children.

    hands This is an ongoing case we are well aware of in that a West African woman comes to Scotland and marries a Scotsman . Then leaves abducting the child to England were she gets full legal aid ,lawyers and barristers and a council house having NEVER paid a penny into the British tax system. Her legal bill would be in excess of £100,000 and rising .

    The father meanwhile has NOT seen his child for 8 years or more and has been paying substantial moneys through the courts in Scotland and England to gain access to his child . He has been a British citizen who had throughout his life paid his way, yet does NOT get assistance with his case in any shape or form and shows the EXTREME bias against fathers in the UK legal jurisdiction as the legal mafia bend over backwards to accommodate this woman bleeding the UK for what its worth.

    The judicial mob in both England and Scotland have completely ignored the childs and fathers rights instead taking EXTREME measures to ignore the laws that protect a child in Scotland. Our group have VAST experience of how this mob who have been party to the Lockerbie bombing decision ignore the law and make it up as they go along dependent on HOW much money can be generated from the endless legal aid money pot and the vested interests of the lawyers that have got themselves involved in this case to totally undermine the rights of the father and child and the theft by the mother to another country without jurisdiction.

    bailiff Most men who have yet to face family courts are unaware that no matter how long and how much they have paid as investment into the roof over their head it will mean absolutely NOTHING when facing the corrupt and secretive family court system. A system were utterly corrupt masonic judges and lawyers operate having a field day using your ex-wife to generate all sorts of malicious allegations to remove you from that home and leave you homeless and penniless.

    Men in their millions daily are being thrown onto the street through legal systems across the globe that emulate the British crown operating from the inns of court London and who head the bar associations across the globe. All lawyers are in one way or another connected with this malicious and masonic run evil network of power that manufactures the laws that create, NOT justice, but a means for the utter scum of the earth to relieve you of all your worldly possessions but especially your home.

    Hitler's asset stripping pales next to the civil court process's that see BILLIONS men have invested in dodgy mortgage scams being turned into a money generator for lawyers, who may have initially signed the papers to give you ownership of land and property but who in reality now have the power to throw you onto the street while adding your home to their property portfolio and the equity to use as their retirement pension pot. The Legal Aid boards are funded from this massive money pot and why they will provide endless money to an ex-wifes lawyer to screw you for every penny. Women divorcing masons will face the same injustice.

    Lawyers have written the laws to protect a corrupt monopoly on the buying and selling of land, property and business that ultimately will be used to fleece you when you are dragged into civil courts in divorce or indeed any civil action that will ultimately threaten your very livelihood or existence. JUSTICE is not how these evil dens of iniquity operate they are merely an illusive scam to ensure the British crown and their minions , corrupt judges and lawyers , can with ease remove everything you have ever worked for with little or no effort on their part. Other than to shuffle a few A4 sheets of paper before the right dodgy masonic judge who's solitary signature sees the vast plundering of mens assets who are NOT part of their creepy network of power.

    This is a warning to all younger men and men who are now tied into this horrific nightmare scenario. You are NOT and NEVER will be safe while civil courts across the globe operate using this star chamber type system. The scams have been going on for years, if not centuries, purely because the vast majority of the media are controlled by media lawyers and a press who gain from advertising revenue from the stolen land , business's and properties they remove from unsuspecting men who in time could not believe they could get away with the monstrous illegality of their crimes.

    The chief constables responsible for investigating crimes are PART of their scams as are all the supposed regulatory bodies who are merely rubber stamping their crimes, as are the Land Registry who have been aiding and abetting this criminal fraud for far to long. Each part relying on the other to turning a blind eye to judicial corruption and power that has seen vast empires crumble on the strength of the secretive powers that emanate from these houses of horror.

    hands Tycoon sues his ex-wife after discovering children were not his

    A devoted father who discovered that two of his three children had been fathered by another man is suing his ex-wife for compensation. The millionaire businessman is demanding unlimited damages of more than £300,000 from his ex-wife and her new husband, including the cost of bringing up the two children he believed were his for more than a decade. The man, who was the woman’s first husband, raised the two children as his own — with no clue that they had been fathered by his wife’s lover.

    He accuses the pair of fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit, and says he has not been allowed to see the two children since 2006. The details of the tangled relationships between him, his former wife and her second husband are exposed in court papers. The businessman and his wife met in 1985 and were married a year later. They had business dealings with the man who would become the woman’s second husband from 1987, a High Court writ says.

    The man, also married at the time, visited the couple at their home several times. The tycoon’s first child was born in 1989 and, within months, the new mother had started a sexual relationship with her lover, the writ claims. She then claimed that her second child, born in 1993 and had serious health problems, was fathered by her husband when the real father was her lover, it is alleged.

    The wife and her lover resolved between them to claim the two younger babies were the millionaire’s natural children, and were involved in a joint enterprise to induce him to accept paternal and financial responsibility, the writ claims. They did nothing to dispel his erroneous belief about the two children’s paternity, the writ alleges. The writ details a series of personal questions apparently asked by the woman’s lover at a New Year’s Eve party in 1994, including: “How does it feel to have a son that was close to death? “Are you and your wife going to have more children? Where does your second son get his lovely curly hair from? Yours and your wife’s is so straight.”

    In August 1995, the tycoon’s wife carried out a pregnancy test and told him he was going to be a father again. Her daughter was born in 1996 and her husband was registered as her father. In 1997, three employees commented on the uncanny resemblance of the tycoon’s daughter to a child born to his business associate — the man alleged to be having an affair with his wife. The man is said to have told one employee that the child was his daughter. The employee passed the information to another colleague, but neither spoke of the matter for fear of losing their jobs. The millionaire says that he supported his ex-wife’s second and third children as his own until 2007.

    In 1997, she told him of the affair during a family holiday — but insisted that it had began after the birth of her daughter, the writ says. She later admitted the affair had lasted several years, but reassured her husband that the three children were his. The tycoon says he confronted his rival after returning from his holiday and, within months, entered into a deed of separation from his wife, sharing the children on a rolling four days each basis for eight years, making significant financial provision for her.

    In 2003, he married the children’s nanny and fathered two more sons with her. His former wife’s lover divorced his partner in 2001 and the pair were married a year later. The two families continued to share the children until the millionaire’s ex-wife arranged for DNA testing on her two younger children without her former husband’s knowledge, the writ says. The woman and her new husband took the two children abroad on holiday in July 2006 and have refused to allow the millionaire to speak to them or see them since.

    He discovered that he was not their natural father in a letter from his ex-wife’s solicitors, which caused him severe distress. Later, court-ordered DNA testing showed that his former business associate was 5.5 million times more likely to be the boy’s father and 21 million times more likely to be the girl’s parent. The spurned tycoon says he has suffered the cost of financially supporting the two children between their birth and July 2007 which should have been borne by his ex-wife and her new husband and he is seeking damages for deceit.

    child abduction

    Our group have first hand knowledge of this case were a West African woman comes to Scotland marries and has a child with a Scottish man. Leaves him ,comes back, leaves again then Scottish cops smash down his door in the night to remove the child from the father along with social workers. The mother flees to England were despite having NEVER paid a penny in taxes is given full legal aid with lawyers and barristers and a council house to fight the fact she, aided and abetted by cops , abducted the child from Scotland. The father has now not seen his child for nine years and despite endless court actions has had little or no support from judges who have been aiding and abetting child abduction by mothers, even foreign mothers, while giving little or no support to British national fathers who have worked throughout their life paying their taxes.

    Britain has become a haven for foreign women to fleece hard working men who have fallen for their charms and provided a means for them to get citizenship and then using corrupt courts to steal their assets and homes. Fortunately there was NO bought house to fight over or he would have been thrown out on the street as well as been badly abused by the corrupt family courts and the monsters presently controlling their enormous powers.

    Aberdeen Man says judge’s decision to block appeal over abducted child is bizarre

    An Aberdeen father is challenging a judge’s decision to block his bid to appeal to the new Supreme Court in London for the return of his abducted daughter. Last night the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, labelled the decision by Lady Stacey at the Court of Session in Edinburgh as “bizarre” and claimed it was at odds with an earlier ruling that the girl should never have been removed from Scotland by her mother.

    Unless the judge’s refusal to allow an appeal to be heard is overturned, he will be unable to see his daughter – who has Down’s Syndrome – and argue the case for her to live with him during residence and divorce proceedings due to be heard next month. He said: “They are denying me access to justice.”

    The man has fought a lengthy battle to get his daughter back and the girl’s mother has refused to tell him where she is. Aberdeen Central Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald said: “This is a very difficult case and this new twist makes it even harder for the father of the child to obtain a satisfactory outcome. “The courts need to be consistent in the way they deal with these situations and, in this case, the latest Court of Session judgment appears to contradict other judgments in the same case and it must be a cause for concern.”

    Lady Stacey ruled that it was “in the interests of justice” that a three-day hearing next month into the divorce and residence issues should proceed. She declined, however, to order that before it takes place there should be a hearing of the father’s demand for his daughter to be returned to him – despite an earlier ruling that she should never have been removed.

    The case has already caused debates in the Scottish and UK parliaments into how an English court came to decide the girl should remain with her mother, contrary to rules which make it clear it was a matter for the Scottish courts to decide. The father said last night that if Lady Stacey’s ruling stands, next month’s trial will only hear the mother’s side of the argument about residence because he cannot appoint a social worker to report on his daughter’s circumstances as he has no idea where she is. He added: “We will not be able to produce an argument, except that she was unlawfully removed in 2000.”


    For any man who has faced British family courts they will know the enormity of the scams and devious lies perpetrated by corrupt judges and lawyers operating under the British monarchy and crown who manufacture malicious lies to ensure they have the means to steal a mans assets and home.

    The illusion that women are being empowered using domestic violence courts and restraining orders are to effectively imprison a man from reacting to the enormous human rights abuses that the colossal British crown scam operates . Men who even raise their voices in anger are accused of a myriad of twisted lies concocted by the British bar associations CORRUPT legal mafia and rubber stamped by British crown judges. Few if any of these lies would, if laid before a jury, find any credence.

    However when you have manufactured secret star chamber court systems that the British crown impose on vulnerable men you can guarantee mountains of papers are generated at £200+ a time to massively inflate the final divorce bill for the corrupt lawyer taking the case on behalf of a bitter ex -wife. If not bitter before lawyers get involved , definitely after when they are also lied to that if they go along with these malicious and perjured lies they will see massive punitive damages against the husband for his supposed errant ways.

    The massive propaganda created by the British media especially the BBC and GMTV ensures increased powers for these secret corrupt courts and the masonic legal mafia who control through devious stealth how they operate. MASONIC power through the crowns judges is vented via the mouthpieces that are the aggrieved ex-wives who are used merely as windbags that provide the necessary manufactured evidence to rid a man of his home, livelihood, business but especially his children. Unless that man happens to be a MASON and then the WOMAN becomes the victim usually losing massive inheritances to ex-husbands who are part of the satanic network.


    For absolute proof of how sinister these allegations get, ONE case clearly stands out as to why lawyers and judges are getting away with the most diabolical allegations. It also highlights how the MASONIC RUN Legal Aid boards of the United Kingdom are implicated by providing the necessary public moneys to corrupt and twisted lawyers to carry out these malicious scams.


    What separated men worldwide are having to tolerate . Lawyers funded by the state to make false allegations of abuse ultimately to steal your children, home, business and assets.

    Widow agrees to return £1.8m legal aid cash falsely claimed by solicitor

    A SOLICITOR "embellished" claims for legal aid in child welfare cases with false details of sex abuse to fraudulently obtain nearly £2 million, The Scotsman can reveal. In Scotland's biggest-ever legal aid fraud, James Muir made false claims for public money in hundreds of child protection cases over seven years. Mr Muir, who kept a low profile in the profession but was regarded as one of the country's most dedicated and experienced specialist child welfare lawyers, committed suicide after the police began investigating. Details of the case have been kept secret for two years while the Scottish Government's civil recovery unit sought to reclaim the money from his estate. Yesterday the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) announced that an agreement had been reached with Mr Muir's family that will see £1.8 million paid back to the public fund. Last night politicians demanded answers over how such abuse could go undetected for so long.

    SLAB claimed the "tragic case" was a one-off and insisted it had improved procedures for checking legal aid claims. Mr Muir's wife Susan, believed to be a serving police officer, has sold the family's luxury home in Bothwell, Lanarkshire, to help pay back the money. Mr Muir, 45, who ran his practice from his home, worked mainly as a custodian, or "safeguarder", for children and minors too young to manage their own affairs or represent themselves in court. The Scotsman can reveal that from 1999 until 2005, he made false claims for legal aid in several hundred child welfare cases. At the outset, he was claiming an average of around £1,000 per case, but by the time he was caught, this had risen to £10,000. To justify the soaring claims, he "embellished" detailed application forms to the legal aid board with fabricated details of sex abuse. He even invented statements between social workers and police officers. The fraud came to light after legal aid staff noticed his payments were steadily increasing. Strathclyde Police obtained a warrant to search Mr Muir's home and office on 20 April, 2005. Later the same day his body was discovered on a railway line. A source last night said: "Mr Muir had a niche market, being the only dedicated children's lawyer in the area. All the children existed in his claims, but he made up the grounds of referral from the Children's Reporter and they all, in effect, became sex abuse cases. This allowed him to embellish claims and increase the amount paid." Another lawyer, who did not want to be named, added: "If this had been going on in the criminal court, people would have quickly suspected something was going on. But he was basically doing this work on his own and no-one asked questions.

    "Everyone thought he was simply working and doing well for himself. When it came to light, I think the legal aid board was embarrassed and furious in equal measure." Mr Muir was known to have taken on a large workload and on occasions carried out work he did not claim for. Now, following a long and detailed investigation by the legal aid board and months of negotiations, it is understood that his widow has agreed to give back all £1.8m that her husband received in legal aid over the seven years. Bill Aitken, the Conservatives' justice spokesman, said: "Little can be done to protect the legal aid fund from deliberate theft but the obvious question is: how was this allowed to go on so long without someone noticing?" A spokesman for SLAB said steps had been taken to prevent such fraud going undetected for so long. The body's investigation unit had been beefed up with new staff, with closer attention now paid to claims from lawyers working in specialised areas. Pauline McNeill, Labour's justice spokeswoman, said: "It's important that lessons are learned from this case."


    SCOTLAND'S legal aid bill cost the public purse more than £150 million last year. Criminal cases accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total, but the civil legal aid bill also rose, for the first time in three years. Last year's total legal aid bill was 2 per cent up on 2005 and brought spending to the second-highest ever level. The figures were disclosed yesterday in the annual report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It coincided with new proposals from the board and the Scottish Government to change the way solicitors are paid for legal aid in summary - or less serious - cases. Under the proposals, there will be a "substantial" increase in payments to lawyers in the early stages of a case, with lesser rises for cases going to trial. This is intended to save money overall, as the system is said to favour "not guilty" pleas that are later changed.

    The £150 million cost to the taxpayer was made up of £106.6 million on criminal cases, £39 million on civil cases and £4.5 million on children's legal assistance and contempt of court cases. Over the past five years, total spending has gone up by 11 per cent, or £15 million, mostly because of a £13.6 million rise in the cost of criminal legal aid. Announcing his intention to introduce the legal aid changes next spring, Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said: "These proposals aim to save time and expense, to avoid wasted effort and to reduce the demands made on victims and witnesses."

    Legal aid winners

    DONALD Findlay, QC, has topped the list for legal aid payments to advocates, for the second year in a row, receiving £358,400 last year.

    The Glasgow-based law firm Ross Harper topped the solicitors' list, also for the second year in a row, at £1.732 million - and 11 other firms of solicitors were paid more than £1 million each. Top-earning solicitor advocate was Iain Paterson of Paterson Bell Solicitors, with £219,300.

    Ten advocates each earned more than £200,000 in 2006-7. They are Donald Findlay QC (£358,400), Ian Duguid QC (£321,600), Edgar Prais QC (£272,500), Mhairi Richards QC (£269,800), Paul McBride QC (£237,800), Gordon Jackson (£228,500), Derek Ogg QC (£213,300), Lorenzo Alonzi (£213,100), Ronaldo Renucci (£212,100) and Thomas Ross (£208,600).

  • New laws on domestic violence (THAT WILL AID THIS RACKET)
    JOHN CLEESE John Cleese is to pay £12.5 million in a divorce settlement to his former wife Alyce Faye Eichelberger. The ruling by a Californian court means that he is now poorer than Eichelberger. His fortune will reportedly fall to £10 million, after he was ordered to pay Eichelberger £8 million up front and an annual fee of £612,000 for the next seven years. Cleese married psychotherapist Eichelberger, his third wife, in 1992.

    Talking after the verdict, Cleese said, "I got off lightly. Think what I'd have to pay if she'd contributed anything." Cleese's pal Michael Winner added that "if there ever was a case for prenuptial agreements, this is it". "The result is extraordinary. Alyce lived in a council flat when they met," Winner added. It's claimed that Cleese is currently writing a one man stage show entitled - My Alyce Faye Divorce Tour.
    broken man Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled “child support,” that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn’t pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor’s prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

    Did you know that debtor’s prisons (putting men in prison because they can’t pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called “child support”? Did you know that when corporations can’t pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged “child support” debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can’t afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place? Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

    What has been the impact of feminism on the nation? Don’t miss “The War on Fathers: How the ‘feminization of America’ destroys boys, men – and women” Did you know that alleged “child support” has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the “support” money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy? These are among the injustices the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

    His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged “child support” even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay. Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as “Bias” author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet “deadbeat dads.” But one egregious case did make the news this summer. Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged “child support” even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

    Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in “child support,” and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits. But he didn’t pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father). This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

    Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wash., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened. The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

    There were many other violations of due process in Spencer’s trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.

    Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.” Schlafly also is founder and president of Eagle Forum.

    peterandre For thousands of fathers across the world this is the same despicable conduct that drives MEN to the edge. His ex-wife flaunting the new boyfriend with Peters children . After he has tolerated her crazy partying for months before the split , Kate Price knowing that because of the modern day radical feminist courts MEN are ALWAYS the losers.

    Men who are the biological protectors of their children being demoted to , if they are lucky, weekend fathers thanks to the crooked legal and political mafia's that have turned family law into a farce. Allowing women like Jordan(Kate Price) to have their FREEDOMS while turning good men into mice to be humiliated by them openly flaunting themselves, potentially putting Peters children at risk from any future boyfriend they think are suitable to be around their children.

    The biggest cause of danger to our children is the separation of a biological father from his kids and the worlds sick and disgusting legal systems are removing that protection to cater for the likes of the Kate Prices only interesting in making a mockery of what marriage should be all about.


    THESE are the heart-breaking pictures that will cause Peter Andre even more anguish – his son Junior cuddling up to Kate Price’s new lover. Shameless Kate, 31, and cage-fighter Alex Reid stuck a dagger into Peter’s heart by letting snappers capture tender moments in a Brighton park.

    The couple were aware that newspaper photographers and a TV crew were following them and made sure they played happy families. And Kate, alias Jordan, proved just how far she was willing to go to win the divorce war by using her and Peter’s children in a seemingly brazen publicity stunt. The pair spent the day larking about over a picnic with Harvey, seven, Junior, four, and Princess Tiaámii, two. While Peter was working hard to promote his musical comeback, Alex, 34, happily played daddy.

    And the children looked delighted to have Alex around. Bare-chested Alex lifted Junior up and swung him around as the lad squealed with delight.

    Their family outing came just hours after a dignified Peter begged his wife for an end to the bitter “mud-slinging” of recent weeks. But for Peter the pictures could be the last straw in what has been a rollercoaster ride of emotions since he walked out on Kate in May.

    The shots emerged just as he had vowed to shut up about the split after she accused him of using it to sell records. The Aussie singer, 36, cancelled a string of radio and TV appearances to publicise his new single yesterday as he said: “Enough is enough”.

    He added: “I would never slate anyone just to sell some records. I would much rather have Kate by my side through all of this.” And he told the Daily Star: “I have made a point of not speaking out about why Kate and I split and have only discussed the marriage since the split. “I hope that Kate is happy with her new man and that we can all get on with our lives and be happy, for the sake of our children.”

    Speaking on Sky News earlier in the day, he said: “Now look, this is the industry we are in and I understand it. “But Kate is the mother of my children and these kids do not need to be subjected to this. “At the end of the day we have three kids in the middle of all of this and there shouldn’t be any sides.

    “I don’t want any bad things said about her, I don’t want any bad things said about me. I just want to say enough’s enough.” A spokesman for Peter said yesterday: “We cancelled some of Peter’s planned jobs because he does not want to keep talking about his marriage. He doesn’t want his kids to read these comments and so we pulled him out of several radio interviews.”

  • Evil mother who stood by as son was tortured... and the neo-Nazi boyfriend who abused him
  • Baby Peters biological father demands £200,000 compensation for social work failures
    family court Gagging Orders in The UK Family Courts - Who’s Protecting Who? Jack Straw to Shut all Families Up

    In the light of so many stories being sent to no2abuse regarding the Social Services who’s failures are protected by the misuse of family courts I feel the time has come to speak out against these orders where there is a case of injustice. Even more frightening is Jack Straws new announcement HERE

    But as of April, because of a change in legislation being introduced by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, the media will no longer be able to identify those involved in cases such as the Websters. It will also be illegal for any children currently in care to speak out, even if they feel they are being maltreated. It is not in any child’s interest to use such gagging orders which are being used but not to protect the child but to protect the system that has failed the child and their families.

    In the latest case where Ian, Sarah and Crystal Waltons only hope was to tell their story to a UK newspaper this is just the beggining of many more stories to come. Any parent who is seen to ignore the gagging order is threatened with imprisonment or sent to prison but many parents are now prepared to go that far because many have lost their children and have nothing else left to lose.

    This is the failing family courts and social services system that is happy not only to wreck the lives of innocent children but to also ruin the lives of the families in order to keep their own failings out of the public domain. This is a miscarriage of justice. The adoption rules must be changed and the ability for social services to be challenged without the misuse of the system to put the fear of God into parents who have been wrongly accused and lost their children by social services and court blunders.

    broken Brian's family was the last I had expected to break up. They had six children ages 7-18 and were active in the pro-life movement. They had been married 24 years. Brian, 46, handsome and disheveled, was a carpenter. He quit grad studies in city planning because he couldn't stand the politics.

    Brian is a very rare person. He is genuine. In April, he stopped a man from beating a woman on a downtown roadway. Hundreds of passersby just stood by and gawked. Recently I ran into Brian, and learned why he and Nancy had moved away.


    It seems Brian had a mid-life crisis. He had fallen into a deep depression and couldn't work. Perhaps the stress of operating a small business for 20 years had caught up to him. "Many times it was, if you don't get the job, you don't eat," he said. After five months of depression, Nancy secretly got a restraining order and a month later, she ordered him out of the house.

    She told him she couldn't cope with his depression. She told the police she was "afraid of his temper." While he waited in the police car handcuffed like a common thief, a cop said he should be thankful. She could have falsely accused him of assault and put him in prison for weeks. In 24 years of marriage, Brian never hit Nancy. Sure he had a temper and occasionally raised his voice. So did she. It was a normal part of family life. Nancy had been "his best friend."

    Brian forgives Nancy and makes excuses for her. Causes he championed must have taken a toll on her. For example, they had received death threats for his defiance of a local biker gang. But the biggest factor was a neighbor who had just split up, and filled Nancy's head with feminist dogma. Nancy told him: "I bet you never thought that sucky little Nancy would become a strong independent woman." Brian had always consulted Nancy but she never took much interest in decision-making. Now she pretends to enjoy "calling the shots." He notices that she has become aggressive and abrasive.


    In court, criminals get better treatment than Brian did for "having a temper." A husband and father, he was considered an enemy of society. He lost the fruits of a lifetime: his children and his home. "It was all rubber-stamped," Brian said. "The lawyers and judge didn't give a damn. My lawyer said justice was just a word." He was left with a few tools, clothes and books.

    Tears welled up in Brian's eyes when he told the judge: "All I ever wanted was to be a knight in shining armor. Instead I'm Satan himself." Back in his apartment, he cried over the loss of his children: "the floodgates really opened up." During the school year, Brian looked after the children more than Nancy who was a schoolteacher.

    "I miss getting the children up in the morning, even when they are cranky," he says. Nancy's betrayal shocked Brian out of his depression. He still sees his children who seem to be managing. He is getting work, dating and trying to put his life back together. The novelty of being an "independent woman" is beginning to wear off for Nancy. She is overwhelmed with work and parenting, and the children say she is always yelling.


    Women are being hoodwinked into thinking they want power. Power is the wrong kind of fuel for them; eventually their engines start to sputter. They need male love expressed as male power. A feminist with six children will have a hard time finding it. Many people ask me what we can do about the New World Order. Make no mistake, domestic violence and family laws are the vanguard of the NWO. The Rockefeller "think tanks" have ordained the destruction of the nuclear family by smashing paternal authority. The object is to decrease population and foster dysfunction so we cannot resist servitude. The protection of women is not the real agenda. Where families are concerned, the totalitarian state has arrived. If a couple is overheard having an argument, a neighbor can phone the police who will take the husband away.

    Opportunistic and naïve feminists, lawyers and politicians advance this evil agenda. There are good people among them who cannot be comfortable with this. We must ask them to reconsider. I encourage people to form small groups and meet regularly for mutual support and action. (The NWO wants us to be isolated.) We should remind judges, the press and politicians that they have been subverted. We should demand changes in domestic violence and family laws. At election time, we should call politicians to task. We cannot stop the attack on Iraq or Afghanistan. We can stop the attack on families. As men we can stand up and resist tyranny.

    spiders web This site was primarily created as a call to the thousands of men and women who approached a legal practitioner at the time of divorce, only to find themselves exploited instead of assisted; who found that their divorce solicitors, rather than defending their interests at a vulnerable time, profited from their situation to the fullest extent.

    It is also intended as a guide for anyone embarking on the road to divorce and financial settlement, and who is thinking of enlisting the services of a divorce solicitor. And finally, this site serves as a means of uniting all victims, whether male or female, in a bid to change laws which allow legal practitioners to abuse their clients at the time of divorce and financial settlement. Read on to understand why we must join together to change the law…

    Men and women around the country are being exploited at a vulnerable point in their lives by divorce solicitors who see divorcing couples as perfect victims for the Divorce Solicitor Trap. Until the law is changed, legal sharks will continue to profit from consumers the length and breadth of England. Whether you divorce in London or Land’s End, current legislation means that your solicitor holds all the aces. This website tells the story of an experience which is one of many. Just how bad can it get?

    “I spent two years fighting through the courts to obtain divorce and financial settlement. My ex and I ended up being done rather than assisted by three solicitors in Bournemouth, plus two barristers. By the time the case was over and my solicitor handed me the final bill, we had paid nearly £50,000 to reach a settlement of £85,000. The whole process left me emotionally and financially drained, and frankly suicidal. Why is it that the law allows legal practitioners to get away with robbery? These people are supposed to represent justice! The law permits them to abuse members of the public at a time when they are most vulnerable. The system needs to be changed…” Don’t fall into the trap! Help us change the system.

    The legal framework for divorce and financial settlement in this country allows solicitors to charge what they like and get away with it.

    child support scams Court knew man jailed for a year for non-support was not child's father

    Frank Hatley has languished in a South Georgia jail for more than a year.

    The reason? He failed to reimburse the state for all the public assistance his “son” received over the past two decades. The problem? Hatley is not the biological father -- and a special assistant state attorney general and a judge knew it but jailed Hatley anyway. “I feel bad for the man,” Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey said Tuesday. “Put yourself in that man’s shoes: If it wasn’t your child, would you want to be paying child support for him?”

    Daughtrey said he hopes a hearing Wednesday will resolve the matter. Hatley has been held at the county jail in Adel since June 25, 2008, costing the county an estimated $35 to $40 a day. Even after learning he was not the father, Hatley paid thousands of dollars the state said he owed for support. After losing his job and becoming homeless, he still made payments out of his unemployment benefits. Hatley’s lawyer, Sarah Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said two independent DNA tests -- one nine years ago and one just a few days ago -- prove he is not the biological father.

    “This is a case of excessive zeal to recover money trumping common sense,” she said. “What possible legitimate reason can the state have to pursue Mr. Hatley for child support when he does not have any children?” It may be difficult for Hatley to get out from under the court order, said Atlanta family lawyer Randall Kessler, who is not associated with the case. “It’s definitely unfair,” Kessler said. “But at the same time, he’s dealing with a valid court order.” Russ Willard, a spokesman for the state attorney general, said if Hatley can show at the hearing that he is indigent, the state will not oppose his release.

    Willard said Hatley could have applied to the state Office of Child Support Services to request that he be relieved of his obligations. He said Hatley has not made such a request. According to court filings, Hatley was never told that he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one. Geraghty said she only recently took on Hatley as a client after the sheriff asked her to talk to Hatley about his predicament. Geraghty said Hatley had paid a total of $9,524.05 in support since April 1995, but records of payments before that time are not available.

    In the 1980s, Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who became pregnant, had a baby boy and told Hatley the child was his, according to court records. The couple never married and split up shortly after Travon was born in 1987. In 1989, Morrison applied for public assistance through the state Department of Human Resources. The state then moved to get Hatley to reimburse the cost of Travon’s support, and Hatley agreed because he believed Travon was his son. But in 2000, DNA samples from Hatley and Travon showed the two were not related, according to a court records.

    With the help of a Georgia Legal Services lawyer, Hatley went to court and was relieved of his responsibility to pay future child support. But he still had to deal with being a deadbeat dad when it was assumed that he was really the dad. Homerville lawyer Charles Reddick, working as a special assistant state attorney general, prepared an order requiring Hatley to pay the $16,398 he still owed the state for child support. The Aug. 21, 2001 order, signed by Cook County Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledges that Hatley was not Travon’s father.

    After that, Hatley paid almost $6,000. But last year he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers. He became homeless and lived in his car. Still, Hatley made some child support payments using his unemployment benefits. By May 2008, he apparently had not paid enough. In another order prepared by Reddick and signed by Perkins, Hatley was found in contempt and jailed. When he is released, the order said, Hatley must continue making payments to the state at a rate of $250 a month.

    divorce cake “We’re from the Government, and We’re Here to End Your Marriage.”

    by Stephen Baskerville

    The decline of the family has now reached critical and truly dangerous proportions. Family breakdown touches virtually every family and every American. It is not only the major source of social instability in the Western world today but also seriously threatens civic freedom and constitutional government. G. K. Chesterton once observed that the family serves as the principal check on government power, and he suggested that someday the family and the state would confront one another. That day has arrived.

    Chesterton was writing about divorce, and despite extensive public attention to almost every other threat to the family, divorce remains the most direct and serious. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” Most Americans would be deeply shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce. Indeed, many are devastated to discover that they can be forced into divorce by procedures entirely beyond their control. Divorce licenses unprecedented government intrusion into family life, including the power to sunder families, seize children, loot family wealth, and incarcerate parents without trial. Comprised of family courts and vast, federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield what amount to police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most predatory and repressive sector of government ever created in the United States and is today’s greatest threat to constitutional freedom.

    Stephen Baskerville is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and the author of Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).