FAMILY COURTS 9

OUTRAGEOUS DIVORCE SETTLEMENT WITH MEL GIBSON EXPECTED TO PAY $425m TO EX
THE DIVORCE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CONTROLLED BY LAWYERS AND JUDGES ALL PART OF THE FREEMASON NETWORK HAS TURNED MARRIAGE INTO A LICENCE FOR GOLDDIGGERS TO REAP MASSIVE REWARDS WHILE THEIR LAWYERS MAKE A KILLING FROM DESTROYING MEN IN FAMILY COURTS.

Mel Gibson's loses 'half his estimated $850 million' in divorce settlement with ex-wife Robyn Moore

Mel Gibson finalised his legal separation today and is likely to hand half of his estimated $850 million fortune to his ex-wife, according to reports. Legal representatives for the actor and his estranged wife – who is returning to her maiden name, Robyn Moore, gave a judge their suggested parting payment in a Los Angeles courtroom today. The Oscar winner owns several properties in the wealthy, seaside enclave of Malibu, outside L.A. Under California state law Robyn, 51, is entitled to half of his assets as they didn’t sign a prenuptial agreement in 1980 when they wed. After 26 years of marriage, the couple split five years ago when Gibson was a detained for driving under the influence in Malibu.

But the 55-year-old’s wife only filed for divorce, stating ‘irreconcilable differences’ in April 2009 after he had publicly stepped out with a pregnant Oksana Grigorieva, 41. The pair went on the have a two-year-old daughter, however in 2010 more trouble brewed for the Passion of Christ movie maker when he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery following a dispute with Grigorieva. The star was sentenced to three years' probation and was given a glowing review earlier this month by the same judge who is handling Lindsay Lohan’s case,for attending counselling and doing double the community service required of him.

The recovering alcoholic has been working with Mending Kids International, and he previously said working with the organisation had helped him realise what the important things in life really are. He said: 'It gives you perspective. It's one of my faults, you tend to focus on yourself a lot, which is not always the healthiest thing for your psyche or anything else. ‘If you take a little time out to think about other people, it's good. It's uplifting.’

While he has seven offspring with Moore, he recently settled a custody battle with his former girlfriend, agreeing to pay Oksana $750,000 and share custody of their child. The Lethal Weapon star’s wild ways over the last few years have landed him in hot water when it comes to his career. Producers of The Hangover movies pulled out of featuring him in their second movie due to his controversial actions.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • LIB DEM LAWYERS TO USE NEW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS TO FLEECE MEN VIDEO


    WERE THERE'S A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ALLEGATION THERE'LL BE A LEGAL AID LAWYER MILKING THE
    SYSTEM AND TURNING A MANS' HOME INTO ANOTHER ADDITION TO THEIR PROPERTY PORTFOLIO'S

  • Domestic violence has become a huge feminist industry
  • Now WORDS can count as domestic violence as 'emotional abuse' is recognised in legal shake-up
  • Lib Dem legal aid lawyers want to use new DV laws to fleece men
  • Widow agrees to return £1.8m legal aid cash falsely claimed by suicide lawyer
  • NO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR FATHERS (VIDEO)
  • WERE THERE'S A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ALLEGATION THERE'LL BE
    A LEGAL AID LAWYER MILKING THE SYSTEM SEE HERE
  • JOHN CLEESE SHAFTED BY THE DIVORCE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
    John Cleese: I need to live in Monaco until my divorce settlement is paid

    Former Python John Cleese talks about the 'absurdity' of his divorce settlement

    So, you’re releasing a DVD of The Alimony Tour. How did your ex-wife feel about that title?

    I have no idea because when we were together she always said if we broke up we’d never speak again. I was surprised because I’ve always stayed in touch with ex-wives and old girlfriends but she meant it. We had just one conversation after the split and she obviously didn’t want to speak again.

    You were quite bitter about how much she took from you, weren’t you?

    I don’t think bitter is the word. I think I am astounded at the absurdity of Californian marital law. The fact is I have now paid her $17million (£10.7million) and have to pay another $4million (£2.5million) over the next four years.

    I’m going to have to go somewhere in Europe, such as Switzerland or Monaco, until the rest is paid. It’s quite extraordinary to normal people that famous people get married so often when they get burned by it each time. My parents weren’t tremendously happy together but they simply didn’t have the option of splitting up and I think sometimes you get to a point in a relationship where you think: ‘Do I want to do this for the rest of my life? There’s no amount of money that makes this worthwhile.’ In the first two cases I got married because I met dear Connie Booth and Barbara [Trentham] in the US and wanted them to come home and they couldn’t have worked if they weren’t married.

    Then I met Alyce Faye (Eichelberger) and she was very keen to get married. There was quite a lot of pressure put on and, in the end, I thought: ‘Well, it doesn’t really matter. It’s not the great romance of the century but it’s a perfectly workable relationship.’ So we got married and it wasn’t quite so successful. I discovered the pre-nup I’d had in Britain wasn’t legally valid. Then I discovered it wasn’t valid in California either.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • 'SECRET RULES' THAT CORRUPT CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES INC. VIDEO
    ANOTHER SAD DAY FOR MEN AS 50/50 PROPERTY CLAIM REJECTED BY JUDICIAL MAFIA
    FREEMASON JUDGES BEHIND THE THEFT OF MENS ASSETS ESPECIALLY PROPERTY. THEY ARE SHAFTING MEN WHILE BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE GOLDDIGGERS MAKING THEMSELVES MILLIONAIRES ON THE BACK OF MENS SWEAT AND TOIL. MEANTIME THE LEGAL MAFIA ARE ALSO LEECHING OFF MEN WITH OUTRAGEOUS FEES FOR DIVORCE THAT MEN SOLELY HAVE TO PICK UP THE TAB FOR BOTH THEIR OWN LEGAL FEES AND THEIR EX WIVES. MANY MARRIED MEN DO NOT REALISE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE DRACONIAN DECISIONS AND ONLY A RESTORATION OF JURIES AND AWAY FROM THE QUEENS CROWN MASONIC JUDICIAL MAFIA WILL MAKE THAT POSSIBLE.

    The Supreme Court today rejected claims by an unmarried man for half the value of the home he bought with his girlfriend.

    The case was brought by ice-cream salesman Leonard Kernott, 51, who left hairdresser Patricia Jones in 1993 after sharing a house in Thundersley, Essex, for eight years. The couple bought the property, which was valued in 2008 at £240,000, in 1985 in joint names and had taken out a joint mortgage. Mr Kernott moved out, leaving Miss Jones to continue paying the mortgage, maintain the house and bring up the couple's children, Lauren, now 26, and 24-year-old Dean.

    Today's unanimous ruling - described by Mr Kernott as a "sad day for men" - is a landmark judgment for unmarried couples arguing over property. But lawyers called for reform of outdated laws on cohabitation. Mr Kernott, now of Benfleet, Essex, said he waited until his children were grown up before making a claim on his old home. In 2008 a county court judge in Southend ruled that Miss Jones should get 90 per cent of the house and Mr Kernott 10 per cent. The following year, that decision was upheld by the High Court but last year the Appeal Court overturned it and decided that Mr Kernott was still entitled to half the value of the house.

    One of the judges, Lord Justice Wall, said the case was "a cautionary tale" which all unmarried couples contemplating buying homes should study. But today, the five Supreme Court judges allowed Miss Jones's appeal and reinstated the original county court judgment. The judges pointed out that in 1995 the couple had taken the house off the market and cashed in an insurance policy so that Mr Kernott was able to buy a house in his own name. Mr Kernott said the ruling was "a sad day for men who are left in a similar position to me and it feels like the law will always side with the woman". He added: "I have been painted as this ogre. I never wanted 50 per cent, I thought 25 per cent would be a fair reflection of what I had put into the property. When I lived there, I paid for everything and refurbished the place."

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • COURTS HAVE LOST TOUCH WITH WHAT ARE REASONABLE NEEDS IN DIVORCE
    Establishment rags only catching up with what we have been exposing for a very long time. Freemason judges behind the massive scams that feed the greed of the legal mafia and the golddiggers they use as a weapon.

    Wife's £4.4m divorce deal: Even though she 'contributed nothing to the fortune of her former husband'

    A divorcee has won her battle to hold on to a £4.4million slice of her ex-husband's ancestral fortune despite contributing nothing to their shared wealth. Jennifer Grubb, 55, was awarded a £2million nine-bedroom country house set in 40 acres of parkland, £75,000 a year for child maintenance, a £1.65million lump sum to meet her 'reasonable needs' and other assets after splitting with Anthony Arbuthnot Watkins Grubb in July 2009. A High Court judge agreed on the division of the couple's £12million estate in August, after describing the couple's wealth as 'not the product of the endeavours' of either of them.

    Mr Grubb, 61, a chartered surveyor, yesterday challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, claiming he had 'arguably contributed 100 per cent' to the fortune – most of which has been in his family for years. However, yesterday the court upheld the original judgment. The ruling comes amid claims that courts have lost touch with the idea of 'reasonable needs' for wives in big-money divorce cases.

    Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Sir Stephen Sedley, heard that Mrs Grubb was given Damerel, the couple's former home in North Chailey, East Sussex – and £75,000 for renovations – following the original High Court hearing. The house, set over three storeys, was described as having 'large gardens, woodlands, lakes, a tennis court and swimming pool'. The couple, who married in 1985, raised their five children there before moving to the £2million Mayes House in East Grinstead, West Sussex. Jonathan Southgate, representing Mr Grubb, attacked Mrs Grubb's award as 'exorbitant'.

    He described the house as 'enormous' and far beyond her 'reasonable needs' now that most of the former couple's children, aged between 15 and 30, have flown the nest. 'The word “needs” has been hollowed out and we have lost connection with it,' the barrister said. 'A nine-bedroom property of this stature was clearly over and beyond her needs.' However, Richard Anelay QC, for Mrs Grubb, argued that her ex-husband should count himself lucky to have only lost about a third of his ancestral wealth.

    'The wife's award represented less than 50 per cent of the assets,' he told the court. 'Although Damerel is described as nine-bedroomed, three of the rooms are very small, or tiny.' Lord Justice Thorpe said: 'You can say the property was so large or valuable that the judge was plainly wrong to give it to her. That is easy to understand but difficult to succeed on in an appeal, because it is a matter of discretion. I can see no trace of error, or the slightest chance of succeeding on an appeal.' After the hearing, Mr Grubb said: 'It's a funny old system, but there you go.'

    He inherited a vast fortune, including several farms, a substantial shares portfolio and a shooting estate, following the death of his father. The source of the Grubbs' wealth was a large manufacturing business, which was floated in the 1950s and sold in the 1980s.

    The legal costs of Mr and Mrs Grubb's divorce have been estimated at almost £700,000.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • NO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR FATHERS VIDEO
    EASY DIVORCE EQUALS LOST CHILDREN
    COMPLIANT MEDIA FINALLY COMING ROUND TO EXPOSING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN STATING FOR MANY YEARS

    Easy divorce equals lost children - it's a simple equation

    When will they make the connection? More than 40 years of divorce on demand, and nobody can work out how to ensure that the child victims of marriage break-up stay in touch with their fathers or their grandparents. Nor can they devise a workable or fair system for child support.

    As for the laws on custody and property after divorce, it is amazing that any man has the courage to get married when he knows what might happen to him if things go wrong. And of course there is the subsidy for fatherless families. You don’t have to take my word for the effects of this, by the way. Listen to Adele Adkins, the singer, who presumably knows a bit about her generation. She recently recalled that ‘the ambition at my state school was to get pregnant and sponge off the Government’, adding: ‘That ain’t cool.’ Could this mass condemnation of so many children to broken homes and/or the absence of fathers have anything to do with this week’s Barnardo’s survey, showing that nearly half of us think the young are becoming feral? I think it could.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • DO FATHERS NO LONGER HAVE ANY RIGHTS AT ALL?
    dad baby For any young man considering marriage and/or having children with a woman should be fully aware of the repercussions if they separate from the mother of his children. The compliant media confirming what we have been exposing for many years.

    Fathers denied legal rights to see their children after a break-up. Grandparents dismissed as causing ‘damage’ to their grandchildren when they ‘interfere’ in divorces.

    The reforms to family law proposed by the Government’s adviser on families reads like some poisonous feminist tract from the Sixties. David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review is a misguided piece of outdated, sexist nonsense which enshrines in law a mother’s unassailable right to raise her children — alone. Mr Norgrove decrees that fathers should have no legal right to enjoy time with their children when a relationship ends. He even says that for a father to have a ‘meaningful relationship’ with his children after his marriage breaks down can do ‘more harm than good’. He claims his review is all based on what’s ‘best for the child’.

    Yet he ignores decades of research that shows children from broken homes benefit from maintaining a stable, constant relationship with their mothers and their fathers, as well as with their extended family. As Iain Duncan Smith says — and countless parents who’ve been through the agony of a divorce know — these reforms would ‘fuel the epidemic of fatherless families’. And there is a terrible irony here: successive governments have, quite rightly, gone to huge efforts to ensure fathers from broken relationships support their children financially. Now they are being told that, despite that support, they will have no legal right to any access.

    Few of us have been untouched by the break-up of a family, whether our own, our children’s or a friend’s. I’m not saying all fathers are paragons — the sad truth is that both mothers and fathers use their children as pawns for maximum leverage in divorce negotiations. It’s just that the law as it stands gives women the upper hand.

    In the bitterness of a divorce, some women use every dirty trick in the book to deny decent men access to their own children. I have even known normally sensible women, egged on by their divorce lawyers, to claim falsely that their husbands abused them, so as to deny them access to the children.

    I’ve seen successful career women claiming poverty or even quitting work to screw every penny out of their children’s father, yet still deny him access. Guilty till proved innocent is the dictum for dads in the Family Law Courts. David Cameron has long promised his will be the most family-friendly government in history. He can prove it by condemning Mr Norgrove’s unjust Anti-Family Review and enshrining in law the right of every decent father to a fair share in the raising of his children.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Legal mafia in favour of camera's in courts BUT NOT the fleecing in family courts
  • PARENTS TAKE UK FAMILY COURTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
    ICC UN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IS ANOTHER FREEMASON RUN COURT AS THE TWIN OLIVE BRANCHES SHOWS AND SIMILAR TO THE FREEMASONIC UNITED NATIONS LOGO

    More than 100 British families who say they have been treated unfairly by social services departments and the family courts are preparing to launch an unprecedented case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, arguing that their human rights have been breached.

    When 'Alison' developed post natal depression she pleaded for help from those she thought were there to assist her. But instead of gaining support she ended up losing custody of her three beloved daughters. Social workers said the children were at risk of suffering "emotional abuse", even though they conceded that she cared deeply for them and had worked hard to be a better parent. Now the 22-year-old, whose real name cannot be used for legal reasons, is pregnant for a fourth time and is terrified that social workers will refuse to give her the chance of caring for the new baby once it is born. This week the mother, from the north of England, became one of hundreds of parents who have joined an unprecedented class action, suing the family courts and local authority social services departments.

    The claimants hope the action will lead to greater transparency and accountability in the family court system, as well as the possibility of being reunited with the children they believe have been taken unfairly. More than 100 families have now signed up to the claim, which will be lodged on July 1 at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, where political leaders are tried for genocide. Alison, who is 15 weeks pregnant, said: "I'm pleased someone's taken action, because they've taken my children.

    "It's about showing that they're using claims like 'emotional abuse' when they've got nothing left to put against you. "You have to prove it 150 per cent that you're a perfect parent, and there's no such thing as 150 per cent. I don't know what would be good enough for them." There were no problems with Alison's first baby, but after the birth of her second child she suffered from post natal depression and was not able to care for the baby properly.

    She said she asked social services for help and support, but instead officials decided she was unfit to be a mother. Both Alison's baby and her 18-month-old toddler were taken into care. The judge at the family court hearing which decided the fate of Alison's first two daughters, in September 2008, recorded in her judgement that the mother had turned up for appointments, assessments and all her court hearings, adding: "She loves her children and has shown a commitment to them in contact." The judge also praised Alison for enrolling on a health and social care course, and staying on top of her finances. Nevertheless, her judgement concluded that the girls should be taken away from their mother because if they were left with her they would be "at risk of emotional harm and physical harm, as a result of her neglectful and poor parenting".

    The two girls were first put into foster care, then put up for adoption. After the decision Alison received counselling and took a series of courses which, she now says, made her a better parent. When she had a third daughter, and fought to keep the baby, she had the testimony of a psychologist who said she had improved greatly. But again social services said there was a "risk" that harm could come to the child, and again a family court ruled against her. Now Alison is only allowed to receive a letter and picture of her three girls once a year. The first three girls shared the same father, with whom Alison had a volatile relationship. She has now split up with the man and is in a more settled relationship with a new partner, the 26-year-old father of unborn baby.

    "I'm petrified about being pregnant just because I think they'll take the baby away," she said. "I'm scared of them coming for it, I don't know what to do and I'm constantly thinking of ways I can help myself. Sometimes I think about running away. "No one's perfect, but I've been trying so hard and I've done so much, but they don't even seem to care.

    "There are some awful mothers out there who hurt their babies, and I've never done anything like that." The court action Alison is now part of is being brought by Freedom, Advocacy and Law, which claims that parents have suffered "constant denial of freedoms" which ought to be protected under the Human Rights Act. The action alleges that British courts and local authorities have breached the legislation, which gives the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private and family life.

    Sam Hallimond, of Freedom, Advocacy and Law, said: "Families have been destroyed by the actions of family courts, and no one has been held to account. "Considering what's at stake at these hearings we need to see some sort of definition of the criteria under which action should be taken by social services.

    "The possibility of future emotional neglect and abuse is not good enough, unless courts have a crystal ball I don't know how they can justify that." He said he hoped the class action could result in financial payouts to some claimants, but the main purpose was to expose the flaws families saw in the system.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • We have publicly-funded child abuse in Wales
  • Two olive branches, symbol of peace and gentleness which should be enjoyed in a well composed lodge
  • Olive Branch Lodge
  • FATHERS LOSE BID FOR EQUAL CUSTODY RIGHTS AFTER FAMILY LAW REVIEW
    AS LONG AS THE MASONIC MAFIA CONTROL SECRET FAMILY COURTS USING A MASONIC JUDICIARY THAT ALLOWS THE GRAND THEFT OF MENS ASSETS, HOMES AND CHILDREN NOTHING WILL CHANGE. THIS IS THE BIGGEST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RIGHT ACROSS THE GLOBE.

    Fathers’ hopes of securing equal rights over their children will be dashed tomorrow when a review of family law is published.

    Plans to give parents equal rights to share custody of their children in the event of a split have been rejected by the Family Justice Review, led by former civil servant and businessman David Norgrove. In a further blow to fathers’ rights campaigners, the Norgrove Report will also reject calls to enshrine in law the principle that children should have a ‘meaningful relationship’ with both their mother and father.

    Instead, it will simply say the courts should keep the idea of a meaningful relationship with an absentee father in mind when they make decisions about a child’s future. The report was rejected as a ‘slap in the face for fathers’ last night and will undermine David Cameron’s claims that he would speak up for a strong family life. Sources familiar with the report said Mr Norgrove had rejected statutory protection for men because it was likely to lead to lengthy legal battles to define a meaningful relationship. In his interim report earlier this year, Mr Norgrove concluded the state of the family courts was ‘shocking’ and that disputes take ‘far too long’ to resolve.

    He also rejected plans for parents to share custody 50-50 after seeing evidence that the system does not work in countries where it has operated such as Australia. A senior government source said: ‘The panel found that shared custody on an equal footing led to lengthy delays in the courts which are not in the interests of the child. ‘They have also rejected the halfway house of statutory recognition for the need to maintain a meaningful relationship on the basis that the courts would spend ages deciding how to define a meaningful relationship.’

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • DIVORCING IN A 'GENEROUS' ENGLISH COURT
    Elizabeth Esteve and Pyrrhos Vardinoyannis

    HOW THE UK'S FREEMASONIC JUDICIAL MAFIA CAN TAKE CONTROL OF MENS ASSETS ACROSS THE GLOBE

    Divorcing in a 'generous' English court, the Greek tycoon and his Brazilian wife who treated life as a 'Grand Tour'

    Pyrros Vardinoyannis wanted to stop Elizabeth Esteve filing for divorce in 'generous' English courts.
    The couple had spent time in London, Los Angeles, Sao Paulo, Milan, Crete and Gstaad.
    He disputed her claim to have lived in London for a year before she filed for divorce, but court disagreed.

    The multi-million pound divorce of a couple who enjoyed a jetsetting lifestyle must be fought on an English battleground, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Pyrros Vardinoyannis, 41, a scion of a Greek shipping dynasty, and his glamorous Brazilian heiress wife, Elizabeth, 38, met in St Tropez in 2001. Although they initially lived in London, the couple spent time in Los Angeles, Sao Paulo, Milan, Crete and Gstaad.

    Last year, while Mr Vardinoyannis was in Switzerland and his wife was in London, she petitioned for divorce in this country. Lawyers for Mr Vardinoyannis tried to stop his wife – known to her friends as Beanie Esteve – pursuing her divorce in the notoriously generous English courts. London has been called the ‘divorce capital of the world’, attracting wives as ‘divorce tourists’ seeking bumper payouts. He disputed her claim to have lived in London for the 12 months before she filed for divorce, since she had spent months in Crete and Switzerland.

    Ruling against the husband at the High Court earlier this year, Mr Justice Peter Jackson said moving around was a feature of the family’s lifestyle, and now the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision. The ruling means the divorce battle, which has already run up legal costs of well over £1million, will go ahead in front of an English judge. ‘Just as there are multinational companies, so this is a multinational family,’ Mr Justice Jackson said in his judgement.

    ‘Their lives have not been tied down by mundane considerations such as financial budgets, local connections, immigration restrictions or language limitations. ‘Instead, they have lived a protracted modern version of the 18th-century Grand Tour, gravitating towards places where the moneyed international social set gathers. ‘The husband, in particular, appeared to struggle in evidence to comprehend the concept of “home” as applying to his family at all. They have . . . shallow roots.’

    Mr Vardinoyannis, who describes himself as a private investor, grew up in Switzerland, attended university in the U.S. and moved to London in 1994. His wife was born and brought up in Brazil, went to school in Switzerland and the U.S., university in Paris, then attended an art course in London and worked in a gallery in New York. The couple married in 2003.

    Rejecting the appeal, Lord Justice Thorpe, who sat with Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice McFarlane, said: ‘The requirement of European law does not stipulate for her presence, but only for her residence here.’ The family home in Kensington, West London, has been sold but the couple, who have two children, now live separately in the capital.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • GOLDDIGGING BIGAMIST WHO FLEECED ELDERLY HUSBAND OF £200k JAILED
    Bigamist who fleeced husband 26 years her senior out of £200,000 while married to two others is jailed

    A bigamist who wed a wealthy businessman while married to two other men has been jailed after fleecing him out of £200,000. Godsgift Tettegah, 39, pursued demolition company boss John Thurlby despite still being married to another Englishman who, like Mr Thurlby, was 26 years her senior. A court heard that Mr Thurlby, now 65, married the defendant - described as ‘strikingly attractive’ by the judge - in 2008.

    But while Tettegah posed as a wealthy, divorced woman, she was still wed to her previous husband, Roger Long. That couple married in 2004, when Tettegah is thought to have already been wed to a fellow Ghanaian called Biko, whom she would later try to pass off as her brother. Tettegah, who is understood to have come to the UK in 1999, was running her own hair extension business in Grantham, Lincolnshire, when she met divorced father-of-three Mr Thurlby in 2007.

    Prosecutor Errol Ballentyne said she soon asked Mr Thurlby for a £40,000 loan to source hair extensions from China. When he refused, she suggested he invested in the business and become a director. Mr Thurlby gave her more than £65,000, which he never saw again. Lincoln Crown Court heard he also handed over £10,000 after being told Tettegah’s ‘brother’, Biko, needed it to save his home from repossession. He then paid for a car for Biko, while £6,000 went to Tettegah’s father to buy land for development. Around £100,000 also went on building the couple a four-bedroom house to stay in on trips to her homeland, but it was never completed.

    Mr Ballentyne said: ‘Mr Thurlby was seduced into parting with a significant amount of cash. He refers to a total amount of £200,000. He can’t retire now as he intended to and will have to work for the rest of his life.’ Mr Ballentyne added that it was clear ‘some form of relationship was continuing’ between Tettegah and Biko on her regular visits to Ghana. Mr Thurlby confronted his wife in January 2010, after he had discovered paperwork indicating she had been married to Biko.

    She claimed the documents were fake, but Mr Thurlby then discovered a visa application for Biko to enter the UK claiming he was married to Tettegah and that they had a 12-year-old daughter. Mr Long, 65, who has long-term memory problems caused by a motorbike accident when he was 18, married Tettegah in October 2004. The court heard that when police began investigating Tettegah, they discovered Mr Long was still paying hundreds of pounds a month to repay a £19,000 loan he took out to help her set up the hair accessories business.

    It is understood that a bigamy charge in relation to that marriage was dropped because police could not obtain proof from Ghana that Tettegah was married to Biko. Stuart Lody, defending, said the only mitigation he could offer was that Tettegah had pleaded guilty. Tettegah also admitted a further charge of perverting the course of justice by writing to magistrates aiming to discredit Mr Thurlby. She was jailed for 16 months.

    Sentencing on Friday, Judge Michael Heath told her: ‘You are a strikingly attractive but very devious woman.’ Mr Thurlby said: ‘Godsgift was a captivating and comely person. I was flattered when she showed an interest in me.’

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • CROOKED LAWYERS AND THE DIVORCE REGIME
    WHAT WE HAVE REPEATED ENDLESSLY CROOKED LAWYERS RACKETEERING AND THEFT FROM MEN CAUGHT UP IN DIVORCE WHO ARE BEING FLEECED EN MASSE.MASSIVE BILLS FOR PAPER SHUFFLING A FEW A4 SHEETS SIGNED BY A CRIMINALLY CORRUPT MASONIC JUDGE PART OF THESE VILE BASTARDS SCAMS UNDER THE GUISE OF LAWS THEY MAKE UP AS THEY GO ALONG.

    Divorce lawyer of the rich and famous 'marked up bills by hundreds of thousands of pounds'

    Britain's highest-profile divorce lawyer appears to have billed her celebrity clients hundreds of thousands of pounds extra for work she did not record on time-sheets, it has emerged. Fiona Shackleton, who charges £550 an hour for her legal services, appears to have added a six-figure sum to both Madonna and Sir Paul McCartney's divorce bills, in a column titled 'mark up' on time-sheets seen by The Daily Telegraph. One bill for £14,000 for work on Sir Paul's divorce from Heather Mills in 2008, shows a 'mark up' to £150,000, according to the paper.

    Another bill for £85,176.84 for work on Madonna's divorce from Guy Ritchie in 2008, shows a 'mark up' of £100,000 - £75,000 of which had come from work carried out by Baroness Shackleton. Lady Shackleton's law firm, Payne Hicks Beach, was subject to investigation by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority in 2009, according to the Telegraph. In meeting minutes seen by the paper, the authority asked Lady Shackleton, who is also Princes William and Harry's solicitor, about the practice of marking up and if there was a 'scientific' basis for calculating the amounts.

    The solicitor told the authority the 'mark ups' were added to her clients' bills as a lump sum to make up for the 'huge amount' of time spent on every case, which was never recorded. She was, she said, available '24 hours a day, 52 weeks of the year' to her clients but admitted being 'slack with time sheets,' according to The Telegraph. However, the investigation was closed within a year without any sanctions being ordered by the authority.

    Both McCartney and Madonna have confirmed they were satisfied with Lady Shackleton's work and billing. But, according to emails obtained by The Telegraph, Madonna's business manager did request a 'breakdown of the hours' for the work but was told the firm didn't 'usually provide' a breakdown. In one correspondence, Lady Shackleton appears to be relieved when the pop star agreed to the £221,000 bill.

    In an email to a colleague she wrote: 'This is good news as I was worried that they were cross about the bill. We obviously shd (sic) have asked for more?!!!!! F x.' Payne Hicks Beach said the email was intended to be a joke and hit back at the claims. 'We are satisfied that the bills rendered were fair and reasonable for the work in fact done,' a spokesman for the firm told The Telegraph.

    'It should be obvious from the SRA’s conclusion that often substantially more work can be done than is formally recorded at the time. 'You are quite wrong to treat only the time which is formally recorded as the time and the basis upon which a client can be properly billed,' they added. Legal ombudsman, Alan Sampson, did not comment on The Telegraph's findings, but said he has opened thousands of investigations into allegations of law firms overbilling their clients since his appointment a year ago.

    He added the billing systems used by law firms were in desperate need of reform. 'People seem to be largely intimidated and in awe of their lawyers and are uncomfortable about challenging them about their legal expenses, which in some cases have increased for no good reason,' Mr Sampson said.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • £54m DIVORCE FOR AGA KHAN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN £500m
    Billionaire racehorse owner and playboy the Aga Khan has paid out £54 million to divorce his second wife.

    Six years ago, his split from his German-born former pop singer wife, the Begum Inaara Aga Khan, was billed as potentially the most expensive divorce in history with a £500 million price tag. But on Friday, papers filed at the Appeal Court in Amiens in northern France revealed a deal with his second wife, Begum Inaara, has finally been struck – at a tenth of that figure.

    The Aga Khan – who is worth £6 billion, owns 600 racehorses and has homes on five continents – moved legal proceedings across the Channel in the hope of getting a better settlement than he would have expected in the UK. And last night he appeared to have saved himself a fortune by shifting the case to France. The payout is by far the largest ever awarded in France, where civil settlements are comparatively low. The deal between the Aga Khan, 73, and the former Gabriele zu Leiningen is understood to include the Berkshire estate where she lives with their 11-year-old son, Prince Aly.

    The settlement follows claims by Begum Inaara, 51, that her husband was seeing an air hostess. Papers filed in the French court reveal that relationship between the Aga Khan and his wife had ‘irretrievably broken down’ within a couple of years of their society wedding on the Aga Khan’s estate at Aiglemont, north of Paris, in 1998. The court papers stated his wife hired a private detective to track his movements with the air hostess. The revelations will be a huge embarrassment for the Aga Khan. He is the spiritual leader of 20 million Ismaili Muslims, who donate significant sums to him and worship him as their god, or ‘bringer of light’. The Aga Khan is a British citizen but spends most of his time across the Channel, meaning that French judges were able to draw a line under divorce proceedings that had failed to reach a settlement at London’s High Court in 2004. The French court ruled that the Begum should receive the £56 million on the grounds that the couple had a secure relationship for at least two years. It overturned a lower court award of just £10.3 million.

    The Aga Khan divorced his first wife, Sally Croker-Poole, a former English model, in 1995 – paying £20 million to the mother of three of his children. His second wife, born Gabriele Homey in Frankfurt, was previously married to German royal Prince Earl-Emich zu Leiningen. They divorced in 1997. The Aga Khan’s divorce settlement is dwarfed by that of UK-based Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, who in July paid his ex-wife Galina between £165 million and £220 million. That shattered the previous record UK divorce payout of up to £60 million by Madonna to Guy Ritchie in 2008. A source close to the divorce case said last night: ‘I’m sure that the Begum is thrilled with the settlement. She is not going to want for anything.’ The Aga Khan now spends most of his time on his estate near Chantilly, north of Paris. He was not available for comment.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • SELECTIVE FILMING IN UK'S CORRUPT MASONIC COURTS VIDEO

    NO filming of men being fleeced of billions by the corrupt judicial mafia. No filming of the machinations of the law by the scum who have given themselves power through stealth. Only filming of the legal scum handing out sentences to the small time serial criminals whose crimes pale next to the trillion dollar asset stripping of a corrupt crown and its judiciary.

  • Cameron wants TV in courts but ONLY for the judicial verdict of those found guilty (but not for the vast judicial fleecing in divorce)