(Frome-book: The Hook and the Sting, Title, Letter to Lord Denning, List of Contents (  

The Ouster.

This next section is one of the small number of reminisces from my many appalling experiences in the courts over a long period. My legal and other proof-readers argued for omitting them, but I leave them in to show that my ideas derive from personal experience, and also to show that misconduct by lawyers, judges and court officials in the courts is not occasional, but normal. I cite only a few of my personal experiences, but would add that I have no experience of court cases which proceeded in a competent manner, with law enforcement figuring significantly in the proceedings. My experience is of course confirmed by Lord Woolf's June 1995 Interim Report, "Access to Justice". The whole system is rotten from top to bottom and from end to end. I agree with Woolf, that it cannot continue thus.

"This happens every day all over the country. At one time, the ouster injunction which regularly accompanied a wife's divorce petition was an accepted means of 'clearing the decks for divorce' by getting the husband out of the house. Indeed, David Barnard, in 'The Family Court in Action', clearly regarded it as the first duty of a solicitor acting for a wife petitioner to apply for such an injunction. Whether it was really necessary was never asked." - Peter Snow, page 6, CJD Newsletter, sep94 issue.

In my case, my wife had invited to our home the couple from the U.S.A. who were conspiring with her to block the next £100,000 payment to me by Sir Clive Sinclair for the sale of my patents, on the ground that they, not I, owned my patents. dana.pdf (  (I later received Summary {= immediate} Judgement against them in the High Court.) I told the Americans that if they interfered with my business deals, they were not welcome in my home. So my wife got a radical feminist solicitor Frances Hughes to write a standard form affidavit, sworn unread by my wife, which was secretly taken before a judge in a ten minute hearing. In patois, this is an "ex parte hearing". It charged me, a Quaker, with violence, and I was ordered out of my home immediately; in a court order called an "ex parte ouster". This left the way clear for the Brownlees to fly in from Virginia and continue their plotting against me in my own home. For good measure, my wife's sworn affidavit said that my eldest son, who was supporting me, had assaulted his grandmother. The court order, based on a ten minute secret hearing, evicted him from the family home as well. The theory is that if I heard about the court hearing, I, a Quaker, (and also my son,) would become even more violent. So it had to be secret.

So in my case, the ouster petition was used, not to clear the decks for divorce, but to clear the decks for conspiracy. I immediately swore an affidavit saying that the petition was perjured, that I had never been violent, and that the perjury in the petition was very easy to prove. For instance, Frances Hughes' fantasies caused her to write that I walked about the house naked. All my adult children would testify that they had never seen me naked, because it is one of my idiosynchracies, never to be seen naked. My solicitor later told me that my action, in charging perjury, had damaged me, and that courts disliked mention of perjury. My wife later often told me that her sworn affidavit was false, which it obviously was. In fact, a few months before she swore it, my adult children had prevailed on her to sign a statement, co-signed by them, that there was no violence in our home, which was true. They had become concerned that she was fabricating violence charges against me. I could not get my solicitor and barrister to take any interest in this document. My wife invited me back into the my home secretly, against the terms of the court ouster order, immediately after the Brownlees left. Later, I had to sue Sinclair in the High Court to get the £100,000, which payment was delayed for a year due to the conspiracy in my own home. I also gained summary judgement against my wife and her co-conspirators. Later, the divorce judge gave that £100,000, along with everything else, to my wife when I sued for divorce.

My case was unusual in that my wife never sued for divorce. Still, some of the corrupt trickery in the fabric of the divorce process, the ex parte ouster, was used to sabotage my business activities. I sued for divorce some years later, when I realised that, having got away with such blatant falsehood in the courts, there would be no limit to the untrue charges she would successfully bring against me when the whim took her in future. It was insufficient for her to assure me (but not the courts) that her sworn affidavit was untrue, as everybody in the family knew full well. I had to divorce her, because we both now knew that the courts would believe, and act on, any criminal charge lodged against a husband. I had to save my skin, and leave my youngest daughter to fend for herself. After all, it would be harmful for her if, as was likely, her father was later jailed following false criminal charges by her mother. Every husband and would-be husband is forewarned by my experience. In the event, three people, including my wife, swore false perjured affidavits making different criminal charges against me. I had no recourse against them. The courts only wanted to believe the charges, not to investigate them. The reason I stayed out of jail was that the three rogues were permanently at war with each other. All of this nightmare arose after all parties realised that the courts welcomed perjury.

It would have been very easy to prove perjury, but there was never an opportunity. I pursued this matter for some years. After some months, one judge said it was a matter for the police. I was enmeshed with the police for a year or two, and then they said it was a matter for the courts. So a couple of years later, I had a hearing before Circuit Judge Stockdale, the only reason for the hearing being my request that my allegation of perjury be investigated. He stated that the courts had no facilities for investigating perjury. A number of solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. I have come to the same conclusion after many hours of study of law books. In contrast, Appeal Court Judge Thorpe had the gall, on 16th May 1996, to say in a Pelling Appeal Court hearing that the family courts were inquisitorial; that the judge's primary duty was to establish the facts. They live in the surreal world where establishing the facts involves ignoring an assertion under oath that there has been lying under oath.

The reason why the courts welcome perjury is simple. It greatly increases the fees earned by The Industry. It dirties both the perjurer and his adversary, who alleges perjury. It protects The Industry against the threat of the use of the Law of Equity, because he who comes to Equity must come with clean hands. Perjury is the perfect device to lay the way open for all lawyers in the case to charge massive fees and to avoid thinking hard about the case. Perjury means that the case is dead except as a source of fees.

Bribery and forgery are in the same class as perjury. The Industry will ignore bribery and forgery, and punish the messenger, behaving in the same way as it does over perjury. I am sure James Pickles, like all other judges, would trot out the cliché; "Perjury, forgery and bribery are very serious offences", but he would do nothing about them in practice. He demonstrates a sloppy and confused attitude to forgery in his book "Judge for Yourself", pub. Smith Gryphon 1992, pp 40 and 69. First he writes, advising a young barrister; "Curb your aggression and use it sparingly, against frauds, perjurers and unjust judges - but never against witnesses who are honest and doing their best." Then blow me, he later writes, casually, about a typical case of his; "One of the issues is whether documents were forged. .... but I ordered that the case should go on; the handwriting evidence can be heard on another day. ...." In my own case my solicitor told me that I had severely damaged my case by alleging perjury, which suggestion "is not liked". (I had sworn an affidavit alleging perjury, which was totally ignored.) Lawyers have none of them bothered to think through the traumatic effect on a victim when presented with either perjury, forgery or bribery of witnesses, and then finds that police and lawyers are indifferent to his predicament and insist on ignoring his protestations. This gross misbehaviour occurs in our courts in most divorce cases. One good reason why courts have to be secret is to hide this misconduct. We have to give it to Lord Denning that he emphasises the need for open courts to prevent judges from misbehaving.

Taken from