FAMILY COURTS 7

IAN PUDDICK - KROLL - MET COPS WASTE £1,000,000 INVESTIGATING VIDEO

A CLEAR CUT CASE OF MASONS WITHIN THE POLICE USED TO PERSECUTE THIS MAN
HEDGE FUND EX-WIFE HAD HUSBAND'S HOUSE AND CAR BUGGED
Martin Coward and Elena Ambrosiadou Separated: Husband and wife Martin Coward and Elena Ambrosiadou are embroiled in a legal battle

We don't have much sympathy for hedge fund managers but this is a fairly typical example of how many ex-wives conspire with crooked lawyers to concoct all sorts of malicious lies and smear campaigns to gain maximum advantage in divorce proceedings. ALL OF IT CONDONED BY CROOKED JUDGES AND THE CROWN. All of it in breach of human rights legislation that is completely disregarded in family courts.


£16m-a-year hedge fund wife 'had my house and car bugged', says estranged husband suing over alleged snooping by private detectives

One of the world’s best-paid businesswomen hired private investigators to bug her estranged husband’s £2 million home, according to papers lodged at the High Court. Elena Ambrosiadou is being sued for spying and harassment by Dr Martin Coward. The pair, who separated in 2009, founded Ikos, one of Europe’s biggest hedge funds. Dr Coward claims in papers obtained from the court that Miss Ambrosiadou hired a private detective agency called Kroll Associates to plant secret surveillance devices last December at his house in Steyning, West Sussex.

He alleges that Kroll employees entered his property illegally and left bugs and video cameras in the kitchen and the fireplace of his study. He claims that they also planted a GPS tracking device in his car.

The court document also alleges that Dr Coward was covertly followed by detectives from another agency who photographed his meetings with people in Monaco and Cyprus. Dr Coward, regarded as one of the world’s greatest financial mathematicians, is suing his estranged wife for breaching his privacy and his human rights, which guarantee him a right to a private life. He is also seeking an injunction against Miss Ambrosiadou and Kroll Associates ‘to prevent any further similar activity’.

Greek-born Miss Ambrosiadou, 51, and Dr Coward amassed a £200 million fortune through the hedge fund they jointly founded in 1993. She took a salary of £16 million in 2004 as the chief executive of Ikos, and last year spent £60 million on the Maltese Falcon, the world’s largest private sailing yacht. Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed how Miss Ambrosiadou hired a glamorous undercover agent called Laura Merts, 37, to spy on her former portfolio manager, Tobin Gover, and to extract ‘confidential and private information about him’. Mr Gover was among 12 Ikos employees who were mysteriously sacked in 2008 while Dr Coward was on a skiing holiday. Miss Ambrosiadou has agreed to pay Mr Gover ‘substantial’ damages.

After the sackings, Ikos was hit by scandals and setbacks. In late 2009, Dr Coward, who was chief investment officer, resigned, saying he wanted to set up his own hedge fund. The couple also separated shortly afterwards. The court papers claim that the bugs in Dr Coward’s home ‘recorded a long conversation between the claimant [Dr Coward] and his mother in the study, in which they discussed a number of highly private, confidential and sensitive issues, including issues concerning the claimant’s business plans, investments and tax affairs’. Dr Coward also claims that his estranged wife hired another agency to spy on his movements between November and December 2009 in Monaco. Dr Coward lives in the principality with his 24-year-old Brazilian girlfriend.

He claims he was also subjected to a more intensive surveillance when in Limassol, Cyprus. Last night a spokesman for Dr Coward refused to comment.

Miss Ambrosiadou’s lawyers said there has been no finding of wrong-doing against her and she denies any allegations of unlawful conduct. An Ikos spokesman said: ‘We are not going to debate an ongoing situation through the media. There are a number of outstanding criminal cases to be dealt with.’ Kroll were unavailable for comment.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • WHEN A 'DOMESTIC' IS NOT A DOMESTIC
    It would be ridiculous to claim all men are angels as some are outright bullies and thugs, they make ideal candidates when joining the masons to further their career. However the subject of a 'DOMESTIC' as viewed from the perspective of Britain's masonic cops has to be properly analyzed to understand what exactly is going on.

    Like every squalid estate in the UK all forms of crime are completely ignored with NO GO areas that the UK cops never address in these god forsaken holes. So if there are women being bashed about they are wasting their time trying to get the cops to do anything about it , just like if they are having a major dispute with an anti-social neighbour the police will do very little . Most of the men in these situations have little material wealth and corrupt cops DON'T waste their time on anything so trivial.

    So when the judiciary , lawyers, cops and all the leeches who operate the divorce industry talk about 'Domestic violence' they may use as examples the abused women from sink estates that get no police assistance . No! the Domestic violence the lawyers raise in divorce courts are the DV smearing campaigns against men who happen to be professionals with a good salary , assets and property that require fleecing by the legal mafia. Here is were the lines get very blurred. Just like they do when social services remove a child from a good family while leaving a child with parents who utterly abuse their child. Many cops now live in homes repossessed in this way and make every effort to back up crooked lawyers and judges (no juries) manufacturing malicious court orders that are completely illegal.

    It is essential for the crooks running the divorce industry to have an excuse to separate a man from his assets, home and children . Many crooked lawyers increase their property portfolio's during what is maybe the worst experience of a man's life. Accused of endless allegations the ultimate goal is to leave him penniless, homeless and childless. A system so evil it struggles to justify the multi-billion pound divorce industry that has prospered through lies, deceit and court /police intimidation. Also the regular DV articles written by a complicit media are required to back up these mobsters grand larceny.The mass media is totally controlled by media lawyers from the law societies and bar associations that encircle the globe and answer to UGLE in London. One Scottish lawyer hung himself after claiming millions in legal aid while wrongfully accusing 100's of men of child abuse and being investigated .

    When you remove the masonic tinted glasses it is clear to see what they are doing to destroy millions of families. An evil network of legal power now totally out of control.
    FATHER TO PAY £100K FOR CHILDREN USING FROZEN SPERM WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE
    ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS DECISION AGAINST A MAN WHO HAS BEEN SHAFTED BY A WICKED EX-WIFE USING SUBTERFUGE TO EXTORT MONEY FROM HIM WITH THE CONSENT OF A CROOKED JUDICIARY. A COMMON OCCURRENCE IN FAMILY COURTS WERE JURIES HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MASONIC CONTROLLED JUDGES.

    'Father' ordered to pay £100k for children he never knew he had after ex-wife tricked IVF clinic into using his frozen sperm

    A man who had his sperm frozen in case he became infertile was astonished to learn that his ex-wife had tricked an IVF clinic into twice making her pregnant. He then had to pay £100,000 towards the upbringing of the son and daughter he had known nothing about. The father, a 57-year-old retired haulier, is now demanding a change in the law to ensure no other parents go through his torment.

    The astonishing story begins in 1999 when the man was about to have drug treatment for crippling arthritis. He stored sperm at the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge to ensure that he and his wife, who married in 1979, could have a child if the treatment left him infertile. In June 2000 the couple decided to divorce and weeks later she visited the clinic and forged his signature, allowing doctors to create embryos from his frozen sperm and her egg. She gave birth to a girl in June 2001, claiming it was the result of a one-night stand, and a boy in September 2003.

    When the boy needed hospital treatment for a hole in the heart, his mother’s sister phoned the haulier to reveal that both children were his. The man, who had remarried in 2002, then had to tell his new wife that he already had a family. The girl had been in my house when her mother visited my dad, who was dying,’ said the haulier, who cannot be named for legal reasons. ‘I didn’t even know she was mine. My dad died not knowing he had a granddaughter. ‘When the girl got older my ex-wife texted me saying she wanted to see her father. The children asked their mum where they came from and she told them, “The freezer”.’ In 2007 the ex-wife demanded he pay an extra £100,000 after she fell into debt. A judge ruled that a settlement he made after the divorce, in which the woman kept the family home, was unfair because it did not take the two children into account and the man was forced to pay out the cash. He says he has also spent almost £200,000 in legal fees over the years.

    The man now has two daughters aged eight and seven with his second wife. He sees his other two children for two days every fortnight. ‘My new wife has been amazing about it all,’ he said. ‘She speaks to my ex-wife to do the best for the children but it has put a strain on our relationship. ‘I love the children and spend money on taking them out and buying them clothes, but it is an expense I shouldn’t really have. The cost of this has been huge.’ His ex-wife, now 51, said: ‘I don’t believe I have done anything wrong. It was getting later and later for me and I wanted to have a child. If I had not done it then I would not be blessed with my children. I have no regrets.’

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • TERMINATOR'S TERMINATION COULD BE THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY
    terminator Arnie could pay £155m for the biggest showbiz divorce in history

    Arnold Schwarzenegger's divorce from Maria Shriver could cost him £155m, making it the biggest settlement in showbiz history.

    The Terminator star split from his wife of 25 years earlier this month and she is now set to begin divorce proceedings against him following the revelation he fathered a child with their housekeeper Mildred 'Patty' Baena, and it is thought their assets - estimated at £310m - could be divided evenly. While it is believed that the couple signed a pre-nuptial agreement, Shriver may challenge it in the light of her husband's infidelity and length of their marriage. Instead, they would then have to split their net worth, in line with Californian law.

    Shriver could therefore pocket a record divorce payout - even surpassing the £100m basketball star Michael Jordan paid ex Juanita Vanoy in 2007.

    A niece of former US president John F. Kennedy, Shriver is said to have hired celebrity divorce lawyer Laura Wasser to represent her. Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger's latest movie Cry Macho, which was due to be released next year, has currently been put on hold.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • A NATIVE AMERICAN'S VIEW OF MANHOOD
    Lose the idea that you must learn to think like a woman...you do not."

    I was compelled to reply to the recent article entitled "Where have all the good men gone?" because for the past few months, I have been asking myself the same question. I am a man of the tribes of First Peoples (Native American) living on the border between Canada and the US. I work with broken families and focus on guidance and healing for the children. I have been married for 21-years and have a son and daughter. In all my travels, I have realized one thing: Men are no longer 'real men' in the sense that they "no longer walk 'Upright'.

    Most men I meet are weak, spineless 'pussy whipped' girlie men or 'men' who walk around being 'loud and thrusting their chests. Upright men do not 'whine his feelings' when being corrected for distortions in his thinking or actions. He says; "Yes maybe you are right, I will be more aware in the future". A man understands that the measure of a good lover is not how many women he makes love to, but how well he makes love with 'The One Woman'.

    A man does not always need to thrust his chest and posture, in order to maintain his ego. A real man is content in his self knowing. A man knows that the Creator gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. That being, so men and women will listen to each other, twice as much as we speak. A man will always walk 'upright', in the eyes of his woman and children if he is taught to respect their right to a happy life, as much as his own.

    A man does not rely on other men, and their propaganda, to define who he is. A man is self sufficient, and does not need to rely on the handouts of his 'masters', in order for his family to survive; and he contributes to his community. A man will take an afternoon off work to be with his kids, and teach them to be as 'upright men', even if they are girls. period.

    Upright men must be agile and fast of foot; to defend his family in times of trouble, and to do his daily dance. These are just a few examples, but i think you get the thrust of it.

    THE MEDIA

    It is about balance I believe. The media has so twisted this western society that men believe woman will like them if they are cruel (woman like bad boys - those stupid bitches get what they asked for) or rich (often, the same thing). And men are taught to pursue woman who are loose with their gifts (whoring is good - dumb bastards get what they deserve; right Tiger?). This is the 'truth' of what the media teaches, from where i sit. In our remote northern communities, we had no 'cable TV' until the early 1990's. Within one year of introducing this crap into our communities child suicide rates trippled and crime rose dramatically.

    So some communities have now begun 'monitoring' what is broadcast and now block web content, for the benefit of our families. These children saw those fancy cars , beautiful men and woman, riches beyond compare and then compared that to the reality of their existence, and became confused or 'lost'. We are still working to find some of them. Maybe all 'men' in the West need to do the same.

    Lose the idea that you must learn to think like a woman...you do not. Start to think like an 'Upright' man who 'honors' both feminine and masculine, and works to balance those gifts within himself first, and through empathy. Teach the boys to respect themselves and others, as they wish to be respected; and so they and you, will be. Teach boys to listen and learn, before speaking, and teach them how to fish and hunt for crying out loud. As opposed to teaching them to go shopping, or teaching them that men 'do' wear dresses (most do not, except on tv). Teach your son's and daughters to effectively 'defend' against 'bullies'; then say "so what" if they get expelled from school for defending themselves. They have gained 'so much more' from you; and the 'bullies' are presented with an opportunity for positive change, as well.

    Teach girls that they carry many gifts given to them by the Creator, and that these gifts need to be respected; that through the healthy maintenance of these gifts, they are as powerful as the strongest man on earth. I will comment on feminism only so much as to say that this 'concept' (like any other thing in this world), when taken to an 'extreme', only serves to create imbalances in our 'circles' of self, partner, family and community. Such is the nature of taking anything to an extreme i suppose; the male dominated worlds of business and politics are good examples of this idea, and most relevant today. Now some may say that honor, empathy and humility are just different words for 'weakness'. We say, the belief systems behind these words have allowed our peoples' to survive genocide, and now we are 'so strong in spirit' that many fear our truths'. I am not saying, 'return to the old ways'. I am suggesting that, "surely, there must be a middle ground". Like the truth about 'all' men these days. In these days of the 'world turning over' what will you do?, you men! When the going gets tough, will you run to find a nipple suckle?, or will you once and for all...stand up.

    Be well brothers and sisters. To any i may have offended and who might point fingers; i would say "remember, when you point at others, there are three fingers pointing right back at you". (try it :) I did so, before writing this. If i offended any in the telling of these 'truths'', so be it.

    "You are the leader, you have been waiting for" - Hopi

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • WHY I'VE NEVER MARRIED
    by Joshua Daniels (henrymakow.com)

    I am a young 43 years old. Just today, a very pretty 19-year-old girl gave me the eye, meaning, I have no trouble getting attention from women. At least five different women have told me they wanted to marry me, I've earned nearly a million dollars in the last twelve years, I'm college educated and very smart, very handsome, I'm good at conversation, I'm in touch with my emotions, I want children, and I want to be married.

    So why aren't I?

    Women have laid a minefield between themselves and Men. I will not cross it. I see the bodies of the foolish and foolhardy on the ground ahead of me, and I know better. I can see the other side, and there are NO survivors. Not only that, I know that if I brave the obstacles, and so win fair maiden, she will not be my wife: I'll be hers. That's just not an arrangement I'm interested in.

    The legalities of marriage are a brazen affront to my manhood and would strip me of the authority necessary to fulfill my responsibilities as husband and father. I'm a Man, not a boy, not a guy, not a featherless biped: I'm a Man. By my very nature as a Man, I have the right and the authority to bind myself by my signature or given word on any matter. The States of the Union and of Europe, though, claim that I can bind myself in every matter except my own life. I can sign a contract to pay twenty million dollars for a house, and it's valid and binding, and the State will enforce it with guns and clubs, whether I actually have the money or not, but if I sign a commitment to be Husband and Father, it means nothing to the States without their permission, and they would refuse to acknowledge my rights as Husband and Father in their courts. Only the signature of some state-authorized "dignitary" has the authority to grant meaning to my signature on that marriage license; without that official's signature, legally, I didn't make any commitment at all.

    What I'm describing here is the legal concept of "solemnizing," that is, for a state official to make my agreement "solemn," or, in plain English, "serious." No man or woman's signature on any marriage license anywhere in the US means anything unless a state official solemnizes it, or "makes it serious." Read the law in your state; it says exactly that. You couldn't make this stuff up.

    How about the fact of licensing itself? A license is official permission. This is true perversity. I need no one's permission to make an illegitimate child except the woman involved. I need no one's permission to join Big Brothers and be a surrogate father to someone else's child except the Big Brothers organization. But to make and raise my own sons and daughters, and to give them my name and cover them with my wing while they learn to fly, which is their birthright and beyond any government's right to deny them, the state thinks I need its permission. Sheer fantasy. Utter arrogance, backed with weapons wielded by over-age boys who fear Men. They fear Women, too, while we're on that subject. Look at how they treat them. But the real problem here is that women have believed this lie, and insist that a marriage be "legal." Are you more honest or committed because you got the state's permission to say "Yes?" Really? Then go away. You just admitted that your word is worthless without a gun to your head. "Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. Anything more is of the evil one." - Jesus

    Legal marriage also brings me under a family court. I have never, ever, heard of a just decision from a "family court," nor will I. I have seen only devastation and destruction wrought by these family meat grinders. In law, marriage is a business. I am not making this up; it's written in the statutes. The children are the "produce" of that business, and are owned OUTRIGHT by the state, because the state licensed the business. I am also not making that up; check your own state laws on it; they're on Findlaw.com. The State thinks it owns my relationship with my wife and children. The State thinks that it owns my children outright, and that it has the right to dismember my family, to strip me of authority while saddling me with impossible financial responsibilities, and imprison me if I refuse this theft and humiliation.

    The State is wrong. It has the power to inflict evil on me, as do any group of men who are better armed than I, but never, ever, will it have the right. Because I know these things, I understand that I'm guilty of sin against myself if I participate in my own castration. I would be guilty of sin against my family if I subject them to these wolves in black dresses who call themselves Family Judges. I would be guilty of sin against God if I yield the authority He delegated to me. I won't do that.

    Today's American woman wants a man who'll take responsibility without authority. Absolutely every time I've set down with a woman who was interested in marrying me for a serious discussion about it, she refused to address the issues. Simple questions about who would have what authority and which responsibilities belong to whom, as she sees it, have been ducked, ignored, or countered with angry changes of subject. Really. That means they want the normal arrangement, in which the husband has all the responsibility but no authority whatsoever. When you have responsibility without authority, you are a scapegoat, pure and simple. I am no one's scapegoat, nor shall I ever be.

    American women look to the Government to be their protector and provider. The one that a woman looks to for protection and provision when she's no longer under her father's care is her husband in her heart. The man she's sleeping with, even with a marriage certificate, is the Other Man. I'm no one's Other Man. Please notice that that sentence ends with a period. I've saved the worst for last.

    American women have repudiated the contract of marriage at its most basic level. The contract is this: he gets children, and she gets to be part of a family lineage. If the couple is infertile, the relationship takes on a different character, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but the contract, at its heart, is children for membership. American women have declared, with the backing of men in black dresses who control sheriff's deputies, that the children are theirs no matter what, and they'll keep the name and the money and property, too. They take, but do not give, and what should be given, they claim the right to take back, with government backing, so the husband and father is always under a sword. So, since there's nothing in it for me from any white woman I've ever met, and I won't mess with a DNA formula that's been top-notch for at least six thousand years, I'm not married.

    Let me be clear, women: you have changed the arrangement so that there is NOTHING in it for me. You've even made the "love" and "acceptance" that should come with a wife into worthless words lacking substance by the stance you've taken on the matters that weigh more. Given the choice between dying castrated and without lineage versus frustrated and without lineage, I will choose frustrated and without lineage, every time. Other men may make other choices; that is their business, and the women who choose them will forever whine about the lack of real Men in their worlds. You harvest what you plant.

    The reason women's harvests are empty of commitment is because at planting time, they planted none. They always held in reserve the right and power to steal back what they were "giving." "Giving" is in quotes there because the thing they do isn't really giving, no matter how much they whine about it being so much, all the best years, all their heart, etc. I won't even be friends with a woman any more, though I enjoy their company tremendously, because they assume that time spent equals marriage interest, and fall hard for me, while insisting on keeping me in Other Man status and rejecting the basic marriage contract. My basic integrity prevents me from putting more women in that position of falling hard without hope, and my responsibility to God for the position and authority He's given me keeps me from settling for anything but Husband and Father status. When, and if, I ever meet a woman who understands these things, has renounced her Government Husband-Father, and who is still of childbearing age, and who is attractive enough that I don't cringe when she reaches for me, I will consider her a candidate for Wife. Women who endorse the evils listed here are alone, or lonely, and with good reason. They are afraid of Men, and insist on attempting to join with over-age boys who accept the castration and humiliation of the system those women endorse. They wish they had Men, but fail to realize that only Women get Men.

    There are real Women out there, but they have already discerned for themselves the lies of the blatantly mistranslated Romans 13:1, and have made or are making themselves ready for a real Man, who submits to God and no other. Those who threw cubs with an Other Man and were surprised to find themselves abandoned are dealing in fantasy as they search for the arrangement they can no longer fulfill. They are the "silly women" of 2Ti 3:6-7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • MASONIC JUDICIAL MAFIA BEHIND STATE CHILD THEFT
    justice wall Judicial decisions (no juries) behind the seizure of children into the hands of the molesters running state childrens homes and adoption agencies like Jersey's Haut de la Garenne

    A judge attacks my 'one-sided' child protection stories - but it cuts both ways.

    The judgment that Mr Justice Bellamy has published makes for illuminating reading, and not just for its attack on me, says Christopher Booker.

    In March, the number of applications by social workers to take children into care set a new record: 882 in a single month. Over the past year, my reports on how our highly secretive “child protection” system seems, too often, to collude in seizing children without proper justification have provoked considerable irritation in a number of judges – and last week the judiciary hit back. Mr Justice Bellamy, presiding over a case to which I have referred several times, took the unusual course of publishing a judgment in which he was highly critical of me for my “unbalanced” and “inaccurate” reporting. Then the head of the family courts, Lord Justice Wall, in his ruling on another case, swiftly endorsed Bellamy’s attack on me (despite his own earlier criticisms of the “shocking” determination of some social workers to place children in “an unsatisfactory care system”).

    I am not displeased that Bellamy has published his judgment, because the main part of it provides a rare opportunity to see how a judge may rely on a particular medical argument which has become increasingly controversial. But first I must deal with his criticism of my reporting. In the many hundreds of words I have written about this case, on five separate occasions, he singled out only two points as inaccurate. On one of these he was right: I was misinformed that a particular medical witness had appeared in another of Bellamy’s cases. The next day, however, the judge had to add a supplementary judgment, correcting some of what he had said. It emerged that he had made several factual errors in his references to me. These included misquoting what I had written, through reliance on a website (which he misspelt), and claiming that my articles had appeared in The Daily Telegraph.

    Bellamy went on, however, to use my two errors as his text for a general homily on how inexcusable it is to give a tendentious account of family cases based on a one-sided picture given by aggrieved parents. This might sound damning to anyone unfamiliar with the whole secretive system, but it takes no account of the extraordinary obstacles placed in the way of any journalist wishing to report fairly on them. On more than one occasion when I approached a local authority to check on the facts of what seemed a very disturbing case, the only response was to seek a gagging order prohibiting me from mentioning the case at all. When I accurately reported on one case so embarrassing to the council concerned that it eventually dropped its bid to seize a child, the judge ruled that any future reference to the case outside the court could lead to summary imprisonment. So the only recourse left to those trying to establish the facts of such cases is rigorously to test what can be learned from the few people willing to speak, and to come to as informed and judicious a view as possible.

    Something else came to light in Bellamy’s judgment, however, that is far more important than his criticism of me. The case before him concerned a couple who last year became so concerned that their six-week old baby had developed a “floppy arm” that in the middle of the night they took it to hospital to be examined. X-rays showed the child had suffered a “non-displaced” fracture of the humerus. The police were summoned to arrest the parents, who were led off in handcuffs and held for hours in police cells. Coventry social workers took the child into care and the police charged the father with physically abusing his son. Now the judge has delivered his fact-finding judgment, on the basis of which he will decide the child’s future in September, we can see, for the first time, that its injuries included not only the fractured arm but also six “metaphyseal fractures” and several marks or bruises. (“Metaphyseal” refers to the metaphysis, the part of a long bone near where it meets a joint, the part that grows in childhood.) All of this sounded like a very grave set of injuries, which might point to serious physical abuse. The court heard that in every other respect the couple seemed to be devoted, conscientious parents, anxious only to do the right thing by their child. But what clearly weighed most heavily with the judge were those “metaphyseal fractures”. He heard evidence from no fewer than four medical experts that metaphyseal fractures are a virtually certain sign of “non-accidental injury” (a phrase used 20 times in his judgment), implying intentional physical harm.

    Finding on this basis that the child had definitely been abused, Bellamy then saw it as his duty to identify the “perpetrator”. Based on the timing of the events that led to the parents rushing their child to hospital, he concluded that the main injury must have been inflicted in a brief interval when the father was out of the room, and the person responsible must have been the mother. The police, he argued, had been wrong to charge the father (a charge still awaiting trial). The judge was thus, in effect, accusing the mother of a crime. The problem with regarding metaphyseal injuries as an indicator of abuse is that in recent years ever more medical experts have strongly questioned the idea. Their studies show that metaphyseal fractures may occur in babies with soft, still-forming bones, with minimal trauma. They even question whether such injuries can be properly described as fractures at all. The real explanation, they believe, lies in a metabolic bone disease, a contributory factor to which may be a deficiency in Vitamin D (of the type which evidence showed the mother in our present case to have). Only this month a leading American expert, Dr Marvin Miller, published a major new study suggesting that “the cause of multiple unexplained fractures in some infants” might be “metabolic bone disease, not child abuse”. Also something of an expert on this subject is Dr James Le Fanu of this newspaper, who in 2005 published a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine entitled “The wrongful diagnosis of child abuse: a master theory”. In another paper, “The misdiagnosis of metaphyseal fractures: a potent cause of wrongful accusations of child abuse”, he described how the theory of metaphyseal fractures as characteristic of child abuse, first advanced by Dr Paul Kleinman in the US in 1986, was taken up by a small group of radiologists in Britain who became much in demand in our courts as expert witnesses. In 2005, under the headline “Happy, loving parents? They must be child abusers”, Dr Le Fanu explained in these pages how reliance on this diagnosis in the criminal courts was already strongly contested, to the point where it became discredited. But in the family courts, he wrote – citing a case remarkably similar to the one before Mr Justice Bellamy today – the theory was unchallenged.

    It is certainly noticeable from Bellamy’s account of the evidence that it was all strictly according to Kleinman’s theory. The four expert witnesses he heard all came across as committed advocates of the Kleinman thesis, in arguing that metaphyseal fractures are an indicator of child abuse. For whatever reason, not one expert was called who was prepared to challenge that view. Bellamy himself said that these injuries are often regarded as “pathognomonic of abuse”, meaning they can have no other cause – seemingly unaware that there is a growing body of scientific opinion to suggest that this may not be their cause at all.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • MORE JERSEY CARE HOME ABUSES HERE
  • ROYAL WEDDING : WILLS WON'T SUFFER THE SAME FATE AS OTHER MEN
    There is a two tier legal system that showed its true colours when Diana divorced Charlie boy.

    Despite him being the son of the richest despot on the planet and inherited the Duchy of Cornwall a vast estate worth billions , she got a settlement of £17 mill. Now that may seem a substantial pay off, but in terms of the percentage of what Prince Charles was worth it is likely less than one per cent of the whole estate. Estates the Royals hide behind inferring they are all owned by an 'invisible' Crown. A crown that is used to manipulate their vast estates and protect them from the laws the rest of us have to endure.

    Wills will inherit the lot when he eventually becomes king and if and when his own marriage collapses, and going by the long history of the royals that will be almost certain , the same thing will happen to Kate Middleton. She will get a fraction of the estate of King William if the marriage lasts that long, as the Queen and future monarchs control the British courts by hand picking the masonic lackeys who become the judiciary . They suggest they are at arms length from the legal and political systems but that is a blatant lie. The judicial mafia have a very different approach to men not part of their creepy network of power. These men are utterly destroyed left homeless, penniless and childless and ensures the Royals survive by weakening all men who they do not buy and control via their freemasonic secret society network controlled by the Duke of Kent.

    Men across the UK and their future descendants cannot inherit their wealth, as very few survive a lifetime without being dragged into these secret courts and literally shafted. While the streets of London will be jumping with the royal 'sheeple' who don't have the ability to think for themselves and are groomed via their media systems to show allegiance to this mafia, the royal entitlement rolls on producing another layer of royal leeches that will live off the sweat and toil of the enslaved men their judicial goons fleece to prop up their own power, wealth and privilege. A shocking indictment of the way British men and their families are controlled by the biggest parasities on the planet.

  • The Duchy of Cornwall exposed
  • Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation states the Prince of Wales doesn't pay tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall
  • Royal Special: Sovereign wealth incalculable (in 2002)
  • MURDER BY THE MONARCHY(VIDEO)
  • Anthony Julius at Mishcon de Reya, who famously negotiated a £17million pay off for Princess Diana
  • MORE CROWN SCAMS HERE
  • HIGH COURT JUDGE SITTING IN TENERIFE DEALS WITH CHILD PROTECTION CASES
    nicholas mostyn High Court judge 'sits' in Tenerife: Sensitive child protection cases will be heard by telephone in hotel room

    A High Court judge responsible for handling Britain’s most sensitive emergency court cases over Easter will be conducting hearings by phone from his holiday 1,800 miles away in Tenerife. Sir Nicholas Mostyn, who earns £172,000 a year, is the duty judge for family hearings, often traumatic child care proceedings and bitter divorces. He is understood to be with his new partner, fellow barrister Elizabeth Saunders, whose husband Mark was shot dead by police.

    Last night the Judicial Communications Office (JCO) insisted Sir Nicholas could deal with cases by email and telephone. But judges and lawyers expressed concern that it could cause a problem if an urgent matter needed to be dealt with in person and were surprised at the move by such a high-ranking duty judge. Judges are already under scrutiny over the increasing number of privacy injunctions granted to celebrities who want to keep their misbehaviour out of the media.

    When contacted yesterday, Sir Nicholas on his mobile phone declined to comment. Instead an officer from the JCO confirmed the judge went abroad after seeking permission from the head of the family division. But one judge who specialises in family law cases said that not being in the country could be a problem if an urgent matter could not be dealt with over the telephone.

    While it is possible for judges to deal with emergency family cases by conference call it is usual for duty judges to be no more than two hours’ travelling time from London. It was made clear to The Mail on Sunday that unofficial guidance for duty judges is that they can base themselves outside the capital but they should not be as far away as Scotland or anywhere where travelling times or disruption could prevent them from attending court. A judge conducting a case in Tenerife would need to hear the application via a mobile phone link which might be subject to an interrupted signal or routed through a hotel switchboard, which could raise concerns about security.

    If a judge is in the Canary Islands, he also may not be in tune with current UK events from which the facts of the emergency case may have sprung. Families caught up in traumatic child cases could also be perturbed to learn that the judge may have only just come off the beach or left the swimming pool. Lawyer Mark Stephens, who has been involved in many injunction cases, said: ‘If you are going for an injunction over the Easter Holiday you will be going for one which is very important and can’t wait for someone to fly back from Tenerife to hear the case.

    The cases which a duty family judge might deal with are often complex emergency care proceedings brought by local authorities or claims a child is to be unlawfully removed from his parents. Because the interests of the child are paramount, these cases are considered to be the most important heard by the courts. Sir Nicholas is named as the family court’s duty judge between April 20 and 26.

    It is understood he flew out of the country on Friday with Mrs Saunders, whose husband was shot dead in a stand-off at his £3 million West London apartment in 2008. The JCO said: ‘It is far from unusual for the duty judge to work from a location other than his or her home. Mr Justice Mostyn is available to deal with applications by email and telephone in the same way as he would from his home. ‘He has already dealt with a number of applications since being on duty. The nature of those is confidential to the parties.

    ‘He specifically agreed in advance with the President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall, the detailed arrangements for cover as duty judge. The need for a duty family judge to attend a hearing in person is very, very exceptional. In virtually all cases, email or telephone contact is sufficient and the procedure rules allow for this.

    'It's remarkable that a duty judge has gone away at this time'

    ‘The need to attend in person occurs when the judge feels it is necessary to take oral evidence. In those circumstances in the past, an urgent hearing has been arranged 24 hours or more later after an interim order by email. ‘On this occasion the President of the Family Division offered to hear any case if one should be needed.’ The Mail on Sunday disclosed in December that Sir Nicholas, who was one of Britain’s best-known divorce lawyers before being appointed a judge last year, had left his wife of almost 30 years for Mrs Saunders.

    Earning up to £500 an hour, Sir Nicholas earned the nickname ‘Mr Payout’ because of the large sums he won for wives. Mrs Saunders, 40, who uses her maiden name of Clarke in her career as a barrister, is said to have worked closely with Sir Nicholas on cases in the past. There is no suggestion that their affair began before the death of her husband, but it is thought they were seeing each other when she attended the high-profile inquest into the shooting in October last year.

    Friends describe Sir Nicholas, who became a judge last April, as ‘flamboyant and entertaining’. He once said the three ingredients for a successful marriage are ‘an active sex life, a tidy home and no arguments about money’.

    One of his clients, Earl Spencer, is suing him over alleged errors in handling his divorce that he claims cost him an extra £1 million. In a High Court writ, Princess Diana’s brother revealed that Sir Nicholas had named seven piglets after the judge in the case, Lord Justice James Munby, out of apparent displeasure at the way he handled it.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS COURT JUDGEMENT AGAINST A MAN OVER SURROGATE BABY
    THE SHEER LUNACY OF A JUDICIARY THAT HAS GOTTEN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL AND THEIR READING OF FAMILY LAWS THAT ALLOW MEN TO BE ENDLESSLY FLEECED BY GOLDDIGGERS.

    Couple are ordered to pay surrogate mother £568 a month for the baby they will never see

    A couple who lost custody of their baby daughter to her surrogate mother have been ordered to hand over more than £500 a month maintenance for the child.

    Today they spoke of their disgust that they would be forced to pay for someone else to raise the child they will never see. The father, a leading chef, said the decision by the Child Support Agency ‘added insult to injury’ and that he would appeal against it. He and his wife, who had suffered six late-stage miscarriages including four sets of twins, used a surrogacy website to find a single mother of two on benefits who was willing to carry the baby they longed for. They made an informal agreement to pay her £10,000 in expenses.

    But halfway through the pregnancy she decided she wanted to keep the baby and a judge ordered that the woman, who was also the biological mother, could keep the child despite her earlier promise. The couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs W to protect the child’s identity, later relinquished their contact rights because they said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes. They allowed the surrogate, known as Miss N, to keep the £4,500 they had already given to her.

    But now Mr W must also pay £568 in child support every month as the biological father of the eight-month-old girl. ‘She cannot say, “I am keeping your child and now you must pay for it”,’ he said. ‘She has taken away our baby and now she is taking our money. To me, that is completely wrong. The CSA has made the decision as if we were a couple who had broken up, but our situation is unique.

    ‘We were not having a baby together, we had agreed for her to carry a child for myself and my wife. ‘I have written to Downing Street and my MP to call for a change in the law.’

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Legal mafia and mass media smear all young men over DV that is used to control mens estates
  • MASONIC JUDGES JAILING FATHERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT DEBTS
    The Debtors Act 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt. So why are men being jailed by the judiciary for debts manufactured in secret family court hearings and government agencies?

    Prison terms increasingly given for maintenance debts, but critics say policy is counterproductive

    Growing numbers of fathers are being sent to prison for missed child maintenance payments, prompting complaints that the sentences are disproportionate and undermine any chance of dads supporting their children. At least 50 parents are expected to serve sentences for non-payment of monies owed to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (parent body to the Child Support Agency) in the last financial year, double the number three years ago. The majority of cases involve fathers missing payments to support a child from a previous relationship. The number of parents getting suspended sentences – and therefore criminal records – each year has also risen. Between April 2007 and March 2008, 25 people were sent to prison for missed payments and 480 were given suspended sentences. Figures for the first half of 2010/11 show that 35 parents were imprisoned and 635 had suspended sentences: the final tally is expected to be at least 50 and 900 respectively.

    Legal experts say typical sentences for debts are 48 days and the full term is served. In effect, this makes them equivalent to terms given for serious crimes, including assault and theft. Craig Pickering, of Families Need Fathers, said: "How can a father or mother care and provide for their children if they are stuck in prison? It is imperative that child maintenance is seen in the context of looking after the child's best interests in every way. A parent is more than a walking wallet."

    The Child Support Agency (CSA) became notorious for its disorganisation. Since its launch in April 1993 it has fallen some £3.8bn short of its target for monies due from absent parents. Critics say that instead of prioritising the worst offenders they are simply picking off soft targets. In one case, the CSA has applied to imprison a father whose missing payment is just over £700, despite the fact that there are many owing tens of thousands of pounds who have received no sanction at all. Stephen Lawson, a solicitor specialising in child maintenance at Forshaws Davies Ridgway, said: "There are huge concerns about whether it's ever right to imprison anyone for a debt; debtors' prisons went out in the 1800s. But it's also hard to understand what the CSA's policy is on debt; they seem to pick on people in an arbitrary manner."

    Michael, a father of three from Cheshire who did not want to give his surname, was sent to prison for six weeks last summer after missing back payments of child support for his oldest son, Ben, who is now 22.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • DEBTORS PRISON WAS ABOLISHED IN 1869
  • Child custody reversal but only if the father is a mason
  • SATANIC FREEMASONIC JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS BEHIND EVIL FAMILY LAW
    A quick flip through last week’s interim review of our family justice system might suggest that all is not entirely well with our family courts. The “system is not working”. It needs “significant change”. “Children and families do not understand what is happening to them.” The time taken to resolve cases is “little more than scandalous”. “Some cases should not be in court at all.” “The costs are huge.” “These are symptoms of a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.”

    But as I checked the report against what I have learnt about this horribly corrupted system, from the dozens of cases I have been following where children have been seized from their parents for no good reason, I had little sense that those responsible for this review have really begun to grasp just how bad the situation has become.

    They rightly bemoan how the average time needed to resolve cases has risen from 12 weeks to 53, how the number of children in care has soared to 70,000, how the cost of this alone has risen to a staggering £3.4 billion a year (making foster care one of our bigger industries). But nowhere do they recognise that one reason is how often social workers make some horrendous initial mistake when they seize children, then spin out the case as they scrabble round for evidence to cover up their error.

    Very occasionally, as in the instance of one mother I spoke to again at length last week, the victims come up against a judge with the independence of mind to challenge the dishonesty of the social workers who have driven the system off the rails. In this case, the social workers’ blunder was to seize the child after the mother had accidentally fallen out of a window. After alleging that this was a suicide attempt, then falsely accusing the mother of being a potential alcoholic and drug addict (all shown to be untrue), they have tried to cover up their blunder by spinning out the court case for well over a year, falsifying evidence, continuously asking for adjournments and stopping at nothing to part a devoted mother from her daughter.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • MARRIAGE: MINUTES TO GET INTO A LIFETIME TO GET OUT OF
    marriage Latest statistics prove marriages are at an all time low. But the facade the media build up about marriage fails to recognise how easy it is to get married but almost impossible to get out of. Western marriages are nothing but dodgy contracts manufactured by the legal mafia that allows them to control men's lives for years when marriages fail. A man's lifes work suddenly becomes the property of the crown , state and their legal henchmen .

    It is no wonder that woman will find it increasingly difficult to attract a long term partner prepared to risk ALL when so many men can now warn the unsuspecting public how divorce is the biggest racket across the globe and were fortunes change hands every day, but only into the hands of the legal mafia who can massively increase their property portfolio's from the fleecing of men including every other asset they can get their greedy grubby hands on. The globe is experiencing a judicial tsunami were self appointed thugs have commandeered our wealth and all of it is completely illegal but disguised as their 'LAW'. Our laws has been corrupted by the utter dregs and scum of the earth who make all other despots pale next to the crooked judges that have created a legal tyranny worth billions. Unless men unite and rid this planet of their scams many more will become victims of their ruthless and brutal oppression enacted against separated men, women married to masons suffering a similar fate.

    See the following link for the latest statistics

  • Marriage rates in England and Wales are at their lowest since records began
  • Judge sends children to Australia with mother and tells father to talk to them via the internet
  • FREEMASONRY BEHIND MASS FATHERLESSNESS
    Once again the western world is being heavily distracted by the upheavals across North Africa. Once again it is an opportunity for us to be so consumed by other parts of the world's troubles, and there are many, that we take our eye off the ball as to the continued threats at home.

    It is our aim to keep that EYE still on the ball despite our mass media pointing their camera's and reporters at other countries troubles. The BBC in particular have been EXPERT at flying their staff to far flung places of the world to report on human rights abuses while ignoring those only a few yards away from their head office in Central London. Fatherlessness and children being psychologically tortured by forces the political and legal mobsters are inflicting, is every bit as treacherous as physical bombing of our families.

    The evil masonic network that utterly controls our political and legal systems are destroying families on a grand scale, separating fathers from their children , denying them their dad's influence and protection . Meantime they are throwing those families onto the streets in their millions , the credit crunch was a good way of diverting attention from the main cause of mass homelessness that is being caused by the judicial mafia in divorce. Wars recently in Afghanistan and Iraq have been used as an enormous distraction from what is going on in our own backyard and allows a smokescreen for draconian measures to be taken, in secret, against millions of families faced with extreme psychological torture meted out by the British Crown's judges and lawyers. Along with the myriad of other government funded agencies who ensure, fathers in particular ,are absolutely destroyed by a tyranny so devious, dangerous and deadly it is hard to fully comprehend until you face this massive wall of blatant corruption.

    Any family not part of their creepy network is assured extreme bullying and thuggery expertly manufactured using dodgy court documents giving bailiff's and the UK's thug cops unbelievable powers over a family but in particular fathers. The media have also been expert at distracting us with endless wars and domestic violence campaigns, while the real wars are being fought against fathers made virtually helpless by a vast army of hidden masonic terrorists doing enormous harm to any man not part of their evil empire or who DARES challenge their greedy and torturous network.
    UNBELIEVABLE JUDICIAL PREJUDICE IN UK DIVORCE WHERE THE WOMAN HAS TO PAY UP
    Lord Justice Jacob, one of the three judges who have reserved giving their judgement on the ex-husband's appeal until a later date.

    Divorced husband appeals after receiving 'minimalist' slice of ex-wife's £57million fortune

    * Stay-at-home father claims he was discriminated against for not being breadwinner

    * Family lived in an inexpensive property, with an old car, no second home, 'very modest' holidays and state schooling

    The man was awarded £5million by a family judge last summer, but is now attacking the payout as 'minimalist' at London's Appeal Court A divorced husband who claims a judge's 'unfair discrimination' led to him being refused a fair share of his ex-wife's £57million fortune has taken his case to the Court of Appeal. The man was awarded £5million by a family judge last summer, but is now attacking the payout as 'minimalist' at London's Appeal Court.

    The award was guided by the old-fashioned 'expectation' that a man's role is to act as provider and breadwinner for his family, his barrister, Martin Pointer QC, told three top judges. Claiming the woman would have walked away with far more had it been her ex-husband's fortune, he added: 'These parties had agreed that neither needed to work, they had agreed that they would share the task, and the joy, of the bringing up of their children together. 'The only logical conclusion was that the judge was guilty of unfair discrimination against the husband,' said Mr Pointer.

    He added: 'This may well have been subconscious, in part a reflection of the Western norm and the expectation that still pervades much thinking, that a man goes out to work and maintains his family. 'This minimalist award accords with a general perception among family lawyers that any financial claim by a husband against a wife is more difficult to prosecute.' The court heard the couple were married for more than 20 years. Neither of them worked, choosing to bring up their family and living in a 'quite modest area of a county adjoining London'.

    Despite his ex-wife's 'extraordinary' inherited fortune, family judge, Mr Justice Bodey, said last year that their lifestyle was 'relatively modest'. They chose to live in an inexpensive property, with an old car, no second home, 'very modest' holidays and state schooling.

    Following the breakdown of the marriage, the wife moved nearby with the children and offered her ex, who had about £320,000 of his own money, £5million in a divorce settlement. He asked for around £18million, but Mr Justice Bodey said the wife's offer 'very generously' met her ex-husband's needs and ruled the court should not 'take further money from the wife's pre-marriage inheritance to enhance the husband's post-divorce financial circumstances'.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER- THE DECLINE OF THE HUMAN FAMILY VIDEO
    BBC GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA ON DIVORCE AND MEDIATION VIDEO

  • Warring couples told to try costly mediation before they enter divorce courts
  • MULTI-MILLIONAIRE (MASON?) GETS LEGAL AID TO FIGHT DIVORCE
    ROW OVER LEGAL AID FOR PHONE TYCOON

    A mobile phone tycoon received public cash to fight one of Scotland’s biggest divorce cases

    TAXPAYERS’ groups reacted with fury last night after it emerged a mobile phone tycoon received public cash to fight one of Scotland’s biggest divorce cases. Jim Morrison, 47, once ranked the country’s 13th wealthiest man, was granted legal aid in his four-year battle with estranged wife Diane. She demanded £20million after learning Morrison had fathered five children with two other women during their 21-year marriage.

    The former nurse, who now suffers from multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, later dropped the figure she was seeking to £10million. Yesterday it emerged a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh has awarded Diane £1.6million. But the Scottish Legal Aid Board was criticised after papers revealed both warring parties were given taxpayers’ cash to fund their battle. Labour’s justice spokesman Richard Baker said: “State funding was not put in place for millionaires to fight civil cases. The Scottish Legal Aid Board need to look into this matter and ensure that their criteria are suitably robust and that funding is properly targeted.”

    Charlotte Linacre, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, added: “Many taxpayers will find it ridiculous that they have been funding the legal costs of millionaires. “Legal aid is a crucial service for people who’d struggle to pay a lawyer and get a fair trial, people need to be reassured that this minted pair aren’t using it to pass them a hefty bill. “The system clearly needs to be improved to ensure it is focused on the right cases.” The couple, who are both originally from Clydebank, married in 1988 and moved to Bearsden, near Glasgow. After they separated in 2008, Diane discovered her husband had three children to a woman living in Scotland. Morrison also has two children with another lover. Because of his financial success he was able to set up a trust fund for the children’s benefit.

    Almost half the money awarded to his ex-wife will be paid from that fund. In her judgement Lady Clark described Diane as “a charming, attractive and caring woman”. But, the court heard, her husband had been leading a double life. Because of Diane’s health problems, they had decided a pregnancy should be terminated. Diane also found a letter from another woman which revealed her husband’s infidelity. He claimed the affair was over but because he regularly worked away from home he was able to continue the relationship. His lover became pregnant and gave birth soon after Morrison had been comforting his wife after her abortion.

    The “other woman” then went on to have two more children by him. Another affair with a lawyer who had worked for him resulted in two more children.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Married phone tycoon fathered five children with two lovers after his wheelchair-bound wife had an abortion
  • MORE LEGAL AID SCAMS HERE
  • MASONIC CABAL ACTING FOR THE CROWN IMPLICATED IN CHILD SNATCHING
    Tim Loughton, the children's minister, slams my 'unhelpful' campaign against the child-snatchers.

    The minister responsible, Tim Loughton, does not seem to think that forced adoption is a problem, says Christopher Booker . Last November I was invited to meet Tim Loughton, our Children’s Minister, for what turned out to be an hour-long, off-the-record interview. I was pleased to accept, thinking he would want to discuss the many examples I have reported of how our system of “child protection” has gone horribly off the rails.

    I have investigated dozens of such cases, where children are forcibly seized by social workers from loving parents, who find themselves treated like criminals by police, judges, lawyers and “experts” who all seem part of a system rigged against them. All these cases show a similar pattern, in which the basic principles of British justice seem to be stood on their head – a national scandal which can only continue because its workings are hidden behind such a wall of secrecy. When I met the minister, however, I was disturbed to find that he did not seem to want to discuss what my researches had brought to light. His only concern seemed to be to dismiss the cases I had reported as being a tiny minority of exceptions, wholly unrepresentative of a system which is otherwise working fine.

    Since our discussion was off-the-record, I naturally observed the rules by not referring directly to what passed between us. But Mr Loughton has now attacked me in a magazine interview, describing my articles as “damaging”, “demoralising” and “very unhelpful”. He also let the magazine print a letter that he wrote to The Sunday Telegraph, which was not published in the paper partly because it was too long but also because it seriously misrepresented what had passed between us. It claimed that he had requested the meeting because he “wanted to know more about the cases” I had reported. In fact, he showed no interest in what I had written, or why I believed that the stories I had covered were much too typical of a system which has become shockingly corrupted.

    But it is not going to be possible to keep the lid forever on this scandal, which is as nasty as anything going on in Britain today.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • UK'S EVIL JUDGES PUT GOLDDIGGERS INTERESTS BEFORE SEVERELY DISABLED MEN
    Kevin Mansfield Catherine Mansfield If there is ONE judgement that shows the evils of the British judiciary it is this one. How assets can be STOLEN in the most draconian way and to satisfy the needs of GREED before DECENCY.

    Divorce judge orders car crash amputee to hand over more than half of his £500k compensation to ex-wife of five years

    * Kevin Mansfield met his wife ten years after losing his leg in a car crash in 1992
    * They had two children before end of five-year marriage
    * Judge says she should get £285,000 of the compensation payout which is his only means of support.

    A disabled man has been ordered to hand most of a £500,000 compensation pay-out for losing his leg to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement.

    Kevin Mas a result of the decision to award the money - his only means of support - to his former partner. Ex-wife Catherine is in line to receive £285,000 of the money, but Mr Mansfield today won the right to appeal the ruling at the Civil Appeals Court in London. Mr Mansfield, 41, was still a student when he lost a leg and suffered serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992.

    He met his now ex-wife Catherine, 37, five years after he received a £500,000 compensation payout in 1998. After having two children together they split in 2008. But, at a divorce hearing in May last year, Mr Mansfield was horrified to hear a judge rule that his compensation should be 'put in the pot' and divided as an asset of the marriage. Alan Barton, for Mr Mansfield, today told the court he had been forced to sell his car on eBay and is faced with losing his home after the divorce judge handed his ex-wife the money.

    The barrister said that, if the decision is allowed to stand, Mr Mansfield will have no choice but to sell his home - which has been specially adapted for his needs - and move to a cheaper part of the country, away from his children. Arguing Mr Mansfield, from Chelmsford, had suffered a 'manifest injustice', Mr Barton said the judge paid too much attention to 'the ideal situation that the wife would like' and 'ignored his needs as a disabled man'. Lady Justice Black has now recognised the importance of Mr Mansfield's case by granting him permission to appeal against the divorce payout.

    'The husband's disabilities and amputated limb are an important factor in this case,' she said, and her fellow judge, Lord Justice Thorpe, added that the case raises 'an important point of principle'. Mr Barton earlier told the judges: 'Where a wife marries a husband who is seriously disabled, and all the assets come from his damages, how far do his needs as a disabled man have any priority over the ideal situation that the wife would like to be in?'

    Underlining that 'Mr Mansfield's only resources come from his damages award,' the barrister said the judge had also 'over-prioritised' the needs of the two 'normal, healthy children', who are cared for by their mother at her home in Warwick Square, Chelmsford. Lady Justice Black said the case was unique 'because the only capital arises from the damages awarded and he met the wife in circumstances of enduring disability.'

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • CRAZY RULING IN UK COURTS CLASSES A RAISED VOICE AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    A panel of five judges, led by Lady Hale, had been hearing the case of Mihret ­Yemshaw, 35, who said that she was a ­victim of domestic violence and, therefore, entitled to a new home under the 1996 Housing Act. Officials in Hounslow, West London, had turned down her claim after hearing that her husband had never hit her, nor even threatened to do so. It all came down to the meaning of the word ‘violence’.

    Mrs Yemshaw told the court that her husband — a 40-year-old bus driver born, like her, in Ethiopia — had shouted in front of their two children, failed to treat her like a human (whatever that may mean) and hadn’t given her any housekeeping money. She also said she was frightened that he might take the children away from her. Does this amount to violence? Lady Hale thought so. In what strikes me as an extraordinary judgment, with worrying implications for the way we’re governed, she said the ­meaning of the word had moved on since Parliament passed the Act in 1996. Violence, she said, ‘is capable of bearing several meanings and applying to many different types of behaviour. These can change and develop over time’.

    Now, I can imagine that in some relationships — and I exclude my dear friends — it must be pretty miserable to live with a loud-mouthed, domineering partner (although Mrs Yemshaw’s ­husband protests that he ‘never even screamed or swore at her’). So the last thing I want is to make light of it. But the point is that when our elected representatives passed the Housing Act 1996, they were aware that there are degrees of unpleasant behaviour in a marriage or partnership, ranging from mild carping or nagging, all the way up through shouting and swearing to actual, physical violence. They had to decide at which point on that scale of unhappiness the State, in its mercy, would offer victims of ill-treatment the statutory right to a separate home. And since large sums of public money were at stake, they set it high — at the point of ‘violence’ or the credible threat of it.

    As Lady Hale seems to accept, they meant physical violence. After all, if Parliament had intended to offer new homes to partners who’d been shouted at or denied housekeeping money, wouldn’t it have said so? But this argument cuts no ice with m’lady, who has got hold of the curious idea that when a word shifts its meaning, so too does the law. Isn’t this a thoroughly dangerous notion, in a world in which ‘wicked’ is so rapidly coming to mean ‘good’? Mind you, I don’t believe that violence really has changed its meaning in the blink of an eye since 1996. It seems to me that Lady Hale, out of the softness of her heart, simply wishes that Parliament had been more generous with your money and mine when it decided who should and who shouldn’t be rehoused.

    So she and her fellow judges have taken it upon themselves to invent a law, redefining violence to include non-violence. True, I must make an honourable exception for Lord Brown, who voiced ‘profound doubt’ about the majority ruling. But as for the rest, Lewis Carroll put it well in Through The Looking Glass: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    Or as Lady Hale put it in a similar tone: ‘It is not for government and official ­bodies to interpret the meaning of the words which Parliament has used. That role lies with the courts.’ Well, up to a point, m’lady. But in my respectful submission, like so many judges, you’re going far beyond that fuzzy line between interpreting the law and making it up as you go along. Of course, the rot started with the Human Rights Act, ­enforcing in British Courts a European Convention so loosely worded that it offers endless scope for judicial lawmaking on the sly.

    Oh well, I suppose we’re saddled with Hale’s Law for the foreseeable future — and no doubt there’ll be queues of aggrieved partners, fed up with being shouted at, demanding their right to new homes. I can’t help wondering where this will leave my shouty friends, if they ever get sick of each other (which I doubt they will). Each will have a cast-iron case against the other. So who gets to keep the house? Plenty of lucrative work for the lawyers there. As for myself, I have nothing to fear from Hale’s Law, because I’m not much of a shouter (and I’d never dare yell at Mrs U if she failed to pack my tie).

    No. Like so many of my weedier fellow Englishmen, the weapon I prefer to use on the battleground of marriage is good old passive aggression: the martyred look, the sigh, the over-elaborate apology for the most minor offence; the faux-meek ‘Whatever you say, dear’. I know, I know. It must make me hell to live with. How long before Lady Hale ­classifies me as a violent criminal?

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BARMY JUDGES NOW CLAIM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CAN BE JUST A RAISED VOICE
    Lady Hale UK'S CROOKED JUDGES STEALING MEN'S ASSETS ON A GRAND SCALE HAVE USED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS THEIR EXCUSE. THIS HAS BEEN LINING THE MASONIC COFFERS THEY ALL OPERATE FROM. NOW JUDGES ONCE AGAIN ARE ILLEGALLY CHANGING THE LAW TO DESCRIBE A RAISED VOICE AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE LEGAL MAFIA HAVE BEEN DISTORTING AND LYING FOR YEARS TO JUSTIFY HUGE LEGAL AID BILLS MANY EX-WIVES LAWYERS RUN UP WITH IMPUNITY.

    ALSO MANY LAW FIRMS ARE MASSIVELY INCREASING THEIR PROPERTY PORTFOLIO'S WHEN HOMES ARE REPOSSESSED TO PAY MASSIVE LEGAL BILLS AND THEY THEN ACQUIRE THOSE HOMES AT KNOCK DOWN PRICES. THE WHOLE DIVORCE SYSTEM HAS BEEN SET UP TO LINE THE POCKETS OF CROOKED CRIMINALLY CORRUPT LAWYERS WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN EQUALLY CORRUPT JUDICIAL CABAL. BRING BACK JURIES FOR ALL DECISIONS WERE HOMES ARE BEING CARVED UP AND STOLEN FROM INNOCENT MEN BEING MADE HOMELESS ON A VAST SCALE.


    Shout at your spouse and risk losing your home: It's just the same as domestic violence, warns woman judge

    Men and women who shout at their partners risk being thrown out of their homes under a sweeping ruling by judges yesterday. Raising your voice at a husband or wife, or a boyfriend or girlfriend, now counts as domestic violence under the landmark Supreme Court judgment. The decision also means that denying money to a partner or criticising them can count as violence and bring down draconian domestic violence penalties from the courts.

    The Supreme Court made its decision in the case of a woman who left her husband’s council flat and then demanded a new council home. She said she left because she had suffered domestic violence – even though her husband had never harmed her. Lady Hale, leading a bench of five justices, said the definition of violence must change so that a range of abusive behaviour now counts in law.

    The decision will affect domestic violence and family law which has given the courts powers to throw someone out of their home if their partner accuses them of violent behaviour. Until now violence has always had to mean physical assault. The judges were hearing the case of Mihret Yemshaw, 35, who said she had been subjected to domestic violence and was entitled to be rehoused under the 1996 Housing Act. Officials in Hounslow, West London, turned her down after hearing that her husband had never hit her nor threatened to do so.

    Mrs Yemshaw told them he had shouted in front of their two children, failed to treat her like a human, had not given her housekeeping money, and she was scared he would take the children away from her. Lady Hale said the meaning of the word ‘violence’ had moved on since Parliament passed the Housing Act. The word ‘is capable of bearing several meanings and applying to many different types of behaviour. These can change and develop over time’. The judge added that ‘it is not for Government and official bodies to interpret the meaning of the words which Parliament has used. That role lies with the courts.’

    Lady Hale said that according to the dictionary, violence means physical attack, but can also apply to extreme fervour, passion or fury. One judge, Lord Brown, said he had a ‘profound doubt’ as to whether the domestic violence provisions were ever intended ‘to extend beyond the limits of physical violence’.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • HOW THE LEGAL MAFIA DESTROY MEN WITH MASSIVE LEGAL BILLS IN DIVORCE
    MARCO PIERRE WHITE Chef Marco Pierre White calls off divorce as legal bill soars

    Marco Pierre White and his third wife have called off their acrimonious divorce after piling up an estimated £3 million in legal fees. The Michelin-starred chef and his Spanish-born wife Mati decided to abandon the proceedings after spending a "fabulous Christmas" together.

    This week the couple, who have three children, ended more than three years of litigation involving some 30 hearings. The judge handling the case, Mrs Justice King, was told of the reconciliation at the High Court. A legal source said: "The judge was very nice about it." The saga was costing so much White was acting for himself. Lawyers have speculated a divorce could have cost him up to £25 million of his estimated £50 million business empire. His restaurants include Frankie's pizza chain, Wheeler's of St James's, and Marco at Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium. His wife was also said to be out of funds and ready to represent herself before being put in touch with a family firm on a no-win, no-fee basis. At one stage she was forced to hand over her £250,000 diamond engagement ring as surety for her legal bills.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • THE CHILDREN WHO NEVER SEE DADDY
    One in five children from a broken home loses touch with a parent within three years and never sees them again, it is revealed today.

    Many more lose contact as they grow older, most often with fathers after mothers are awarded custody. Families minister Maria Miller described the scale of family breakdown as a ‘tragedy’, saying urgent reforms are needed to ensure children maintain relationships with both parents. The Government will today unveil the biggest overhaul of child maintenance for more than a decade.

    Mrs Miller said: ‘We know that if effective financial arrangements are in place, those parents are much more likely to stay in contact and much more likely to have a strong relationship with their children. Staying in contact with both parents is absolutely critical to give a child the best start in life.’ Ministers will argue that Labour’s child maintenance system encourages conflict between parents. Separating parents who insist on State intervention to sort out payments will now have to pay a fee of £100. It is hoped that this will encourage more to work together to make their own arrangements, Mrs Miller said.

    Payments will be overseen by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, which is taking over the work of the Child Support Agency. A separate review of family law, being led by the Ministry of Justice, is expected to lead to clearer access rights for non-resident fathers.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • LAWYERS NOW ADMIT FATHERS ACCUSED OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    family court mafia As we have been exposing for a very long time 'unscrupulous' lawyers use false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse during divorces. The consequences for those men are enormous. A lawyer hung himself after claiming millions on legal aid after falsely accusing hundreds of men of child abuse. His wife had to sell their home to repay the massive fraud he committed before he killed himself.The head of the bar council isn't interested in those fathers only changes to Legal Aid that will harm their bank accounts and ability to steal men's children, assets and homes.

    Hundreds of men will face false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse because of legal aid reforms, barristers warned today.

    Under cuts announced by Justice Secretary

    Ken Clarke, aid for divorce cases will be withdrawn with the exception of those involving accusations of violence and abuse. Peter Lodder, chairman of the Bar Council, said the changes created “a perverse incentive” for unjustified claims. “We already get far too many unjustified allegations of this sort and our fear is that there is going to be an enormous increase of this sort of allegation,” he said. “Just imagine the unscrupulous lawyer, or adviser, telling a woman that the only way that she's going to get legal aid is if she says that she's been knocked about or that there is a problem with the children.” Ministers say the changes are designed to protect the vulnerable, while ensuring that large amounts of public money are no longer spent funding expensive court battles between warring couples. Mr Lodder said any increase in false allegations would make it harder to identify victims who needed help.

    He expressed further concern about the impact upon children, who would be subjected to detailed questioning about their allegedly abusive parent which would be traumatic and harmful. “What is particularly unfortunate is that children are often going to be involved. That is going to lead to the whole panoply of them being interviewed by social workers and so on because it is very difficult to dismiss such allegations out of hand, even if they appear totally unfounded,” he said. The Bar Council also fears that the withdrawal of legal aid for divorce will lead to more “DIY” cases in which separating couples represent themselves in court.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Widow agrees to return £1.8m legal aid cash falsely claimed by solicitor
  • DV LAWS AND HOW TO CONTROL MEN NOT PART OF THEIR CREEPY NETWORK VIDEO

    FULL SCREEN

    Human rights abuses on a grand scale and how masons embedded within the political and legal systems disregard the right to TRIAL BY JURY. None more so than in secret families courts were masonic judges relieve men of their assets , homes but most importantly their children. Those children ultimately stolen and placed in homes or adoption were the real abuse takes place.
    YOU NEVER HEAR THE STATE LACKEYS COMPLAINING ABOUT SOLDIERS BLOWING UP WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. WHEN THE VIOLENCE IS JUSTIFIED BY THE RULING MAFIA THEY WILL TWIST ANYTHING TO SUIT THEIR AGENDA.

  • Domestic violence laws being used by masonic politicians, cops, lawyers and judges to control men not part of their creepy network
  • THE UNHAPPIEST BRIDEGROOM IN THE WORLD VIDEO

    FULL SCREEN
    DIVORCE: THE GOLDDIGGERS CHARTER
    nigel page FOR ANY ENGLISHMAN CONTEMPLATING MARRIAGE THIS SHOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW IN AT LEAST IN ENGLAND WOMEN ARE STILL GETTING AWAY WITH SCREWING MEN YEARS AFTER THEY DIVORCE. ONLY ENGLISH CROWN JUDGES COULD MAKE UP THIS UTTER NONSENSE AS THEY ARE GOING ALONG. LAWYERS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH ABSOLUTE MURDER WHEN THEY CAN RESURRECT ACTIONS MANY YEARS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN FINALISED.

    £56m lottery winner ordered to pay £2m to ex-wife who left him for another man TEN YEARS ago

    * Former wife is thought to have wanted £8million
    * First lottery winner successfully sued by an ex-partner

    A £56million lottery winner has been ordered to pay £2million to his ex-wife who walked out on him ten years ago. Nigel Page, 44, was sued by his former wife Wendy shortly after his massive Euromillions windfall earlier this year even though she left him for another man. The human resources director, 43, who is the mother of his 13-year-old daughter, is thought to have wanted £8million. She received a lump sum of £2million in an out-of-court settlement, which she celebrated yesterday when she was spotted with a bottle of Champagne as she left her luxury Gloucestershire home with a mystery man. Mr Page is believed to be the first lottery winner to be successfully sued by an ex-partner for a percentage of their winnings. Despite his heartbreak when his wife walked out with his then-three-year-old daughter, Mr Page had decided to offer his ex £1million following his jackpot win in February.

    But Wendy is believed to have instructed her lawyers to fight for up to £8million. 'Nigel feels very hurt, the last seven months have been horrendous for him. What Wendy has done has ruined everything. Nigel has always provided for their daughter. Even when he was out of work he made sure she was all right. And right from the start Wendy was going to get a big gift.'

    Wendy is also thought to have won a huge increase in maintenance payments for their daughter, up from £150 to £2,000 per month. Legal experts today said it is likely the couple failed to include a legally-binding 'clean break' arrangement in their divorce settlement. Should the clause have been included, Wendy would have been highly unlikely to have won her out-of-court settlement.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE