Unbelievably vile lawyer thinks prenups needed ONLY to stop GREEDY men from fleecing career women
ruth deech The scum and filth that operate for and on behalf of the law society terrorists cannot hide their vile hatred of men that allows the vast fleecing of men's estates and whose only concern is golddigging feminists.

Pre-nup law 'will save career women from greedy men': Top lawyer says it could stop bitterness of break-ups

Career women need a pre-nup law to help them protect their earnings from predatory men, an influential lawyer said yesterday. A law to allow couples to settle the terms of their divorce before their wedding would stop men marrying successful women and then running off with a large share of their wealth, Baroness Deech said. The call from the prominent family lawyer and pro-marriage campaigner came five days before Government advisers publish their own plans for a pre-nup law.

However, any plans for marriage reform from the Law Commission could not become law before the 2015 election. Lady Deech said she intends to bring a pre-nup Bill into the Lords this week with the aim of getting a law before the election. Her intervention comes at a time of intensifying debate between supporters of a pre-nup law, which they say would stop gold-diggers and allow a couple to control their own break-up, and opponents who say that a pre-nup law would dangerously undermine the role of marriage as a lifelong partnership.

Lady Deech said on Radio 4’s Sunday Programme: ‘Lots of young women these days are working, earning well, and would feel it extremely unfair if a young man who they marry and perhaps leaves them is going to take with him a sizeable chunk of what they have worked so hard for. ‘The position of women has changed in the last 40 years and it’s time to recognise that in this country, like virtually every country in the world, two people who are getting married ought to be able, if they want, to make a contract about how their assets are to be divided if they divorce.’ She said the institution of marriage has been so damaged already by easy divorce that pre-nups could do no more harm. ‘The law is very odd,’ she said. ‘It takes no account of fault whatsoever.

'So an awful lot of people end up having to give up homes, children and pensions feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they are innocent and the other one is guilty. ‘The law is in a sad, sad way, but it’s too late – divorce is very prevalent and I do think that pre-nups might make people think very carefully about how dreadful it might be to end it. ‘Secondly it would save them so much money, so much hostility and bitterness, if unfortunately it does come to an end.’

But the Roman Catholic Bishop of Shrewsbury, the Right Reverend Mark Davies, told the programme: ‘My concern is the message that this is likely to be sending to a diminishing number of couples who are seeking the life-long commitment to marriage when we are asking them to prepare their divorce settlement before they have even married.’ Proposals drawn up by the Law Commission are likely to contain proposals for a new pre-nup law. Ministers have, however, indicated that there is no chance of legislation before the election.

English courts have traditionally ignored pre-nup agreements and instead tried to divide a couples’ assets on merit. But the practice was undermined in 2010 when Supreme Court judges ruled that German heiress Katrin Radmacher should keep her £100million fortune after her divorce in accordance with the terms of her pre-nup.

  • Ghetto Barbie's screwing black men just like they have done with white men VIDEO

  • Black Athletes Going Broke Over Child Support (VIDEO)
  • Judicial mafia finally admit to the theft of children through corrupt family courts
    Most of the councillors controlling crooked feminist / homosexual leaning social services are lawyers with practices that use those reports to run up billion dollar legal aid bills . We have personal experience of how that racket works.

    'It must never happen again'(but it will): Appeal judge slams 'cut and paste' decision in family court which led to social workers taking baby from parents unjustly.
  • Judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from their parents, scathing High Court ruling said today
  • Condemned family court judges for 'clandestine arrangement' in which they rubber-stamped the demands of social workers without fair hearing

  • Judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from their parents, a scathing High Court ruling said today.

    It condemned family court judges for a ‘clandestine arrangement’ which meant that they simply rubber-stamped the demands of social workers without giving a fair hearing to the pleas of parents. Rulings by family judges were ‘cut and pasted’ from recommendations emailed to the court by social workers, the High Court found. The secret dealings between council officials and local judges were revealed in a High Court appeal in which Mrs Justice Pauffley ordered that a mother be re-united with her baby.

    The baby was taken by social workers following a court case described by Mrs Justice Pauffley as ‘profoundly alarming’. The High Court judge warned that ‘the practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country'. She said of the case, which involved judges at an unnamed family court and social workers employed by an unnamed council: ‘It is difficult to view the justices as having been independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted the local authority’s analysis of what their findings and reasons might comprise.

    ‘Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many professionals within the family justice system that the practice which operated here exists, that does not mean it is right. ‘It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.’

    The order to end collusion between judges and social workers was endorsed yesterday by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby. In a circular to lawyers, Sir James warned all judges and lawyers to ‘carefully consider’ the case and added that Mrs Justice Pauffley ‘had to deal with circumstances which I hope will never recur.’ The scandal over secret deals between judges and social workers is the latest upheaval in a year of growing controversy over the family courts, the closely-associated Court of Protection, and the way the public has been routinely prevented from knowing what goes on in them.

    Last year the Daily Mail revealed that a judge at the Court of Protection had sent a woman to jail in secret after she refused to stop trying to remove her father from a care home where she believed his life was in danger. All information about the imprisonment of Wanda Maddocks was banned from publication until the Mail investigated the case. In December the Court of Protection was discovered to have ordered behind closed doors that a pregnant Italian woman must undergo a compulsory caesarean operation. The mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was later told by a family court judge, again in secret, that her baby would be taken for adoption in Essex. The secrecy surrounding the two court systems is now being loosened on the instructions of Sir James, who has acted to prevent both clandestine imprisonment and the removal of children from foreign mothers by British judges.

    The exposure of private arrangements between family judges and social workers was exposed following an appeal by a mother whose child was taken into care. The 32-year-old mother, a longstanding drug and drink abuser with a history of domestic violence, had had seven previous children. Six are living with their two fathers and one is in the process of being adopted. When she became pregnant again, she was given a place in a unit run by a specialist family drugs and alcohol service. Mrs Justice Pauffley said it was ‘plain’ that social workers took a decision in advance to remove her baby, who was born in October last year. They cited the mother’s bleak history.

    Family judges first heard the case on 1 November. They were presented with an expert report on the mother, commissioned by social workers and prepared by chartered clinical psychologist Dr Celest Van Rooyen. The psychologist, who also gave ‘very strong and powerful’ evidence in person, said the baby was at risk of harm. The judges declared that ‘the immediate risk of harm is such that his safety requires the continuing removal from his mother’s care. It is proportionate and in his best interests.’ At a second hearing a week later, the same judges said the baby should stay with foster parents because ‘he needs to form an attachment with his primary carers.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley criticised the handling of the case in blunt and uncompromising language. She said the Van Rooyen report on the mother had been researched and written in a day and the psychologist had spoken neither to the mother nor the medical and psychological experts with whom she and the baby were living. Instead, Dr Van Rooyen had relied on documents and a phone call to a social worker.

    Mrs Justice Pauffley said: ‘It surprises and alarms me that Dr Van Rooyen was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother. ‘I struggle to understand how Dr Van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her.’ The High court judge said the family court judges had not written their own ‘findings of fact and reasons’ - their ruling in the case. The entire document had instead been emailed to them by lawyers for the local council before the 1 November hearing. A near-identical document was drawn up by the judges after the second hearing. Mrs Justice Pauffley said this was ‘the result, almost certainly of cutting and pasting.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley said this practice ‘has become the norm’ in local family courts. She said she was ‘profoundly alarmed’ at the practice, which was widespread.

    ‘There was, apparently, an established but largely clandestine arrangement between the local authority and the court which, to my mind, has considerable repercussions for justice.’ Mrs Justice Pauffley added: ‘In public law proceedings the local authority is the applicant. It is not and should never be seen as the decision maker. That is the role of the court. ‘There is no room for confusion. Justice must be upheld. There is no scope for dilution of that fundamental concept.’

    John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP who has campaigned against secrecy in the family courts, said: ‘I am pleased that the senior judges are acting to stop stitch ups and “clandestine” fixing of decisions in the lower courts. ‘What really matters, however, is getting independent evidence into the process rather than the opinion of local authority employees who are instructed in what to say by their management, who are instructed by government as to what outcomes they want.’

  • Prenuptial divorce agreements don't protect men only avoiding marriage can stop the legal mafia in their tracks
    Only a female multi-millionaire got the support of the UK's freemason judicial mafia who allowed her to use a prenup to avoid paying anything to her former husband. Something few men could get away with apart from the freemasons protected by their brothers on the bench. The religious mafia have encouraged men to marry without a warning about the serious financial, physical and mental repercussions of signing a marriage licence. A licence that the legal mafia thinks gives them the right to murder with impunity.

    Prenup laws 'would hit marriage': Bishop says proposed changes to the law would shatter tradition that marriage is for life

    Plans for a law introducing prenuptial agreements for engaged couples would shatter the traditional understanding that marriage is for life, a leading Roman Catholic cleric has warned. The Bishop of Shrewsbury, the Right Rev Mark Davies, said a shake-up of divorce laws would in effect allow couples to set the terms of splitting up before they get married. Legally-recognised ‘prenups’, as the deals are known, are already widely used in the US.

    English courts have traditionally ignored them, with judges trying to divide a couple’s assets on the merits of each case. However, proposals for Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements, drafted by the Law Commission after more than four years of wrangling, threaten to open the door for them to become commonplace in the UK. The Government’s law reform advisers are expected to call for legislation ‘to consider the treatment of pre-nuptial, post-nuptial and separation agreements’.

    But Bishop Davies said: ‘Our society would be proposing to couples seeking marriage that they prepare their own divorce settlement before making the life-long promises of marriage. ‘It is a legal provision which would surely empty the words of the marriage promise for “better for worse... to love and to cherish till death do we part” of all meaning. ‘Pre-nuptial agreements would render these promises provisional by the legal preparations which anticipate divorce.

    ‘We must ask ourselves, what message does this send to couples considering marriage? What message does this send to the young at a moment when the institution of marriage stands at such a historically, low ebb? Landmark case: Judges at the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that German heiress Katrin Radmacher (pictured) should keep her £100million fortune after her divorce in accordance with the terms of her prenup ‘Should we not be putting our efforts into guarding and building-up the institution of marriage rather than steadily undermining it?’

    English courts have traditionally ignored prenup agreements, with judges instead trying to divide a couple’s assets on the merits of each case. But the long-standing practice was undermined by the Supreme Court in 2010, when judges ruled that German heiress Katrin Radmacher should keep her £100million fortune after her divorce in accordance with the terms of her prenup.

    'Should we not be putting our efforts into guarding and building-up the institution of marriage rather than steadily undermining it?'
    The Right Rev Mark Davies, Bishop of Shrewsbury

    The Law Commission will suggest new rules on how one marriage partner should meet the genuine financial needs of the other after divorce. The plans will be presented to Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. But there is little likelihood of any change in the law before next year’s General Election. Agreements in which couples can sketch out the terms of a prenup can already be bought for as little as £25. But a deal sealed with the advice of a lawyer is likely to cost at least £750 for a couple with a home or homes and pension assets.

  • Illuminati satanists use family law to break up families and destroy men
    chris mackney A Father's Suicide Note

    Utterly defeated by the Masonic-controlled family court system, Christopher Mackney, 45, committed suicideDec 29, 2013 in Washington DC.

    Below is an excerpt from his suicide note.

    "Being alienated, legally abused, emotionally abused, isolated and financially ruined are all a recipe for suicide. " Chris MacKney "Nothing I or my attorneys said to my ex-wife's attorney or to the Court made any difference. Truth, facts, evidence or even the best interest of my children had no affect on the outcome."

    The love that my daughter and I shared was truly special. She is a such a sweet, kind and gentle spirit. I am so sorry that I will not be there to see her grow into a beautiful woman. It absolutely crushed me to not be in her life over the last three years. I worked very hard as a father to build her confidence and self-esteem. She is smart, funny and considerate, but she didn't know it yet. I pray that she realizes her strengths and her confidence in herself will continue to grow. I love you dearly, Lily. My son Jack was just entering Kindergarten, when I lost access to him. He is gregarious, outgoing and a great athlete. He is smart and fearless. He could have just as much fun by himself as he could with other kids. Even the older boys in our neighbourhood wanted to play with Jack. It absolutely breaks my heart that I will not be able to help him grow into a man. I love you to, Jack. I miss you both so much.

    My identity was taken from me, as result of this process. When it began, I was a commercial real estate broker with CB Richard Ellis. I lived by the Golden rule and made a living by bringing parties together and finding the common ground. My reputation as a broker was built on my honesty and integrity. When it ended, I was broke, homeless, unemployed and had no visitation with my own children. I had no confidence and was paralyzed with fear that I would be going to jail whenever my ex-wife wanted. Nothing I could say or do would stop it. This is what being to death or 'targeted' by a psychopath looks like. This is the outcome. I didn't somehow change into a 'high-conflict' person or lose my ability to steer clear of the law. I've had never been arrested, depressed, homeless or suicidal before this process. The stress and pressure applied to me was deliberate and nothing I could do or say would get me any relief. Nothing I or my attorneys said to my ex-wife's attorney or to the Court made any difference. Truth, facts, evidence or even the best interest of my children had no affect on the outcome.

    The family court system is broken, but from my experience, it is not the laws, its the lawyers. They feed off of the conflict. They are not hired to reduce conflict or protect the best interest of children, which is why third parties need to be involved. It should be mandatory for children to have a guardian ad litem, with extensive training in abuse and aggression. It is absolutely shameful that the Fairfax County Court did nothing to intervene or understand the ongoing conflict. Judge Randy Bellows also used the Children as punishment, by withholding access for failing to fax a receipt. The entire conflict centered around the denial of access to the children, it was inconceivable to me that he would use children like this. This is exactly what my ex-wife was doing and now Judge Bellows was doing it for her.

    To all my family, friends and the people that supported me through this process, I am so sorry. I know my reactions and behavior throughout this process did not always make sense. None of this made sense to me either. I had no help and the only suggestion I got from my attorneys was to remain silent. At first, I did what I was told, remained silent and listened to my attorneys. Then after I had given my ex-wife full custody to try and appease her, I learned about Psychopathy and emailed Dr. Samenow about my concerns and asked him for help. Of course, I was ignored. As the conflict continued, I was forced to defend myself. When that didn't work, I thought I could get the help I needed by speaking out. There is no right or wrong way to defend yourself from abuse. Naively, I thought that abuse was abuse and it would be recognized and something would be done. I thought speaking out would end the abuse or at least get them to back off. It didn't. When no one did anything they were emboldened.

    I took my own life because I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing I could do or say to end the abuse. Every time I got up off my knees, I would get knocked back down. They were not going to let me be the father I wanted to be to my children. People may think I am a coward for giving up on my children, but I didn't see how I was going to heal from this. I have no money for an attorney, therapy or medication. I have lost four jobs because of this process. I was going to be at their mercy for the rest of my life and they had shown me none. Being alienated, legally abused, emotionally abused, isolated and financially ruined are all a recipe for suicide. I wish I were stronger to keep going, but the emotional pain and fear of going to court and jail [because of exorbitant child support] became overwhelming. I became paralyzed with fear. I couldn't flee and I could not fight. I was never going to be allowed to heal or recover. I wish I were better at articulating the psychological and emotional trauma I experienced.

    I could fill a book with all the lies and mysterious rulings of the Court. Never have I experienced this kind of pain. I asked for help, but good men did nothing and evil prevailed. All I wanted was a Guardian Ad Litem for my children. Any third party would have been easily been able to confirm or refute all of my allegations, which is why none was ever appointed to protect the children or reduce the conflict. Abuse is about power and control. Stand up for the abused and speak out. If someone speaks out about abuse, believe them.

    Please teach my children empathy and about emotional invalidation and 'gas-lighting' or they may end up like me. God have mercy on my soul. Chris Mackney

    His obituary

    His website, "goodmendidnothing." since stripped of content by grave robbers.

    First Comment by Anon -

    This article goes directly to satanic feminism and the connected government use of women's natural selfishness and viciousness, both of which the family was designed by God so as to be kept in rein by the husband, but is now amok in the western world by government edict which helps governmental, academia and media embittered, shallow, selfish women destroy men, destroy their own children's future, all to satisfy their selfish imaginative vengeful, unforgiving in any way, ruthlessness. Three beautiful lives have been ruined by "family court" processes the woman always knows will give her the world and destroy her husband (and often the children as collateral damage). They are family destroying courts. Period. This has been discovered by those who want to rule the world as the easiest, most direct way to destroy the family, their greatest enemy. In the process it also almost certainly destroys the father, deprives the children of their father's leadership and example, leaving them dependent mostly on the state as such mothers are usually already too dysfunctional to be any kind of proper example. Most of them shortly after - or even before the courts - have live in or other obvious sexual arrangements to the children's knowledge with men not part of the family.

    Frankly, I would have more rightly killed the agenda driven judges, the greedy goddamned lawyers and the obviously, bent on destruction of him, wife, rather than myself. This man's suicide is an exact result of what has been done to men in two generations by satanic guidance of politicians in law making, in most churches, in court criminal agendas and in academia including public schools where boys today are treated as criminals simply for being boys while girls are privileged characters who can do no wrong, a prime reason for their shallowness, selfishness and viciousness as grown women. Men must be men, to hell with the bitchy whining of today's upside down, agenda created, bull shit "culture."

  • Ex-wife using legal mafia to get ex-husband's suicide note removed from the internet
  • Once more we have a JUDGE, not a jury, dictating the terms of family courts
    While the judicial mafia totally control what goes on inside the most powerful terrorist threat for men across the planet FAMILY COURTS nothing will change and no amount of reporting will stop the vile English crown's freemason judges from destroying men and their families through persecution and trillion pound extortion rackets they have created themselves.

    Many more judgments from some of the UK's most secret hearings will be published in future, the judge in charge of the family court and the court of protection has ordered.

    Sir James Munby, who has been pushing for greater transparency in the way courts operate, has instructed judges that in many cases the starting point should be to give permission for publication, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. The switch in policy will ensure that more details will emerge of some of the sensitive domestic disputes, albeit often anonymised. The new regulations will come into effect from 3 February. Munby, who is president of the family division of the high court and of the court of protection, said the guidance was intended to bring about "an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments".

    He said: "In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name. The guidance will have the effect of increasing the number of judgments available for publication." Public debates over cases such as that of a pregnant Italian woman who was ordered to have a caesarean section because of fears that a natural birth could be life-threatening have often not been properly informed because judgments have been withheld. Munby has acknowledged that inaccurate reporting is not entirely the fault of the media if it is denied access to court judgments on the case. In his guidance (pdf), he declares: "Permission to publish a judgment should always be given whenever the judge concludes that publication would be in the public interest and whether or not a request has been made by a party or the media."

    He adds that while children and their families and those who are the subjects of court of protection cases – individuals who are unable for whatever reason to make their own decisions about issues such as medical treatment or living arrangements – will normally continue to be anonymous in judgments, the names of expert witnesses, local authorities and other public bodies should be included unless there are compelling reasons against doing so. The guidance establishes two categories of judgments: those which must normally be published and those which may be published. The terms on which publication is permitted will be for individual judges to decide. "Where a judgment is likely to be used in a way that would defeat the purpose of any anonymisation, it is open to the judge to refuse to publish the judgment or to make an order restricting its use," the guidance adds.

    In some cases, it is suggested, anonymity for the parties might not be appropriate – for example, if parents who have been exonerated in care proceedings wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgment, or when findings have been made against a person and someone else contends or the judge concludes that it is in the public interest for that person to be identified in any published version of the judgment. The rules governing coverage of family courts and the court of protection place strict restrictions on the media's ability to report cases. In the family division of the high court, journalists have a presumptive right to attend hearings but have to obtain the court's agreement on whether a case may be reported and, if so, what details may be covered. In the court of protection the general rule is that hearings are held in private, with the media and public excluded.

  • Parents 'should go abroad to avoid family courts'
    MP john hemming Parents suspected of child abuse should flee the country rather than face justice in the family courts, one MP has told BBC Panorama.

    Liberal Democrat John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, said parents should "go abroad", if it is legal. But the courts advisory service, Cafcass, said going abroad did not solve the problem for most parents. The government said family justice reform was a "critical priority".

    In 2012, local authorities made a record 10,218 applications to take children away from parents. This figure was 11% higher than in 2010-11 and 61.6% higher than in 2007-08, according to Cafcass, which said applications had been rising since the case of Baby P in 2008. In some high profile cases where children died, local authorities were criticised for not acting quickly enough and for believing what they had been told by parents.

    John Hemming MP

    You can't get a fair trial here, because you can't rely on the evidence being fair. It's best simply to go if you can, at the right time, lawfully”

    Large resources

    But John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, said the system had become unfair to parents. He has been contacted by hundreds of parents suspected of harming their children who are going through the family courts. He said the process was so unfair that parents should leave the country to avoid social services and the courts. "All the cards are held by the local authority. It has large resources to fight the cases - it does all the assessments," he said.

    "My advice to people - if they can afford it - is just to go abroad. You can't get a fair trial here, because you can't rely on the evidence being fair. "It's best simply to go if you can, at the right time, lawfully."

    But Cafcass, the organisation that looks after the interests of children in the family courts, said the rise in care applications meant that more children were being protected. "We can't play poker with children's safety, we've got to have a system that plays it safe to begin with," said chief executive Anthony Douglas.

    "I do think we have a responsibility to make our family courts better, to make them more transparent, to build public confidence in them. "To advocate leaving altogether doesn't solve the problem for the vast majority of children and parents who need our courts to be as good as they possibly can be."

    Multiple fractures

    When the child protection system makes a mistake it can have devastating effects for the family involved. X-rays taken to assess him showed he had multiple fractures that Amy could not explain. Blood tests showed Harrison had severe vitamin D deficiency, a condition that can lead to rickets and weaker bones. But medical experts said the fractures were evidence of abuse and Harrison and his older sister were taken into care. The children were placed with Amy's mother, but Harrison continued to be unwell.

    The court eventually allowed Amy to appoint an alternative expert, a professor of genetics, who discovered that the family had an unusual history of broken bones and fractures. Harrison was treated for rickets and a genetic bone disorder. The professor convinced the court and 18 months after they were taken away, Amy got her children back. "We weren't even aware it was going to happen," said Amy. "I phoned social services and they dropped in, 'Oh, by the way, I suppose we better tell you that we're actually going to drop the case against you'.

    Critical priority

    "I sort of fell to the floor and everyone stared at me. I just sat there crying with the phone in my hand.

    We regret the distress this investigation caused to the family, but we do not enter into this sort of action lightly and we do so on the basis of the evidence we have”
    South Gloucestershire Council

    "Obviously things do happen, people do abuse their children, and I'm not denying that, but at the same time they need to be being vigilant because these conditions can go unnoticed." South Gloucestershire Council said: "We have a duty to ensure that children are safeguarded until the circumstances are clear. The children in this case were always in the care of their family. "We regret the distress this investigation caused to the family, but we do not enter into this sort of action lightly and we do so on the basis of the evidence we have."

    Family Justice Minister Lord McNally said the reform of family justice and child protection was a "critical priority" for the government. "We are changing the system so there are new standards for expert witnesses, more effective court processes and more efficient provision of advice for families.

    "We have also been clear that there needs to be more openness in the family courts."

    Panorama: I Want My Baby Back, BBC One, Monday 13 January at 21:00 GMT and then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer.

  • Hunger striker camps outside David Cameron's home over Christmas
    tony ashby hunger strike outside David Cameron's house

    A CAMPAIGNER tonight remains on hunger strike outside the constituency home of David Cameron. Tony Ashby, a prominent campaigner with protest group New Fathers 4 Justice, is on the sixth day of a hunger strike in a tent outside the home in Dean, near Chipping Norton. According to the campaign group, a letter was this morning delivered to Mr Cameron's house.

    The organisation said that Mr Ashby also rang the PM, who the group says was not at home, and left a short message on his answer phone. A spokesman for the group said tonight: "He is still doing amazingly well with his hunger strike and in fine fettle entering his sixth day." Herefordshire-based Mr Ashby, 48, set up camp in the village on Friday last week and is hoping his stunt will prompt action to change custody and adoption rules, which he claims are not fair on fathers.

  • The UK CROWN's devious domestic abuse ads smearing men VIDEO

    The legal and political mafia determined to break up relationships and how they class speech as domestic violence. Millions of men fleeced in Crown courts after they break up thanks to the royal mafia and their henchmen on the back of masonic smear campaigns

  • Evil government sick ads and what they class as domestic abuse (These evil CROWN bastards make trillions from smearing men as abusers)
  • Father with no rights: Mother stops him seeing daughter for 12 YEARS - despite 82 court orders
    Despite the Daily Rat suggesting judges are SYMPATHETIC to the father it is the masonic judicial mafia that are aiding and abetting massive corruption through a system of legal aid that only funds a vengeful mothers lawyers while fathers pay dearly in horrific legal costs to see their children.

    A father yesterday spoke of his anguish over an extraordinary £100,000 12-year court battle for the right to see his daughter.

    The man, described as ‘irreproachable’ by a senior judge, has endured years of legal fighting with his ex-partner, who has refused to allow contact between him and their 14-year-old daughter. Incredibly, the family courts have made 82 orders that he be allowed to see the girl, known only as M. But none was enforced by a system which senior judges agreed had ‘failed the whole family’.

    ‘My relationship with my daughter is slipping away,’ the man said. ‘Her childhood is disappearing.’ The Court of Appeal three months ago ordered that the case be resolved, saying the teenager’s childhood had been ‘irredeemably marred’ by years of litigation. Lord Justice McFarlane, presenting a written judgment, said the mother had ‘doggedly refused to allow M to develop and maintain a relationship with her father without any good reason’. He quoted the findings of a child psychiatrist, who said: ‘The mother appears to want an unhealthy exclusive relationship with M. The mother hides her opposition to contact behind her daughter’s stated “wishes and feelings”.’

    But the father, a 61-year-old professional who cannot be named, has now been told the legal process faces more months of delays as the family courts seek expert advice. Speaking after the latest hearing at the family court in Leeds, he said: ‘As a parent, one’s frustration lies with the lassitude of the court process that allows precious, irreplaceable time with your children to slip away, and the relationship you seek to have with them dissolve into the mists of time. ‘Parents making applications to establish contact are often left defeated and frustrated by the slowness and lethargy of the court process. Time with your children can never be recaptured – it is lost for ever.’

    The father – who, unlike the child’s mother, cannot claim legal aid – estimates he has spent more than £100,000 in legal costs trying to see his daughter. He said: ‘It is financially penalistic, as a private individual, to fight for your rights through the family courts.’

    The couple lived together for ten years before the girl was born in 1999. She was 21 months old when they separated in 2001 and the legal marathon began. Since then, the mother, who is now 49, has tried to prevent him seeing her.

    He has even been falsely accused of sexually and physically assaulting his daughter – accusations that were proved to have no basis. In the end a family court judge in Sheffield gave up and last year ruled that the father should not have the right to see M. But in September this year three Appeal Court judges overturned the decision and said the father could return to court for a further attempt to win access. That court process restarted last month in the family court at Leeds, but immediately faced long delays as the father, mother and social services argued about which psychological experts should be consulted.

    Mr Justice Moylan adjourned proceedings until February. He said: ‘I know this is not what was envisaged by the Court of Appeal but I think I will have to progress this by stages.’

    The father, representing himself, told the court it was futile to consult a psychologist unless the psychologist was an expert in understanding children who had been coached. ‘This case has always, for whatever reason, been for my former partner about the prevention of my relationship with my daughter,’ he said. ‘It is quite apparent that M is affected by her mother and whatever is said about M’s feelings and wishes should be taken, to put it politely, with a pinch of salt.’

    Lord Justice McFarlane, presenting a written judgment in the Court of Appeal three months ago, said the mother had ‘doggedly refused to allow M to develop and maintain a relationship with her father without any good reason whatsoever’. M expressed a wish to see her father as recently as February 2012, and in 2007 even spent several months living with him while her mother was in hospital. But recently her position has ‘hardened’. The judgment revealed that since 2006 there had been 82 court orders for contact, seven judges had handled the case, and at least ten social workers had represented the girl.

    Lord Justice McFarlane added: ‘This is an unimpeachable father against whom no adverse findings of fact have been made at any stage in this process and whose demeanour before this court was dignified and measured despite the enormous frustration and anger he must feel.’ The judge, who was sitting with Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Aikens, said the mother had been diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality disorder, paranoid traits and occasional depression.

    Lord Justice McFarlane added: ‘These have not been helped by occasions when she has abused alcohol and illicit drugs.’ At one stage, he said, the mother had been found to have hidden knives in her bag. Lord Justice Aikens added: ‘The family justice system has failed the whole family, but particularly M, whose childhood has been irredeemably marred by years of litigation.’

  • Wife who 'rejected £300m' in Britain's most bitter divorce battle is awarded £20m (and she says it’s a disgrace)

    Britain’s longest running and most bitter divorce battle ended today with a High Court judge ordering Scot Young to pay his estranged wife a lump sum of £20 million.

    Mr Justice Moor ruled Mr Young, who claims to be bankrupt, had in fact hidden away £40 million and must hand over half to his wife Michelle in 28 days. But four years ago she may have looked a gift horse in the mouth when he offered her £300 million, the judge said. Outside court Mrs Young said: “This is a disgrace. Many people will be thinking this is a fortune but at the moment all this is a piece of paper. This case has uncovered some dark truths about the Britain we live in today.” Mr Young did not comment. The property and telecoms magnate had claimed he lost his fortune at the time his marriage collapsed in 2006, and had £28 million debts. Mrs Young, 49, spent millions on lawyers and accountants to hunt for his wealth. She had insisted he was worth “a few billion at least” and his claim of bankruptcy was to deprive her and their two daughters of a fair settlement.

    Mr Young is accused of hatching “Project Marriage Walk”, a plan to leave her without a penny. It allegedly involved “Project Moscow”, set up in 2006 to hide his assets in a sham property deal, the court heard. In 2009 he is said to have offered his wife a £300 million settlement, but later claimed this was a “complete and utter joke.” He told the court he had been drunk and the offer was only on condition “Ronald Reagan becomes the next US president and Jeremy Beadle walks through the door.” The judge suggested Mrs Young should have accepted the £300 million offer. The court was told some of Mr Young’s millionaire friends lent him support for his lifestyle in a £4,000-a-week central London flat. They included TopShop owner Sir Philip Green, fashion entrepreneur Sir Harold Tillman and West End restaurateur Richard Caring.

    For years Mr Young, 51, has refused to disclose details about the offshore tax havens he was alleged to have put his fortune in. In January he was jailed for six months for contempt of court, the judge calling his excuses “absurd.” Today Mr Justice Moor said he believed Mr Young should pay the £20 million “quickly”, as the lump sum would attract eight per cent interest, or £1.6 million a year. In a rebuke to the couple, he added: “I feel nothing but sympathy for the two children. For the divorce to be played out in the full glare of the media must have been absolutely appalling for them.”

    The judge later ordered Mr Young to pay an extra £5 million towards his wife's costs. Mrs Young had asked for £6.5 million but the judge said there had been "duplication" in costs run up by her in taking on 13 different sets of lawyers and four accountants during 65 hearings over six and a half years of litigation.

  • Family courts hold the most drastic powers of any tribunal (and that's from a judge)
    Family court system panicing as their victims unite across the globe to expose their tyranny controlled by freemasons. ONLY juries will restore some sort of sanity to the madmen who have been destroying men for far to long.

    Let Press into family courts to uphold justice and stop 'irreversible wrongs', says judge

    One of the country’s leading judges insists the Press must be allowed into family courts to prevent miscarriages of justice. Sir James Munby, head of the family courts, said that without ‘the jealous vigilance of an informed media’, families will suffer irreversible wrongs. Yesterday, he cited two cases in which social workers wrongly seized children from their parents as ‘a terrible warning’ of what can happen when courts operate behind closed doors.

    Sir James, who is president of the Family Division of the High Court, also called for the opening up of the Court of Protection – the secretive court which settles the affairs of those who have lost the capacity to decide for themselves. He said the routine ban on journalists at its hearings must go. His call comes seven months after a judge at the Court of Protection had secretly ordered a woman to be jailed because she defied his ruling by trying to get her father out of a care home where she thought his life was in danger. Wanda Maddocks was imprisoned without her name or any details of her contempt of court being made known to the public, and without a lawyer to represent her. Senior judges later said no-one should ever again be jailed in secret.

    Sir James, whose authority covers the family courts and the Court of Protection, made his call in a speech to the Society of Editors. He said that since the abolition of the death penalty the family courts hold the most drastic powers of any tribunal – the power to take a baby away from a mother for life. ‘We must be vigilant to guard against the risks,’ Sir James said.

    Citing two notorious social worker scandals, he said: ‘We strive to avoid miscarriages of justice, but human justice is inevitably fallible. ‘The Oldham and Webster cases stand as a terrible warning to everyone involved in the family justice system, the latter as a stark illustration of the fact that a miscarriage of justice which comes to light only after the child has been adopted will very probably be irremediable. ‘We must have the humility to recognise – and to acknowledge –that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice.’

    The Webster case involved Mark and Nicky Webster, whose three children were taken by Norfolk social services in 2003 after doctors said one of them had suffered physical abuse. The children were adopted six months later. The couple attracted wide publicity when they fled to Ireland to avoid social workers seizing their next child, son Brandon. In 2006, after they were publicly named, the medical evidence against them was discredited and it emerged that medical evidence in their favour had been suppressed. The couple have been allowed to keep subsequent children, but appeal judges have ruled the adoption of their first three children cannot be reversed.

    The Oldham case involved a couple whose three-month-old baby was taken into care by Oldham social workers in 2005. The baby was in state care for 12 months until the medical evidence against them turned out to be wrong. In 2007, Mr Justice Ryder said they were exemplary parents.

  • Danger to men from global terrorist attacks
    global law society

    What is the chance of a man being killed by a pseudo terrorist attack? (That is ALL the terrorism that the complicit media reports on ) 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

    What is the chance of a man being psychologically and financially tortured to the point of death by crooked lawyers and judges acting on behalf of a global law society? 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

    So why are the compliant media not only protecting these murdering bastards but also suggesting men are in danger from every other source except the one that is most certain?

  • British Institute behind International and Comparative Law the main instigator of laws destroying men
  • Man's former lawyer gives evidence in favour of ex-wife during divorce

    A businessman accused of "manipulating" his financial affairs so as to "do down" his estranged wife had a watch collection worth £2 million, a High Court judge was told today.

    Scot Young had said he had more than 40 watches in the collection, the businessman's former solicitor told Mr Justice Moor. Stanley Beller said Mr Young had also: been involved in a deal to buy the sultan of Brunei's car collection; had once walked out of his office with £13 million worth of share certificates and had once handed an associate a "holdall full of cash".

    Mr Young told the judge that Mr Beller was "lying". Mr Beller told the judge: "I am not going to be called a liar by this cheat." Mr Beller was giving evidence at a trial in the Family Division of the High Court in London where Mr Young, 51, and his estranged wife Michelle, 49, are fighting over money. Mrs Young says Mr Young is worth "a few billion at least" and says "there was a vast fortune hidden". She says she is a victim of "fraud" because Mr Young has manipulated his affairs so as to do her down. Mrs Young says she wants her fair share and would settle for £300 million plus legal expenses. She says she wants a £25 million house and wants to live in Belgravia, central London.

    Mr Young, who is due to begin giving evidence tomorrow, disputes Mrs Young's claims. He says he is penniless and bankrupt, a victim of financial meltdown and has debts which add up to £28 million. The trial began on October 31 and is expected to end later this month. Mr Justice Moor says he will have to decide how much Mr Young is worth.

    The judge has heard that the Youngs, who both live in London and have two daughters, separated in 2006 after starting a relationship in 1989. "Mr Young had a watch collection he was very proud of and would show me," said Mr Beller. "And he told me his watch collection was worth £2 million." Mr Beller added: "He told me his watch collection exceeded 40 watches." He said Mr Young and an associate were "going to buy the car collection of the sultan of Brunei".

    He said one of his colleagues had once seen Mr Young "present" an associate "with a large holdall full of cash" and Mr Young had once taken away £13 million worth of his share certificates held at Mr Beller's office, the judge was told. Mr Beller said Mr Young had come into his office and wanted to discuss "what shares were around". "I took them into my room from the safe. They were left there. I was subsequently called out of the room," said Mr Beller.

    "Subsequently Mr Young left. A bit later I noticed the envelopes had gone. I just wondered where they were. I phoned Mr Young. He said, 'I have taken them but don't worry I will sort things out'. I was quite unhappy." Mr Young said: "Mr Beller is lying." Mr Beller said: "I am not going to be called a liar by this cheat." The hearing continues tomorrow.

  • You're a greedy cow: What tycoon who says he went bust in recession said about wife after she refused a £27million divorce payout
  • For fear of endlessly repeating ourselves
    Mass media smokescreens continue to provide the cover for the biggest threat on the planet to men. Not by a short margin but by a massive degree. Take all the wars and all the rape, murder and pillage within those wars and the pain, suffering and loss doesn't even come close to the global tyranny going on within the very countries that claim they operate a democratic process.

    Top of the list of the THREE rogue states are Israel, America and England, not as asshole daddy Bush would have us believe claiming his personal axis of evil was Iran, Iraq and North Korea. It is the three rogue states of Israel, America and England that are embroiled in a VAST masonic agenda plundering the globe hiding behind the instigators of mayhem and ruin with the fomenting of wars across the Middle East to satisfy the zionist agenda meanwhile destroying MILLIONS upon millions of fathers globally in a tyranny carrying on inside court rooms operating worldwide WITHOUT juries.

    While their media have brainwashed the sheeple about their fictitious and manufactured 'TERRORIST' threats, false flags and wars they themselves foment the most pressing concerns men face are far more urgent with a tyranny that doesn't require guns and bombs just a murderous masonic judicial mafia using laws and courts that provide trillion dollar pickings for the monsters hired by the ruling elite to remove men's lifes work. A solitary judicial signature has far more power than all these wars ONLY because they are being allowed impunity by the political mafia who are aiding and abetting them getting away with murder.


    They have never and will never have our best interests at heart as our forefathers found out to their cost.

  • Full article here
  • Losing Fear - For The Children(VIDEO)
  • Why divorce is bad for a man's health increasing risk of early death, substance abuse, suicide and depression
  • The impact of divorce on men's health 'needs urgent investigation'

  • Divorced men are more likely to have heart disease, high blood pressure and strokes than married ones - are also 39% more likely to commit suicide

  • They are more likely to take part in risky activities which also increases their mortality rate

  • Divorce might leave some with a broken heart but it also causes real health problems for men, according to researchers.

    Those whose marriages end have higher rates of mortality, substance abuse and depression and often lack social support, a study found. It called for doctors to refer more male divorcees to therapists and said more work is ‘urgently needed’ to investigate the damaging effects of relationship break-ups on their health. American researchers say that divorced and single men have a 39 per cent higher suicide rate than their married counterparts - perhaps in part because they are more likely to engage in risky behaviour.

    The study, published in the Journal of Men's Health, calls for doctors to refer more men to therapists. A case study by Dr Daniel Felix, of the University of Nebraska, said health professionals must recognise ‘divorce related health problems’ in men. His research centred on a 45-year-old white man who ‘endured a difficult divorce’.

    He visited his family doctor for the first time in ten years complaining of bad sleep and persistent abdominal pain. The man revealed he drank 'about a six-pack of beer a day,' had recently begun hating his job in middle management at a local bank and had become irritated with his colleagues and boss. He eventually reported having limited access to his children and paying a ‘significant amount of child support’. The man also said his ex-wife ‘took all our friends with her after the divorce’.

    The researchers reported the man's physical condition as ‘unremarkable’ apart from having a slightly enlarged liver and being somewhat overweight. They instead attributed his mild physical ailments and seemingly mild depressive state to continued anxiety and stress associated with his divorce. As a result, the researchers warn doctors about treating ailments that have a psychological basis in divorce. Instead, they recommend nutrition, exercise and sleep education.

    They also urge medical professionals to refer men to alcohol and substance abuse treatment programmes, counsellors or other mental health professionals or divorce support groups. Professor Ridwan Shabsigh, of Cornell University in the U.S. and president of the International Society of Men's Health, said: ‘Popular perception, and many cultures as well as the media, present men as tough, resilient, and less vulnerable to psychological trauma than women.

    ‘The fact is men get affected substantially by psychological trauma and negative life events such as divorce, bankruptcy, war and bereavement. ‘Research is urgently needed to investigate the prevalence and impact of such effects and to develop diagnosis and treatment guidelines for practitioners.’

  • Judges and lawyers will be jailed for family court corruption
    judge in jail

    As we have been exposing for many years the utter corruption of crooked family court lawyers, judges and police freemason racketeering causing devastation to the men caught up in their twisted world of LAWS they make up as they go along

    Kids for Cash Court Scandal

    Judges and lawyers will go to jail if a new Police Commissioner has his way.

    David Gale, UKIP’s candidate to become Derbyshire’s first Police and Crime Commissioner, is setting out his stall to tackle what he says is corruption and criminality within the family justice system. Accusing judges and lawyers of routine involvement in perverting the course of justice, Gale says that where parents are encouraged to fabricate allegations and the court turns a blind-eye, there must be a formal criminal investigation. Gale, who led a ground-breaking project to enable information sharing across agencies to protect vulnerable children, claims to have inside information: “I am shocked that professionals dealing with children are hushing up the wholesale abuse of the family justice system.”

    Gale said, “I’ve received detailed accounts from professionals and parents both in Derby and further afield that large parts of the family justice system are being run like an organised crime racket. There is an epidemic of mothers being advised by their lawyers that if they make false statements against partners attesting to domestic violence they will be fast-tracked to legal aid, will be able to testify unopposed to gain a Non-Molestation Order, and will not be held to account even if their perjury is uncovered. Women are being advised of this legal mechanism as a means of severing the relationship between a father and his children.” “Judges are routinely turning a blind-eye to uncorroborated, fabricated witness statements made by women seeking to abuse the legal process. The family law industry’s lawyers are milking this for all it’s worth, with judges in some cases allocating completely unnecessary court hearings that ramp up costs, acting like brokers in an insidiously corrupt scam that defrauds the public purse.”

    Gale continued, “I will make it clear that the current response from police when presented with evidence of perjury ‘that it is a court matter’ will not wash. If evidence of a criminal offence committed within civil proceedings is presented to Derbyshire Constabulary officers, they will investigate it thoroughly. Those guilty of perjury should expect to go to jail, along with lawyers or judges who have participated in perverting the course of justice. It’s been eighteen months since Christopher Booker exposed the reality of the family justice system, citing it as “callous, corrupt and staggeringly expensive”. I see no evidence to suggest that the problems are isolated to just Children’s Services.” “Increasingly, we’re seeing adolescent boys being left fatherless with positive male role-models being replaced in some cases by gang culture. There is a significant on-going cost to the public purse that continues long after unscrupulous legal professionals have dipped their snouts into the legal aid trough.”

    “It isn’t the politically correct thing to do to identify women as potentially being the instigators of an abuse of domestic violence legislation but telling it like it is is not about being part of a popularity contest. I will have an amnesty for those women who come forward to testify on their lawyers’ illegal advice but I have a duty to the people of Derbyshire to root out this institutionalised corruption once and for all.”

    For updates on this campaign please visit the official Facebook page at:


    David Gale Police & Crime Commissioner Candidate for Derbyshire


  • Top judge's war on secret courts: Family hearings must be exposed to 'glare of publicity' (More bullshit from the masonic crooks stealing mens assets and children only JURIES will get rid of their tyranny)
  • Psychopathic judges and social workers identified in the family court system
  • A lawyer "embellished" claims for legal aid in family court cases for £2 million accusing fathers of abusing their children later committed suicide after the police began investigating
  • MP John Hemming: Total secrecy in family courts VIDEO

  • Total secrecy in family courts 2(VIDEO)
  • Total secrecy in family courts 3(VIDEO)
  • John Hemming MP: The more secret the court, the more the system acts against the rule of law VIDEO

    That rule of law is what crooked judges make up as they go along