the public profile of  Michele O'Leary, the last minute 'switch judge'  whose judgment in 2015 contained 42 typo's.

5. Monday. Michele O’Leary, the switch judge

Selfie, 2010

Selfie, 2010

My beautiful Byron,

Its Monday and I have two hours ahead to write to you and choose a few pictures  I hope you will enjoy remembering. I am so pleased to have this time to share with you even if it isn’t what we would have chosen, it’s certainly a lot more than  family court have allowed us. So lets be grateful for that much. At least I can write to you twice every week in a way that you will definitely be able to read one day. Unlike the letters I was sending through the post, that we now know were not getting to you.

This past weekend was great for my work. As far as I am able to work since the accident in June, I am always keeping busy with writing and swimming and physical therapy stuff, trying to get my back better. I have started a new album of my guitar music which is always good for me. Making guitar strings resonate in tune. Harmonious resonance. Even the words sound cool.

I  started my morning today with emails and I saw that I sold three photo’s on Getty Images. (So, I sell pictures that I have taken, through the internet.) The company that sell my pictures pay me some money for their licensed use. That is for example like – a picture of an elephant – and a newspaper wants to use it? They see my elephant picture on the gallery of Getty Images and they want to put it in a story about elephants. But I own the picture?  They buy the right to print my picture in their story,   pay a sum of money to download it and then Getty Images pays me some money (my royalty) for that usage.

Getting some money from selling photos is one good way to replace my loss of income from other sectors since I lost my main income source, the rental properties that Michele O’Leary gave to Charlotte Adler.  Also, my book sales were affected when I learned today in the email from Amazon that  I no longer have my book sales from any Emirates market to put in my bank account, (because those pesky Emirs don’t want their people reading my words and getting the wrong idea about critical thought and Islam).

Imagine that.  I am a banned writer in all Muslim governed Countries like Dubai and Saudi and Abu Dhabi.  No income from the Emirates  then on top of the loss of my a  property income from the 3 flats I used to rent in England, thanks to the Amlot/Adler/O’Leary family court judgment.  That same judgment that is the reason I am writing to you today and not seeing you. Or taking you to the ball game, or skiing, or working on your forehand. Stuff like that. The consequences of a corrupt trio working in Britain’s family law system.

Andrew Brel books banned in all 7 Emirates

Andrew Brel books banned in all 7 Emirates

Do you know, two years ago, I still had income from 7b. One of my Riverbank flats, where my tenants who you might remember,  Adam and Ellie, were good friends of mine as well as good tenants. Paying rent every month and treating it like their home because, of course, it was their home.  It was pretty horrible to have to tell them they had to leave because Michele O’Leary ruled that my home and my rental properties had to be Force sold. So that Adler and her lawyer could have the money.

I bought that flat in 1986, with Johns mum, Catherine. And when I bought the next flat, 7C 5 years later, I became a landlord. I have been renting properties since 1991. Can you imagine how long a period of time that is?
I liked being a landlord. All my 3 flats were super nice, but 7B had the best space, and the best view.    It always attracted super nice tenants. It is what may fairly be described as a ‘Luxurious riverside property with panoramic views over the Thames and Hampton Court Palace’. I spent a lot of money making it super nice. And I was always careful to only allow nice people to stay there. I worked very hard after I moved there to pay off the mortgage completely. So I owned 7B with no mortgage. And it was worth a lot of money.

I had two other flats, and in one of those, 7C, I housed (free for two years) a confused young lawyer in 2003 who couldn’t pay her bills and had a student loan still charging her even though she was 29. I have been lucky enough to be able to house people for little or no money because I owned quite a lot, and I felt grateful for the opportunity to help people who needed help.
When I met Adler I was able to help her advance her lifestyle in many ways, including with free housing, great career guidance and significant amounts in loans that never were repaid. I enjoyed being a generous landlord.

Perhaps I should have reminded myself then that ‘a good turn seldom goes unpunished’. Although who knew this one would turn into a bad egg. I had previously housed seven girlfriends in the 22 years I was a landlord there at that time I met Adler in 2003. Since I got divorced from Johns mother in 1991. I had seven girlfriends live with me before Adler. I counted it , seven lovely girls all lived for awhile with me in my lovely home and guess what?
Not one of those girls left and tried to steal my house.
They all had a great time there and they are all still friends with me to this day. In fact, some read ‘Letters to Byron‘ and write to me with their thoughts about Adler. About parenting. And family court. And lawyers.  Funny how it is possible for many people to separate in a relationship without starting a blackmail war?  It is not normal to lie and steal in family court, but if you are going to lie and steal, family court is definitely the easiest place to go. Of course because I lived with a member of family law for ten years and saw the day to day operation from the inside of family law, I know all too well how corrupt this organization is.

Smile selfie

Sound Studio Smile selfie

Anyhow, two years ago, in 2016, Amlot/Adler and O’Leary judged that I had to get rid of my tenants, and pay Adler half of the rental income based on a ridiculous lie. One so unlikely it  doesn’t make sense even to an idiot. In the process  one member of family law, O’Leary,  gave half of the sale price of my home to another member of family law.  And awarded costs of some £150,000 against me, rising at 8% interest. You can imagine I was not happy about that. She also made a series of further judgments that are transparently corrupt. Indemnifying Adler from criminal offenses in other areas, that had nothing to do with the family court hearing she was asked to judge. Although she wasn’t actually asked to judge at all. She was a switch judge on the morning of the hearing.

A family court judge awarded  an horrendous amount against one parent, knowing it was going to fuel animosity between parents and knowing that this animosity is harmful to children’s rights to see both parents. There is a Solicitors regulation authority and they publish an ethical code. It is clear that members should not foment animosity between parents because it is clear that when parents fight, children are affected.

In what is called ‘adding insult to injury’, as well as making a bad thing considerably worse, O’Leary awarded costs in her court (which was not her court at the start of the day,  she was a last minute switch judge)  against me.
Awarding 100% of my net worth, to Adler, with costs (her legal costs with Amlot), attracting an 8% interest charge until payment. Costs that were far above £100,000. Like £150,000.

Awarding costs by a family judge is in itself uncommonly out of line with the SRA code of ethics. After all, is it not important to minimize the animosity between parents in the child’s best interests? As you can probably imagine, I am pretty certain that making me pay Amlot’s costs for abusing you and charging me 8% interest for not paying him was not ever going to  be in either your best interests or mine. But O’Leary did think so. Obviously. She made that judgment thinking. “Yes, that will be the best thing for Byron.”
I guess I know what you would think of that decision. I hope that one day O’Leary realizes what you think of her decision. And then learns the money she made out of what she did will not make her feel as good as she must have hoped would be the case.

In family court guidelines it reads “Litigation increases animosity between parents which is never good for the child.
But not in your case, when family law is involved. Litigation and the punitive judgment by O’Leary  reflects  on both (1) the appointments of Deputy District judges in British family law; and (2)  the system of checks and balances to catch the child abusers and nip that animosity tree in the bud.
After all , its not as if the solution is not extremely simple and staring anyone interested right in the face.
Why would any members of family law, especially judges, take a child-centric view in family court? There’s no money in that. It puts them out of a job.  Litigation – fighting in court – that’s where the money is. When you can destroy all prospects of a child seeing his father and get the losing parent to spend all they have to try and see their child while the system takes all they have in the process. It makes good business sense. Family law is a very profitable business. But only if you don’t care about the child whose life is being affected.

Here’s a summary of Michele O’Leary’s idea of minimizing the animosity between separating parents. In this case your own mother and father.

Front of my home view of a Palace in snow

Front of my home view of a Palace in snow

Michele awarded  a property that I bought in 1986, that was in my name, that I had paid the mortgage of on, that I had left to John in my will because he was born there, to a girlfriend. Awarded to the 8th girl to spend time with me in my home. Someone who was 14 years old when I became the owner. Someone who stayed in my home as a freeloading guest for two years paying nothing towards any costs and in fact borrowing thousands that were never repaid.
When she left, in that horrible ambush on fathers-day, she strategically lied to claim a property she had no interest in, at the same time as sending without prejudice letters demanding £100,000 from me in exchange for seeing my son. It is no more than blackmail and its OK if you are a member of family-law, because its not personal. Just business.

Adler bringing a property claim – that has nothing to do with family law – before a family court judge who has a  reputation with  members of British family law for being ‘unfamiliar with financial matters‘ is another bad process. Family law is about families.(You know, where there is one or more children involved.)  Claiming someone promised you their house and then suing for property is a civil matter. For a different court.  You might one day ask yourself why did a family court judge make a decision on a claim that has nothing to do with family law.

I called the conditions of visitation back then blackmail, but it turns out it was actually really clever family law behavior, because it was sent ‘Without Prejudice” so my lawyer, Graham Coy from MUNDAYS in Cobham explained to me that “We cannot use this in court as it was sent without prejudice.” That means because of those words, he would not tell the judge about the blackmail. That however doesn’t mean this blackmail never happened. It did. She demanded £100,000 from me before she would let me see you. She wouldn’t even give me the address where she moved you too.

2010. Not yet two, almost mastered the major scale on his fabulous Yamaha piano

2010. Not yet two, almost mastered the major scale on his fabulous Yamaha piano

The O’Leary  hearing was what boxing people often call a ‘fix’. Decided before she even opened the courtroom door. Michele awarded legal costs against me, in Adler/Amlot’s favor in a court hearing in which she was not even supposed to be the judge. That was a different Judge. DDJ Burles. Set down for the hearing. But somehow, and the reasons behind this are so transparently corrupt it has already attracted some interest as a storyline for a TV series.  Michele O’Leary appointed herself judge in the Adler claim that should not have been in family court in the first place.

That it was a theft of property (larceny) is one thing, but more significantly, the interest in this story lies in the abuse of the child. With some useful input into our story by a top California Psychiatrist and expert in Court abuse of children. I met many times with a leading expert in child psychology and family court effects on children. His name was Mark Zetin. A very smart doctor. (Psychiatry). The same child psychology expert who wrote to O’Leary at the time, explaining to Michele that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law of child abuse. Does it matter that Michele didn’t understand that she was abusing a child? Or is it better for her reputation if she at least knew what she was doing.

But the hearing is not our theme du jour. So keeping it on track with today’s subject;  7B, the flat, O’Leary awarded Adler with ‘sole conduct of sale‘.
So – sole conduct of sale?

Whats that? And what other sensible aspects did this judge include in her judgment?

As if the theft of the property and the award of legal fees in this process with 8% interest is not clear enough, by O’Leary’s judgment, I am not allowed to set foot in my own flat. That is why when I came to visit you (19 times in two years) we stayed at the Four Seasons in Hampshire at £400 a night and not in my lovely Riverbank flat. It was nice hanging with Oliver the dog, almost like home, and I reviewed that Hotel many times for being a fantastic home from home for our time together there, but lets face it, we would have preferred staying in my home, which was also your home. 7B was vacant and furnished and would have been an ideal place forme to travel to meet with you in England. But O Leary put into her judgement that “He shall not enter 7b.”

Meanwhile, the other flat of mine that appears in O’Leary’s award, 7A, has a mortgage. A huge mortgage.  O’Leary ordered that the tenants be evicted from that as well. Demanding that it could be sold so that someone could have 50%. plus 8% interest from the time of O’Leary’s judgement while at the same time leaving me responsible for the ongoing costs of my property which was no longer my property.P1110396byronlaguna(1)

Thing is, the mortgage was pretty big. I used to pay it from the income I got renting out the properties.  O’Leary’s ruling ended the income, but not the expense of paying the mortgage. My property, my mortgage. Makes sense, doesn’t it. I should keep on paying all the costs  years after the court forced me to end my tenancies and the income that provided for me.

That was about 2 years back. No more income and plenty of mortgage to pay plus the maintenance on my building. Buildings cost money to maintain. Especially when they are empty for years. Things would fall down, as they do in empty houses, and I would send John Bowen round to fix them. remember Magic John. He was a good friend to both of us. He was the handyman on my house since 1986. Do you know once he was ill, and I helped him with some money to get well. And he was very grateful for that.  But works cost money and so he would send me the bill. Thousands of pounds every quarter in mortgage payments and maintenance bills. With no rental income. In fact, my mortgage payments, keeping the house ready for sale since the court awarded it to the liar and her lawyer, exceed £75,000, of which, they intend paying nothing. Just taking the ‘profit’ from the sale so I receive zero money from my house that was worth above £2 million when I could have sold it, but was prevented by court order from doing so. The court instead awarded Adler ‘Sole Conduct of sale‘. Can you imagine what kind of thinking goes into making  court order like that?  Enough of a punishment financially to ensure many years of animosity. (Which any family judge will tell you, is always best for the child. O’Leary did nothing wrong there.)

What happened next is:

Longest running stale listing on Rightmove. Added 17 September 2017

Longest running stale listing on Rightmove. Added 17 September 2017

Adler/Amlot and O’Leary allocated a sales agent called Savils. And off they went – selling my properties. I was not involved in the process because, obviously, O’Leary  ordered that ‘Sole conduct of sale‘ be awarded to Adler. O’Leary set a minimum target price for the sales of 7a and 7b. Once they achieved that amount then I had no say in them selling. That target amount was low. 25% lower than I could have sold them for myself. Like a fire sale price.

Here is a picture I snap-shotted off the interweb just now. It is a sales listing on Right Move, where UK properties are sold.  It went up on 17 September 2017. It is a ‘stale listing’.

Savils have not sold either property, despite offering them at significantly less than the valuation O’Leary accepted, in over 14 Months of trying. As you can imagine, Savils are not going to be receiving a good review from me.

I will explain why O’Leary’s judgment has increased animosity between the separating parents.

That property, where you were born, belongs to me. In my sole name. I bought it in 1986. (With John’s mother.) I paid all the costs on it and eventually paid off the mortgage completely on 7b, the  flat I used as a rental income property.  And for housing people I liked and wanted to help. It was left in my will to your brother John. It is where he was born in 1989. It was also my first home. The first home I ever owned.



Adler had and has no claim to that flat. To win it in family court, she and her lawyer Tom Amlot lied.

After a switch of judge at the last minute, her family law friend O’Leary awarded her 50% ownership based a bald faced lie for no reason other than to win money in family court, where shenanighans followed which did not support your right as a child of separating parents and did not respect the ethical code of the SRA.

Visiting Hampton Court to review the flood damage in 2014

Visiting Hampton Court to review the flood damage in 2014

As a result of that lie by Adler/Amlot, ‘legitimized’ by  O’Leary’s corrupt judgment which abused you terribly, every month I am left paying a lot of money every passing month on mortgage and maintenance on top of which I have no ‘right of access’. So I cannot even enter my empty flat if I wanted to come and visit you in the UK.

The flats are empty and running up real costs including Council tax (About £600pm) Their value drops as they are left empty and aging in the dust of neglect.

The Judge’s judgment only makes sense if your looking to create animosity. Otherwise, I don’t see how a  family court judge gets away with it. And she is getting away with it because I have already informed the President of family law about her conduct and although he is a very smart and capable man, he has not taken any action towards enforcing the checks and boundaries that protect a judiciary from this level of abuse. Our correspondence though will be interesting for you one day. My letter to Sir James Munby. And his reply. (He is no longer in that job now. He retired. The letter lives on though.) If you add to the overall consequence of the O’Leary judgment the 8% interest that I have to pay on the six figure costs award that O’Leary gave Adler and Amlot and then ask if it legally appropriate to give the ‘sole conduct of sale‘ to someone who can profit more by not selling than by selling. In other words, O’Leary’s judgment enables and encourages Adler to not sell, and still get 8% interest on a six figure sum that compounds with every passing month.

That’s not going to increase animosity between the child parents at all? Well not to the thinking of Michele O’Leary.

It is a typically thoughtful O’Leary judgment that appropriately represents British family law and does not in any way call for any review of the the checks and balances affecting deficiencies in family law judge appointments. Which I can say is validated by Sir James Munby’s verdict when he heard my ‘Permission to Appeal’.

Coffee time, Writing letters.

Coffee time, Writing letters.

Meanwhile, lets look at the value of just my flat 7B. Savils, appointed by Adler following O’Leary’s judgement, offer it, unsuccessfully, at £550k.
During the court order process I could have sold 7B for £750,000. Its market value in 2016.

I had a buyer for the entire property. Freehold and three leases. But instead of agreeing to my proposal to sell as a ‘going concern’  Adler/Amlot and O’Leary prevented me selling it in the way best suited for maximum return. A freehold with three leaseholds as a rental-income going concern. Instead they ordered it be sold according to the O’Leary judgment. (Two leasehold flats giving away 50% as beneficial entitlement.) And they decided to sell 7b for £550,000. That is comfortably £200,000 less than I could have sold for. And, even at that low price, Savils have not sold it in 14 months.

Which invited the question Why?

Either Savils are the worst sales agents on the planet, or shenanigans have occurred. After all Judge O’Leary agreed the value and set a date for a sale and set an amount. The date was 15 October 2015. You would expect, at that low price, £550.000, that lovely flat would have sold in two weeks. But it did not.
Why? Ask yourself, why did the judge stop me having any say in the sale of my own home and award ‘sole conduct of sale‘ to Adler, who then has not sold it in three years.
Meanwhile the sale price went lower because by delaying the sale political events overtook the market value at the time I wanted to sell. That is Brexit happened and the market demand decreased. Making it even worse for my bottom line.P1060267byrondaddy

It is a fact that obstructing my opportunity to sell then, (going concern with freehold) in 2016, they caused me even more financial harm.  And is it possible this was done deliberately to cause me more financial harm?

Do you know, had I sold it when I wanted, in 2016, and moved the money into dollars, the exchange rate was $1.5 to the pound. Since the pound has collapsed, if I ever do see any money from the sale of my home and property business, moving it to dollars will reflect the (approximately) 20% drop in the value of the Pound. A pleasingly coincidental side win for team Adler/Amlot/O’Leary. Although I will add, it is highly unlikely that I will see even one penny from the sale of my home because Adler/Amlot and O’Leary will make sure that is the case.

Imagine, if, as seems likely, I do not received any money from the sale of my property by O’leary’s court order, these three have stolen a £2 million+ asset from me and left me with a half million pound legal debt. (At 8% interest.). And that is legal in British family law?

the public profile of the family court judge whose delinquent judgement abused Byron

the public profile of the family court judge whose delinquent judgment abused Byron. Click to enlarge.

You can bet the animosity between your parents soared when I read that judgment by O’Leary. And that as I sit here writing now, having not had one penny from the sale of my property even despite the court ordering its sale, while I continue paying all the costs with no rental income, I consider there may be a sprinkle of animosity spilling over between your parents specifically caused by the O’Leary judgment leading to this moment right now.  me writing to you from California because I cannot even speak to you on Skype thanks to legal events, which is simply criminal conduct, which you will inevitable know about one day.  Because it is very much your right to know what happened to you.

I did not give up on you and disappear from your life. Family law literally drove me out of the country and stole every penny I had. Twice, Adler and Amlot prevented me knowing your address. So I could not even write to you. Once for a month, then for 9 months. A total ten months where I asked “Provide me with Byron’s address’ and they did not. In fact, I wasn’t even able to write to you by post for 9 months, between April 2016 – 16 Dec 2016, when Adler refused finally wrote to me with the new address.   She could do that legally you see because what was I to do about it? It is not an offense in family law when it comes to you and me. I wrote to my lawyer, Mathew Spring about it. But, as with every other misconduct by Adler, the same outcome followed.

Imagine, owning three properties and having nowhere to live in the UK? O’Leary ruled I could not enter my flat, 7B, which was sitting vacant because I was forced to get rid of the tenants. So if I managed to get permission to see you for a few days I had to stay in Hotels with you. That was a really good judgment made with the child’s best interests in mind.
Now I no longer come to England at all. I have nowhere to live and thanks to the judgment, no money for a hotel to house you in, and most significantly, no way of arranging visitation with you because of  Tom Amlot’s excellent letter writing.  Which I  am sure you will enjoy reading one day to see just why Adler, a family lawyer, chose to retain a lawyer like Amlot when she left with you. He did a really good job of making sure animosity is at a level that means I am not likely to write a review on the Law Society website for his considered respect for the SRA ethical guidelines.

Even if we put to one side the list of nonsense family law has placed between you seeing or even speaking with me that has stolen 5 years of your life with me that can never be valued in a damages claim against the culprits, what has happened makes the way foreword quite clear. Either family law is right – and I am a liar who is better off out of your life, and fined the proceeds of a lifetimes work in a completely legal process by a good judge – or this cabal of family law is a corrupt mess, who must answer to an accountability process. And pay reparations. While all this was going on, and by all this, I mean the subject of the Amlot/Adler/O’Leary representation of the SRA ethical code, I had a very expensive and seemingly capable property lawyer from a top London firm negotiating the sale to make sure I at least received the 50% of my properties. Even at the lower price that Adler/Amlot offered them for sale through Savills. Making the best of a bad deal.

I couldn’t tell on her to the Law Society or report her to the Family Court abuse system. Because, as you will see later in the the story of Amlot/Adler and O’Leary, they are above any law. I did report them to the head of Family law, Sir James Munby, so that’s about as far as I could take it. Nothing happened after that, I still didn’t receive your address for post and although I had a journalist at a Newspaper, the Daily Mail, interested in running this part of the story, their lawyer explained to me that  “They will protect their right to secrecy with a vicious malevolent vengeance, relying on a 58 year old word salad called Section 12 of The Administration of Justice Act 1960.” I elected to not risk inviting their vengeance, because I considered  it would almost certainly impact badly on you, given my awareness of the ethical standards of the participants.P1060355byrondad

I am painfully aware of the position you are in. You have already been used as leverage, first in a £100,000 blackmail for visitation claim, and then with every letter Amlot and Adler wrote pursuing their disgraceful fictitious claim for beneficial Entitlement in family court, where Adler perjured herself repeatedly and O’Leary patted her on the back. O’Leary does not have your back. Backing off is the best course I could take, so I did.

And in any event, I didn’t have any money to pay a family lawyer to enforce the law about concealing the child’s address from the parent specifically to cause the parent discomfort, after paying family law some £280,000 in cold hard cash to see you for just one single visit in 2014, so I just waited hopefully and sure enough, after 9 months I received a letter with your address on it. That was December 16, 2016, and from that very day I started the twice weekly ‘letters to Byron.‘ That became a real thing. Choosing photos and getting them in the post on a very specific calendar. Every Monday and every Thursday. So you would know, twice a week without fail, I was thinking of you.

Visiting Lord Sir James Munby at the Royal Courts of Justice

Visiting Lord Sir James Munby at the Royal Courts of Justice

Meanwhile Savils began selling my two properties. Posting 7B on Right Move on 15 September 2017.  Today is 26 November, 2018. ‘Sole conduct of sale‘ award from one family law member to another was a great judgment on many levels.  Savils have not sold either of the two properties awarded to Amlot/Adler.

Meanwhile O’Leary’s judgment deems it in the child’s best interests that:

1. I keep paying the mortgage and maintenance costs every month. (As I have done always. Adler never paid one penny towards either.)
2. I cannot legally enter my own property, one I have owned since 1986. If I want to see you in England I have to pay a lawyer to negotiate it and then pay a Hotel for the visit while my home , the one I bought and paid for in full, is sitting empty. So – guess how that affected me being able to visit you in England?
3. Adler/Amlot earn 8% interest on costs far into six figures, secured against a charge on my property. As long as the property doesn’t sell, and they get paid, the interest keeps accruing.
4. Eventually, something will happen and team O’Leary/Amlot and Adler will force a family law solution through in which I receive nothing excepting the value of the story about Amlot/Adler and O’Leary’s, property theft, child abusing blackmail and the necessary reforms to British family law.
5. I continue to be denied unfettered communication with you, even by telephone.

Shall I tell you what I think?

If there was no criminal practice happening here, first there would have been no win in the O’Leary hearing because it would never have happened. O’Leary was not set down as judge.  No doubt Judge Burles would have allowed the  witnesses, there and ready  to show the lie by Amlot and Adler. And there is no doubt that in an honest judiciary that claim for ‘beneficial entitlement’ would have been thrown out. (It only progressed through a preliminary hearing because Adler claimed she would ‘bring multiple witnesses’ to give the evidence that she did not have. Surprise surprise, at the actual hearing, she had not one witness. As I said – because who would go in court to be witness to a lie?)
But even accepting the O’Leary judgment, if I  had been allowed to sell my property to the buyer I had in 2016, we would have moved on even despite my disgust at the judgment of Michele O’Leary and the criminality of that switch judge, child abusing theft process. I would then had enough money, if the figures had been real, to clear over £600,000, to start the legal application to have you with me. (All I had to do is play a deposit of £100,000 to take the matter forward with British Family law.) And by now, I believe that is where you would be.

It remains now as it has been from the outset, my view that you would enjoy a far superior life experience and education with parents there for you all the time, driven by ethical standards from the Greek philosophy of Philotimia instead of your current reality,  two members of family law with the ethical standards they represent, on a daily basis. I continue to believe the climate here in California and the opportunities for outdoor activities would represent a far better choice for you than the cold rainy gloom that is a New Malden Terrace. Even without factoring in the advantages of considering your choice in this matter, as you indicated to me when we discussed who you wanted to live with, being considered.

Byron's story is not unknown to more than one member of the Lords

Byron’s story is not unknown to more than one member of the Lords

Meanwhile, once the judgment prevented me from selling and discounted me from involvement in the sales process, the market kept trending down. And as that trend continues, the property gets older, day by passing day, and will cost more to make it shiny for sale at top dollar. I expect they are waiting for me to no longer be able to pay the mortgage and associated costs of sole ownership, denied the rental income. Default on that and then the bank takes over. And then one thing is certainly true. I will have zero money to pay a family law member to represent you from the animosity between myself and  Amlot/Adler and O’Leary.

It is no secret that I have called them all for child-abuse already.

So,  its almost two hours now, my beeper says ten minutes to wrap up today’s letter. Which is a little bit longer than usual.

Learning to walk

Learning to walk

Next up, I am thinking of writing to Savils. The agents who have failed to sell these premium riverside properties in what is approaching 18 Months. I am interested in why they run a Right Move advert for over one year without having the professionalism to realize that the listing needs to come down and something needs to be done. It is counter productive, if selling is your intention, to leave a stale listing up telling buyers  “hey stick around – this is a distressed property. Hasn’t sold in over one year.”

I guess I will just keep paying the costs until eventually the house is worth less than the council tax debt on it, and all we will have left is the memory of share with you of how clever O’Leary’s child-centric judgment was.

To date the cause of Amlot/Adler and O’Leary’s action against me has cost me north of £3,000,000. Which leaves me with two thoughts.

Off. Now. Foul play

Off. Now. Foul play

I would have liked spending that money raising you and secondly;

O’Leary has no case to answer to the SRA, no accountability for either criminality or gross incompetence (or as I expect, a champagne blend of both),  or any monitoring body that that might exist to provide checks and balances about judgments precisely the same as O’Leary’s, because it is really good for children.  Not abusive at all, to increase animosity between parents by awarding punitive costs against one who is not a child-abusing member of family law.

You couldn’t make up stuff like this it is so far from believable. Yet it happened. And continues to happen every passing day while these participants continue their family law practice. I have kept a copy of all the documents in this case and one day it will all be a book you can read at your leisure.

Miss you,
Love you,



(Words 6,000: Time one hour 54 minutes.)



Where you can order my books and also send copies to friends. And leave REVIEWS

LETTERS TO BYRON in chronological order:

The first of the LETTERS TO BYRON:  The PILOT
4th:  Thanksgiving day
5th: MICHELLE O’LEARY. The switch Judge
6th : Raining in California
7th: Music
8th: December Rain
9th: Brexit and Greek war
10th: Winnie the Poo
11th: December kayaking
12th: Family law and Mark Zetin
13th: Xmas day 2018
14th: Maria and Anna
15th: New years eve 2018
16th: Your first smile
17th: Your Uncle GEORGE
18th: The Mighty PACIFIC
19th: WEBSTER and Summer HOLIDAY 2019
20th: Breach of Privacy offense
22nd: Philotimia
23rd: A short note
25th: Robin Hood
26th: SRA ethical code
28th: Valentines day
30th: Rushing
31st: Quick Note
32nd: Johannesburg 2019
33rd: Still in Johannesburg
34th: More Johannesburg
35th: Last Johannesburg for now
36th: Traveling. Upgrade
37th: Spring
38th: Whales
39th: MEXICO
41st: 1 April. Wallace’s Birthday
43rd: Short letter
45th: KIRA visits
46th: Goodbye uncle Lazaros
47th: Easter Monday
48th: OJAI Tennis
49th: Short letter
51st: Cartagena memory
53rd: Last letter to 9 yo
54th: First letter to 10 yo
55th: D Day – 75 years
60th:  Chris and Golf
61st: Chris visits Byron in London
65th: MISS YOU
67th: Mason leaves for college
68th: ART
69th: Day after 911
71st: Two Women
75th: M and M
76th: HALLOWEEN 2019
78th: First late letter
89th: MIAMI
90th: Thanksgiving and the SRA
91st: Dentist
93rd: Almost Xmas
94th: Boxing day 2019



Tags: , , , , , ,