C3/2003/0893 Hockenjos v Sec of State


C3/2003/0893 Hock v Sec of State

C3/2003/0893 Hock v Sec of State www.fathercare.org


[In Appeal Court 74 in the Eugen case 19/20may04  www.fathercare.org , the three judges criticised Sloss for holding back on reform in the family courts.]

Just think of it; 20may04 The Attorney General in Court 3 (aided by Sloss) was trying to get permission to rewrite his botched forms as he tries to jail Pelling for two years for exposing abuse by Singer et al. in the courts in a family case in those same RJC, (for which assault in the corridor by court officials Pelling has already received damages and costs), while that same morning in Appeal Court 74 Ward singles out Pelling seated in the Public Gallery for praise! 74 is where the judges also criticised Roz's heroine Sloss for holding up reform in the family courts. Roz sees no news value in these matters. I agree with him that Daily Telegraph readers would not find it interesting.

Roz was praising Sloss in the Telegraph a couple of years ago for her conduct in the family courts. We have to look into who have been the rogue male journalists over the last few years. Overall, by validating Sloss and otherwise, they will have contributed to a lot of deaths, most of them in the future. I believe it is too late now to pre-empt the next, terrorist, phase, when F4J have been discredited for failing to extract viable reform out of a reluctant government and media. In the same way as, two years ago, the defamation of Harris by Roz under orders from Munby worsened the climate, so the defamation of non-terrorist F4J in the Telegraph editorial further inflames the crisis. The rubbishing of excluded fathers in today's Telegraph editorial drives us further along the road to the next, terrorist phase. Mandela is the model.

Today, Roz in Telegraph p4 and Editorial p25, riddled with disinformation, shows that Roz has lost the plot, or, more like, never had it. [I wish to god he would read his wife's landmark 1999 book on the subject. It would bring him up to speed.] Whether he wrote it or not, the first editorial is thoroughly scurrilous. Notice that Roz on p4 failed to mention the real news, see The Guardian p22 today, that on Thursday, the day after Commons purple flour the attack on Blair,  Bracewell, second in command below Roz's heroine Sloss in the family courts,  confiscated children from a mother who defied court orders for father access. Bracewell actually did what Roz merely reported that same day that his pal, QC Moor, only proposed. Roz missed the main story and on the same day published a minnow on exactly the same subject. What a git! Trouble is, such a square bull in a round china shop is a danger to us all. There are many lives at stake.

Does Roz think Telegraph readers prefer to read that something is only proposed, when it has actually happened? Readers of the Telegraph are natural supporters of our right wing party. The right wing party is the natural supporter of the Family, once Portillo is out of the way. [Engels said the family was the seat of oppression of women.] Why does Roz shield them from good news about Bracewell? Why is Roz, married with children, anti-fatherhood and so anti-family, while his wife campaigns for fatherhood? Is that where the media career is?

Ivor   22may04

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Coe

To: Ivor Catt

Cc: Joshua.Rozenberg@telegraph.co.uk ; rwhiston@rwhiston.demon.co.uk

Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 6:45 AM

Subject: Re: Eugen


Thank you for this encouraging update Ivor.  Good for Eugen who has fought so long, hard & bravely!

I was hoping to get to the hearing but my plane journey back from USA this week was severely delayed by bad weather in Chicago.  I hope I can be there for the judgment.

You are quite right about Butler-Sloss whose conduct has appalled us at EPC.  Quite apart from her obstructive behaviour in terms of progressing reforms, we presented her with cast iron evidence that Mr Justice Johnson - probably the worst family court judge on the face of the planet - had been transparently dishonest in court as part of his merciless & unlawful efforts to oppress one father.  Fortunately he was caught on tape!

(Johnson was overturned on appeal - there was no alternative since he had quite blatantly defied the Court of Appeal's earlier directions in the case when they allowed the father's previous appeal!  But Sloss, true to her usual form, refused to do anything productive to remedy the injustices that Johnson had visited on the children and parent.)

Equally, she did nothing to hold Johnson accountable and she effectively blocks all attempts to resolve private law cases by failing to do anything effective in her role as an appeals court judge.  As President of the Family Division - the UK's most senior family court judge - she is a disgrace based on her involvement in all the private law Children Act cases that EPC has had any part in.

In addition to Johnson's dishonesty and grossly negligent conduct, we presented Butler-Sloss with copiously documented, cast iron evidence of corrupt and grossly negligent practices within CAFCASS - practices that were overtly supported and perpetrated by her beloved poodle, Charles Prest, CAFCASS's Legal Director.  Again she refused to lift a finger to remedy this state of affairs.  No action was taken against Prest.  She has a lot to answer for and EPC fully intends to make sure she is ultimately held accountable.

Please feel free to publicize the contents of this mail.  We can support every word of it.

Regards, Tony

At 09:49 PM 20/05/2004, you wrote:

 Latest news at  http://www.ivorcatt.com/49.htm 
C3/2003/0893 Hock v Sec of State www.fathercare.org
I sat through the two day hearing 18/19may04 in the Appeal Court (where Eugen has won once already against the Secretary of State) on Eugen's case. The hearing was extraordinarily successful. Judgement in four weeks or more.
Ivor Catt   20may04

Ivor Catt 22may04

Cc Sloss,

Higher Marsh Farm,

Marsh Green,

Exeter EX5 2EX

Homepage | Electromagnetism1 | Old Website