19. January 14th. Webster and the summer holiday visit
My beautiful Byron,
Monday is here again. I am hard at it, with a long to do list this week. One thing at the top of my list is my very strong wish to direct events in such a way that you spend summer holidays with me. I figure, you will be ten. You want to be with me. I want you here. Lets make it happen between us. June is some six months away. Plenty of time to get a plane ticket and set the dates.
The only thing stopping your visit is the cheerful family law triumvirate of Adler/Amlot and O’Leary. Eventually, you will be old enough to tell them what you think. At ten, you already have the right to speak out on what you want. But soon enough, if you choose, you will be able to apply your own legal pressure on the happy threesome.
I am already old enough to do that and with the benefit of age and experience, I have seen that they have made a terrible judgment-call that is child abuse.
Because they all work in family law, charging people at the lowest ebb in their lives during separation with the breakdown of a family unit, a fortune to advise them on what’s best for children. Do you know often they charge £500 an hour – for hundreds of hours – just to pretend they are doing something useful in life, when the reality is they are exploiting vulnerable people at thier lowest ebb and harming children in this process. Operating with the weight of British family law behind them.
As you can imagine, I take a very dim view on their credibility, both as human beings, and as criminal child abusers.
You know that I believe it is an abuse of your rights by Amlot/Adler and O’Leary maliciously, deliberately and willfully obstructing the relationship with your father, which is how their judgment has impacted on you. A judgment made in collusion exclusively by members of the family law gang.
Clearly it is your right to know the details of how they succeeded in stopping your from being with me, both now, as a 9 year old who doesn’t get letters in post from me anymore, as well as later, when you are able to process cognitive thought to arrive at an understanding of your own.
Because I know this obstructive malicious process breached the law in Britain, I believe it is just a matter of time until they are revealed for what they are.
The three main culprits; Adler, Amlot and O’Leary.
Then it will just be the question of working out how much damage impacted on you (and me for that matter) as a consequence of their actions.
How much was missing these 5 years of your life with me worth? When it comes to calculating damages?
Obviously Amlot /Adler and O’Leary were paid considerable amounts of money for their role in this 5 year absence. But how much should you get for the harm they caused? And, how would you calculate interest on the amount they owe you? Or me, for the same reason.
There will be a damages accounting one day. That is for certain. For both of us.
For example, including but not limited to; how much was it worth when they cancelled you coming skiing with me in Wengen in February 2014, and then used the story of me being able to afford to take you skiing to cause me harm in O’Leary’s court? Because they knew the trip was booked for you, yet they chose, deviously and dishonestly, maliciously, to allocate an argument to a judge showing that ‘Andrew has all this money to go skiing and he just forgot all about Byron‘ when the fact is; they knew that they cancelled that ski trip that was booked and paid for, for you.
They used your misfortune, the misfortune their actions created preventing you accompanying me on that trip, to win a legal point attached to financial gain. And compounded that offense by telling me I could never disclose their actions to anyone – or they would come after me with a furious vengeance using ‘secretive’ family laws.
They claim they are able to act with malice and deceit, with guaranteed anonymity. That if their malicious deceit is recorded, they have the power to jail the whistle blower?
Boy are they threatening about keeping their dirty secret away from you.
How much is that worth? That cost consequence arising from manipulative deceit.
If we are to debate fair damages in what is transparently, pretty disgusting behavior by members of the very legal institution who should be protecting children’s rights; not harming children for their monetary gain.
I say it is worth a great deal. Starting with an apology to you. From the three architects of this abuse, along with their barrister who presented a case knowing it was based on deceit.
You will notice, I have not credited the barrister, Simon Webster, as the equal of Adler/Amlot and O’Leary in the various disclosures on ‘Adler vs Broulidakis’ because his role in the law is screened by an impersonal layer of distance, much like an actor.
His job is not personal, like Amlot, who took every opportunity to harm your right to be with me and put it in writing, as the lawyer.
Or O’Leary, who knows exactly how personal prejudice infected her typo strewn misdirection called a judgment. That remains very personal, especially for you and your growing awareness. When you are able to read the full judgment of Michele O’Leary and see for yourself.
The Barristers role is more about speaking than writing. In court, it is the barrister, not the lawyer, who does the talking. Barristers read the lawyers files, form a tactical approach and then stand up before the judge to present a series of points, linked by way of tactic, like an actor working a script. Ultimately the barristers job is to present the argument in a more compelling way than the guy on the other side. The one who achieves the more compelling presentation will be judged the winner. The child on the losing side will be the loser. That is family court in a nutshell. One parent will win and one will lose. Which means, one child will always lose one parent.
A clever system, from a child’s point of view?
Presentation is the barristers key quality. Skill in presentation is the measure of their worth. Exactly like thespians. Webster in this case was far superior in his presentation than the defense barrister. (My guy, Richard Castle, who conceded defeat before the court opened and Webster started presenting his winning tactic.)
I don’t think Simon actually dislikes me, or you. In the personal way that Adler/Amlot and O’Leary do. He just does a job that is impersonal, in which he is paid a huge amount to win points. Objectively.
So, unlike Adler/Amlot and O’Leary, who made it very personal, I recognise Webster was just doing his job. And I will share this opinion for your consideration.
Any criticism I have of him is simply an observation of the limitations his job places on effecting a child-centric outcome in family court, and of his choice to take on this highly lucrative line of work in the first place. His job is to win for his client. And winning means money. Not the child’s best interests. Inherently a flaw in the family law system. The fault, therefore, is not his. The system is arcane and needs repair. In the course of this repair, his job, the barrister in family court, would be retired. It is a role that harms the process of reaching a child centric best case decision during parental separation. A relic from criminal law that has no place in family court.
Simon Webster is the barrister who presented the case by Amlot/Adler in the court of O’Leary, the last minute switch judge. A handsome fellow. The man who earned for his family, dishonestly, knowingly and with wilful deceit, tens of thousands of pounds from the money I had for your future. A pretty effective barrister who presents well in family court. If I was looking to screw over a parent in family court for maximum money without any consideration for the child’s best interests, I would recommend Simon Webster. Good at his job. Unencumbered by compassion, consideration for children’s interests, or the ethical compass of a mindful person. A win at all costs guy. Who knows winning is measured solely by the amount in the judge’s award.
Reflecting, as I have some time in my Monday writing session to you, I wonder if Simon has a son?
Be nice to think the money he won in outperforming my ‘shady’ barrister, Richard Castle, who conceded defeat in the hearing at the moment O’Leary announced she was taking over the case, went towards his son’s education. The money he took from me that was money I had to finance your future opportunities.
For me, lying in court, knowing you are lying and that a child will suffer, directly as a consequence of your wilful deceit, is not a career path I would choose for my son.
I guess Simon is pretty rich by now. Pretty pretty rich and I hope will invest the material proceeds of ethical crime in an education for his son to be a better man than he is. ‘Lying for money’ is not how I would like to see my sons career described by anybody.
Certainly, Simon’s role in removing half a million pounds from my financial position for the benefit of family law members, represents a significant percentage of the costs award against me. His legal charges, whiuch I have to pay, at 8% interest, run into the tens of thousands of pounds. And I say, that same percentage (whatever it is – say 10%) is the comfort he can take from knowing that money of mine will never be spent on your future. Pretty cool in its family law way. I have to pay the guy who abused my sons. He gets that money from your future to spend on his kid.
And was he brilliant in his approach to earn this big money? To defeat a barrister who had conceded (Richard Castle, by his own admission) before one word was spoken in court? I will sum up Simon Webster’s tactical approach in one line.
“I put it to you Mr. Broulidakis you are lying“.
He started every exhibit with that line. That is his modus. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Keep repeating ‘I put it to you you are lying‘ in a posh private school accent, wearing a splendid Armani grey suit, and it doesn’t really matter what words follow, especially if this approach is before a switch judge who has already decided how she will rule before one word is spoken.
In other words, I think Simon is way overpaid for what he does, even though I am not disputing he looks good in Amrani and has handsome features. In artistic terms, as an actors review, I saw a one trick monkey, whose win that day could have been had by anyone able to start a line with “I put it to you you are lying” without a follow on to provide any substance to a claim mode, entirely for its value in repetition.
The liar calling me liar. In a case based on a lie brought by a liar, that the barrister knew was a lie. In a hearing where the witnesses who were there to show the lie were stopped from talking by the judge, who wasn’t even the judge at the start of the hearing when the witnesses were ready and waiting to show the LIE. There was a great deal of lying by members of family law in the court hearing that ended your right to be with your father.
I was there, and I saw a cracked actor appearing on a deceit-infested stage creaking under the lies of ages. A sound stage that needs to be demolished and rebuilt in a new location with proper acoustics. I believe we need an entirely new system for family court decisions determining the future of children. Not an adapted version of criminal court, where murderers and thives get to be prosecuted by trained professionals out for the worst blood the law allows.
My new idea for family decisions requires a new location, more an office than a court room, where decisions affecting children post separation future are made, not by fake, second rate actors and fake, narcissistic obese judges, but instead; accomplished educated wise decision makers, gathered to make child-centric decisions exclusively in the best interests of the child. Right at the time of separation, before either parent has the opportunity to use the child for financial benefit in visitation arguments against the other.
Your 2019 summer holiday starts in June. It is almost three months long. I will have everything on my side in place for your visit. You can depend on me. Of course, I will agree, as the adult and your responsible parent, (The one who did not risk having you placed in foster care by lying to the CAFCASS official about the other parent during the application for visitation hearing in 2013, when you were four) that I will make sure you return to England on the agreed date. Lets say, two days before term starts again. So you have time to get ready for the new year at school and you get to spend the most time possible with me this summer. Lets say – you leave the day after the last day of term. And return the day before. The principle being, you can spend the entire holiday with your father. If that’s what you want?
I saw Hugo on Sunday and Lenny was there. Lenny is his lovely little dog. I met Lenny when he was a puppy. He is 14 now. And still doing well. Wallace made to to 15, so I hope Lenny lives at least that long. Lenny is an indoor dog. His natural habitat is the sofa. He has impeccable manners. And he speaks very politely. I was very happy to see Lenny again. He was telling me all kinds of stories in dog speak. Little semi growling sounds, on a conversational level. A gentleman dog. Like his dad. Who always asks after you.