August 1st, 2019. Phyllis’ letter to Byron
I was looking forward to today’s letter because last week something interesting happened and I wanted you to know. But I waited until the usual Thursday time I spend with you.
Although I am still upset that Adler/Amlot and O’Leary have made sure that we cannot spend time together this summer, as you know, I do not agree with them and I am always looking for ways to win the ‘unfettered access’ you have every right to expect. I think that British family law is a tremendously unpleasant racket where members are allowed to make a lot of money by using British family law to abuse children. Just like what is happening between you and me. So, you already know this, why then am I excited.
The President of British family law is the man in charge of family-law. In order for us to see any change, like you being able to see me, and me being able to see you, we need to get to the bottom of why British family law, in this case Amlot/Adler and O’Leary, have made so much money out of stopping you from being with me.
When that Judge, O’Leary made her judgment in 2015, that stopped us being together so that those members could all get a great deal of money out of stealing my house and my business, and making it impossible for me to stay in the UK, I got advice from a top lawyer. She is a Baroness, that is a member of the House of Lords, who is a woman. And I made the decision to spend a lot of money in family court so that I could see you. Of course you remember that you and me were together all the time for the first four years of your life. While Adler spent at most, 10% of her time with you. While she was off doing family-law. Taking lots of money from people who wanted to see their children. Or to paraphrase, in the words of family-law, profiting from the misery of children.
Well, I paid this very expensive new Law Firm, who are quite famous. Payne Hicks Beech. And they looked at the judgment of O’Leary and said it was horrible. They were quite right.
They told me a few things about O’Leary. This is a woman whose conduct in our case has been repeated elsewhere. I knew the facts of this woman. As well as the facts about Adler and Amlot. You know there are facts and there are opinions. This is a judge who turns away facts and uses her opportunity as a deputy district judge to express opinions as law. That is a fact. However, family law has all kinds of ‘arcane’ laws they use to protect themselves from being found out when they lie. So I couldn’t just go to a newspaper and tell them what Adler/Amlot and O’Leary did. Because they are protected by their old laws from accountability.
All I could do after that horrible judgment is pay a top law firm to apply for Permission to Appeal the judgment of O’Leary. So I did. It cost a lot of money, but there I was one day at the High Court, in front of the President of Family law. His name was James Munby. I liked the look of him. He seemed like a smart man. He read the file from my expensive solicitors in family law, Payne Hicks Beech, and in no time at all he found that O’Leary’s judgment was flawed. So, that is a fact. President Sir James Munby found the O’Leary judgment that stopped you seeing me was flawed. And he ruled that it was flawed.
But because you still don’t see me, you must have worked out for yourself, that The President of Family laws opinion and factual judgment did not change anything. Because you are still not allowed to see me. And despite my best efforts, I cant even talk to you without all manner of lies and deceits being applied by Amlot/Adler and O’Leary. Most of which rely on the fact that I cannot disclose exactly how they lied and acted corruptly to end the relationship between me and my son and in that process caused me financial losses north of £3 million, which made it impossible for me to even live in the UK anymore.
Imagine stealing someones home and rental apartments and their own son, who they raised for 4 years and loved very much. And then threatened them with punishments if they told anybody about what they did because their family-law gives them that power.
Imagine. All that cool stuff we had, those amazing guitars, your fabulous drum kit, your piano, all gone to family-law. And I still don’t get to see you?
Well. That President of Family law retired. I wrote to him and told him the whole story. And why the law has to change It is just not right that children are prevented from seeing their parents in circumstances such as ours. The fact Amlot/Adler and O’Leary get away with it without censure, or prison time, is because the law is flawed. And so the new family Law President now has that responsibility. His name is Andrew McFarlane. When cases come before family-court, the President occasionally hears the big cases himself. Last week a big case reached family court. This guy, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum’s, who is a Muslim and has many wives and loads of children and is super rich in a way that you can learn for yourself later in life, has had to defend himself in British family court where his junior wife, Haya Bint al-Hussein, is, with their children. She came to Britain to file in family-court because Britain’s family-court is famous for being played by its members. If she had filed for divorce in her home country, which her husband owns, she would get nothing more than what he decided to give her. But by filing in Britain, she can make Billions. And the members of family law will make a fortune as well.
So, unsurprisingly, Andrew McFarlane himself heard the first round of litigation. The father in this case, Sheikh Mohammed applied for the return of his children to their home Dubai, and also applied for the court to impose reporting restrictions on details about the orders. Now here is the thing. Sir Andrew McFarlane ruled there was “a public interest in the public understanding, in very broad terms, proceedings that are before the court“. So family-court stories that in our case were not allowed to be shared with press, in this case, can be.
I think, before long our story should be a matter for press interest.
And the law should be changed. British family-law needs reform. Urgently. Current legislation allows and encourages Family-law to be the single biggest abuser of children in the UK.
You should be allowed exactly the ‘unfettered access’ I have asked for from the outset. And the money that has been stolen by lies in family court should be paid back along with damages. For the six years of your life with me and all that represents, that family court has stolen.
Do you know, they (Adler/Amlot/O’Leary) have even lied in the award of costs. O’Leary awarded costs against me, even though I was the defendant, trying to see my son, and family-court rules say, costs in parental disputes cause animosity and animosity is never good for the child. Pretty obvious, don’t you think? Well, not only did O’Leary award costs but in the costs calculation, where they work out what the ‘costs are’, the barrister who filled out the claim lied. In writing. The same barrister who wrote a reference on Adlers web page when I made that for her, for the new firm. The amount they based their costs claim on was a lie. And even though I told them repeatedly, none the less, the liars of family court went ahead and awarded an amount in costs that is a lie based on a lie, based on a lie repeated in court, which is called perjury. In which there is a paper trail showing exactly what I am saying.
To bring it full circle, two weeks ago, Chris traveled to London to see you. Adler first ignored four attempts by Chris to arrange this meeting And when she finally did speak to him, she said you were on holiday. He asked where. She said ‘We are on Holiday’. No way was she going to allow Chris to see you. So at that point, I guess its clear that they are not going to let you see me this summer.
Chris had some presents for you, which I have already mentioned. But also, he had a message for you. Phyllis has been trying very hard to help get you to be with us. I am sure you don’t know about any of her efforts, because, well, I don’t need to spell it out. But, this time because she thought Chris would see you, she sent a handwritten letter. I didn’t see it, and she didn’t tell me she was doing that. (Because I get upset talking about this subject of not being able to see you.) When Chris didn’t get to see you, he sent the letter back and that’s when I found out about it. So I decided to post it for you on letters to Byron.
Bye from me.
Miss you, love you,