Lord Wilson of Culworth – a delusional speech at the Reform Club
Keynote Address at a reception hosted by Collaborative Family Law, at the Reform Club (29 November 2011)
Lord Wilson of Culworth gave a speech on the issue of “alternative methods of the resolution of private family disputes by suggesting, perhaps paradoxically, why a well-functioning court system needs to remain available for the judicial determination of some disputes following the breakdown of a family relationship”. At the end of his speech at paragraph 19 he concludes that he gave a speech on “I am honoured to have been asked to speak about what is at present the hottest topic in family justice, namely the evolution of improved methods of the resolution in our society of private family disputes”.
Considered one of the most corrupt judges of the 21st Century, this Judge who was not able to make it on his own without favours extended to him as a student and then as a barrister, gave a delusional speech at the Reform Club in 2011 and made public his delusional comments to impress those who attended, most likely legal professionals eager to seek favours from him as it is the norm played at such receptions hosted by a legal organisation at an exclusive Private Club in London.
He openly upgrades his limited legal and life knowledge, and intellect by referring to himself “born of working in the family courts first as a barrister and then as a judge, day in day out, for 40 years, there are five main reasons why some private family disputes need to proceed all the way to the judge’s determination – indeed sometimes beyond in the shape of an appeal.”
He is a product of political and narcissistic appointment and nothing else.
Below are a few of Lord Wilson’s delusional thoughts presented at the Reform Club as followed by my Critical Analysis:
1. Lack of legal advice, at paragraph 2.
- Lord Wilson states: “It is one of the main functions of lawyers, albeit never an enjoyable one, to inject a note of realism into their clients’ aspirations.” Critical Analysis: How many lawyers will tell you the truth from day one that they cannot achieve justice for you? They are eager to take your case and give unrealistic expectations from day one and then slowly as the case progresses remove themselves from this ‘enthusiasm for justice’ into a more pessimistic reality. A highly overrated statement made by Lord Wilson as he is out of touch with reality and thoroughly delusional.
- Lord Wilson states: “…parties often continue to misappraise their rights and to convince themselves that a judge will vindicate what they think”. Critical Analysis: Looking back on his own work and behaviour one can categorically conclude that a judge can and is able to vindicate the strongest party’s view. Very few judges, and Lord Wilson is not one of them, can be fair and behave in such a way as it is required from a Judge.
- Lord Wilson’s view on lack of public funding: “..The government’s proposed withdrawal of public funding of legal advice even for parties who have no chance of being able to purchase it for themselves is – at a superficial level – entirely understandable given the present economic emergency. But it would actually be a false economy. Without legal advice, more private family disputes would end up in court; without legal representation, the hearings of them would take longer; and, without assistant legal navigators, the trial judges would more often be blown off course so there would be more appeals.” Critical Analysis: This sounds like what every critic of the government would say. What is actually hidden in this statement and not stated is that in order for a party to be able to obtain public funds, this party will have to raise domestic abuse allegations. By becoming a victim of domestic abuse, the Legal Aid is given automatically. The allegations do not necessarily have to be true. As long as they are made and sustained in court, Legal Aid will continue to provide the funds. (Note: one must be eligible for Legal Aid and hold no restrictions on a visa.) The underlying agenda is a government agenda to show that domestic abuse is an issue and the government is dealing with it. Those domestic abuse fabricators had a wild time before Lord Wilson when he was a Lord Justice of Appeals as he who did not want to see the way fabricators interfered with justice and perverted the course of justice. Lord Wilson in the Court of Appeal went as far as making up facts against the other party in order to shame the other party (all women). A totally narcissistic and incompetent Judge who is making public statements by providing limiting information and speaking on his own failures sugar-coated to gain approval from the public on his limited criticism of the government. This is the same government and individuals who appointed and promoted him in the judicial position and promoted him, and in the Supreme Court since May 2011.
2. Wrong legal advice, at paragraph 3.
- Lord Wilson’s limited and delusional view: “During my 40 years I never formed the view that a family lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, had deliberately given over-optimistic (or otherwise bad) advice in order to prolong the dispute and to enlarge his fees.” Critical Analysis: this can only come from the mouth of a highly corrupt and unrealistic Judge who has been living in a make believe world or bubble as he did together with his barrister turned housewife for a decade and then a Judge appointed as a favour to him (nepotism). Why have Legal Aid family lawyers go against the Local Authority lawyers as they are both funded by the government for cases that are prolonged and typically end up with those clients on Legal Aid turning into Litigants in Person? Such Litigants in Person are referred to as ‘clogging the system’. A totally delusional comment by Lord Wilson. He would not have observed the above reality in 100 years as he admitted having limited intellect.
- Lord Wilson’s delusion continues to justify his colleagues’ legal high fees: “… the perception of the stereotypical family lawyer who cynically bumps up the costs is one of the most unfair.” Critical Analysis: One only has to look at his wife’s, Lady Wilson’s, agenda and thirst for money at the expense of her husband’s, Lord Wilson, connections. Surely this thirst for money is also an image of her husband’s, Lord Wilson. Click here for Lady Wilson’s profile.
3. Lack of clarity in the law, at paragraph 4.
- Lord Wilson’s delusion on the topic: “Good lawyers sometimes have to confess that they are unable to predict the outcome of the case with any confidence; and unsurprisingly, the result is that all save the most generous settlement proposals are rejected.” Critical Analysis: the topic is ‘clarity in the law’. This has nothing to do only with settlements. It has to do with ‘clarity in the law’ on all levels. What is missing from this line of thought of Lord Wilson’s is that ‘judicial discretion’ is what kills the application of the law. It is the element that overclouds the law making it look like it is less clear. Judges who are a failure in their line of work overuse and misuse their judicial discretion in order to achieve the end result they want and need. In most cases to please the party they choose and or own favours to (in most cases to the legal representatives, if not to teach a woman a lesson not to go against her abusive husband).
- Lord Wilson’s view of the law designed to be fluid and discretionary: “….Or the law may deliberately have been designed to be fluid and discretionary. A prime example is our law of financial provision following divorce; during the last decade dramatic new principles have been injected into it, case by case, in order to reflect society’s changing sensations of fairness but it takes time for the courts clearly to work out their ramifications.” Critical Analysis: How can the law be fluid and discretionary? If the law says full and clear financial disclosure of all assets from all parties and if not acted upon such action can be punishable by law as it is a crime, why would a Judge think that this law on disclosure is fluid and discretionary? Only a delusional Judge who has limited knowledge and understanding of the law as passed by the Parliament can make such a comment.
4. A refusal, real or perceived, by one party to deal honestly with the other, paragraph 5.
- Lord Wilson’s delusion continues: “….I have in mind, in particular, a refusal to make full disclosure of his or her financial resources. Full mutual disclosure is the essential foundation of any settlement of financial claims…” Critical Analysis: The law on financial disclosure is not based on mutual disclosure, but it is rather the law in England and Wales for both parties to disclose failure of which can be punishable by law and it is a criminal act. Another delusional statement from this Judge who does not know the law.
5. The way in which, in the wake of the breakdown of a relationship, emotions of fear, mistrust, anger or revenge can infect a person’s ability to accept advice and to proceed to settlement, at paragraph 6:
- Lord Wilson’s view on sensitivity of the family lawyers again totally delusional: “….The family lawyer is sensitive to the reasons for such barriers to his client’s acceptance of his advice.” Critical Analysis: In my 8 years of working with hundreds of Litigants in Person, no one came forward to say that he/she met a truly sensitive family lawyer. They all said that they have been taken advantage of family lawyers at the most horrible time in their life and in the end no justice was achieved as the financial issues in the divorce remained unsolved and prolonged by the English legal system.
6. This statement came from this Judge who made up evidence in an appeal case that changed the justice system and put Judges into early retirement and now impeachment, at paragraph 7:
“But the vast majority of disputes which follow the breakdown of a relationship, whether the parties were married, were civil partners or otherwise, are entirely capable of consensual settlement rather than adjudication; and it is vital that all cases which can be settled should be settled.” Critical Analysis: Yes, such settlement can be possible if Judges do not make up evidence in court to support the abusive party and make unlawful gains. As Lord Wilson is not a trustworthy Judge and one who breach his Judicial Oath in the Appeal Court, his believe is totally delusional and as a Judge would say – without merit.
7. Lord Wilson further attempts to list five main disadvantages if a party decides to proceeding to court, at paragraph 8 to 12:
- cost: “Take a financial case in which the assets are say £700k. In pursuing that case to judgment each party nowadays may easily incur costs of £100k and so may together reduce the pool to £500k; such a ratio of costs to assets is unacceptable and its malign consequences are likely to impact substantially upon both of them.” Critical Analysis: Divorce is not only about finances. It is about punishment and infliction of emotional damage on the other party. The current law states that one must have reasons for divorce, hence the creation of disharmony between the parties and continuous litigation. However, this Judge does not know the basic definition of divorce and is totally delusional. Not surprisingly as it takes good intellect to look at all sides of an issue.
- delay: “Only when the assembly of a case for final presentation is well under way will the court be willing to fix a date for the main hearing. But the date which it then fixes will be many months ahead and, if a long hearing – say five days – appears necessary, it will probably be more than a year ahead.” Critical Analysis: this is what speaking falsely or utterly untruth telling with intent to deceive sounds like. Yet another delusional and unfounded statement by Lord Wilson. Very few cases if probably not only the most complex claims brought forward by large companies could take up to one year to be heard. The cases brought forward by Litigants in Person are normally dealt with in a couple of months or sooner as they are decided on paper first with no right to be heard in court. The statement by Lord Wilson is very wrong and misleading.
- publicity: This is where Lord Wilson is most comfortable as he seeks the media’s attention to report on his delusional thoughts. Such attention from the media is what got him into hot waters since November 2010 when he relied on a grand statement of delusion and made up evidence to ruin divorce proceedings which now leads him to impeachment and shame on a global level.
- uncertainty: “In family proceedings there is often a spectrum of legitimate outcomes even in circumstances in which the law is reasonably clear. The point along the spectrum at which the particular outcome falls will depend upon a variety of factors from which – I fear – one can never entirely banish the identity of the judge but which will certainly include the performance of the witnesses and of their advocates on the day.” Critical Analysis: This is what is meant by ‘beating around the bush’. What Lord Wilson wants to relate in simpler terms is that the Judge has a discretion to give weight to one party based on who represents the party and not what the evidence is before the court. As an example, Lord Wilson in November 2010 when he was a Lord Justice of Appeal sided with Charles Russell LLP (as it was known then in 2010) even though there was clear evidence of the lower court having felt to order bundles for the final hearing, no evidence was before the lower court due to administrative mistakes and the husband lied to the court as to the allegations of abuse. This is what we call a two faced Judge and corrupt who mislead the public at the conference in 2011 and as he continues to mislead the public with the ongoing publishing of his speech via the Supreme Court website.
- the emotional burden cast upon the parties by the hearing: “They loved each other once and shared moments of utter happiness, physical and otherwise. Often indeed they remain joined in parenthood. Those of us lucky enough to have escaped divorce cannot, I suspect, fully appreciate the sickening unpleasantness for them of becoming locked in battle across a court.” Critical Analysis: This is what we call a blind, delusional, out of touch with reality Judge. Lord Wilson relies on assumptions rather than facts as each divorce case is different. It is not news as evidence points out that when Lord Wilson has been sitting as a Judge he did not rely on evidence but rather on fantasy and assumptions. Also not all divorce cases involve children and divorce is a matter of control and oppression on the other party. However, it takes an intelligent Judge to see and distinguish between all this and make sense of the facts in a case. Divorce is a case by case and not generalised in a set up formula of a delusional Judge who made use of nepotism to keep his wife, Lady Wilson, in employment and financially secure, hence to keep his marriage which he brags about in his speech. Click here for Lady Wilson’s profile.
Reading this speech by the most corrupt Judge of the 21st Century, Lord Wilson of Culworth, one can clearly conclude that he is very biased and has very little information on reality of the divorce and how the courts work.
He accepts at paragraph 15 that he favours the Collaborative Family Law as it “offers various mechanisms of dispute resolution which, in most cases, will much better serve the interests of the parties than those to which I have referred.” This clearly explains why he was such a terrible and dishonest Judge when he sat as a Lord Justice of Appeal.
Lord Wilson of Culworth clearly fails to understand that divorce is not about agreement but control.
He also fails to understand the different possibilities that divorce can bring such as:
- a party having married a gold digger who would not hesitate to lie to turn himself into a victim and obtain all the matrimonial assets; or
- a party having significant and grave mental illness as he would not hesitate to engage in perverting the course of justice and interfere with justice when refusing to obey court orders and engaging in committing fraud, perjury and continuously making up false allegations to divert the courts’ attention from the real issues.
At paragraph 16, he accepts that while sittings as a Lord Justice of Appeal (2005 – 2011) and High Court Judge Family Division (1993 – 2005) he was “President of the Family Mediators Association for the past 13 years” (1998 – 2011).
It is difficult to see how Lord Wilson could have been a fair and just Judge for divorcing couples in courts when his strong believe was that parties must engage in mediation and settle out of court.
Read the full speech on Supreme Court website. Click here. (If the document is removed please email us for a copy.)
Return to Lord Wilson’s profile. Click here.