Well I am working on this case, I believe incumbent of a benefice in and of trust in my "divorce" proceedings and my salary is NIL.
Life ain''t fair is it so we better get used to it.
On the subject of income one of the Justices assigned to this case was earning in excess of £500,000 when he was a top barrister gaining convictions often on behalf of the Treasury.
I stated in one of my statements of truth to Queens Bench that I believed he must have taken a drop in income on becoming a Judge and I didn''t believe that he would have done that if his only interest in law was doing it for money.
At the time he was appointed he was the top earning barrister in the UK and he was slated in the press at the time for his contribution to law. Over £500,000 is an impressive salary but in relation to top earning bankers and others it is not that significant.
The Judge in question (who I really liked when I saw him in Chancery) is a top Human Rights Judge who lectures internationally and rights papers on Section three of the Human Rights and Convention rights.
He was also the youngest man to be appointed into the Jurisdiction he got at the time.
I would add, having been given an incredible tour that you should not attempt to pervert the course of justice and that Law applies in the same way whether you are applying for Ancillary Relief for financial remedy or applying for an injuction in Commercial, Chancery or Queens Bench.
Especially, do not attempt to get ancillary relief in Queens Bench unless you really know what you are talking about.
Divorce is a totally different thing than ancillary relief and the recent precedent regarding non fault divorce i believe is correct. The financial situation is entirely different so do not confuse divorce proceedings with any type of financial proceedings.
IF you are not entitled to a salary, or any monies held in a trust during the course of your marriage you are not entitled to them just because you are getting divorced and your income is going to be reduced.
In the same way that the state is not required to house a party just because they are lossing their house because there is not enough capital to rehouse everyone, and that an employer does not have to increase an employees salary to double just because the other spouse wants to be paid a regular maintenence you cannot attempt to force a court out of its jurisdiction to reallocate funds of a limited company to start paying you a salary or make the beneficiaries of a trust a different person just because of a divorce.
I never asked to be in court once let alone the 32 times I have now been in court. I have attempted negotiations with all parties at all times to keep this out of court and to enable me and my children and my mother to get on with our lives.
At the moment my ex and his wife are having a wonderful life and attempting to convince all the courts that I am stopping him moving on when it is very evident that it his him and his legals that are stopping me getting on with mine.
In general terms the courts have the job of sifting out all without merit claims to stop the general public being harrassed and courts being clogged up by very prejudical and harrassing claims.
The distress that I have witnessed UK Judges going through during the course of these proceedings and now the empathy I feel for them - it seems to me that it is the Judges who often get blamed for abuse rather than any litigant represented by a legal team or the legal teams themselves - is off the scale.
My experience is that Judges are good humoured and totally human. Sometimes they have been laughing at some of my submissions - one of which was "maybe xxx solicitors should consider a legal refresher course!, sometimes they have been so worried I have been concerned for them.
One judge in one district court told me immediately when I entered his chambers that he was overwhelmed by the amount of correrspondence involved in this case and that he was given just 6 minutes to decide whether me and my children should be made bankrupt and homeless.
I totally have sympathy for him especially as I now know that some legal teams will put any malicious allegation and any totally false argument to court simply to line their own pockets - my ex-s original legal team have now claimed £100,000 of thousands of pounds for misrepresenting my ex, me and his new wife.
You make your claim once in UK LAW and you do it properly and in Good Faith. You do not allow perjury, false accounting, malicous prosecution. Do not threaten people either in civil or criminal proceedings.
The average man on the street knows from watching tele that if you are involved in a criminal trial that the case will be dismissed even if a totally guilty criminal is threatened in the court waiting rooms.
There does need to be constitutional reform (The Queen stated as such in her recent speech).
I hope that my small money case will put reform (actually just diligence and due process - that would be a start) at the top of the national agenda.
I think that if we are to stay afloat as a nation and also as a global society we need to start thinking and acting with diligence and humanity.
This is one of the reasons why I like our constructive, independent constitution so much, why I am in favour of Human Rights and do not think we should remove ourselves from European Law.
I think in principle our constituion is a key to democracy. We are, I believe a Soverign State who have the opportunity to show others how a Sovereign State can act with humility and collaboration.
I have been writing to our Government and our Queen and the Ministry of Justice to this effect for several years now.
Hilarious and how so totally apt. I have been saying for some time now into court can we please get a resolution of all of this before half the world is dragged into this escalating farce.
I am now at the point where international attornies, UK State ministers, the Crown, various incumbants are getting involved.
The companies which my mother and I invested in have turned against me and Mum and have global solicitors attempting to prosecute us (I have a horrible feeling that they have an application in - well I have been told there is an application but have not been given the details - which might be trying to attempt to extradite me - not sure but they will not disclose - I have told them time and time again that I am not going anywhere so why the need for secrecy - and as the application was in in Feb this year why hasn''t it happened yet?).
Please, no, this cannot go on for 40 years - 4 is way way too long and I agree on the point of being driven mad because I looked in the mirror a while back and thought OMG I look insane - constant litigation and false allegations and threats of being in prison for life do make you feel like you are going insane, hence I would have thought frivolous in law meaning only an insane person would make this application - YES and those you make it against do run the risk of breaking and going insane - rock me rock me in my straight jacket - give me some release from all this hideous agony.
How do I keep sane, I let my mind wonder onto nursery rhymns, silly jokes, visualise people wearing stupid hats - anything, anything to make this feel like a happy joke rather than the most hideous presecution of all time - well maybe not as we have the fiction which is Jarnyce b Jarnyce.
As Judge Judy says, the people are real the decisions are final. I maybe a virtual person here but I am real and so is my continuing nightmare - the one that was res judicata in appeal court in November 2009.
Mavera orders by their very nature need to be ex parte or you are simply giving the respondent notice of intention that could allow further dissipation between notice and order, they are actually quite rare and only used in fairly extreme circumstances.
They can be used post Absolute proving proceedings began before Absolute, the fact that they had in your case before absolute allows the use in law.
I must admit much of what has happened in your matter does leave me doing a fair amount of head scratching.
They didn''t go for a Marava they went for a very prejudiced Section 37 which has sort of turned into a Marava as they still believe the injunction is in force despite the fact that it was discharged six days after issue.
An injunction of any type, whether it is a Section 37, a Freezing Injunction or a Marava prevents the defendent being tried twice whether in the same jurisdiction or a different jurisdiction - that fact no withstanding they then applied for a second "section 37" five months after the first was discharged and then proceeded with the "debt " in commercial, chancery and now queens Bench.
Where you equitable remedy is in damages you do not apply for a Marava - so I am not applying for a Marava in Queens Bench against various national and international parties as I believe I am entitled in Law to appoint a Court Appointed Receiver, get full and honest disclosure ordered by Queens Bench and then get my damages equitably in prosecution - I think that this might be a first, equitable (chancery) damages in Crown litigation.
I am very concerned about the knock on effects of insolvency and bankruptcy (insolvency against companies and bankruptcy against individuals).
I have had to keep reminding the other side (14 different parties) that you can only break into a limited company/trust and make claims against the trustees or directors if you can prove that the parties have been fraudulent or grossly negligent.
The other side have now served the ligitimate directors of the company involved at their home addresses which is very agressive as it is a direct implication that they are fraudulent and in any case the only way they know the addresses is that they have been disclosed during the course of proceedings (directors addresses are privileged information at company house as a result of the Huntingdon Life Science problems - directors being attacked in their own homes when protestors accessed this information from searches at Company House).
Anyone who posted on this I have now calmed down and done more research.
I have posted in Ancillary Relief on the subject.
In fact I am amazed to find that my legal team should have applied under section 37 at more or less the beginning of proceedings as my now ex cut me out of the marital businesses which I was very active in and had been the only financial contributor from finances I had earned myself during the course of our marriage (as I also worked as a sole trader in a B and B ) and we had two other partners who also colluded with my ex to transfer and disipate our marital assets.
They then applied under section 37 of the matrimonial causes act whilst I was at appeal (appealing an extrajudicial order of court) for a section 37 when all the evidence showed that they had no right to make that application.
Costs are outrageous in my small money divorce as is the amount of time this case has continued.