The evil scumbag legal mafia and virtually every single arm of the deception network that includes social workers, teachers, doctors, cops, psychiatrists, journalists, councils, councillors, mp's and court staff but especially lawyers and judges are all primed to treat separated fathers like lepers.

The masonic controlled legal scams that have been expert at using every arm of the government and private industry to distort evidence to ensure fathers lose all their assets and home, but especially their children, is maybe the most evil and destructive mechanism operating across the globe . NEVER in the history of the human race have so many brave and decent fathers been destroyed by a force that all of the above are implicated in with their sick and disturbed behaviour and how they think they can get away with this indefinitely.

Presently the UK is facing a coming election with the complicity of the media in pushing the THREE masonic controlled political rats. Rats who will NOT change one iota , how the monsters emanating from the Inns of Court in London and the United Grand Lodge of England are using the extreme draconian powers of the court process's to leave millions of fathers and former wives of masons destitute , homeless , penniless and childless. We have been collating thousands of victim's evidence over many years and NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING has changed.

The royalist British Crown and its many arms are behind this devious and deadly game, with all of the main parties and its media circus, who will continue to allow many more victims to suffer the same dangers. Brown, Cameron and Clegg have been party to the voting at Westminster that has seen more and more legislation passed to give more, NOT LESS powers, to the judicial and legal scum that are the biggest danger to good fathers and their children more than any other issue .

The claims by the same media, that hides these serious crimes, are NOT the issues that will improve, for the better, fathers and their children's lives . Only the complete destruction and collapse of this tyranny will ensure no other children and their fathers will face the wrath of these sick bastards who masquerade as some form of JUSTICE system . THIS IS THE MOST EVIL NETWORK ACROSS THE PLANET. Domestic violence laws HIDE the judicial mafia's tyrannical abuse of good fathers and their children.

  • How civil courts lead to criminal courts for fathers abused by a masonic judiciary
    ruth deech This is ONLY to protect the British establishment and not the ordinary guys being shafted by corrupt lawyers and judges

    ONE of Britain’s leading family lawyers, Baroness Deech, says that assets built up before a marriage should be excluded from divorce settlements.

    Deech, the chairwoman of the Bar Standards Board, said the country should adopt European-style divorce laws to bring an end to bitter and expensive legal battles and to deter “gold diggers” from marrying for money. Under the proposed overhaul, only assets — including cash and property —acquired during the marriage would be subject to the divorce settlement. Individually owned or inherited assets would be protected. “There are cases where people have spent more on legal fees than the assets being fought over. We have got to change to a system where people can work out without going to court what each side is going to get,” Deech said. “I am dismayed when someone gets married for a short period, has no career, then gets millions. It sends the message that if you marry a rich man you are made for life. It is highly offensive.”

    This weekend Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary, said he would examine Deech’s proposal as part of a review of family law if the Conservatives win the general election next month. The suggestion is the latest attempt to simplify Britain’s notoriously complex and expensive divorce system. The Law Commission is now examining whether prenuptial agreements should be made legally binding. Its recommendations — which are expected this summer — could result in fresh legislation.

    david vaughan Lawyers getting a taste of their own medicine
    Top barrister's wife wins £215,000 payout from husband she divorced 25 years ago

    The former wife of a leading barrister has won a £215,000 payout 25 years after they divorced. Art historian Philippa Vaughan, 66, who separated from her husband in 1981, today succeeded in appealing a judgment to refuse her a lump sum after her £27,175-a-year in maintenance was cancelled last year. Sitting in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Wilson said the judge was ‘plainly wrong’ to conclude Mrs Vaughan could adjust without undue hardship to the termination of the husband's periodical payments by selling off her assets.

    David Vaughan QC, an expert on European law, divorced his first wife in 1985 and the pair had no children. The 71-year-old, who has suffered heart problems and a stroke, had been making annual payments to her since 1991, but applied to the High Court to terminate them when faced with a reduced income because of retirement. He has an estimated wealth of £5million. Despite inheriting £770,000 from her parents, Mrs Vaughan, who lives in a £1million Georgian townhouse, sought a substantial lump sum payment to prevent being left with a ‘totally inadequate’ income.

    She claimed ending the maintenance payments had caused her to suffer ‘undue hardship’ as she has no earned income, and desperately need to pay for renovations to her four-bedroom house in Hammersmith, west London. But her former husband, who has been married to his current wife Leslie for 24 years and with whom he has two grown up children, said she has more than enough to live on. In October, a deputy high court judge sided with him, and not only rejected Mrs Vaughan's plea for a lump sum of £560,000 but ordered the immediate termination of her payments. He ruled that her assets – which include a £300,000 antique desk – could provide her with a comfortable annual income of £48,000, and admonished her decision to spend £200,000 on legal fees.

    Mrs Vaughan had originally been asking for a £560,000 lump sum but reduced her claim to £341,000 on appeal. During the hearing, Nicholas Mostyn QC, representing Mr Vaughan, told the court the barrister’s current pension pot was built up with his second wife and therefore she was entitled to half. He argues that if the fund should be available to support Philippa Vaughan, it ‘would mean the second wife would be chipping in to the maintenance of the first wife’.

    But in his judgment yesterday, Lord Justice Wilson said it was ‘illogical’ to attribute one half of the pension income to the second wife. He said: ‘In my view the judge in the present case wrongly gave priority to the claims of the second wife.’ The ruling today gave Mrs Vaughan £215,000, and she will receive an annual payment of £14,000 until the sum is paid. They also refused Mr Vaughan permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and ordered him to pay legal costs, estimated to be £400,000.

    Mr Vaughan, one of the nation's leading authorities on European Law and a former member of the Court of Appeal for Jersey and Guernsey, lives with his 56-year-old wife, Leslie, in a £4.3million home in Kensington, west London. Lord Justice Wilson, who was sitting with Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Justice Patten, said: ‘The sum is small in the context of the husband's overall wealth. He could clearly afford to pay it out of his share of the excess liquid proceeds of his home.’


    Top Hedge Fund Manager Allegedly Says Ex-Wife Is 'A Terrorist On A Mission To Make My Life A Living Hell'

    Steven Cohen is one of the richest men in the world (estimated fortune $13bn), the founder of hedge fund SAC Capital Partners. But life for Cohen, it seems, isn't so sweet, as he has an ex-wife problem. Divorced from ex-wife Patricia some 20 years ago, Cohen has always supported his former wife and their two children, but apparently that's not enough.

    The first Mrs Cohen has been claiming that her ex-husband hid millions of dollars from her when they negotiated their divorce settlement all those years back, and is now seeking legal redress to get a $300m belated payoff. Patricia has also alleged that Cohen hid his money by funneling it through a New York real estate operator who was later convicted on fraud charges. The hedgie denies the allegations. And The New York magazine claims that Patricia Cohen allegedly once described her ex in an e-mail to a friend: 'Having been married to him, I know what he's made of and it's not much; he's a coward. The twisted man is at heart a wimp'. No bitterness there, then. The magazine also says that Steven Cohen recently told one of his friends: 'She's a terrorist on a mission to make my life a living hell'.

  • The World's Billionaires #87 Steven Cohen
    wayne bridge British courts, the crown and its crooked judges and lawyers have been getting away with MURDER in allowing women to leech off of men they have badly betrayed. The continued scandal of family court judgements favouring golddiggers like Perroncel will NOT STOP until men realise the damage they are doing to their lives and finances, but especially their children.

    Vanessa Perroncel parties in London after winning £1million in child support battle with ex Wayne Bridge

    Vanessa Perroncel celebrated her birthday with an expensive night out in London last night, just a day after winning a child support battle with ex-boyfriend Wayne Bridge. The French lingerie model, 33, looked chic in a black and white silk halterneck dress at the exclusive Zuma restaurant in Knightsbridge last night. Her girlie night out came after a court ruled she will receive over £1million in child support payments from Bridge before their son Jaydon turns 18. Perroncel is said to be 'over the moon' after Manchester City defender Bridge agreed to double his maintenance payments from £3,000 to between £6,000 and £7,000-a-month to help her look after their three-year-old son. The deal was agreed by lawyers at the Family Division of London's High Court on Friday after two days of legal discussions. A friend of Miss Perroncel's told the Daily Star: 'She is over the moon, she has just found out she has got what she wanted. 'It's only money, she never wanted a house or anything, just enough to ensure Jaydon doesn't want for anything, which is only right.'

    Miss Perroncel has denied she was paid up to £800,000 not to talk about her five-month affair with Chelsea's John Terry. The 33-year-old is now thought to be planning a revealing interview to 'set the record straight'. A source told the Mirror: 'She will not be drawn on her affair with John Terry, but she may now put the record straight about a few things.' Miss Perroncel's affair with Terry resulted in Terry losing his England captaincy and Bridge giving up his role in the England World Cup squad because he could not face playing alongside Terry.

    maurice robson From the manor torn: Tycoon fights to keep stately home he says he'll have to sell to fund his £8million divorce

    As a multi-millionaire City tycoon and the director of a firm of accountants, Maurice Robson might be expected to be rather good at managing his money. Yet as he contested an £8million divorce payout on Wednesday, a court heard that he is anything but. The 66-year-old complained that the amount he has been ordered to give his wife of 24 years was based on their lavish lifestyle when they had both tried their best to squander his inheritance. Last year Mr Robson was forced to put his £42million Oxfordshire estate up for sale to fund the lump sum payment to his ex-wife Chloe, 54.

    But in an attempt to hold on to the magnificent Kiddington Estate and its 2,000 acres next to Blenheim Palace, he has now appealed against the decision, claiming the amount was based on the couple’s ‘imprudent’ lifestyle. On Wednesday his legal team told three judges in the Court of Appeal that Mrs Robson had received ‘clearly too much’. James Turner, QC, argued the figure should be dramatically reduced, and said the £8million award was a punishment for the ‘over-spending’ and ‘mismanagement’ of Mr Robson’s inheritance. Mr Turner said the original divorce judge had severely criticised the way Mr Robson had managed the money and property he inherited from his father. And he told the Appeal Court: ‘The judge was wrong to order maintenance going forward based on past and imprudent over-spending.’

    He continued: ‘[Mr Robson] was not a diligent and hard-working manager. Many of the properties on the estate were in disrepair. He was aware that they were living on a mismanaged inheritance.’ The court also heard Mr Robson is having ‘emotional difficulties’ at the prospect of having to sell the family estate. When the 17th century home was put on the market in September, friends said he was distraught at having to part with it. Such was his affection for the historic pile – which was said to have attracted the attention of Simon Cowell after going on the market – that he was once treated for burns after battling flames when a fireball came down the chimney, causing a television set to explode.

    Mr Robson inherited the estate, which includes a village of 18 homes, from his father Sir Lawrence Robson, founder of accountancy firm Robson Rhodes. The main home of Kiddington Hall has nine bedrooms and five reception rooms, while the grounds hold stable blocks, tennis courts and a swimming pool. Chloe Robson was granted a decree nisi over the ‘irretrievable breakdown of the marriage’ almost 25 years after their wedding in the crypt chapel of the Palace of Westminster. They have two children, James, 19, and Natasha, 17. Mrs Robson has claimed the Grade II listed house had to be sold irrespective of their divorce, saying: ‘My husband would like to paint the picture that we are selling the property because of the divorce. It would have been sold anyway because it is not financially viable.’

    But in his sworn statements Mr Robson, who also has a 9,500-acre estate in Scotland, said: ‘My father spent his lifetime building up dynastic wealth. I consider myself bound to respect his wishes and intend to pass my inheritance on to my children on the same basis as it was passed to me.’ Last year Mr Justice Charles said the £8million payment was necessary to provide ‘a housing fund and an income fund’ for ‘co-wastrel’ Mrs Robson and the children, as well as covering the legal cost of the divorce proceedings. He added that ‘through inattention, mismanagement and expenditure’ Mr Robson had ‘failed to perform the duties of a manager and caretaker of the estate . . .

    ‘He and his wife sought to enjoy the fruits of his inheritance to the full. They were living off the wealth inherited by the husband at a level which focused on their own enjoyment and sporting passions rather than preserving the inheritance for their children and future generations.’ On Wednesday David Balcombe, QC, for Mrs Robson, said: ‘Both parties used the inheritance by agreement during their marriage and we don’t accept that, following the breakdown of the marriage, only one of them should be allowed to carry on that way.’ The Appeal Court judges will give their ruling at a later date.

    masonic judges If you are a NON mason you have more chance of winning the lottery than being injured or attacked by the terrorists manufactured by the corporate media and government . However you have a very high chance of being seriously damaged financially and mentally, if not physically by the masonic goons running our legal systems.

    Any man who has lost his assets , home and family knows the terrorism waged against him in secret courts, in fact most of the men sleeping rough on the streets are not there because of any middle east terrorist plot but primarily through the sinister and vicious injustice that men face when human rights are non existent and when they are dragged into these hell holes to be rendered for the enormous self enrichment of the Crown and its judicial and legal mafia lackeys . The cops and their side kicks the bailiffs are the thugs who act on behalf of a corrupt and EVIL crown destroying the lives of men and their childrens future inheritance when caught up in a tyranny that echoes the Gestapo raids and the removal and disposal of the spoils of the looting carried out by Hitlers armed thugs.

    While the complicit media endlessly waffle on about the ongoing threats across the globe, the real enemies of men and their families are the legal mafia who with their political mafia brothers have created a racket of enormous proportions were millions of homes are stolen and children and their parents thrown onto the streets of Britain to satisfy the greed of the twisted and ruthless paper shufflers who's threats make all other trumped up terrorist threats pale by comparison.


    david vaughan Ex-wife claims £560,000... 30 years after marriage split

    A leading barrister will go to court next week to stop his ex-wife claiming £560,000 from him – nearly 30 years after they separated. Philippa Vaughan, 66, says she has been left with a ‘totally inadequate’ income of £23,000 a year after maintenance payments were cancelled by a judge. She wants a £560,000 lump sum from her ex-husband David Vaughan QC, who enjoys a millionaire lifestyle with his second wife and two children.

    But the barrister, now 71 and in ‘precarious health’, insists she has more than enough to live on and the time has come to say ‘enough is enough’. The couple married in 1967 and lived together in Kensington in London. But they separated in 1981 and were divorced in 1985.

    Up until last year, Mr Vaughan had been paying his ex-wife a total of just over £27,000 a year in maintenance and periodical payments. However, more than 40 years after their wedding, Deputy High Court Judge Richard Anelay QC last year not only rejected Mrs Vaughan’s plea for a £560,000 lump sum, but ordered the immediate termination of her periodical payments. Referring to a £770,000 inheritance from her parents, the judge said that, along with liquidation of some of her assets – including an antique desk valued at £300,000 – should provide her with an income of £48,000 a year.

    And he accepted arguments from Mr Vaughan’s barrister, Nicholas Mostyn QC, that ‘a single woman, aged 66, can live comfortably on £48,000 per annum net for life’. However, Mrs Vaughan’s legal team will next week attack that decision as ‘plainly wrong’ and likely to cause her ‘real and undue hardship’ for the rest of her life. She says she is only worth about £1.7million, with most of her wealth tied up in non-income providing assets.

    She claims that unless she liquidates many of them, she will be left with a ‘totally inadequate’ income of less than £23,000 a year. She says the ruling also took no account of up to £200,000 she needs to spend on repairing and maintaining her £1million four-bedroom home in London. Against that, she puts her ex-husband’s wealth at close to £5million.

    This includes his pension and his share of the £4.5million family home where he lives with his second wife of 24 years, Leslie. Mrs Vaughan,a charity organiser, is due to go before three top judges at London’s Civil Appeal Court next Thursday to reinstate her maintenance payments. Mr and Mrs Vaughan have spent about £200,000 each on lawyers’ bills during their legal battles.

    The court heard that, despite medical advice he should retire, Mr Vaughan has continued to work at the bar to support his wife and children, who are at university. One of the nation’s leading authorities on European law, he had open heart surgery in 2006, suffered a stroke in 2008, and experienced an epileptic seizure during an earlier court hearing.

    No doubt he is getting the money from other victims of the sinister family courts, that reading this case should frighten the life out of anyone who is or has been married. If every employer had to pay money to an ex-employee for 30 years after they left a company every one of them would be bankrupt yet the 'English' marriage contract seems to provide an endless money train for the golddiggers and their bent lawyers with a complicit judiciary manipulating laws to this grotesque degree.


    Family court reforms face opposition from judges and childrens’ groups
    UN rules state that the interests of the child should be the 'primary consideration'

    Reforms to open up the family courts to the media are at risk of being scuppered by mounting opposition from senior judges, lawyers, children’s groups and MPs, The Times has learnt. Jack Straw wants to build on ground-breaking moves last year to open the family courts so that media reporting is not thwarted by the current wideranging restrictions. But a second set of measures, designed to allow media reports on evidence and naming of witnesses, has run into heavy opposition. Senior judges, headed by Sir Mark Potter, the most senior family judge in England and Wales, the children’s courts service, and groups such as the NSPCC, fear that the reforms would lead to disclosure of sensitive details and would put the privacy of children and their families at risk.

    The original reforms, introduced last April after a campaign led by The Times, among others, enabled the media to report on thousands of cases that were previously closed. But they have nonetheless proved something of a damp squib because of continuing restrictions over anonymity and the publication of material other than the gist of proceedings. Last week the measures, which are contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill now going through Parliament, came under fire from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Its report questions whether the measures conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which require the interests of the child to be the primary consideration. It adds that concerns have been expressed by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) that the latest moves will act as a deterrent to children sharing information with Cafcass workers and with the courts because of fears that it will be reported. The Bill’s provisions have already come under attack when in committee. Sir Mark expressed concern that whatever safeguards were in place over anonymity, “quite a close circle of people in an area will know who the reports are about, so it is very important that the details of the matter are not reported and the press do not have access to them”.

    In the same committee, Barbara Esam, of the NSPCC, said: “The risks of the proposed legislation to the welfare of children are extremely high.” The Bill comes back to the report stage this week and Mr Straw has tabled a series of last-ditch amendments in an effort to appease critics. But if opposition is not assuaged, there is a risk that the measures will not get through the Lords before the election. A spokesman for Mr Straw said: “Ministers believe the amendments will address many of the concerns raised at the public evidence sessions. Greater media access to family courts will lead to greater trust in family courts. Finding the right balance among many strong views is crucial to the success of the Bill.”

    marco pierre white The Marco Pierre White recipe making divorce courts shiver

    The chef’s battle over evidence used by his wife in their break-up could change the way such cases are held White and Mati at their wedding. He is suing her lawyers

    Marco Pierre White had a difficult conversation with Letty, his 20-year-old daughter, last week. He is about to begin a legal action against the law firm that acted for Mati, his third wife, during their divorce and Letty had read about it in the newspapers. In the acrimonious months leading up to their final separation in 2007, Mati had intercepted a number of private documents belonging to the celebrity chef which were used as part of her case: one was a letter from Letty, White’s daughter by his first wife, telling him she loved him and would like to see much more of him. White, 48, knew nothing of the letter until it was produced in court. Until last week, when she read about it in the newspapers, Letty had no idea that the letter had not simply been lost in the post, nor that it had been read by strangers.

    “I hadn’t told her before, I didn’t want to distress her,” says White. “My little girl broke down crying, in tears, telling me the words she wrote were for her father and nobody else. She felt violated.” In 2008, when White first tried to sue Withers, the law firm, for damages, the case was struck out by Mr Justice Eady. But on appeal last October he was given leave to proceed: the appeal judges were particularly concerned by the withholding of Letty’s letter, which they described as “touching, almost heartbreaking ... a letter which desperately called for a speedy reply”. Now he is bringing a renewed action for “interference with goods, conversion and trespass to chattels”. He is determined to see it through. “I will not settle. I don’t care what it costs. They don’t realise how tenacious I am,” he says.

    Another sad example of how low down and dirty divorce cases can get? Well, yes, but this one has implications that have made family lawyers sit up: one said that it sent “shivers down the spine”. The family courts have traditionally been a grey area for evidence, tacitly recognising that in emotionally fraught divorce cases there is a tendency to try to hide assets and that a beleaguered spouse (usually the wife) who suspects that there may be a bank account or a love affair hidden away may well resort to underhand tactics to expose it. There are rules, of course. The 1992 case Hildebrand vs Hildebrand established the principle that it was acceptable to use documents that were left open or lying around, as long as they were copied and the originals were returned forthwith. It was not acceptable to break into someone’s study or their filing cabinet.

    In the past, many lawyers may not have questioned the provenance of such “self-help” documents too closely. “If a client tells you a bank statement had been left lying around, obviously you take that at face value,” said one. But, if White wins, lawyers who handle or keep documents that have been obtained surreptitiously may lay themselves open to a lawsuit. “It’s so far-reaching,” says Vanessa Lloyd Platt, whose company recently offered vouchers for legal advice on divorce as the perfect Christmas present. “A few years ago lawyers thought it was amazing because we had all these new technologies that would bring us evidence about whether someone was having an affair or whether they were dissipating or hiding assets. We’d have emails and text messages to look at, we’d have BlackBerrys, all sorts of things, and now it seems the law seems to be shutting it down, bit by bit. “It is completely illegal to break into and look at your partner’s email account, even though it may contain some of the best evidence there is. You’re not allowed to break into somebody’s phone, even though men, particularly, text everything, like ‘what a wonderful sexual encounter that was last night, darling’ — it seems astonishing to lawyers that they are so vocal on text and email. But that’s been shut down. Private detectives now have limitations on what is and isn’t legal.”

    Both data protection law and concerns over privacy have played a part in narrowing the evidence that can be presented as part of a divorce but spying, in any case, can be an uncertain business. Lloyd Platt cites a case in which her firm acted for a man who hired a private detective to follow his wife as he believed she was having affairs. The detective befriended the wife and “gave a new meaning to undercover work when he had an affair with the wife himself”. His report to the client named himself as the wife’s lover. As the evidence was tainted, it was never used. In another case, where the firm acted for the husband, a wife produced documentation that made it clear she had hired an IT expert to hack into her husband’s accounts. What she had done was not only unwise but unnecessary: the husband had revealed his entire financial position anyway.

    What such action does is to increase bitterness on both sides. A 44-year-old logistics manager for a large company, complained to the police when he found his (now ex) wife had planted spyware in his computer, sending her copies of every file he opened, including his emails. “There was no excuse for doing it,” he says. “This was a middle-income case, she knew what I earned, I didn’t have anything to hide and I had a new relationship, which was already admitted. So what she found were communications with my new girlfriend and conversations with friends that simply made her even more hurt and angry than she already was. “These were things that I never would have wanted her to read. I didn’t want to hurt her. We had been married for 25 years. It was just over, as far as I was concerned. But she ended up making herself very bitter over it all. It’s as if I’ve won the World Cup and she’s got nothing. The rules definitely need to be tightened up.”

    There are no easy answers. People who are usually rational can lose their heads — and scruples — when it comes to divorce. “The first thing your friends down the pub will say is ‘hide everything you have’. It encourages people to become criminals,” says Suzy Miller, who founded the Starting Over Show, an exhibition for current and would-be divorcees that will run in London and Brighton in March. “The whole thing would be helped if people weren’t allowed to marry without a pre-nup. We have this ridiculous idea that it’s unromantic to talk about money. You wouldn’t dream of going into business with someone without a contract but we blithely tie ourselves legally and financially to another person thinking love will make it all right.” The heightened emotions make some cases seem intractable. Last month Scot Young, a property dealer, was ordered to pay his estranged wife Michelle £27,500 a month after a long court battle in which she claimed that he had assets of £400m: he said he didn’t have a penny, that he had been wiped out by the recession and owed £27m. The court is trying to assess the truth. The judge — in common with many who preside over fractious, messy divorces, one suspects — found aspects of the case “like Alice in Wonderland”.

    High earners, usually men, can be clever at hiding their money and it’s not always easy to prevent a wife, who may have no income of her own, from rifling the desk drawers hoping to find some evidence. According to Lloyd Platt, establishing facts has, in the past, excused some desperate behaviour: “The criminal courts were very strict on admissible evidence — they would rather the criminals went free than have some evidence admitted — but we were blessed that the civil law had an entirely different approach. It was a jurisdiction that would admit documentation, however obtained, provided it established the truth.” If White’s case tightens the rule, we may end up with the law of unintended consequences: if a man really wants to hide his true worth, limiting the ways that his wife can investigate will help him to get away with it.

    hopper Cancer-stricken Dennis Hopper wants a divorce from his wife of 14 years.

    The actor is reported to have less than a month to live after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Court reports have shown that Hopper, 73, filed for divorce from Victoria Duffy, 41, last week. He has offered to pay her support, but wants joint legal and physical custody of their six year old daughter, Galen. Hopper's decision to divorce stems from his wife's displeasure at discovering that her inheritance will be no more than what she signed under the prenuptial agreement when they married, reports the Daily Mail.

    A family friend told the newspaper, "It's truly a tragedy, and sadly it's all about the money and who inherits what." Hopper has been married three times, but his marriage to Duffy is his longest.

    Take one celebrity chef, separate him from his wife, sprinkle with allegations of intercepted letters, simmer and serve with a landmark ruling. Marco Pierre White, the former Michelin-starred chef and television presenter, is pursuing his estranged wife’s lawyers in a test case that could change for ever the way that divorce battles are fought. Family lawyers warn that the chef’s lawsuit could end the practice by spouses of turning detective to unearth evidence.

    White recently won a landmark ruling that enables him to proceed against Withers, the City law firm that was acting for his estranged wife, Mati, over the interception and seizure of his personal papers. The action is expected to come to trial this year and has already prompted inquiries from clients who think that they may be able to lodge similar claims. Lawyers say that any spouse who wants to do her own detective work because she suspects that her husband is lying about his finances will lose a crucial weapon if White wins the case. They are calling for urgent guidelines so that they and their clients know where they stand.

    The problem arises where wives (usually) suspect that husbands are concealing the full extent of their finances and have to resort to finding the evidence. Under the widely used practice, known as Hildebrand after a case in 1992, a document left lying around can be copied and used in financial proceedings arising from divorce. But the Court of Appeal gave White the go-ahead to seek damages from his estranged wife’s lawyers for wrongful interference with his property after she intercepted his mail. The documents include a contract from P&O and a heartfelt letter from Letty, White’s daughter by an earlier marriage, that he said he had never seen until the originals were produced by his wife’s lawyers in court. She removed 42 documents after alleged threats from the chef, which he strongly denies, that she would not get a penny from him if they were to separate; that he would leave the country; that he would “pull the plug” on everything; and that he owned nothing, having sold everything for £1. He maintains she claimed that her lawyer had told her to intercept his mail and take the documents, a claim both the lawyer and Mrs White deny.

    The couple married in 2000 after seven years together and she is the mother of three of his children. After they parted in 2007 she petitioned for divorce, which has not yet been finalised. The chef’s claim for damages against the law firm was dismissed by Mr Justice Eady in the High Court in 2008 but upheld by the Court of Appeal in October. One of the judges, Lord Justice Ward, criticised the Withers partner involved, Marcus Dearle, for withholding the letter. The judge questioned the legal advice given by Mr Dearle and said that there was at least a case to answer. The letter was a “touching, almost heartbreaking, letter to her father expressing her love for him and her wish to see much more of him”, the judge said. “It was a letter which desperately called for a speedy reply. It was alleged that this letter was not only intercepted but it was also withheld.” He concluded that even if White did not ultimately succeed, the lawyers should be held to account, saying: “The interception and retention of Letty’s letter, more than the P&O contract, leaves me with such an uncomfortable feeling that for my part I would be reluctant to shut out the claimant and deny him his day in court.”

    Marilyn Stowe, senior partner at Stowe Family Law LLP, said that the recent ruling had “sent shivers down the spines of family lawyers”. She said: “I always discourage clients from engaging in what could be regarded as ‘dirty tricks’. These include rummaging through the other spouse’s documents.” This was because such actions had the potential to be professional misconduct as a solicitor must not advise a client to behave improperly, she said. The solicitor could also be liable to a civil claim for damages; and the client to a civil and criminal claim.

    Do's and don'ts during divorce

    Do’s: take photocopies of documents, but don’t use force to obtain them; solicitors must keep copies of documents, not originals; disclose documents at the outset of the case

    Don’ts: hack into a computer; remove a laptop


    If you share a computer with your spouse you should:

    — Open a secure online account; update passwords and security question; never write them down
    — Ddelete sensitive browsing history and temporary internet files
    — Web-based products such as Google Docs can keep confidential documents off your home PC
    — Password-protect any mobile used to access e-mails — with a different password from that of your secure e-mail account
    — If your spouse has a user account on the PC ask an IT expert to revoke his/her administrator right

    Emma and David Chapelhow The Child Support Agency has issued a reprieve to a “hero” father whose daughter was threatening legal action over its treatment of him.

    Emma Chapelhow, 13, claimed that the £43,000 the CSA was demanding her father, David, pay to his former partner, her mother, would bankrupt him and significantly impact on her lifestyle, and threatened to sue to the agency over a breach of its duty of care to her. Miss Chapelhow lives with her father in Nottinghamshire and does not see her mother, but the Agency is still demanding the money.

    She said that by pursuing the debt it was breaking Article 2 of the Child Support Act 1991, which orders CSA officials to 'have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by their decisions'. Now the CSA has written to Mr Chapelhow said that no action would be taken against his daughter, who is 14 next month, whilst she is still at school. The case will be reviewed again when she turns 16. It has been chasing Mr Chapelhow, 42, a self-employed builder, since 2006 over back dated payments. Last year bailiffs turned up at the house and allegedly threatened to remove assets, including Miss Chapelhow’s pony. Mr Chapelhow has received a letter from the CSA stating: “We can confirm that in the present circumstances the Agency will not undertake any other enforcement action against you, including bailiff, committal and order for sale action, until Emma has reached 16 and only then if such enforcement action is considered appropriate at the time." He accused the CSA of “intimidation” and said: “Their actions are even worse than carrying out threats now. It is the equivalent to a sentence which is delayed for two years.

    "Emma is devastated and frightened and blames herself as she now believes that I could be put in prison on her 16th birthday.” In writing to the agency threatening the legal action, Miss Chapelhow described her father as a "hero". She said she still intended to carry on the action, despite the reprieve.

    Today is known as D-Day in the legal business - with the 'D' standing for Divorce.

    The number of couples seeking a divorce is set to peak today - the first working day after the Christmas and New Year break - according to research. Relationship experts say that spending a long holiday break together is often the final straw for couples whose marriage is heading for the rocks. Many warring couples do not tell their children the bad news over the festive occasion but make appointments with divorce lawyers as soon as they are back at work.

    The general divorce rate will also rise by 2 per cent in 2010 with the recession taking most of the blame, the report by website says. Business is booming for the firm, with sales of its low-cost divorce products up 30 per cent year-on-year, having seen a record number of new clients in December.

    The report also says that the UK's divorce rate has fallen in recent years, but is still among the world's highest. Mark Keenan, managing director of divorce-online said: 'Divorce Day, as it has come to be known, falls on January 4th and we have already had over 100 couples ask us for phone-backs on January 4th, something which has never happened before.'

    torture room Each year we try to sum up the highs as opposed to the lows that are worth a mention . So many caught up in threats from the NWO mob don't need anymore gloom and doom than they are already experiencing from the thugs within the legal systems who abuse their victims. What is CRYSTAL clear is that so many more are awakening from their masonic slumber and our contacts in London can say with certainty that the propaganda from the NWO media ain't working no more. There are definite signs the populations of the world are being dragged out of the NWO numbness and given a reality check from the extensive exposures across the internet.

    What continually amazes us is the amount of new material that is contradicting the corporate media. There is hardly a day goes by without some revelation coming out to reinforce what most of us have been feeling for far to long. The connecting of the dots are becoming clearer from the blurry early internet exposures that suggested the links, but now we are seeing more and more facts and evidence from writers who have grasped the complex agenda and enlightening us all with some eloquent and well researched articles.

    Here is some food for thought in what is clearly going on within that New World Order agenda.

    For anyone with no experience of what goes on behind the secretive star chambers of civil courts, as opposed to criminal courts, they may be shocked at how psychological torture is the main means to strip you of all your worldly possessions. Do not believe any of the corporate media's selective reporting of what goes on or indeed any of the fictional dramas that will try and convince you of how JUSTICE is conducted within the hallowed walls of these dens of inquity. You will find Hitlers spirit is alive and well ensuring you will NEVER be the same again when any court case you may be involved with finally ends. There are no physical torture implements used but a far more complex and sophisticated form of mental torture that has been fine tuned over centuries of barbarism by a judicial mafia controlled indirectly from the masonic lodges that are behind this evil network of power.

    Mental stress is a far more difficult subject to interpret, unlike physical stress, as if you were suddenly burdened with an enormous physical load , without prior training in weightlifting, you would quickly buckle under the sheer weight and the physical symptoms are immediately displayed. However the monsters in their robes and regalia use extreme mental torture to psychological disturb and their exact methods have no physical effect but the victim can be pushed into the most extremes of mental incapacity when facing the enormous mental pressures the system is expert at manufacturing. Their victims may try and cope in many different ways but the main goal is to psychologically break you before stripping you bare . Some almost immediately find the nearest high building to end this torture that there is NO pill can help you cope with , some even take out their families in their disturbed traumatic state , which gives the corporate media an opportunity to create the propaganda to justify the judicial mafia's decisions. Nothing throughout history has come close to the mental mind games these evil bastards play with your life . Many on our group have survived the extreme rigours of these mind games and fought back only to face an onslaught from every arm of government that is thrown at you when they know you are fighting against their extreme methods of mental torture.

    To try and put into words the adverse effects these mind manipulators have on your personna is impossible to fully describe, however each victim is broken in a variety of ways and very few survive without the mental scars that come from long term litigation instigated by some of the most ruthless and devious scum that have walked this earth. The ruling classes use these courts for control, ensuring only a small self appointed elite have the bulk of the wealth and power using a corrupted judicial mafia. Only a restoration of juries will redress the enormous injustices that are flowing while disturbed psychopaths are abusing powers thay should NEVER have been allowed to give themselves in the first place. All of it in direct contradiction to natural justice and decisons that should be made by impartial tribunals and juries of our peers. The system is fully protected by the political mafia who create the legislation to fleece the victims , the corporate media mafia has been set up to generate the propaganda that promotes this evil judiciary as if they are doing a good job, and the cop mafia run from the top by masonic Chiefs of police,who ensure they are used as the thugs and bully boys when victims try and fight back, then jailed on frivolous and trumped up charges. Even worse psychiatrists, part of this creepy network of control , are brought in to hold victims indefinitely under mental health legislation to cover up the means by which they operate .

    We aim to educate those as yet to face this sinister network of power and control as until the world wakens up to the enormity of their crimes more victims will continue to face this abominable and reckless destruction of families who will pay a heavy cost when the legal mafia take a complete hold over their lives. It is a modern form of slavery that must be stopped by actions , exposures and re-educating a brainwashed population unaware of the evil that passes for our laws and the thugs and bullies being protected by states that are behind this tyranny.

  • Court of Protection dismissed as 'an alien and costly institution'
  • Playing with our minds
  • Are You just Property & Slave? No? See This & Decide(VIDEO)
  • Freemasonry the Truth ebook preview(BRILLIANT)
    lara grey A City broker who hired a private detective to prove his ex-wife was living with another man yesterday won his legal battle against paying her £125,000 a year in maintenance.

    Richard Grey, 36, had been ordered by a High Court judge to provide for his ex-wife Lara until she remarried – even though she admitted she was pregnant with her lover's child during the divorce proceedings. Mr Grey was also ordered to give her a £615,000 house and a lump sum of £454,158 as part of the settlement. But the Court of Appeal yesterday branded the ruling 'erroneous' and ordered the judge to reassess payments to take into account the cash Mrs Grey's new lover could provide.

    During divorce proceedings Mrs Grey admitted she was 17 weeks pregnant by Liam Thompson, a programme director for a group of radio stations. She has since had the baby. The couple had moved out of the marital home but Mrs Grey denied she was living with Mr Thompson, saying he was 'not even a boyfriend'. Mr Grey, who is worth more than £4million, hired a private detective to watch her new home.

    His father John, who lives nearby, also collected evidence about her relationship. Mr Grey's lawyers told the Appeal Court it was 'repugnant' that he should have to pay £120,000 a year to a household which included both Mr Thompson and his child by Mrs Grey.

    Under UK law maintenance is usually paid until the party receiving the payments remarries. But it can be stopped or dramatically reduced if they set up home with a new lover. Mr Grey and his 35-year-old ex-wife, who have an eight-year-old daughter, met in Dublin and moved to London in their 20s when he secured a well-paid broking job.

    Richard Grey: The broker, who is worth more than £4million, hired a private detective to watch her new home After the marriage broke down in 2005 they both moved out of their home in St John's Wood, north-west London. Mr Grey, who earns £750,000a year with broker ICAP, stayed in London while his wife moved to an affluent suburb of Dublin, a few doors away from her former in-laws.

    In a High Court hearing, Mr Justice Singer refused to cut Mr Grey's maintenance bill, although he accepted that his ex-wife had been 'in a relationship' with another man. He said there was 'no cut-and-dried test' for cohabiting and Mrs Grey was entitled to maintenance in full until she remarried. But Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lords Justices Wall and Patten, ruled yesterday that the judge had should have 'attached significant weight to the new relationship and investigated its financial consequences fully'.

    Emma and David Chapelhow A girl of 13 is suing the Child Support Agency, which she claims is trying to destroy her 'hero' father to pay off the mother she no longer wants to see.

    Emma Chapelhow - the first child to take legal action against the CSA - says the agency has threatened to jail her father David and seize their home unless £43,000 in backdated payments is settled. In a letter to the CSA, Emma said: 'I am happy living with my dad, who has spent ten years fighting for me. He is a hero. 'I know he spent everything he had fighting for me and I know he has no money left. My mum does not have to pay my dad for me and this is unfair.'

    Mr Chapelhow, 42, first began paying child support to his ex-partner Janette Plummer when Emma lived with her in Brighton. He was handed the huge bill by the CSA in 2006 and told it was backdated payments based on regulations covering 'lifestyle being inconsistent with income'. This rule usually comes into force when one partner claims the other has undeclared income that has not been taken into account when benefit payments are first being calculated. However, a year later - after a judge ruled Emma did not have to live with Mrs Plummer and she moved in with her father and his wife Gair - Mr Chapelhow was told he would still have to meet the bill.

    The schoolgirl, who instructs her own solicitor, is now taking on the agency because Mr Chapelhow, a graphic designer, has been left with crippling debts following a ten-year legal battle in the family court. Father and daughter claim the CSA have believed Mrs Plummer's 'fantastical' claims they live a luxury lifestyle without checking. They point out that the family is currently living in a caravan while they rent out their farm house in Wellow, Nottinghamshire to make ends meet. And the teenager claims that, four months ago, she was left in tears after bailiffs acting for the CSA allegedly threatened to take her pet pony Pringle to help meet the payments.

    In a letter to CSA chief executive Mark Grimshaw, Emma wrote: 'My name is Emma Chapelhow and I am 13 years old. In 2007 I moved to live with my father. 'The judge said that I am old enough and able to instruct my solicitor, which I did. The court moved me to my father. They said my mother could not see me again.' Emma is suing under Article 2 of the Child Support Act 1991, which orders CSA officials to 'have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by their decisions'. She believes the agency's actions breach the code because it will bankrupt her father and force her into poverty.

    Emma said: 'I will take legal action because the CSA have failed to protect me and are still failing to protect me. How can taking my home and financial stability away to pay the mother who the courts are protecting me from not affect my welfare?' Mr Chapelhow, who is taking joint legal action with his daughter, said: 'They are ignoring her needs as a child and putting both the CSA and the mother she no longer wishes to see before her. 'And to make matters worse, when she has written to them about possible legal action they have ignored her letters and keep writing back to me. 'Enforcement action will have no effect except to put Emma in child poverty.'

    The National Association for Child Support Action said it believes Emma is the first child in England to sue the CSA. Mrs Plummet, who lives in Brighton with her new husband-Lee, has not paid any maintenance to Mr Chapelhow since her daughter moved in with him. She said she supported the decision to award custody to her exhusband but insisted that claims the backdated maintenance would bankrupt him are untrue.

    Since it was created in 1993 the CSA has faced controversy. According to the Department for Work and Pensions a quarter of its decisions are later ruled to be 'wrong'. A spokesman for the CSA said they could not comment on individual cases, but added it was not their policy to carry out enforcement orders which would affect a child's living conditions.


    Do NOT be fooled by the various religions across the globe who promote marriage.

    They are all behind an enormous plot to capture men in draconian legal systems when those marriages fail. Do not think for a minute that while the marriage ceremony is created within a religious setting and all the supposed LOVE that flows during the procession, the ending will be a very very different affair as so many of our group and men worldwide have found out to their enormous cost. Britain is the divorce capital of the world as the huge settlements prove that men are seen as a massive piggy bank for the extremely corrupt judges and lawyers who dictate your life IMMEDIATELY your ex- wife starts the ball rolling. During your marriage you may have been the head of the household ensuring your hard earned money is spent PROPERLY but on separation you will find only THUGS will bully you in every way possible to bleed you dry.

    They may not be physically harming you but every psychological trick in the book will be used to smear you and justify criminals running the courts, particularly in the UK and USA, into plundering your estate for their own enrichment. Only masons survive this ruthless system as ONLY masonic judges will pass judgement on all your future earnings and your assets will be seized to pay for the massive bills masonic lawyers generate to feed a blood thirsty system that for to long has been getting away with MURDER. This is were our group experience is making sure anyone who reads our website will be given plenty of warning about the repercussions getting caught up in this evil monster of a system. Many on our group have paid an enormous price and have been severely mentally damaged when this system kicked in and consumed our lives . To know that, at a stroke, your life is turned over to some of the most evil individuals that have ever walked this earth, when prior to this church ministers were consecrating your marriage in love and religion when they know that the state marriage certificate you sign , that has NO small print, has been used by corrupt states and the British crown to prop up the property portfolio's of the thousands who live off this multi-billion pound racket.

    Britains masonic cops have a field day harassing any father who dares challenge the EVIL judiciary who have been destroying millions of fathers in these hell holes of divorce courts. There may be the occasional mention in the corporate media about some celebrity being screwed for millions by a golddigging ex-wife but that masks the millions of ordinary fathers who are left to fight and survive the HUGE pressures these monsters place on you and your children. We DO NOT exaggerate the huge damage to your life from modern day marriages that the state changes the rules daily to ensure they can fleece unsuspecting men of their assets through a complicit legal system that the political mafia support with never ending legislation. MARRIAGE IS THE BIGGEST DANGER TO A MAN'S LIFE MILES MORE THAN ANY THREAT FROM THE FACADE OF TERRORISM . The judicial mafia and their masonic controllers are a far greater threat to any man than all the terrorism artificially created across the world. This system HIDES behind the threats and fear the complicit media INVENTS for these mobsters

    Some of what you will definitely face.

    1. Homelessness
    2. Penniless
    3. Childless
    4. Suicidal
    5. In a mental institution
    6. Unable to get ANY credit from ANY source
    7. Car less
    8. Alcoholism
    9. Drug addiction
    10. Jail time

    These various religious leaders KNOW the outcome, if marriage fails, yet they continue to promote marriage as good for men's futures. From our own experience we would advise any man contemplating marriage to give it serious thought as to the MASSIVE repercussions for men who fall into the marriage trap. The system is geared heavily in favour of destroying men not part of the creepy masonic network that these courts operate under.

  • 'You've bankrupted my dad': 13-year-old girl to sue Child Support Agency after legal battle left father with crippling debts


    RIO DE JANEIRO — A Brazilian family delivered a 9-year-old boy to his American father in Brazil on Thursday, ending a five-year custody battle.

    Sean Goldman was brought into the U.S. consulate by his maternal grandmother and his stepfather, making it into the compound's front door as scores of reporters and cameramen tried to get close. His father, David Goldman, was waiting for him inside. Sean cried as his Brazilian relatives and family lawyer tried to get him through the scrum of journalists in front of the consulate. Guards had to violently push back photographers and TV cameramen. The boy carried his luggage and wore a gold shirt with the Brazilian flag and Olympic rings underneath.

    The boy didn't say anything as he was led from a black SUV across the street to the consulate. His maternal grandmother, Silvana Bianchi, said in tears simply that "this is a very difficult moment." Goldman, of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, won a big legal victory late Tuesday when Brazil's chief justice upheld a lower court's ruling that ordered Sean returned to him. The father and son were expected to fly back to Goldman's home within hours.

    The Brazilian family said Wednesday it was dropping legal challenges to rulings giving custody to Goldman. But the New Jersey man said repeatedly that, until he was on a plane heading to the U.S. with Sean at his side, he would not feel relief. The Brazilian family brought the boy to the consulate about 25 minutes before the 9 a.m. (1100 GMT) court-ordered deadline to have him handed over to his dad.

    Sean has lived in Brazil since Goldman's ex-wife, Bruna Bianchi, brought him to her native country for what was supposed to be a two-week vacation in 2004. Bianchi stayed, divorced Goldman and remarried, and Goldman began legal efforts to get back Sean. Last year Bianchi died in childbirth.

  • Brazilian Court Hears Case of U.S. Boy in Custody Fight
  • American Boy Caught in Custody Fight Wants to Stay in Brazil, Family Says
  • New Jersey Man Wins Custody of Son Taken to Brazil
    scot young Ex-wife wins £27,500-a-month divorce deal from 'broke' property tycoon

    A wife at the centre of a £400million divorce battle yesterday won £27,500 a month in maintenance - after a court accepted that she needed to fund a luxury lifestyle. Michelle Young, 45, had demanded £60,000 a month from her estranged husband, claiming that he had hidden his fortune to avoid paying a huge divorce settlement. At one stage, lawyers for Scot Young, 47, suggested he has debts of £27million. They insisted he is facing bankruptcy and has been living on £150-a-week hand-outs from But the tycoon was threatened with jail if he failed to provide the court with a 'full and frank' record of his finances and yesterday a judge decided to award his wife nearly half the £60,000 she had sought. Setting the terms of Mrs Young's payment, Mrs Justice Black said the sums the former model had asked for would be seen by some as 'exceptionally generous'. But she said she would 'bear in mind' the standard of living to which the family were used to when awarding maintenance.

    She added: 'It's not nearly as much as the wife would say she required, but it's intended to be on top of rent and school fees.' Mrs Young's victory came after papers shown to the court revealed that in 2004 to 2006, Mr Young had property and other investments worth £124million. At the High Court yesterday, Mrs Justice Black said she was satisfied that Mr Young had sufficient funds to pay maintenance and ordered him to pay the sum on top of Mrs Young's £10,400 a month rent and her two daughters' £36,000 annual school fees.

    She said the figure would be revised if it was found to be insufficient at a further hearing next May. 'The couple have historically lived a luxurious lifestyle on money made by the husband in the course of his activities as an entrepreneur and property dealer which enabled him to accumulate many millions of pounds,' the judge said. 'Looking at the case as a whole I am entirely satisfied that the husband has available monies to pay maintenance.' Neither party attended yesterday's hearing.

    Mrs Young, who claims her estranged husband is worth £400million, had originally asked for £35,000, but had later increased this to £60,000. Of this, £12,675 was to cover 'sports, entertainment and hobbies'. The couple were married in 1995 and have two daughters, Scarlet, 17, and Sasha, 15. They separated in 2006 when Mrs Young returned to the UK. She petitioned for divorce a year later.

    Mrs Young claimed that during the long-running court case she had been forced to move home with her daughters after her husband failed to pay her any money. The court heard she had received £1.2million from him since they split in 2006, the court heard, but Mr Young's lawyer said this had come from 'wealthy benefactors'. Mr Young counts Topshop tycoon Sir Philip Green and Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky amongst his friends.

    Following the court ruling yesterday, Mrs Young said: 'I am absolutely relieved because this has been torture and tormented me and my children. 'I have said before that £400million is just the tip of the iceberg and I stick to that. 'We have to wait and see if he pays it now but if he doesn't he will be in serious trouble because the penal notice will go back on him.

    'After not having any maintenance for 18 months at this stage I am relieved. The sum is coming so that me and my children will be able to sleep better. 'My daughters and I are not looking for pity. We are looking for justice.'

    bob geldof Bob Geldof today accused the secretive family courts of 'state-sanctioned kidnap'.

    The pop star turned campaigner said the 'barbaric' family law system wrecked the lives of children and their families. He spoke as he launched a report that severely criticised the way family courts deal with cases - particularly in which one separated parent wants to move far away from where the other lives, taking the children with them. It said that most decisions in such cases - which are conducted behind closed doors and never become known to the public - cause children harm.

    Mr Geldof said: 'In the near future the family law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful; harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act. 'Here is one more report that empirically nails the obvious fact that to remove a child from their father (in the hugely vast majority of cases), their grandparents and other family, their school and friends, is wholly destructive to a child and its family. 'How much longer must we put up with the state sanctioned kidnap of our most vulnerable? Because in effect that's what "leave to remove" amounts to.'

    The singer's protest comes at a time of growing controversy over the workings of the family courts, which have been repeatedly blamed by fathers' groups in recent years for favouring mothers and shutting separated fathers out of their children's lives. Justice Secretary Jack Straw has tried to lift the secrecy around family cases by ordering the courts to allow journalists to sit in cases. Judges, however, have responded by imposing orders that ban them from reporting what they hear. A series of senior judges, including the President of the Family Division Sir Mark Potter, have delivered speeches in which they have tried to warn Mr Straw off further attempts at reform.

    Sir Mark has drawn a contrast between the welfare of the child and the 'demands of the press in relation to so-called transparency'. Sir Bob is the most high-profile figure to suggest that the courts are deficient and that the secrecy hides decisions that damage children. 'How much longer do we tolerate the vested interest intransigence of the appalling UK family justice system?,' he asked.

    'How long before just one of them admit they have got it all wrong and apologise to their myriad victims? 'This report is important, timely and vital. To accept its findings, which could have and should have, been conducted at any time in the past 30 years, is to accept the awful conclusion that rather than Solomon-like, resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism, the courts have consistently acted against society's interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.' The report, Relocation and Leave to Remove, was published by The Custody Minefield, a legal information website. It said there were 'serious flaws' in the handling of child relocation cases where one separated parent wants to move a child away from the other, either within Britain or abroad.

    A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: 'We are creating a family court system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, while still protecting the privacy of children and families involved. 'That is why we have allowed greater media access to family courts which will lead to greater trust.' Mr Geldof's intervention came three weeks after a landmark family case in the Appeal Court in which a mother was forced to hand over a son to his father despite claims that the switch would be 'almost cataclysmic' for the child.

    In the case - which could be reported except for the names of those involved - Lord Justice Wall said that the 11-year-old boy had suffered emotional harm because of his separation from his father and should go to live with him. The boy said that his father had 'ruined my life' and said he would 'punch and kick' rather than leave his mother's home.


    Father who feared losing access to his son 'suffocated child before setting fire to house and hanging himself'

    A BBC set designer suffocated his six-year-old son, set fire to his house and hanged himself because he wrongly feared he had lost a custody battle, an inquest heard today. Christopher Townsend, 51, is believed to have smothered son Charlie-Bob before he started a fire in an upstairs bedroom and hanged himself from rafters in the garage. He had attended a family court hearing earlier that day in which he believed a judge had cut his access and ordered him to hand over the house to ex-wife Paula, now 40.

    However, social workers involved in the case said he had misunderstood the hearing and the final decision was not due to be made until a later date. Charlie-Bob was found by firefighters lying in his bed in an upstairs bedroom while a fire raged at the property in Long Ashton near Bristol on Thursday 24 April 2008. The inquest into their deaths yesterday heard how Christopher, who regularly worked on the BBC drama Casualty, had become 'obsessed' with the custody case and spiralled into depression.

    He met Paula in 1999 and they married a year later and appeared 'blissfully happy' until the relationship began to faulter in 2005. She has an 11-year-old son, Lewis, from a previous relationship but Christopher had taken him as his own, the inquest was told. Paula, who worked in the BBC's costume department, moved out of their home and both children were put on child protection plans with involvement from social workers to decide their future.

    In a statement read out in court, Christopher's long-term friend Sophie Beecher said he believed Paula was having an affair and was not fit to look after the children. She said: 'I think it was safe to say that the relationship started to fail. Then she moved out and took the two boys with her. 'In 2007, access rights to Charlie-Bob was going through the courts. Christopher believed that Paula was being unreasonable.

    'He became quite obsessed and I believe he may have given up work with the BBC in order to fight his court hearing. 'He was very short of money. I can only describe him as being depressed and unhappy. 'He called me after the court hearing and he was clearly very distressed and close to tears. He said it could not have gone any worse.

    'He made reference to having been refused access rights to his children. I said that he should not be alone. 'I was totally devastated by the news. I was aware that he was a very unhappy man but I still find it unimaginable that he acted in the way that he did.' Another of Christopher's friends, Elizabeth Ashmead, whom he had met at art college in London, said that he had called her on the day of the tragic court hearing on 23 April.

    In a statement read out in court, Elizabeth said: 'He told me he had just come out of court and said that he had to pay Paula £17,000, sign over the house and could not see Charlie-Bob on Wednesdays anymore. 'He was devastated. He kept saying: "I have done nothing wrong". He told me that he had provided all the evidence to the judge but the judge had told him to "move on". 'He told me: "It's time to sling the noose".'

    After the court hearing Christopher visited the Bird in Hand pub in Long Ashton before returning to the five-bed home, where Charlie-Bob was staying the night. Forensic scientist David Scaysbrook told the court that he believed the fire was started deliberately in a cupboard underneath a spiral staircase at the couple's home. Firefighters were called to the house at 6am on the morning of the 24th April and found Charlie-Bob lying upstairs in a single bed wearing his pyjamas and partially covered by a duvet.

    Marc Fox, of Avon and Somerset Fire and Rescue, described the scene when they arrived and saw black smoke and flames coming out of the windows. A pair of bay windows at the back of the drawing room had been left open and had allowed the fire to grow. He found Charlie-Bob's body and passed the boy to firefighters at the window of the room. All attempts to resuscitate him failed.

    Christopher's body was found hanging from the rafters in a garage behind the house. Toxicology reports found no alcohol in his system but he was found to have taken some of the sleep aid, Nytol. Dr Hugh White, the Home Office pathologist who carried out a post-mortem examination on Charlie-Bob's body, said he was unable to identify the cause of death.

    He had no broken bones and his carbon monoxide levels were considered normal, ruling out a death by smoke inhalation. There was blistering and skin loss to Charlie-Bob's arms that had been exposed from underneath the duvet, but these were not considered to have caused his death. Recording the cause of death as unascertained, Dr White said the most likely cause was death by smothering with a pillow or similar object.

    'The absence of soot stains in his airways means that he must have been dead before the fire started,' he said. 'However, the most probably cause of death was smothering with a pillow or similar object.' Geraldine Thomas, the social worker involved with the family and their court case, told the court that Christopher had misunderstood the hearing on 23 April.

    She said: 'Charlie-Bob was getting quite confused having three different homes. He had been staying with his father, his mother and his maternal grandmother. So we were looking at ways to improve that. 'The hearing wasn't trying to stop him from having contact with his children at all.

    'I think what he heard was that he was going to stop having contact with Charlie-Bob, but that was never the intention at all.' She told the coroners' court that the family court hearing on 23 April had been adjourned until June so that she could mediate between both parties, and she had an appointment with Mr Townsend booked for 1 May. Both children were placed on child protection plans but the tragedy took place before an arrangement could be reached.