The most senior judge in the Family Division, Lord Justice Wall, takes an unprecedented step.

Some of my readers may have been puzzled last week to see such lurid headlines as “Racehorse trainer lied that her ex was a child molester”, over stories about Vicky Haigh, who has featured several times in this column. They were prompted by an unprecedented broadside launched by Lord Justice Wall, head of the Family Courts division, against Miss Haigh – who, as I have reported here, escaped to Ireland in April to pre-empt her newborn baby being seized by Nottinghamshire social workers. However, the case in which Lord Justice Wall broke all legal precedent by identifying Miss Haigh in such damning terms was not the one I have reported here. It centres instead on her daughter by a previous partner, which has long been the subject of a highly contentious case involving Doncaster social workers.

The reason for Wall deciding to break all the normal rules of secrecy surrounding child care cases was that for months, details of this case had been advertised on the internet by a private investigator, Liz Watson. Last Monday, at Doncaster’s behest, Wall decided to bring matters to a head. He ruled that the parties to the case could for once be named and that papers relating to it, including two earlier court judgments, should in due course be published. He then sentenced Miss Watson to nine months in prison for breach of secrecy rules. Relying on the findings of the two lower courts, Wall stated that Miss Haigh had coached her daughter into making lengthy statements to the police and social workers that she had been abused by her father. There is obviously much about this case that still cannot be reported, but at least Wall’s ruling will give the public a chance to decide whether the assessment of the evidence by the earlier judges seemed persuasive.They will also be able to judge whether Wall was right to state that there was not “a scintllla of evidence” to support the arguments which the lower courts rejected.

Wall has something of a track record in making such unqualified statements. In 2008, in another case, he was complained about to the judicial ombudsman by John Hemming MP, after he had witheringly dismissed Hemming’s arguments that a crucial document in the case was forged. “I find it not only unacceptable but shocking,” Wall ruled, “that a man in Mr Hemming’s position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position.” Mr Hemming presented the ombudsman with several pages of transcript showing how he had produced lengthy evidence for his claim, set out in meticulous detail. Rather than stating that he had not had “any evidence”, it would have been more accurate for Wall simply to state that, having considered it, he had not found the evidence convincing.

I too recently felt the lash of Wall’s tongue, when he rushed to endorse the criticisms of me by a family judge for the “inaccuracy” of my reporting on another unhappy family case. Wall was so eager to defend the system over which he presides that he seemed unaware of the fact that the judge who criticised me had been forced to come back the following day to correct three errors in the two points he had made about me. When judges have such power to make their own rules about what can and cannot be reported, it places a special responsibility on them to be rather more measured in their language than they sometimes allow themselves to be.

    There are wars, riots, revolts, banking scandals, corruption and fraud encircling the globe causing enormous harm to the victims of these atrocities but NONE compare with the mass fleecing of millions of men and their families each year thanks to a criminal elite within the legal systems that hide behind the chaos created by freemasons embedded in every country across the globe.

    There may be more physical damage through bombs and guns but the psychological torture that is VERY difficult to assess and experience has caused men en masse to throw themselves off high buildings like lemmings including many other forms of suicide with in some cases taking their children and ex-wives or partners with them.

    The compliant media without exception ensure the worst forms of suicide are graphically portrayed as these men are smeared as 'madmen' who deserve all they get for the carnage they cause, yet little is done about the enormous psychological pressure these same men have endured prior to 'SNAPPING' and committing the most heinous damage on themselves and any family member close by. There is not a day goes by that some deranged man has obliterated his life and his families and the utter carnage if added together would make all the killing in Afghanistan and Iraq pale. But to ensure they do not connect the dots the media treat all of them in isolation with little attempt to investigate the massive plunder of the estates of these men prior to the self destruct button being pushed.

    We have many victims of this system who have tread very close to the edge and know how easy it is for the legal mafia , all part of the Knights Templar network and freemasons embedded within the inns of court in central London that dominates the global empire of criminal judges and lawyers masquerading as 'juries' to push men over the edge. This while they have given themselves the power to decide the fate of these same men despicably abused by some of the vilest mobsters on the planet. The ruthless and highly destructive manipulation of law to seize trillions in estates that have taken a lifetime of graft by decent hard working men, removed at a stroke by vile freemason judge's pens.

    The Norway massacre by a far right wing freemason is only a tiny blip in the self inflicted attacks on men through legal chicanery and massive psychological pressures imposed by the utter scum and dregs of the earth who abuse good men for profit. A racket so enormous it makes all plundering during manufactured wars pale next to the legal mafia's scams worldwide .

  • Rare occasion when judges support father during custody battle, a brother?
  • How Scottish freemasons manipulated law legislation to steal men's property
  • How Scots masonic politicians use a facade of protection to STEAL men's property
    mason matrix

    Presently there are millions of men and their families worldwide either homeless or threatened with homelessness. How can so many men be at risk of losing the most important piece of their life into the clutches of the psychopaths that have commandeered the ownership of land and property and into an evil cabal of henchmen?

    We as victims have studied the routes that have led to vast swathes of estates being stolen en masse right under the noses of a wider population kept in the dark by the same forces controlling the press barons and mass media. The worldwide cabal of crooked judges and lawyers operating for the global legal mafia, not only have a total monopoly on house ownership, but they also have the monopoly of imposing their very warped legal views on what the media publish or DON'T publish which is the more important of the two.

    When you have a criminal cabal that makes ALL OTHER CRIME pale next to the unfathomable money being made from this MONOPOLY, all the world's manufactured debts also pale next to a racket so enormous it is virtually impossible to work out the trillions upon trillions being stolen by the BIGGEST CROOKS on the planet. Property is were more money can be made than in any other line of business or more precisely the theft of property . The route through this evil network, destroying lives on a grand scale, finally ends right at the door of the House of Windsor, and why Queen Lizzie and her sprogs own more than one sixth of the world's land mass at the last count , thanks to a worldwide network of THUGS she controls, via the Duke of Kent and who sanction the monstrous abuses of power rubber stamped by her being patron of the global masonic network.

    The whole system is cloaked in secrecy so that few, who haven't actually been driven down this road, can truly understand that freemasonry drives the worldwide plundering of men's assets who are not part of their creepy satanic network of power. When civil court cases are decided by a small self appointed elite of Crown controlled judges, and NOT juries, this is a licence to print money that goes into the stratosphere. Masonic controlled judges are the biggest terrorists across the planet who don't deliver a missile to your door, to blow you and your family up, but instead instigate legal chicanery via their dodgy lawyer lackeys to forcibly remove you from your home that either becomes part of their property portfolio's or sold on to the next unsuspecting fool who thinks these evil bastards are actually selling you a home. They are in fact letting you stay there temporarily while paying extortionate amounts of money into the mortgage scams their masonic banking buddies have manufactured to let them suggest you just bought something.

    Ask any man who has been forcibly removed from their supposed OWNED property by the masonic bailiffs and cops that are the muscle they use to reek havoc on those who have been caught in their web of deceit. NO ONE ,other than their brainwashed lackeys, can avoid these mobsters abuses. Millions of men who are sitting in their comfortable homes are unaware the speed at which they will find themselves on the street when they are hand picked to be the next victims of these thugs and bullyboys. Even rented property falls under the same control network as either masonic chief executives of councils or private landlords fall under the same tyranny.

    We, the enslaved, live under the constant threat that the masonic hierarchy can enact their thugs to leave you without a roof over your head, never mind the fact that the Murdoch empire has been destroying men through vicious attacks on their lives by his masonic spies . His power pales next to the judicial mafia who can conjure up the most extreme psychological torture in our stolen courts that ensures anyone who dares to challenge their power will have extremely vicious actions taken against them , with removal to a psychiatric gulag being the final death bed if to much resistance is shown to the biggest and vicious mobsters anywhere on earth.

    Without a massive upheaval of this system and the full exposure of the evil that is behind this cloak of respectability many more lives will be ruined while they totally and illegally control the planets major resource our homes. Every other area of business is controlled by laws stopping monopolies, yet those same bastards charged with ensuring monopolies are curtailed are actually the biggest monopoly of all. Hence the ease with which they can destroy your life at a stroke, many on this group have the mental and physical scars to prove how they viciously operate to take you out.

  • Five Merseyside Police Matrix officers sacked over mobile phone pictures taken during raids
    It is laughable the very barstewards that cause so much harm now, thanks to their judicial pals, can avoid the same monstrous abuses of their assets as happens to men and occasional woman in secret court hearings.

    The divorce lawyer they called Mr Payout, the widow of tragic barrister Mark Saunders and the bitter wife he's silenced over in a war over their £6m mansion

    A successful man trades in a dutiful wife of 30 years for a younger woman, and the abandoned wife is faced with having the beautiful house — where they raised four children over 25 years — sold from under her. It is the kind of big money divorce on which Sir Nicholas ‘Mr Payout’ Mostyn made his name. And who better than the brilliant QC, now an eminent family courts judge, to find a way through this emotional and perilous minefield when the acrimonious case reaches the courts? But for one thing: Mr Justice Mostyn is the husband in question, and it is his own wife Lucy who, according to family friends, is desperate not to lose The Danes, their Grade II-listed 18th century manor house in the Hertfordshire countryside, valued at more than £6.5 million.

    ‘Lucy made it what it is,’ says one of them — ‘the furnishings, the garden, the stabling where she rents out accommodation and provides hay for horses owned by City people who like to ride at weekends. 'She’s put her whole heart and soul into it, and she loves it there. Why should she have to give it all up just because Nick no longer lives at home?’ Last November, seven months after being appointed a High Court judge, Sir Nicholas, 54, startled the legal world when it emerged that he had left his 53-year-old wife and had set up home with fellow barrister Elizabeth Saunders, who also specialises in family and divorce settlement issues.

    Dark-haired Mrs Saunders, 42 — who practises in her maiden name of Clarke — is the widow of tragic barrister Mark Saunders, who was shot dead by police during a five-hour siege at their Chelsea flat in 2008 during which he drunkenly brandished a shotgun. He was eight years her junior and they had been married for less than two years. She and Sir Nicholas then worked together in the summer of 2009, representing Earl Spencer in his divorce action involving his second wife Caroline, and they had begun a relationship together by the time of the three-week inquest last September into Mrs Saunders’ husband’s shooting — though there is no suggestion that the affair began before her husband’s death. This week it was claimed that through his lawyers Mills and Reeve, Sir Nicholas had quietly obtained an order to stop his wife speaking publicly about the break-up of their marriage, though they refused to say where or by whom the order was granted.

    His own solicitor, Roger Bamber, admitted that the move to obtain the order had been made to ‘prevent information being released to the Press’. For her part, Lady Mostyn is said to consider the move to silence her as ‘pathetic bullying’. ‘It’s most unpleasant — Lucy isn’t even allowed to communicate with Nick because it all has to be done through their lawyers,’ says a family friend. ‘She is fed up with all the legal procedures. After all, her whole way of life is at stake.’

    The couple’s house, set in 150 acres of farmland, has 11 bedrooms, an outdoor pool and tennis court, as well as a cottage which is home to a Czech couple who work as domestic staff for Lady Mostyn. Blonde, attractive Lady Mostyn plays tennis, rides, and sits on the local bench as a JP. For a while, after her husband left, she offered bed and breakfast accommodation with ‘slap up’ English breakfasts of eggs and bacon from her own hens and pigs, but she no longer advertises for guests. Over the years the Mostyns have also let out their house to film-makers — most recently it featured as the home of naturalist Charles Darwin in the film Creation.

    The Danes cost only a fraction of its present value when they bought it in the mid-1980s, a time when the velvet and steel skills of Nicholas Mostyn were being keenly sought for contested divorce actions. As his earnings grew, the couple also bought a flat to use for skiing near Megeve, the upmarket resort in the French Alps, which remains much in use by family and friends. So why the urgency to sell The Danes and, as a friend of Lucy puts it with deliberate crudeness, ‘divide up the spoils’? Friends say the problems date back to Sir Nicholas’s elevation 18 months ago to the judiciary.

    ‘Nick used to earn a fortune at the Bar. Everybody wanted him to represent them and millions came in, but now he’s a judge the money isn’t so good — only about £172,000 a year,’ explains one. ‘He simply doesn’t have the money that he used to have, and that house requires a great deal of upkeep.’ It is certainly ironic that Sir Nicholas — once described as ‘the scariest barrister in Britain’ — used to be regarded as the QC on whom an ex-wife could rely to squeeze as much as possible out of a well-heeled ex-husband.

    He charged upwards of £500 an hour, and most clients considered the money well spent. There was the £5 million he won for Melissa Miller, wife of a fund manager whose marriage ended in 2006 after just three years without children; £4 million he obtained for former England and Arsenal footballer Ray Parlour’s ex-wife Karen in 2004 after successfully arguing that the restraints she placed on his drinking helped his career, entitling her to a share of his future earnings. One year later, he won £29 million for the ex-wife of Sir Martin Sorrell, head of the world’s biggest advertising group WPP. And when called in by top solicitor Fiona Shackleton to represent Sir Paul McCartney in 2008, he managed to restrict Heather Mills’ divorce payout to some £25 million.

    Things did not go quite so smoothly with Earl Spencer, though, whose divorce settlement with his second wife was eventually made out of court. Spencer then sued Sir Nicholas and his legal team for £1 million for allegedly mishandling the case, and, in a High Court writ, included an embarrassing email he received from Sir Nicholas which pilloried Lord Justice Munby, the judge in the case. In the email, Sir Nicholas said his sow had given birth to seven piglets who would be named ‘James, Munby, self-regarding, pompous, publicity, seeking, and pillock . . .’ But Lord Spencer dropped the case against Sir Nicholas earlier this summer, by which time the jokey lawyer was well-established in his new role as a High Court judge.

    ‘Nick is a charming and likeable person, but what is happening to Lucy is terrible,’ says one close figure. ‘Let’s not forget that when he married her he had nothing. He’d recently qualified and she was working for a magazine in advertising. When they began their married life they had half a house in Islington and were living virtually on what she earned.’ They met through Lucy’s sister who shared a student house with Nicholas at Bristol University. They married in 1981 at St Mary’s Roman Catholic church in the Lincolnshire market town of Brigg, where Lady Mostyn’s widower father, a retired surgeon, still lives.

    Sir Nicholas, educated at Ampleforth, the Roman Catholic school, was and still is ‘quite a keen’ Catholic and was quoted in a 2007 interview as believing ‘marriage is for life’. In Lucy’s family, however, there were serious doubts about her choice right from the start. Not that the urbane and witty Nick Mostyn was not eminently suitable in himself. But, as was being recalled this week, her late mother was ‘not too happy’ about her darling daughter marrying a man whose family had a ‘bad history of divorce’.

    Mostyn’s parents — his father was a much-travelled tobacco executive — were indeed both married four times. And there are several other divorces in the family. ‘Nick was the good egg who made the money, was everybody’s favourite, and seemed married for life — but now he’s gone and done the same thing as his parents did,’ sighs a family friend. ‘I’m afraid it’s descended into one of those classic divorce situations where Nick remains adored by the children because he has a sunny disposition and takes them skiing and so on, and Lucy gets the blame for being a cross mum who takes a dim view when they don’t make their beds or come in with muddy shoes.’

    The four children, aged from 24 to 12, it should be stressed, have not taken sides in the acrimonious divorce. One is a lawyer, another at Leeds University and the two youngest boys are both still at school (one at Eton). ‘Lucy’s really fed up,’ says a friend. ‘They’ve always had a very decent marriage, but you can imagine what she thinks of Nick now.

    'She learned about this other woman around the time he was made a judge and knighted. It came out of the blue. There she was, suddenly Lady Mostyn, but she’d lost her husband. It shattered her. And now it looks as though she’ll lose the house as well.’ She has told friends that she considers she is being ‘totally stitched up’. Arrangements are understood to have been made for the impending divorce hearing to be held away from London, because Sir Nicholas is acquainted with so many judges in the capital.

    But she is said to be aggrieved that the case will now be treated less seriously as it is being heard by a regional judge. For her part, Elizabeth Saunders, a printer’s daughter who won a place at Oxford’s Lady Margaret Hall, still owns the flat in Markham Street, Chelsea, which she and her husband bought for £2.2 million and where he died in a hail of bullets. She and Sir Nicholas have been seen leaving the flat together. She attended every day of the three-week inquest into her husband’s death in which it emerged that he was an alcoholic and suffered from depression.

    She wept when the jury brought in a verdict that he had been killed lawfully, and afterwards issued a statement describing Mark as ‘a loving and much-loved husband’. ‘No one expected this to happen between her and Nick,’ says a legal friend. ‘I believe they want to marry eventually.’ In an interview with journalist Lynn Barber that he gave at the peak of his fame as a divorce lawyer, Sir Nicholas said: ‘Nothing makes me happier than those few cases I’ve had over the years where people reconcile, sometimes at the door of the court. We tear up the file and off they go.’

    Sadly, no one expects his own divorce to have such a happy ending.


    Britain's top divorce judge uses his own courts to ban his wife from discussing their divorce

    Judge accused of 'pathetic bullying' by estranged wife

    One of the most senior family judges in England and Wales claims to have obtained an order to stop his wife speaking publicly about their marriage break-up. However, Sir Nicholas Mostyn’s lawyers are refusing to say which court granted the order, or give any detail of its terms. Sir Nicholas demanded his wife Lucy agree to a series of undertakings issued by his lawyers. But Lady Mostyn refused and later told friends that the attempt to silence her amounted to ‘pathetic bullying’.

    Her husband, one of Britain’s best-known divorce lawyers before being appointed a judge, left her for a barrister, Elizabeth Saunders, last November. Mrs Saunders’s barrister husband Mark was shot dead by police in a siege in 2008. Last night Sir Nicholas’s solicitor, Roger Bamber, said an order had been obtained ‘preventing information being released to the Press’. Unusually, however, he declined to show it to The Mail on Sunday or elaborate further. On Friday, extensive inquiries by this newspaper at the Royal Courts of Justice in London failed to establish if an order had been granted. Earning up to £500 an hour, Sir Nicholas, 54, earned the nickname Mr Payout because of the large sums he won for wives.

    His past clients have included Sir Paul McCartney in his divorce from Heather Mills. But friends of Lady Mostyn say the couple’s own divorce battle is now threatening to become as rancorous as the former Beatle’s. The Mail on Sunday understands that the judge’s lawyers, Mills & Reeve, demanded six undertakings from Lady Mostyn after she raised concerns about the way the case was being handled. In particular she was aggrieved that the case had been assigned to a regional judge. Some weeks ago she lodged the divorce petition with the Principal Registry in High Holborn, the country’s divorce headquarters, and was expecting it to be heard by a judge in London.

    The Mail on Sunday understands that Mr Justice Wood, of the High Court Family Division, was originally assigned to handle the case. Yet it appears that because Sir Nicholas is acquainted with so many judges, having worked in the Family Division for so long, it was thought prudent to pass the case to a judge outside London. After learning that it is now expected to be heard at Taunton in Somerset, Lady Mostyn told one friend last week she had been 'STITCHED UP BY THE JUDICIARY' . Among the undertakings demanded by her husband was not to communicate directly with him until after the divorce. Another insisted, inexplicably according to friends of Lady Mostyn, that she does not use violence.

    Later, Mills & Reeve dropped five of their demands and instead presented Lady Mostyn with an ultimatum. Demanding that she reply no later than 4pm on Friday, they asked for an undertaking not to speak to the Press about the divorce until after it was finalised. Again Lady Mostyn declined to agree. What happened next is unclear. Mr Bamber, of Mills & Reeve, refused to say when and by whom the order was granted, or even disclose anything beyond the fact that it prevented Lady Mostyn speaking to the Press. The couple’s joint assets run into millions of pounds. They have a Grade II-listed home in Little Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, with hundreds of acres, which Lady Mostyn is concerned she may lose.

    On Wednesday, she told friends: ' I AM BEING TOTALLY STITCHED UP BY THE JUDICIARY in having my case shunted off to Taunton. I am not getting justice at all. They can’t even trust their own judiciary to be even-handed or independent.’ In a moment of frustration, she told her husband she was going to talk to newspapers and reveal what she thought was a ‘total scandal’. Court officials had already said that the divorce would need careful handling because of his position. His paperwork was being kept in the ‘celebrity cabinet’ at the Principal Registry – under tighter security than normal to prevent anyone from gossiping about the case.

    Sian Fox, deputy court manager, said that high-profile divorce petitions were routinely kept in the cabinet. ‘It’s under lock and key with the senior Judge, Waller’s, PA,’ she said. ‘The paperwork is not on the shelf with the others. Only certain people with authority can look at it.There might be a celebrity that everyone knows about and they read the file and find some information and tell their friends and it gets out to the press and we have to have certain restrictions who can access those files.’ On Friday, emergency injunction hearings were being heard all afternoon at Court 37 at the High Court. A clerk said he had been told by the listings office that there may be an emergency injunction hearing relating to Sir Nicholas’s divorce.

    He added: ‘I just heard from listings there may be a Mostyn hearing, but nothing has turned up. If he does not turn up now, he will have to get the injunction using the duty judge which is done over the phone.’ By Friday night, having failed to sign any undertaking, Lady Mostyn was left guessing as to whether an injunction had been granted. She had told a friend in a text: ‘It was just pathetic bullying.’

    The Principal Registry told The Mail on Sunday this month that Sir Nicholas’s divorce would be treated no differently from any other. Sir Nicholas was once described as the ‘scariest barrister in Britain’. He won £5million for Melissa Miller, wife of a City fund manager after a marriage of less than three years with no children. In 2004, England footballer Ray Parlour’s ex-wife Karen was awarded £4 million after he successfully argued she was entitled to a share of his future earnings.

    The judge’s new partner is the widow of Mark Saunders who was the barrister shot dead by police during a siege in May 2008 in Markham Square, West London. Mrs Saunders, 42, is said to have worked closely with Sir Nicholas on cases in the past. There is no suggestion their affair began before the death of her husband, but it is thought they were seeing each other when she attended the inquest into Mr Saunders’s shooting in October.

  • Her Majesties tax henchmen warned to stop threatening to auction off their victim's homes
    Stephen forgets to mention it is THE power behind masonic rule and control across the globe.

    The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. (and around the world)

    Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. "The power of family court judges (masonic) is almost unlimited," according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. "Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power," a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power."

    The divorce regime is responsible for much more than "ugly divorces," "nasty custody battles," and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in America today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few "pro-family" lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear. The divorce regime is much more serious than simply "unfairness" or "gender bias" against fathers in custody proceedings. It is the government’s machine for destroying the principal check on its power – the family – and criminalizing its main rival: fathers.(OR NON MASON MEN)

    The most basic human and constitutional rights are routinely violated in America’s family courts. The lives of children and parents are in serious danger once they are, as the phrase goes, taken into "custody." Systemic conflicts-of-interest among government and private officials charged with child custody, child support, child protection, and connected matters have created a witch hunt against plainly innocent citizens. The terror of the divorce regime is not a future possibility; it is a present reality. The following methods are currently employed by family courts and other government agents.

    These practices are now widespread in America:

    * mass incarcerations without trial or charge (but not for masons)

    * forced confessions (but not for masons)

    * children forcibly separated from parents who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing and parents stripped of the care, custody, and companionship of their children without explanation (but not for masons)

    * government agents entering the homes, demanding and examining private papers and personal effects, and seizing the property of citizens who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing (but not for masons)

    * official court records, including hearing tapes and transcripts, doctored and falsified with the knowledge of court officials and evidence fabricated against the innocent (but not for masons)

    * defendants denied the constitutional right to face their accusers (but not for masons)

    * bureaucratic police authorized to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants against parents, with no hearing and contrary to due process of law (but not for masons)

    * special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses (but not for masons)

    * forced labor facilities created specifically for parents (but not for masons)

    * children instructed to hate their parents with the backing of government officials (but not for masons)

    * children forced by government officials to act as informers against their parents (but not for masons)

    * children abused and killed with the backing of government officials (but not for masons)

    * knowingly false allegations, for which no evidence is presented, accepted as fact without proof, overturning the presumption of innocence, and not punished when demonstrated to be untrue (but not for masons)

    * parents ordered by government officials to separate from their spouses, on pain of losing their children (but not for masons)

    * parents forced to pay the private fees of court officials they have not hired and whose services they have not sought or used, on pain of incarceration (but not for masons)

    * parents suspected of no legal wrongdoing punitively stripped of their property and income, sometimes at gunpoint, and reduced to penury (but not for masons)

    * government officials using the mass media to vilify private American citizens, and political leaders using their offices as platforms to verbally attack private American citizens, who have no right of reply or opportunity to defend themselves (but not for masons)

    * parents jailed without trial reportedly beaten, in at least one case fatally, and denied medical attention while in police custody. (but not for masons)

    I have made these charges in some of the most reputable publications in the English language. They have never been refuted. Yet neither have they been corrected or even addressed by public officials, the media, or academics.

    Stephen Baskerville March 2007



    The homes of hundreds of middle-class parents who dodge their child support payments are on the verge of being repossessed by the Government.

    The Child Support Agency is targeting 950 parents, many of them on above average incomes. After repossessing the homes, it plans to sell them and use the proceeds to cover parents’ child maintenance debts. As part of a clampdown in the last three months, around £2million has been taken out of the bank accounts of absent parents.

    Officials said they wanted to ‘explode the myth’ that only those on lower wages were dodging their parental duties. More than 90,000 of the 1.2million people on the Child Support Agency register earn over £30,000 a year. And of the 6,000 who earn more than £80,000 a year, 1,000 are refusing to pay up. The average salary is £26,500. Ministers are also drawing up plans to make them pay court costs and other fees for taking action against them. They hope this will deter parents from dodging their payments and be fairer on taxpayers who currently pay 40p for every pound recovered because the cost of recovering money from absent parents is so high.

    Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller said: ‘Most parents want to support their children without interference from the state. But these figures show that there is still an irresponsible hardcore trying to avoid their legal duty to support their children.’ A source at the Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘Many of these are people on middle and upper incomes who wilfully withhold from their children money they can well afford. ‘Some people will do all they can to avoid paying for their own children and chasing after them is expensive and time consuming. Our reforms will introduce a fine so if we have to spend time and money coming after you, you will be charged some of the cost.’ Only 30 homes have been repossessed so far but ministers plan to step this up if parents do not pay their child maintenance debts. The 950 homes targeted are not necessarily ones that belong to the 1,000 parents who earn more than £80,000.

    One wealthy father in the North West of England managed to find £70,000 to pay off his debts in one lump sum when the CSA made legal moves to sell his luxury home. It followed 16 years of court battles with the CSA. The disastrous performance by the CSA over the years led to it being branded the ‘Child Shambles Agency’. The cost of recovering money has been high and families have faced long waits for payments. The CSA will close to new cases next year and is due to be replaced with what is described as a more ‘streamlined’ system.

  • Cops try and justify £1 billion of seizures as if all of it due to crime (Who are the REAL criminals?)
    boris berezovsky galinabberezovsky A WARNING TO ANY MAN CONTEMPLATING MARRIAGE

    The ex-wife of billionaire Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky won the biggest divorce settlement in history today worth hundreds of millions.

    The 65-year-old agreed to the massive payout a year after his wife Galina, 52, divorced him in a 45 second divorce on grounds of his unreasonable behaviour. Although they refused to disclose the sums involved, the amicable settlement was described as a 'very substantial' amount and 'the largest award ever'. Judge Eleanor King said: 'It does not matter whether the awards are thousands of pounds or hundreds of millions of pounds.

    'At the end of the day if the husband and wife can reach agreement they can both live with, it bodes much better for their future welfare and for the children of the family and to continue working for the benefit of all of them. She added: 'It is completely appropriate for me to approve this order and I am very happy to do so, and my congratulations to all concerned.' Neither Mr Berezovsky nor his ex wife were at the court for the brief hearing and his representative, Michael Cotlick, said as he left the court: 'We have no comment to make . It is all over that is the most important thing.'

    Ms Berezovsky was granted a 'quickie' undefended divorce from her 64-year-old husband to bring to an end their 18 year marriage on July 22nd last year. District Judge Penny Cushing granted her the decree nisi on the grounds that the marriage had 'irretrievably broken down' and she found it 'intolerable' to live with him because of his unreasonable behaviour. The couple met in Moscow in 1981 when he was a struggling 34-year-old mathematician earning around £60 a month. They married ten years later in November 1991

    It was his second marriage and they have two children Artem, now 21 and Anastasia, now 18. His first marriage was to Nina Vasilievna by whom he has two daughters Katya and Lisa. The couple have lived apart for much of their marriage and he now lives on a luxury estate at Wentworth Park, Surrey, with 42-year-old Elena Gorbunova with whom he has another two children.

    Galina who lives in a luxury penthouse in Kensington Palace Gardens, London, said that while his unreasonable behaviour was not affecting her health it was constant. His wife lives in London with the couple's two children. In his papers Mr Berezovsky said in the court papers that although domiciled in the Russian Federation he was habitually resident in England. He said he had no intention of defending the petition and asked if he objected to paying the costs he replied : ' No - subject to assessment.'

    Galina employed top divorce lawyer Deborah Levy of WGS Solicitors. Mr. Berezovsky was represented by top divorce lawyer Martin Pointer QC who said to the judge: 'I ask you to approve this settlement.' Mr Berezovsky founded the first Mercedes dealership in the old Soviet Union and benefited when President Boris Yeltsin sold off state assets to his favourites for a fraction of their value. Mrs Berezovsky is said to have filed for divorce after becoming irritated at Miss Gorbunova being described as the oligarch's 'wife'.


    Rupert and Anna Murdoch - £1billion
    Adnan and Soraya Khashoggi - £536million
    Craig and Wendy McCaw - £282million
    Roman and Irina Abramovich - £184million
    Michael and Maya Polsky - £113million
    John 'Jack' Welch and Jane Beasley - £110million
    Michael and Juanita Jordan - £103million
    Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey - £92million
    Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving - £61million
    John and Beverly Charman - £58million

  • Berezovsky pays out £100m in UK's biggest divorce settlement

    Absent fathers who won’t pay child support face losing their driving licences

    Absent fathers who defy orders to pay towards their children’s care face immediate suspension of their driving licences and passports under new plans outlined today. They would also face curfew orders and new powers to deduct money from their bank accounts. But last night there were warnings it would be ‘madness’ to strip ‘runaway’ parents of their licences as it could cost them their jobs and their ability to contribute to their children’s upkeep.

    Officials chasing ‘deadbeat dads’ already have a range of sanctions to force them to meet their obligations, including the power to go to court to strip someone of a passport or driving licence. But the influential Commons’ Work and Pensions Committee today calls for officials to be able to remove the documents at a stroke, without legal action. Extra powers to make it easier to deduct child maintenance payments from the absent parents’ bank accounts are also demanded. The proposals come after David Cameron called for ‘runaway dads’ to be stigmatised like drink drivers. Sources close to Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said the proposals would ‘definitely’ be considered.

    But Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, said: ‘Taking away a driving licence could stop parents earning the money to help their children.’ Under existing reforms, all existing Child Support Agency functions are being taken over next year by the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. But the committee fears the reforms may not go far enough.

    There are a small bunch of ultra rich psychopaths that have convinced the world that law and order is safe in their hands and that the police and armies they control should be the only ones allowed to carry weapons, this is particularly true in the UK where a dumbed down population believes the monsters running Britain , no ripping off the peasants, have the god given right to stop the public protecting themselves from outright STATE tyranny . That is while the Queen and her vast army of masonic henchmen have access to a mountain of arsenals primed and ready if and when the sheeple eventually rise up IF EVER.

    Men not part of their New World Agenda have been deplorably treated, stripped of their livelihoods by the judicial mafia, weakening any resistance against the thugs and bullyboys that are literally getting away with bloody MURDER and virtually unaccountable to anyone apart from their brothers who hold all the major positions of power and control. While many of the male 'sheeple' are busy wondering where the next football match is being played and what team they are going to fight with , the mobsters in charge are riding roughshod over every right we have and carrying out their vile plans unhindered by a very distracted male populous. While the thicko's entertain themselves with frivolity , those self appointed elite money men are master minding the next phase of their NWO control network, that has throughout history ,enslaved the forefathers of the 'bears' who have no idea what the hell is going on beyond their TV sets or football match. Exactly what their masters ensured would happen, as it is so much easier to bring in draconian measures while the sheeple are heavily distracted with frivolity.

    Those of us hoping to see change can only get that change when large swathes of the population unite as is happening in the Middle East, but instead we have the sheeple turning out in force to celebrate another layer of the royalist dynasty's black nobility wedding of the year. Men are at the cutting edge of viewing the police state when their privacy is stripped in family courts that think they have the right to destroy men not part of their masonic clubs, but that masonic club no longer rules the world. The absolute onslaught across the internet has massively weakened their position exposing how they deal with any dissenters in the most vile way using laws like the mental health act. It isn't a bullet in the head that keeps the sheeple quiet it is the quiet incarceration and chemical lobotomies in psychiatric gulags that stifle dissent.

    But our group have catalogued some of the great activists who have undergone these twisted punishments, that many have yet to encounter, and it is NOT a pretty sight watching good men's lifeblood , essence and spirit destroyed by chemical coshes. Information is spreading across the globe about how their hierarchy function and brainwash the duped sheeple. But there is a growing army of men becoming aware of the devious tricks used to enslave us and already reaching a turning point where their oppression is unable to contain the masses. It was alright when only a few needed their extreme treatment , who in their eyes were the really troublesome individuals that fought their tyranny, but they can no longer cope with the groundswell of men now prepared to say enough is enough and their persecution networks are becoming less able to stifle the outrage that is growing through their exposures.

    For the first time in man's history the mobsters are losing the grip on the enslaved and are struggling to stop the revolt that the internet has allowed to flourish. Once you awaken a population it is impossible to reverse as so many brilliant articulate writers now have the opportunity to educate us on how the few control the many. A global awakening that cannot be distracted by the many disinfo merchants they are funding to divert attention from what they have been getting up to for far to long thanks to the complicit media feeding us propaganda while preventing truth getting out.


  • President Adam’s Law Against The Illuminati

    Where did all the money go? Former nude model who became 'richest divorcee in history' declares herself bankrupt

    A socialite and former bellydancer and nude model who became known as 'the wealthiest divorcee in history' after she split from her billionaire husband has declared herself bankrupt. Patricia Kluge secured a settlement amounting to £1million ($1.6million) a week after the divorce 21 years ago. Mrs Kluge, who had entertained royalty, moguls and celebrities at her sprawling Virginia estate in the 1980s and later tried her hand as a winemaker, filed for personal bankruptcy protection with her third husband.

    The 62-year-old Briton netted a reported $1billion after splitting from media mogul John Kluge in 1990. She splashed out on the lavish 45-room Abemarle House, set on 3,000 acres of land in Virginia. The one-time star of adult film 'The Nine Acres of Nakedness' became known as the host of extravagant parties attended by the rich and famous.

    But the high-living British woman, who was born in Baghdad, has declared herself bankrupt after she crashed financially and her winemaking business failed. Bankruptcy papers reveal the sad downfall of the former billionaire who has desperately been trying to raise money by selling off her possessions over the past year. She and her husband William Moses estimate have up to $50 million in liabilities, according to bankruptcy filings. A lawyer for the couple, Kermit Rosenberg,(Zionist lawyer) said: 'They're getting on with their lives, trying to discharge their debts and start over.'

    Mrs Kluge acquired the 23,500-square-foot Albemarle House and its 3,000 acres in rural Virginia from her 1990 divorce from billionaire media mogul John W Kluge, who died in September. It was designed after an 18th-century English country manor with multilevel gardens, fountains, a swimming pool and rustic guest cabin. In the 1980s, Mrs Kluge hosted opulent events for royalty, corporate chieftains, celebrities and literary figures at the home, which Mrs Kluge once said defined her.

    The 62-year-old said last year that she no longer lived that life and instead was trying to focus on a winery business she had sought to create with her new husband. The Chapter Seven bankruptcy petition comes after the failure of negotiations with three principal banks, Mr Rosenberg said. The banks had foreclosed on the couple's winery business, their Albemarle House mansion and a neighborhood of luxury homes under development.

    Mr Rosenberg said attempts to 'structure an overall settlement' didn't succeed. He added the filing places the couple's assets under the control of a court-appointed trustee, who will administer payments to creditors. Bank of America filed a lawsuit against Mrs Kluge in U.S. District Court in Charlottesville, alleging that Kluge defaulted on three loans worth nearly $23 million on the brick Georgian home and its grounds. The bank purchased the property for $15.26 million.

    The couple also lost their Kluge Estate Winery & Vineyard after defaulting on nearly $35 million in loans from Farm Credit Bank during their effort to build a national wine business during the economic downturn. Reality-television mogul Donald Trump bought most of the business in April, saying he wants to operate the vineyard. Lender Sonabank took back the couple's upscale Vineyard Estates subdivision for $4.9 million at a January auction after Kluge and Moses defaulted on an $8.2 million loan after few properties on the 511-acre tract had sold.

    The couple's current home in the subdivision wasn't part of the sale. To raise cash for the struggling winery, Mrs Kluge enlisted Sotheby's last June to conduct an onsite auction of furnishings, antiques and other items, which brought in $15.2 million. An ornate Qing Dynasty Chinese table clock sold for nearly $3.8 million, and worldwide bidders also paid top prices for paintings, furniture and other pieces in the collection. Mrs Kluge also liquidated much of her jewellery for about $5 million at a previous sale.


    A HOMEOWNER has been ordered to leave the house where he was caring for his 92-year-old mother to allow his estranged wife to move back in. Angus and Barbara Ann Fraser are fighting a legal battle over the home in the Lochaber village of Caol.

    Mrs Fraser, 61, left the house the couple shared with her mother-in-law Elizabeth nine weeks ago when the pair separated, but then began a legal move at Fort William Sheriff Court to return to live there. Sheriff Douglas Small has granted an interim exclusion order against Mr Fraser, 54, banning him from the house he owns jointly with his mother. He had also been the pensioner's night-time carer. Sheriff Small ruled that, under the Matrimonial Homes Act, Mrs Fraser had rights to the house after the couple split. A full hearing will be held later this year. During an earlier hearing, Mrs Fraser claimed her husband had been abusive to her and that his actions were having a detrimental impact on her health. Her lawyer also said that when she moved back in to the house, her mother-in-law could move into a care home.

    Mr Fraser, who is banned from visiting the house until a final ruling is made, is now living with a friend. He said: "The law is totally on her side and she has made accusations which are totally unfounded. "It seems like my mother has no rights at all. Hopefully, the truth will come out at the full hearing. "At the interim case her solicitors were talking about putting my mother into the care of the local authority and all sorts, but that's totally against her will and the wishes of her family."

    Grandmother Elizabeth Fraser suffers from heart and kidney problems and needs 24-hour care. She lived at the Telford Place property with her husband until his death nine years ago. The pensioner then invited her son to live with her and they were later joined by Barbara Ann Fraser after the couple married in 2004. Mr Fraser's sister, Pat Cameron, who has taken over the full-time care of their mother, yesterday criticised the sheriff's decision and the legal system.

    She also claimed that Mrs Fraser had been abusive to her mother who is now concerned at the possibility of her living in the house. Mrs Cameron said: "It's the law we're really angry at here. My mother doesn't seem to have any rights whatsoever, even though she co-owns the house. She is pretty upset by all this.

    "She doesn't keep well at the best of times so she could do without this, we could all do without it. My brother's wife has keys to the house and we've been told by her solicitors that she will turn up at some point, but we're sitting here at night and we don't have a clue who's going to walk in. "My mother's terrified she's going to be left alone with the woman. She's just gone into her shell because she's so frightened.

    A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. And everyone wants to know why. Apparently the old general was right. Death is not the worst of evil.

    I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class. I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war. There are two kinds of bureaucrats you need to know; the ones that say and the ones that do. The bridge between them is something I call The Second Set of Books. I have some figures of the success of their labors. You and I are in these numbers, as well as our spouses and children. But first let me tell you how I ended up in this rabbit hole.

    My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down. When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment. After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested. Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.

    This country is run by idiots.

    The police sergeant Freyer screwed this up from the get go. When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child. Labeling someone's action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930's. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany had his family literally annihilated. Arrests are mandatory for the police in New Hampshire for domestic violence. That is not law. That is police department policy. Laws come from the Legislature and the Governor's office together. God only knows where these policies come from. The State's Attorney General also has a mandatory arrest protocol for domestic violence. I call these policies, procedures and protocols The Second Set of Books. You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books. This is America-we have the rule of law.

    I am a regular guy, a coffee and cheeseburger type of fellow. As remarkable as my life has been, I figure that what happens to me must be happening to others as well. I was 48 years old when I got arrested here for my first time. So I went looking for the arrest numbers for domestic violence, this new group that I had unwilling joined. I could not find anything. So I wrote the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Washington. They wrote back that they did not keep track of domestic violence arrests. The FBI keeps track of all other crimes. How come not domestic violence? I thought some low level clerk was blowing me off. At the time, I had mailing addresses in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. So I wrote to all six Congressional offices, the two Senators from each state and the two Congressman. They like doing favors for constituents hoping you will favorably remember their name in the voting booth. All six offices reported back the same thing. They do not know how many arrests for domestic violence have been made. I immediately knew something was wrong. And I also knew this was not going to be good. Improvise, adapt and overcome. The Army teaches that to every soldier it trains. They say that no battle plan survives the first five minutes of combat. So your people on the ground had better be able to think for themselves. Taking casualties in war is just an occupational hazard. Taking casualties and not accomplishing your mission is a disaster. After 21 years of Army service, I am pretty good at improvising.

    The first thing I found was a study not of domestic violence arrests but of domestic violence injuries for 18 unnamed states and the D.C. in the year 2000. In the study 51% of the injuries were 'no injuries'. So I knew I had a study of police reports. Who else but a police officer would record no injuries? I populated that out to the 50 states and came up with 874,000 arrest in the year 2000. I had originally populated the number back to 1994 when the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted into law. I would later find out these arrests stated with the U.S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence ten years earlier in 1984. As individual states data became available for various years and states, I would incorporated in to my informal study. The number I have now in 2011 is 36 million adults have been arrested for domestic violence. I have a gut feeling this number could be as high as 55 million. But I only have data to 36 million. So 36 million it stays. And there is a really cool trick you can do once you have this number. You can find out how many American men. women and children ended up homeless because of these arrests. Most of the domestic violence statistics I have seen break down with 75% male and 25% female being arrested. So I am going to used the male pronoun for the one arrested spouse and the female pronoun for the victim spouse. That should make the domestic violence feminists ecstatic-man bad, woman good. But that is okay because that is probably the last nice thing I am going to do for them today.

    When then a man is arrested for domestic violence, one of two things can happen. If they are only dating and have separate apartments, then he can head home. But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle. A feminist name Pence who wrote that was absolutely giddy at that outcome. So he can get his own place if he has enough money. Or he can move in with his mother, his sister or another relative. He might have a girl friend who would let him stay with her. And if none of this is possible, well then I guess he is sleeping in his car down by the river. If he has minor children, money will soon turn into an issue. Most men I know do not mind paying child support. They want their kids to have food on their plates, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. But it does stress that man's finances. Child support is usually 33% of the man's gross income. Withholding for taxes, social security and health insurance can range up to 28% of his gross paycheck. So a man making $500 a week gross has only $825 monthly left over after withholding and child support. That is not enough money for an apartment here in Central Massachusetts. That does not include other expenses like heating, electric, gas, groceries, telephone, cable, car payment and car insurance. So he is in a financial hole. Estimates of homeless men run 82% to 94%. I am going to round that down to 80%. After the King has left his castle, his wife runs into a problem. She was use to getting his whole paycheck for the household. Now she get a third for child support. Figure they both work and made the same money, her budget went from 100% down to 66%. If she was running the house on $3,045. a month when the King was home, now without him she only has $2,220. Most households in America cannot withstand a 27% hit on the household account. She'll juggle the bills but eventually most wives figure out that they can pay all the smaller bills if they just does not pay the big bill. That would be the rent or the mortgage. So six to nine months after the King is out of the castle, the Queen, the Princes and the Princesses are also on the street. Domestic violence feminists state that 50% of victim spouses of domestic violence end up homeless at some time in their lives.

    Ian Puddick and wife Leena Ian Puddick and wife Leena on holiday Ian Puddick and wife Leena Puddick wedding
    Ian Puddick and wife Leena Puddick outside court Timothy Haynes Ian Puddick

    Sinister forces tried to destroy my life, says cuckolded plumber who exposed wife's affair with multi-millionaire lover on web

    The cuckolded plumber who used the internet to expose his wife’s affair with her multi-millionaire boss told his full, sensational story last night – and claimed he was subjected to ‘disgraceful’ intimidation by police. In what he called a victory for free speech, Ian Puddick was cleared on Friday of harassing Tim Haynes, a former director of multi-national City insurance company Guy Carpenter. Mr Puddick said the verdict also vindicated his belief that he was victimised when counter-terrorism detectives conducted a ‘ludicrous’ £1 million inquiry into his activities after Mr Haynes’ firm hired private detective agency Kroll, alleged to be linked to the police.

    ‘They tried to wreck my life but I held my ground, never gave up,’ Mr Puddick told The Mail on Sunday. He is now considering taking legal action against City of London Police. ‘This all started as a way of embarrassing Mr Haynes but I created most of the websites to detail how a simple affair exploded – unnecessarily – into a massively disproportionate police operation,’ he said. Lawyers believe the case at City of Westminster Magistrates Court has set new guidelines for internet freedom of expression.

    Mr Puddick claimed that at one point detectives told him that undercover officers were despatched to Hyde Park in London to monitor speeches he made at Speakers’ Corner. He also allegedly received threatening phone calls, suffered a ‘professional’ break-in at his house in which court papers were stolen and faced false accusations of drug-taking from police. And a few weeks before his court case started, Mr Puddick said he was pulled over by police while driving his van in North London and handcuffed without being read his rights.

    An officer explained that it was suspected his van was stolen – but the plumber was later freed when checks proved this was not the case. Kroll used to be owned by UK-based holding company MMC, the same firm that owns Guy Carpenter, which hired the private detectives to investigate Mr Puddick. There is nothing to suggest either firm was involved in any illegal activity. But Mr Puddick believes that at the very least the affair exposed what he describes as a ‘curiously cosy’ relationship between Kroll and City of London detectives, who held at least one meeting about the case.

    ‘You have to ask yourself whether all this would have happened had Mr Haynes been a milkman and not a man of power and substance. And I can’t help thinking that sinister forces were at work,’ he said. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Mr Puddick, 41, with his Finnish wife Leena at his side, openly discussed her seven-year on-off affair, its devastating aftermath and how they now hope to rebuild their lives. Somewhat less candidly, Mrs Puddick, also 41, offered for the first time an explanation of her behaviour. She spoke, too, of ‘unbearable guilt’ and how, looking back, she believes she must have been in love with two men at the same time.

    It was on May Bank Holiday in 2009 that Mr Puddick’s life was brutally upturned. He had intercepted a text message on his wife’s phone while he relaxed in his garden listening to Radio 4. ‘Leena’s phone buzzed, I called her and she completely overreacted. She said not to touch it and she would be down in a minute. ‘Because of her reaction I did look. It was a sex text from Haynes about what they had been up to.’ He found other explicit messages and a photo of Mr Haynes, 52, performing a sex act in a bathroom.

    ‘I was knocked for six, I couldn’t function or do anything. I had not suspected a thing,’ he said. ‘I demanded to know exactly what had been going on. She started to tell me but I didn’t want to hear any lies so I said, “Stop. Think what you are going to tell me and come back when you have thought about it.” ‘I went away for a week, completely heartbroken. I came back and told her I was ready to hear what she had to say.’

    His wife recalled: ‘Oh God. I still tried to lie. If it was Ian he’d never have lied and would have been straight and told me everything. But I held things back.’ Mr Puddick said: ‘Her lies were pathetic but much of the story did eventually come out.’ He learnt the affair started when his wife, a secretary, had sex with her immediate boss Mr Haynes at an office Christmas party in 2002.

    ‘I don’t remember much about it but I do remember dancing on the tables at the party,’ she said. Their affair lasted around six months before she ended it, determined to build a life with Mr Puddick, whom she had met at a wine bar a year earlier. Then, she said, she spent years enduring unwelcome advances from Mr Haynes before finally succumbing a few months after she married Mr Puddick in October 2007. ‘It almost seems like a dream but Haynes was so attentive. He said I was the most wonderful, desirable woman in the world,’ she said.

    Mr Puddick admits he is not the most demonstrative of husbands. ‘She didn’t get all that “I will love you to the day I die” and “you are the centre of my universe” from me, he said. ‘And I wouldn’t have sent her love letters the way he did. I’m just not like that.’ Meanwhile, Mrs Puddick conceded that she was ‘flattered’ by the attention from her boss. ‘When women have affairs they want attention. And for women it is much more about the romancing. ‘I tried not to get drawn back into it but he was so constant, he was always there. I sat at a desk outside his office so I saw him all the time. He would take me for drinks and lunches.

    ‘Sometimes I turned him down but he was so persuasive. He would bombard me with text messages. I should have walked away, left my job, after the first affair ended. ‘But I loved the team I was working with and coming from Finland it wasn’t as if I had family and childhood or student friends here.’ Mrs Puddick’s relationship with her husband had started falteringly in 2002, and was later prone to ‘ups and downs’ chiefly because of his reluctance to make a serious commitment.

    Brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness in North London, Mr Puddick had a ‘dysfunctional childhood by most people’s standards’. ‘I wasn’t encouraged to go to school so I left with no real qualifications,’ he said. ‘My mother wanted me to find work within the Church, possibly as a missionary. ‘I decided that learning a trade would be helpful if I was to be sent to some far-flung corner so I trained as a plumber and was very good at it, though I disliked the work.’

    Mr Puddick was named Master Plumber of the Year at the age of 19 by the Federation of Master Plumbers – the youngest person ever to receive the title. In his spare time he trained as a minister and married a girl he met through church. ‘During our courtship we were only allowed to spend half an hour together each week – and that was in the company of a chaperone. So we didn’t know each other well enough when we got married. It was a disaster.’

    Divorce meant being forced to leave the Church, which devastated his mother. ‘But religion is still with me and it has given me a strong moral ethic.’ Changing careers, he achieved success as a sales manager and rose quickly, at one point training other salesmen and addressing conferences of thousands of people. Mr Puddick started his own business as a communications consultant, and experienced a particular high point when he worked with Buckingham Palace officials to make the Queen’s Christmas message available to access by phone and internet.

    But he and his firm experienced financial troubles and in 2003 he was forced to return to plumbing. Ian met Leena in 2002 and for two years resisted her subtle hints about settling down, or at least living together. ‘It sounds silly really, ‘ he said. ‘But I still believed strongly that sex before marriage was hypocritical and that living together was wrong. ‘At the same time I knew that in order to avoid making the same mistake again I had to live with the person I would eventually marry.

    ‘It was a massive deal for me. If I was going to do it again I wanted it to be absolutely right.’ At this, his wife laughed mirthlessly: ‘As you can see it went really well.’ As later events would bear out, Leena – who ‘isn’t religious at all’ – was considerably more morally flexible. ‘I wanted to live together and get married and have children but I understood how Ian felt,’ she said. When they did eventually marry in 2007, Leena’s affair with Mr Haynes, a married father-of-three from Billingshurst, West Sussex, was an uncomfortable memory.

    The attention – or harassment as she puts it – from Mr Haynes had eased when she and Mr Puddick got engaged. ‘He [Mr Haynes] decided to channel his energies into something else, so he ran the New York marathon. But even though his wife was there with him he texted me as soon as he crossed the line.’ And when Leena married, she said her boss told a colleague it was the ‘worst day of his life’.

    Beyond being worn down by his repeated requests to meet for lunch and drinks – and vague frustration at her husband’s reluctance to have children – she is at a loss as to why she embarked on a second affair so soon after finally getting married. ‘There are no excuses really,’ she said. ‘I assumed children would follow naturally and they didn’t.’ Turning to her husband, she then said: ‘You are so self-assured and I am much more insecure.’

    ‘I am not attentive, I don’t know why,’ Mr Puddick replied. She said: ‘You don’t need attention, but I do, I’m more needy.’ As with the previous liaison, the second affair was largely conducted at wine bars, restaurants and hotels around the City.

    ‘We would often entertain clients around the country so Tim would always make sure I was there to help,’ she recalled. ‘The affair started in May 2008 and became sexual in July, although the sex was always fuelled by alcohol. ‘We were drinking every day at long lunches, and later going back out again to bars and then to a hotel. Tim would tell his wife he was staying up in town entertaining clients. ‘And of course there were so many texts, some of them sexual.’

    Asked if she responded with similar texts, her husband interjected: ‘You must have done!’ Lowering her head, Mrs Puddick replied almost inaudibly: ‘Yes I did.’ After a moment’s pause she went on: ‘But now I was married to Ian. It was horrible and made me physically sick but I would still go along with it. I know it’s no excuse but I was always drunk. I have never drunk as much as I did that year.’

    Then, breaking down, she added: ‘To live with the fact that I was unfaithful such a short time after the marriage is horrendous. Getting married was all I wanted, and then to see how much I had hurt Ian, the pain ... ‘You have a bottle of wine every day and emotions are all over the place. During that intense period I thought that I probably loved him, I must have. But I loved Ian as well. Oh God, yes.’ After the affair was uncovered the couple spoke of divorce but gradually became reconciled. Mr Puddick believed that in order to kill off the affair for good he had to tell Mr Haynes’s wife Annja.

    ‘I got to the house but no one was in. I walked round the side of the house feeling jealous, angry, upset – whatever emotions you could possibly imagine, they were all there – and I really wanted to know what he looked like as well. ‘You want to know what it’s about, why? Who is he? That kind of stuff. ‘At the side of the house there are big patio doors I looked in. It’s a big house. There’s a big fireplace with pictures and stuff on the mantelpiece. But I just couldn’t quite see. It was very frustrating.

    ‘Next to it there is a little brick house with their boiler in it. So there was a lever for the oil and I turned it off. Silly really. That was more out of hurt and upset, but obviously it was the wrong thing to do. ‘The next day I drove down there again and Mrs Haynes answered the door and I said, “You don’t know me but my wife Leena works with Tim.” ‘She said, “Yes I know Leena,” and I remember thinking, “How do I tell her? How do I tell her?” So I just thought the kindest way is, “I’ve got something to tell you that you might want to hear.”

    ‘So she almost knew something like that was coming. She paused and she said, “OK, you’d better come in”. I went in, sat at the kitchen table. I told her about the texts and the affair and was there for maybe three of four minutes. I showed her the love letters from, Tim. Then she asked me to leave.’ Mr Puddick insisted that his wife transfer to another department and rang her company’s chief executive. It never happened because it was deemed too impractical. Instead, believing a separation was imminent, Mr Haynes offered to install Mrs Puddick in a flat as a ‘kept woman’. She declined. It was around this time that Mr Puddick began receiving threatening phone calls including one, he claims, from an employee of Guy Carpenter who allegedly told him: ‘We’ve got deep, deep pockets and we’re going to **** you like you’ve never been ****ed before.’

    He added: ‘After that call my house was raided, then my office was raided, my company accountants were raided. ‘These were 12 or 13 armed counter-terrorism police – quite why they came from this department has never been adequately explained.’ After his arrest in August 2009 Mr Puddick made a full statement and was then told officers needed to speak to him about another matter. At this interview Puddick said officers tried to bully him into confessing to taking cocaine.

    Giving evidence last week he said: ‘I was absolutely clear they were corrupt, the officers investigating. ‘I have never had anything to do with drugs, never. One of the officers was saying, “Stop ****ing lying to me. Don’t lie to me.’ In another interview he was given the impression that police were monitoring him even more closely. ‘I was told undercover cops were sent to Speakers’ Corner to listen to me make speeches. I was talking there about the police investigation against me and the cost to the taxpayer. I was also handing out leaflets.’

    It was in February that Mr Puddick claims his house was broken into and his court papers stolen. Last year Mr Haynes was forced to resign before the start of a disciplinary hearing into his expenses, which Mr Puddick said had fraudulently funded their affair. Mrs Puddick went off sick from work and was made redundant last year. ‘Now we are slowly starting to pull things together,’ she said.

    ‘It has been hard but I am proud of what Ian has achieved and I am grateful that he has forgiven me.’ Asked about Mr Puddick’s claims, the City of London Police said: ‘An internal investigation found that there was no misconduct. There was no action taken.’

    And a Kroll spokeswoman said: ‘The accusations made by Mr Puddick against Kroll are completely false. In 2009, Kroll was retained by Guy Carpenter to investigate threats against Guy Carpenter and its clients. 'Through the use of civil court orders, Kroll obtained information that enabled the City of London Police to arrest and charge Mr. Puddick.’

    A cuckolded husband has hailed a victory for "free speech and the small man" as he was cleared of harassing his wife's millionaire lover over the internet.

    Plumber Ian Puddick, 41, tweeted, blogged and posted videos online after being enraged by his spouse's 10-year relationship with City director Timothy Haynes. Mr Puddick said he would concentrate on getting his married life on track after District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe dismissed harassment charges at the end of a three-day trial at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. Flanked by wife Leena, he said: "I am just absolutely relieved. It's a relief for everybody."

    Mr Puddick shook his fist and smiled amid cheers from the public gallery as two not guilty verdicts for internet harassment were returned. After giving his wife a kiss, he said: "For the last 12 months this has taken over my life. Purely and simply there has been an abuse of power. "It this can happen to me it can happen to anyone.

    "It is absolutely a victory for free speech and the small man. I'm a plumber and drive around in a Transit." He set up a string of websites and confronted Mr Haynes after finding out about the affair by reading a text message on her phone. He also discovered photographs of Mr Haynes performing sex acts in May 2009. Mr Haynes, from Billingshurst, West Sussex, admitted he had been deceitful but said Mr Puddick should have taken up his anger with him alone.

  • 40 texts a day sent by broker to married lover during affair
    TIMOTHY HAYNES, LEENA PUDDICK AND IAN PUDDICK LEFT: TIMOTHY HAYNES, LEENA PUDDICK AND IAN PUDDICK. If this had been the woman exposing her ex-husbands affairs the complicit media would be taking a very different tack . This is a very typical masonic persecution case with high level harassment from the masonic met, judges and lawyers who were involved after Haynes made complaints.

    Scorned plumber 'created websites to detail wife's affair'
    Steamy text messages suggest making love in the office, al fresco and at a flat

    A cuckolded husband used Twitter to expose 'graphic' details about his wife's affair with her millionaire boss, a court heard yesterday. Plumber Ian Puddick, 41, also bombarded his love rival Timothy Haynes with text messages, threatening calls and set up a host of websites to broadcast details about their 'deceitful' affair, it is alleged. Puddick, himself a millionaire with his own business, is said to have taken revenge on the insurance firm director by then harassing his wife, clients, friends and even neighbours in a series of phone calls.

    He discovered his wife, Leena Mannonen, 36, was having an affair in 2009 after seeing a text message sent to her from Mr Haynes. City of Westminster Magistrates' Court was told Mr Haynes sent the attractive blonde, who had been his personal assistant for 12 years, a series of explicit texts during their sexual relationship which started after they had sex at a Christmas party in 2002. One message read: 'Where do you want to have sex next? The office, al fresco, the flat or all three you greedy girl?' Another said: 'You are the most lovely, most desirable girl in the world.'

    Enraged, Puddick is said to have embarked on a two-year campaign of harassment to shame his love rival and tell as wide an audience as possible about the affair. At one point he set up a website called 'Banksyuncovered' which was designed to trick internet users into thinking they would find out the identity of graffiti artist Banksy. In fact all they got was lurid details of the affair.

    In a landmark case, which highlights the immense power of the internet, Mr Haynes said Puddick's blogs online had left 'most of the country' aware of his infidelity. Days after Puddick learnt of their affair, Mr Haynes said he started receiving 'menacing' and 'threatening' calls from a man speaking in an Irish accent warning that the intimate details of his affair would be revealed. Puddick allegedly told Mr Haynes' wife Annja about the affair, before contacting clients, colleagues and neighbours of Mr Haynes, who was chairman of a local residents association in Billingshurst, West Sussex.

    The court heard that during their affair, Mr Haynes, who now works for insurance company Aon Benfield, sent his mistress a series of love letters and messages saying: 'You are an incredible, sensual girl and being with you and giving you pleasure is a great feeling for me.' He also told her: 'I will love you forever.' In another message, he said: 'You are reassuringly expensive', referring to his mistress's taste in champagne. After their affair ended in June 2009, Mr Haynes wrote to Miss Mannonen: 'You are a special, wonderful person who I will love to the day I die.' The Puddicks are now back together while Mr Haynes' German-born wife Annja has stood by her husband throughout.

    Mr Haynes was forced to leave his job at Guy Carpenter, one of the world's largest financial companies in March 2010, after details of his affair were leaked and his former mistress also launched a sexual harassment claim against him. Michael Wolkind, QC, defending, accused Mr Haynes of leaving the company just before he faced disciplinary action for allegedly fiddling his company expenses by claiming for clandestine meetings with his mistress. Puddick posted messages on websites saying: 'He fiddled his expenses which shows the guy is a toad.' But Mr Haynes denied the claims.

    In 2009, Mr Haynes contacted the police about the alleged harassment, but he dropped the case days before Puddick was due to face trial. Last year he made a second complaint after discovering websites in the UK and U.S. detailing the affair. Mr Haynes told the court: 'Every medium including Twitter was being utilised to create information about myself and the affair. The whole thing is causing my wife upset and distress. We are very anxious that, with the graphic nature of the website, children do not stumble across it.'

    Mr Haynes said he and his wife needed counselling for the 'embarrassment and shame'. Mrs Haynes, told how her life had been 'turned upside down' by Puddick constantly playing the 'rewind button' on her husband's affair. Mr Wolkind told Mr Haynes: 'The truth is you suffered the same degree of distress as a burglar does when he is caught by police. You aren't to be trusted because you are a dishonest and deceitful man.'

    Puddick, of East London, claims police spent £1million investigating allegations against him. He denies harassment. The case continues.

  • Plumber accused of harassment campaign against millionaire love rival puts on show of unity with wife who cuckolded him
  • 'Sex texts' exposed wife's affair to husband
  • 'I hope the baby dies': What cuckold's pregnant wife was 'told' in chilling phone call
    This is much better than UK sex gossip this is a real life London sex scandal that has progressed into a trial hearing now underway at the City of Westminster magistrates court. Here are the players Ian Puddick, 41, the husband a Plumber by trade. His wife Leena Puddick who for over 10 years was getting her plumbing serviced by her lover multi millionaire insurance firm director Timothy Haynes.

    Then her husband Ian found out about the affair and decided to let all the world know about her infidelity by blogging and posting videos online, using Twitter and a host of websites to expose graphic details about his wife's 'deceitful' affair. But then Mr Haynes and his wife made complaints to the law that he was being harassed leading to him telling in court – quote - that both he and his wife needed counselling after the 'embarrassment and shame' of neighbours and colleagues receiving texts and phone calls. But Ian Puddick's counsel lashed back, Michael Wolkind QC, asked Mr Haynes if he was 'not to be trusted because you are a dishonest and deceitful man?' – more - 'What is it about the website that you are moaning about?' the barrister added. – more - 'You suffered the same degree of harassment that a burglar does when he is caught by the police.'

    We are puzzled what Mr Haynes is really complaining about given that he serviced the plumbing of another man’s wife Leena Puddick for over ten years and never made a complaint and we are all aware that plumbing can be a messy job. Yet for over a decade Timothy Haynes plunged his tackle in and out of the holes that need servicing on a regular and repeat basis like this sexting message he once sent Leena on her mobile phone – quote - 'Where do you want to have sex next - in the office, al fresco, at the flat, or all three? You greedy girl.' Mrs Leena Puddick preferred contract Plumber to Hubby … The case hearing continues …


    A plumber used Twitter, blogs and online videos to expose his wife's affair with her boss, a court heard.

    Ian Puddick, 41, from Enfield, north London, is accused of harassment after detailing online his wife's affair with insurance firm director Timothy Haynes. Mr Haynes, from Billingshurst, West Sussex, said Mr Puddick should have taken up his anger with him alone. Mr Puddick denied the charges at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. Mr Haynes told the court that both he and his wife needed counselling after the "embarrassment and shame" they had been caused. "I think most of the country - thanks to the internet - is aware I had an affair," Mr Haynes, who lost his job as a result of the relationship, said.

    His 10-year affair with Leena Puddick, which gathered pace after they slept together at a Christmas party in 2002, was exposed after her husband read a text message on her mobile phone in 2009. The court heard details of e-mails and text messages that Mr Haynes had sent her over the course of their affair. Mr Puddick's counsel, Michael Wolkind QC, asked Mr Haynes if he was "not to be trusted because you are a dishonest and deceitful man?" The barrister added: "What is it about the website that you are moaning about? You suffered the same degree of harassment that a burglar does when he is caught by the police."

    'Upset and distress'

    Mr Haynes initially made a complaint to police after receiving text messages and phone calls but dropped charges in a bid to put the incident behind him. He complained again to police in 2010 after Mr Puddick set up websites and detailed the affair on Twitter, the court heard. Mr Puddick bought a number of web names, including "Banksyunmasked", prior to setting up his website detailing the affair, the court was told. It was also said that he set up a fake page on LinkedIn, which contains business-themed profiles of individuals, to expose potential clients of Mr Haynes to details about the insurance broker's private life. Mr Haynes added: "Every medium, including Twitter, was being utilised to create information about myself and the affair. "The whole thing is causing my wife upset and distress. We are very anxious that, with the graphic nature of the website, that children do not stumble across it."

    He added that he "was deceitful", but said: "I like to think of myself as an honest person." Speaking outside court, Mr Puddick said: "It is a very, very interesting story. I wish it was happening to somebody else and not me. "But there are obviously big legal implications for the press and for the public. I've stood my ground."

    The case continues.


    Though not all of the alleged harassment in this trial concerns information placed on the internet, the case points up the issue of whether someone freely expressing themselves widely online can be guilty of harassment. There has been no suggestion that anything posted by Mr Puddick is untrue, simply that the widespread and repeated dissemination of sometimes graphic information allegedly amounts to harassment.

    The law says that a person ought to know they are harassing someone else, if a reasonable person with the same information would consider their actions to be harassment. In cases like this, reasonable people would probably be split on the issue.

    As with jurors using Facebook, and people tweeting details of privacy injunctions, the law and the internet are working out their growing and not especially comfortable relationship. Regulating what goes online is proving problematic for both the civil and the criminal law.

  • Ian Puddick on wikispooks