journey through the family legal system uk - corruption, fraud, perjury, collusion, bribery

How to frame your partner (to be updated)

Fraud, corruption, perjury, bribery, collusion

My journey through the court system in Ancillary Financial Relief.
This was at Watford Family Court, Hertfordshire, UK

Apply your own reasoning and judgement

The judges oath at -
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/oaths/

Role of Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)
There used to be 8 remits and now it been reduced to 4.

From ministryofinjustice.co.uk
“Publicity is the very soul of justice… it keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial.. Where there is no publicity there is no justice” – Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be done to be seen’

"The basic principle is that a court or tribunal hearing a case must be impartial and that justice “should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” (R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, at page 259)

The three key values which are central to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) in England and Wales are:
- Independence
- Impartiality
- Intergrity

To appeal, one has to apply to the same judge that decided and they can refuse, so more of your time and finances wasted.

It seems for the moj, judiciary and jcio that its acceptable for a judges to deliberately set out to waste time and finances and it causes so much mental problems, anxiety, weariness to understand how their understanding of justice or law or cases is when litigants are deliberately failed, so what of lawyers or litigants understanding of the law or justice. I wake up in the middle of the night with palpitation, anxiety and day revolves around how a judge in the UK can literally lie, collude and deliberately ignore physical evidence over false allegations and treat people/ litigants / lawyers differently. My once good memory has suffered greatly due to this & I am not alone and so many people have raised concerns that there are petitions to overhaul the judiciary to root out the corruption, fraud, discrimination, racism etc in the justice system. The justice system itself encourages litigants to resolve matters themselves to reduce costs and reduce court time and make space for other cases but judges deliberately set out to waste court time and spaces and it seems that’s acceptable. Report states that judges that do not perform and set out to cost litigants are not sacked but re-allocated to another post – you guessed it right – to continue with the injustice and waste peoples time and finances. This DJ had different positions before this. Judicial appointments are till retirement so no worry about looking for job, pay, pension.

I had complained to the jcio even though I was told it was a waste of time and having checked it was as not within their current 4 remits - used to 8 before, deliberately reduced to 4. After the reply, I asked them to send to the ombudsman but got no reply. I even sent to the supreme court but seems they are not interested in complaints. JCIO is not worth complaining to.

Racial bias and the bench report - https://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/research/associated-projects/judiciary/
corruption, fraud in courts, judiciary - https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/corruption-courts

FDA – First Directions Appointment – Deputy District Judge
When it came to give his email address he said ‘I will not repeat myself again’ and spelt his name out letter by letter - ‘M-Y-N-A-M-E-I-S@… gov.uk’. That’s rude and condescending and appeared superiority. Not everyone is used to different names and cultures and for the Judge to say that, is plainly wrong. If not interested in repeating, they should send out emails.

Financial Dispute Resolution - Deputy District Judge
There were issues with the pension and I did my research before the hearing as I did not agree on other side stance. I had mentioned about the “A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce – July 2019 version” – https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/pensions-divorce-interdisciplinaryworking-group. It seems Judge did not grasp that I knew how pension work and only ‘experts’ should give advice, so was ignored. The actuary that was put forward by other side and selected for the case does not agree with this report. As pension actuary experts are not regulated, all ‘experts’ will have different results from the same figures provided. So solicitors will only use experts that are on their books.

There were some documents that I had wanted from the applicant but the applicant’s solicitor lied to the fdr judge that the fda judge had decided on it. As I was not given a second chance to respond – the solicitor had been give 2 chances but me once only, so unfair treatment (many lips have had this treatment). I emailed the Judge to state that the solicitor had lied and previous judge did not state as solicitor said but was ignored.

The judge can change the order if information comes to light and he could have checked the previous hearing if I was wrong but chose to go with the lies and falsified information. Seems solicitors lying in court is acceptable over the truth or actual recording.

UK Supreme Court rules that judges can reverse orders before they are sealed
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0206

UK Supreme Court: court can change decision without "exceptional circumstances"
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0263
https://www.3pb.co.uk/content/uploads/When-can-an-order-be-amended-under-the-sliprule.pdf

At the FDR, I had asked for documents from the applicant before the trial. The other side argued that ‘the documents I have asked are suitable for cross- examination’. How a Judge can agree that documents required for cross- examination do not have to be produced by the other party. How does he expect one to ask questions without the evidence?

Pre-Trial (PTR)– District Judge
Most of the time was spent on arguments on the applicant and her team’s failure to respond and correct an incorrectly recorded order. The District judge said the matter will have to be dealt with the FDR judge but the applicant wanted to added extra items to exclude my other evidence as she has stolen my documents but denied despite evidence and knew what evidence I had for the trial. The order was subsequently corrected hence wasting judicial time

Trial
District Judge – same judge as PTR
The applicant had both white solicitor and barrister as was the DJ and I had a Pakistani solicitor, same as PTR. The oath of perjury was read by the Judge. I do not understand the need for it if the evidence was ignored, lies and corruption allowed and then being biased and discriminating and coming to applicant’s aid when the evidence shows otherwise. Even the Judge lied brilliantly and was evasive like the applicant.

People are not allowed to come and go as they please, so is a judge not bound by the same etiquette/ rules. He used to turn up between 10-30-11am and said need to finish at 4pm as he has other commitments. Surely if a judge is assigned to a case, they will be dealing with that case only, my assumption, till completion or was he just not committed to the case. The DJ said 'only a few cases end up at a hearing (2%)' and said ‘we should decide as we do not want someone else to make a decision that they will not like’. DJ said the same thing at the PTR in Apr 2022. What if one party’s statements is full of false information & also wants to deliberately diminish the pot and their solicitors are only asserting their stance and lying as well?. Was he implying Judges are out to make unfair ruling? Surely Judges would make decision that is not detrimental to one party and for one party to then lodge an appeal, as its just looking to drain parties finances and un- professionalism, immoral and injustice and taking up court times. From the FDA, the Judges had said the 'solicitors are out to make money' then surely they would make decisions that are of fair outcome and should penalise parties that are vexatious and wanting to draining finances deliberately, so the parties do not have to keep on appealing, thereby making the solicitors more money as Judges have been lawyers themselves! Practice what you preach does not seem to be goal, and certainly not in my case. He also said at the PTR that he was 'due to retire next year', so did he not care about the cases he was going to deal with and to finish his career this like this?

The Judge said 'the case went to trial quickly'. Was it an impression that it should not be quick and solicitors to make more money?

The Judge said the ‘Applicant was clear in her responses’ and ‘I was evasive’ but gave no further details, even though I had tried to answer questions to the factually and reality as possible, rather than agree to the questions I had been asked. Or was I meant to agree to what ever their stance is? If the applicant was clear in her responses, she could not answer many of the questions put to her but said ‘that was her recollection’, and was changing stories as she went along, just as she had done in her statements through out the proceedings from the onset, ie she writes one version and when I provide evidence, she changes her story and I have to produce more evidence to show what she said again is false and she changes it again. She was evasive in answering the questions, with replying with ‘that was her recollection’, yet she had provided an elaborate concise account of every event changing story when evidence is produced. Surely a Judge with years of experience, I presume, would be able to see that she was evading the questions and changing story every time from what she had written and had lied with the evidence I had provided? If I was evasive then surely the Judge would ask for clarity and he did so twice, so where does the evasive come in and seems he just read the ‘evasive’ in the closing submission statement of the applicant’s barrister hence his stance, thereby being discriminating and biased. If I was evasive, the judgement was still based on some of the things I had said but views of the applicant, so where was the evasive. It was more a case of he deliberately omitting items that would diminish the applicants share.

The DJ has completely ignored my solicitor’s submission, my solicitor’s questioning to the applicant, my physical evidence and of my oral testimony. He even ignored some the applicant’s counsels questioning that would diminish applicant’s pot. He only focused on the applicant’s barrister and her oral testimony. Applicant had no physical evidence.

My right to a fair process trashed

In short, despite the physical evidence, the DJ . In detail here
- believes its possible to send money to a non-existing a/c or remove money from an a/c when these transactions do not show in the bank statements as the applicant was a bank branch manager.

- believes I can travel in time (to 2001) to renovate an overseas property having bought the overseas property during covid19 worldwide travel restrictions (Jul2020) after the applicant filed for divorce (03/2020) when these transactions does not appear in the bank statements.

- agreed with a valuation report produced by the applicant that does not describe the overseas property but describes her parents property in a different town 20-30km away so falsified documents obtained via bribery. DJ ‘she had been to the property’ despite unable to answer any of the questions relating to the property and one of the pics not being of the property

- ignored third party interests to the overseas property despite the evidence of payment taken from my sibling by the applicant and ignored bank statements about applicant lying by saying money was removed from our a/cs to pay for it.

- ignored financial, litigation misconduct – applicant moved vast sums out & some into children’s a/cs, deliberately removed my documents from the bundle and falsely naming it immerman documents, refused to correct an order wrongly recorded hence wasted judicial time, lied to court and in court papers and not obeying any of the orders. Deliberately wasted vast sums on loans, litigation, scrapping a car with letter from her cousin, that had very little information about the problem described, despite saying does not want to involve family

- agreed with the applicant’s separation date as the applicant had removed vast sums before that so as not to penalise her for financial misconduct despite my evidence and despite her own written statements of showing a different date.

- said the ‘applicant needs a car to travel to work’ having gone through the applicant’s documents after the hearing, the work place which is 4-5 stop on the same train line, a short walk to the station, but I who travels from job to job, completely ignored despite her counsel raising the question.

- made my mum a destitute pensioner depriving her of all her life savings, so the applicant would benefit

- said ‘I was controlling’ so guilty when my side was not even allowed to question her on her allegations as stated in her s25 despite my solicitor stating ‘its in her s25’ twice. But her side was allowed to ask me things not in my or her s25 and using the ‘controlling’ as used by her counsel to describe the marriage. I had evidence as well of her lies and her controlling. After the hearing the applicant went to the police to report me as a judge’s ‘controlling’ stance would make a greater chance of me being arrested.

- DJ said ‘applicant did not know about the cctv’, and was ‘upset’ despite she paying the bills and evidence provided. Applicant said I had hidden cameras in the property. How does one know there are hidden camera or not? One would only say that if they knew but want to deny and put other person in trouble and if they did not know, would they be looking at the camera directly regularly and tell others the location of it? She has been stealing/ removing my documents/ money/ stuff, she denied it and DJ agreed with her.

- criticise me for producing evidence just because DJ did not want to look a the whole page properly so as to protect the applicant’s lies.

- DJ could not work out or ignored what the applicant had said was factually false about her so called immerman documents hence the ‘controlling’ stance and the evidence would show it was false as well

- said he ‘could no understand why I could not find work’ despite self assessment records, so taken applicant’s view ‘I had never worked’. Judges are never sacked if they cost litigants deliberately, so how would he know how easy or difficult it is to find work. He would have been put forward by a minister so easy job prospect, so not even look for a job.

- DJ lied brilliantly and was evasive like the applicant when my solicitor asked the DJ to include my costs as he had included hers.

Caught off guard, response from from DJ
DJ - ‘I did not see the form H’ – shows he did not even look at my docs or bundle despite it being the last pages & listed in the index
solicitor – ‘its in the bundle’
DJ – ‘its not correct’ – he’s not even looked at the bundle, so how does he know its correct or not, so lied again
solicitor – ‘i’m a solicitor’ – said it 2-3 times if DJ was thinking solicitor fake and had deliberately inflated costs as being a Pakistani unlike applicant’s solicitor’s deliberate increase of costs
DJ - ‘i do not have the power’ – more lies to fob off my solicitor as if thinking Pakistani will not know his job as a lawyer and probably only white lawyers are to know the law.
Solicitor – ‘Yes you do have the power’
DJ – ‘its nearly the same’ - looking at the spreadsheet – so believes acceptable for me to pay my costs but hers to be included in the pot.
barrister intervenes to stop DJ’s further lying & perjury & DJ humiliating himself, saying – ‘the judgement has been passed’ – makes me believe that barrister wrote the judgement hence DJ did not know what to say or what docs were in the bundle & DJ’s beliefs of non-white lawyers understanding of the law /process.
DJ still does not state his reasons for not including my costs even though he has to provide his reasons for his decision.

- Despite the cctv evidence of the applicant removing money and jewellery, DJ said ‘anyone could have taken the money and jewellery’. She waited nearly 2 years to open the box with excuses which turned out emptied, that she even refused to open when I first asked before she filed for divorce.

- said 'the childrens a/c are held in trust’ despite him saying ‘there is no trust set-up’ so contradicting, despite the applicant using their account for personal purposes and to hide money

- how the cost of sales of a property can be deducted when there is no sale of the property, so the person keeping the property benefits as it lowers the sums available for division then the person leaving has to then foot the stamp duty and legal fees when buying their property. Unfair justice system but UK prides itself of fair justice system.

- DJ said ‘I needed tools for works’, tools that I said barely performed and had asked for replacement but ignored, but contradicts with ‘could not understand why I cannot find work’

- DJ said the applicant’s ‘premarital pension to be excluded’ but me and my mum's pre-marital sums were not.

- said he does not give out his email to everyone. He did not give it out at the any of hearing, so my solicitor did not have his email to send queries or documents but the the applicant's solicitor and barrister had been provided his email privately beforehand. So what was said and discussed privately? Neither did the DJ give his email to the applicant's barrister (non-white) on a later case, so only white lawyers were given his email and communicate directly.

- he said he ‘could not work out the division of the pension’, when there was already a report commissioned that stated the division, so ignored written expert’s documents and tell us to agree, ignoring the applicant’s refusal to agree on anything amicably, or to ask the expert, so more finances wasted and the applicant’s solicitor and actuary were happy with extra work = more money.

- in a later case, the same DJ, tried to change my mind to accept the applicant’s version of events despite applicant not obeying his earlier order then made my pay part of her costs despite me having to pay my own costs. – plain collusion.

- the counsel colluded with the court staff to get me to leave by force despite me wanting to view the order before it was forwarded to the court

- DJ then refused to change the order to reflect the events that transpired at the hearing, even though the applicant’s counsel did not forward me the draft order to check, but said ‘it was done by a legal representative’, so a legal representative producing wrong drafts / documents is accepted by courts without any input from the other side and a judge can refuse to change it.

- finally signed off an order when no longer a judge that again had wrong information.

on another court issue - council tax liability order
- After several requests to send me the final bill after moving out, I paid the monthly instalment which resulted in over payment and they refused to refund me. I then had a council tax liability order (Newham) made against me even though the council acknowledged that the liability was not mine but still proceeded to get the ctlo against me, so basically the council got the court staff to rubber stamp & process it without a hearing and to get me into trouble to pay someone else’s liability and have a record of ccj but I fought back and the council withdrew it, so definitely collusion. fraud, corruption.

corruption, fraud, collusion, bribery, perjury, lies,