logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.

 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Help Lines for Men
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by



Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)


U.K. Court Perverts Justice in Dr. Pelling's Trial

For those following the Dr. Pelling trial:

From: "Dr Michael Pelling" <>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:53:28 -0000
To: "Fathers 4 Justice"
Subject: [fathers4justice] AG v.PELLING

SUMMARY (not verbatim) DIVISIONAL COURT 9/2/05

Lord Justice Laws: "We understand you wish to apply for leave to cross-examine the Attorney-General's witnesses".

Dr Pelling: "I do not accept that I need leave. This is a criminal trial and I claim the right at Common Law to cross-examine my accusers. Nevertheless I now formally request leave to cross-examine".

Lord Justice Laws: "What questions do you want to put to the Attorney-General's witnesses?"

Dr Pelling: "I decline to disclose in advance my lines of cross-examination and give the Attorney-General an advantage".

Lord Justice Laws: "Why do you want to cross-examine the Attorney-General's witnesses?"

Dr Pelling: "I believe I shall be able to elicit facts which will help my defence".

Court's Decision: "We can't see any evidence that the witnesses could give which would be of use to you. So we decline to allow cross-examination".

Dr Pelling: "In that case I shall not be continuing further with this case (etc)".

War on secrecy (II) provides greater depth of coverage of the hearing

NOTE: Although Dr Pelling relied on the Common Law, the ECHR [English Charter of Human Rights] which the Court was under a duty to apply, says:

ART.6(3). "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him...".

The Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(1) says:

6(1). It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

6(3). In this section "public authority" includes

(a) a court or tribunal, ... .

The circumstances that caused Dr. Pelling to be brought to trial involved him trying to help a boy that was being abused by U.K. justice Singer:

One man's fight for justice and against secrecy in the courts

Judge uses his power to retaliate for resistance to his abuses

Posted 2005 02 14