When the law tells a lie

How an American family court betrayed the Constitution, leaving death and decay

Disclaimer: The following article represents the personal views and firsthand experiences of the author. It is published in the public interest, in the exercise of constitutionally protected rights to free expression, free press, and petition for redress of grievances. This article is not legal advice and should not be interpreted as such. All statements are made in good faith and based on documented evidence, court filings, and personal observation. Any references to individuals or institutions are intended to illustrate broader systemic issues in legal processes and are not intended to defame, harass, or interfere with ongoing proceedings.

---

Disgusted yet? You should be!

How might you feel if your estranged spouse stole your child, home, and life savings off you — in collusion with an ex — while you were on vacation?

Pretty bad, I would guess.

How might you feel if these crimes were laundered via motions to a civil court, using a false narrative of you having abandoned the child and home?

You’d be hopping mad, I expect.

How might you feel if a court that didn’t even have jurisdiction to rule on custody:

• rewarded the crime, twice, giving financial benefits to the perpetrators,

• endorsed the kidnap, and took the kid off you without any cause or unfitness,

• then denied you your property rights… while criticising you for acting the victim?

You’d be devastated. Your life, in ruins.

The idea of “corruption” is amorphous, sanitised, and remote. So let me show you what corruption looks like, viscerally, and at the personal level. The images shown here are things that have been “corrupted” via lies, manipulation, and treachery. This is the reality of what it looks like when the wages of sin become manifest.

There is a base level to this story that is personal, but that is not the ultimate focus. Two men with an enmity for the same woman got together to hurt her in the worst way possible, by alienating her child from her. While the details are unusual, they are not exceptional. The real issue is how a court repeatedly sustained a self-evidently false narrative over criminal and constitutional law.

The retrospective justification for the child’s abduction was built on two pillars, needed to justify emergency jurisdiction in state other than the child’s home. The first was that the mother had no permanent residence, and the second was that she had abandoned the child for an affair. An emergency custody motion on this basis was dismissed, later described as “without legal merit” in a court order. The facts are clear.

The “no permanent residence” was a complete fabrication, and part of a heist of her property. The men had jointly created a financial, social, and legal crisis to maximally disrupt the mother’s life, “ideally” rendering her incapable of fighting back against their predatory behaviour. This included her estranged spouse using marital funds to travel to another state to testify against her voluntarily, in support of his conspirator.

The mother had never abandoned the home. She:

• remained on the property deeds,

• was jointly responsible for the mortgage,

• continued to be registered to vote there (and did so lawfully in the 2024 presidential election),

• had her driver’s license there, and

• kept her personal possessions at the address.

Yet the estranged husband testified under oath that he believed she did not have a permanent residence — while her car was still sat in the driveway!

Merely going on vacation, or choosing to stay elsewhere during a manufactured crisis, does not make you homeless, nor strip you of your assets. If you have a house, and you take a vacation, you “vacating” it for a period (as is the nature of vacations) doesn’t stop it being your house. We are not talking advanced trust law here, just elementary property rights. This was ignored by a family court.

The ex-husband who had kidnapped his own daughter was given immediate financial benefit by the court through the cessation of support payments to the mother, even under a temporary custody order, where there was no final determination of custody. He weaponised the mother’s association with myself in court to paint her as part of a dangerous fringe movement, with no evidence, denying her constitutionally protected rights of free association and political speech.

Meanwhile, the estranged second husband was secretly draining the marital estate prior to a divorce settlement. He spent tens of thousands of dollars laundering money via crypto, writing large personal checks from joint funds, and splurging on personal development schemes and scams. None of this was visible to the mother at the time, who had been systematically excluded from access to financial and utility accounts.

The motive was money and revenge. The ex-husband had lost a previous custody case, and was ordered to pay child support arrears. The estranged spouse wanted to avoid alimony and sought advantage in the divorce. The means was a court that failed to verify jurisdiction or correct false testimony. The opportunity was the mother’s vacation to the UK, to see me, and to engage in missionary work.

The problem with narrative warfare is that once you are invested in a lie, especially one told under oath, it is very costly to back out. Even if you get a court to endorse the lie, the truth has a way of presenting itself that cannot be denied. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it can dispel a lie without even saying a single syllable.

The impression the estranged husband gave was that he remained in the marital home, making it unsafe for the mother to return. Yet he had cancelled garbage service almost as soon as the mother had gone away on vacation; stopped spending money from the joint account in the usual local retailers soon after the September custody hearing; and installed security cameras to monitor the property remotely, despite supposedly working from home.

The temporary custody order was issued in early October, and was due to be revisited after three months. The court dragged its feet, and it took until late March for the hearing to be listed. In the interim, the mother stayed with me in the UK, as she lacked income to rent anywhere in the USA, and her credit rating had been sabotaged by her estranged husband missing a mortgage payment, despite having funds.

So, less than a week before the late March hearing, we both headed back to the USA to reclaim the home as per permanent residence, as it had always been. If it was your house last summer, and it is your house today, then it has been your house all along! This created a fact on the literal ground, necessary to destroy the false narrative. By physically residing there, lawfully, we contradicted the claim that she was homeless.

Now, it seems that the estranged husband was also monitoring the second joint bank account she was using, and got wind of our plans, seeing her spending on an air ticket and hotel in the USA. When we got to the property he was there, having just arrived it seemed. A performative act of waving a vacuum cleaner could not hide the gruesome reality.

The house was in a state of total dilapidation. There was filth everywhere, a mouse infestation upstairs and downstairs, cat faeces and vomit all over. His clothes were missing from the closet, the air filters were clogged with dust, and the heating was not on. Either he was living there, and needed mental health intervention. Or he was not, and had a secret second home. You decide which theory to believe.

There were three plates of stale food left out for the abandoned cat, and bowls of fetid water that had turned brown. The cat was traumatised, and lost much of its fur, likely to obsessive self-grooming due to stress of being locked in for months with next to no care. (I am pleased to say she’s in much better shape now, but still has sores.) The animals we had left in the autumn were all gone; a dead hen in the coop outside, possibly starved or frozen to death.

This was all under the stewardship of a man who had an obvious ax to grind with his estranged wife; who had kidnapped a child to ship her between states; who admitted to coordinating an unlawful custody transfer; was not a party to the case; and had no cause to testify. Yet a court treated his testimony as unquestionable, while dismissing that of the mother — as a conservative woman of faith in a liberal courtroom.

The temporary court order did not find her an unfit parent, but treated her as such; did not find her without a home, but treated her as homeless; and did not find her relationship with me inappropriate or unlawful, but treated it as borderline criminal. This is how narratives are sustained in family court, and basic constitutional rights are shredded.

The only problem is we have the receipts and pictures to prove it all untrue.

The estranged husband seemed poised to testify a second time in March, but our physical return to the mother’s home, with me as documentarian and protector, stymied that. It is very hard to claim someone doesn’t have a permanent residence when they are living there, and you have no lawful basis to evict them for trespass. Quite the opposite; in truth, it wasn’t the mother who abandoned the home—it was the court that abandoned the law.

This is what courts call constructive ouster: when one spouse makes the home environment so hostile or inaccessible that the other is effectively forced out, even though they remain a legal co-owner. In law, this can be treated as equivalent to wrongful eviction. It typically involves coercive behavior—such as denying access, removing utilities, or creating unsafe or hostile conditions—that forces the rightful occupant to leave for their safety or sanity.

We are now in a very interesting place legally. The court has bent over backwards a second time to attempt to retrospectively award itself jurisdiction via the false narrative of no residence and abandonment. The pictorial facts speak for themselves: the property was abandoned, but not by the mother. She was the victim of a coordinated campaign to strip her of her assets, family life, and home.

These men never expected her to reassert herself in the face of a coordinated attack using a compromised court as cover. Every effort was made to force her into total penury and submission. No state or federal law enforcement wants to touch a deprivation of civil rights case like this; they won’t go after judges who break the law. It is only through the support of my readers that we have survived this legal assault.

These pictures of decay tell a very sorry tale of inversion of truth. Abusers project every fault of their own, accusing you of the things they are guilty of. They triangulate with each other, using multiple faked points of reference to discredit the victim, and paint them as the “unstable”, “irresponsible”, or “difficult”. And your reaction to their cruelty? That will be used against you—stripped of context. Their selfishness is barbaric. Many people have reached out to me with similarly awful stories of domestic abuse and corrupt courts.

Often they get away with it, as nobody believes the victim. How could someone who comes over as so charming and helpful actually be a total monster in private? In this instance, a decisive move to reclaim what is rightfully owned was combined with a forensic effort to assemble evidence — and a platform to share it. I do not name the judges or attorneys involved in this matter—not out of fear, but out of respect for the legal process, and to ensure the focus remains on institutional failure rather than individual reputations.

This is not a personal vendetta; the story is about a failed family court system that is meant to protect women and children from predatory men, not enable them. For once, they have all been caught out. The constitutional-level crimes are documented in court transcripts and orders. The tricks used to package lies are deconstructed via artificial intelligence. The truth of who abandoned what and how is in photographs that need little interpretation.

This is the story I have been quietly carrying since last summer. A good friend in a failed marriage came to visit me last summer, originally for only ten days. She only got to return to her home nine months later, with my protection, to find her dishwasher was also filled with mouse droppings. The estranged husband, presumably under legal advice, has returned the property, and sleeps in an adjacent room. We live in a kind of siege environment.

When courts refuse to uphold the law, the bench facilitates felonies, and the constitution is a swear word, then there are real world consequences. These images are a testimony to the decay and destruction that befalls society when the judiciary become lawless. This is not about a failed marriage or a faulty custody transfer. It is about the corruption of the legal system itself, as it denies basic facts and justice.

If you are disgusted by what you see, that is appropriate. The house has been cleaned up significantly since these photographs were taken. Legal counsel has been retained; proceedings are in place. Bar and judicial complaints are warranted against those who enabled this immoral outcome; watch this space. The thing that abusers fear most is exposure, and this is a moment where the truth is in the open.

Anyone who has a home, children, or savings could be stripped of their life by a rogue court. This is not limited to one family, one tribunal, or one state. Your two week vacation could turn into a prolonged nightmare, with mouse droppings in your kitchen drawers, as you are unable to occupy or maintain your own property. This is what civil rights violation looks like up close.

I have eternal thanks to my readers who have supported us through this hellish experience. I will be publishing details of how the court went about destroying the liberties of this mother, who had done nothing wrong. I have learned a lot about the mechanics of how courts manipulate outcomes. This is not a case of bad luck in love, but state-sanctioned familial trafficking, enabled by judicial deceit and systemic legal fraud.

---

All images presented were taken lawfully inside a jointly owned residence, with permission from a co-owner. No private communications are disclosed. All factual assertions are backed by court transcripts, filings, or personal documentation on file.