Perjury in 2001.

email, copy also sent by surface mail. Also at www.electromagnetism.demoin.co.uk/19167.htm

 

To Paul Hoare, Family Policy Division,

Lord Chancellor's Department,

Southside 105 Victoria Street,

London SW1E 6QT

Dear Mr. Hoare,

I have copies, names removed, of two letters written by you, one dated 24aug01 and the other 3sep01. Generally, they are mostly made up of standard paragraphs, of which one, which appears in both, is very important;

"As perjury is a crime, you may wish to lodge a complaint with the police. They will investigate any complaints made."

I swore an affidavit saying that perjury had been committed. My solicitor told me that in doing so, I had seriously damaged my case. He said; "The courts don't like perjury." Circuit Judge Stockdale told me in court that the courts had no facilities for investigating charges of perjury, that it was a matter for the CID. Whereas the CID initially told me they would undertake the matter, after two years of delay (or investigation?) they said they had no facilities for investigating perjury; that it was a matter for the courts.

I know that the number of perjury trials in Britain is 20 per year, none of them arising out of perjury in the family courts. The very small total indicates that Aitken and Archer were show trials.

In his book "Straight from the Bench", Circuit Judge Pickles wrote that perjury was rampant in the Family Courts. In my book, "The Hook and the Sting", on my website, http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbnhs3.htm , you can read my published letters where I asked the legal profession to specify the procedure for investigating perjury, and none of them replied. The details are included below, at Appendix 1.

I quote from your 24aug01 letter "While I sympathise with your situation ...." and your 3sep01 letter; ".... I have every sympathy for your situation and appreciate the distress your case has caused ...."

By misleading those for whom you claim sympathy, you will add to their distress. There is in England today no recourse against perjury, which is why, as Judge Pickles says, the family courts are awash with perjury.

Please would you either

(1) Outline the procedure for pursuing a charge of perjury. We will follow your procedures in a test case, later to go onto my website at www.electromagnetism.demoin.co.uk/19167.htm , or

(2) Say that you will not in future give the impression in what you write that there exists a sanction against perjury in the Family Courts.

Note that it is not sufficient to write that this is a matter for lawyers' expertise. They have already answered by default, see Appendix 1, that they see no procedure for pursuing perjury. (Further, I have had it from a number of solicitors and barristers hired by me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury.)

Ivor Catt. Editor, "Ill Eagle". 26sep01

Appendix 1.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbnhs3.htm

My letters on the subject were published in "The Friend", the Quaker journal, on 14th July 1995 and 15th September 1995;

 

Affirming, as a Quaker.

The discussion about taking the oath (23 and 30 June) misses the point. The point is that our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated.

Circuit Judge Stockdale said, when I had a hearing specifically to ask for my allegations of perjury to be investigated, that the court had no such procedure, that it was a matter for the CID. Thereafter, after two years pursuing the CID, the CID said it was a matter for the courts.

It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure. Two solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. Lord Mackay apologised to me for other failings of the creaking court system. However, he made no comment on this point. It disappears in the crack between court and CID. In these circumstances, discussion of the oath is academic, and reinforces a spurious appearance of normalcy, bypassing the three inquiries - Nolan, Scott, Woolf, particularly Woolf.

The reason why the legal profession welcomes perjury is that it exacerbates an adversarial situation and increases costs. Costs, not law or justice, is the object of the tortuous exercise.

 

Affirming, as a Quaker.

On 14 July you published my letter saying that '.... our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated .... It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure.' Nobody has written in. This makes the legal profession an anti-social group, happy to continue to trade in lies. In particular, the damage inflicted on millions of children of divorce by these irresponsible people is devastating.

Leading divorce barrister Ray Tooth, earning 250,000 p.a., tries to distance himself from the stench of perjury. Dominic Egan, in "Legal Business Magazine", jan/feb94, profiles Tooth's views on ".... how the [divorce] situation might be improved. .... First, he would like to see prosecutions for perjury against the parties who seem to think nothing of lying on oath, both in court and on affidavit."