Is Divorce a conviction

Ashby v White 1704.
If a 'person has a right, the law provides a remedy to enforce it. As Holt, CJ, said in Ashby v. White : "If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal."

Have you ever lost half your pension fund under the provisions of the Matrimonial causes Act 1973. Well here is what I did, as a litigant in person, to get it back.

I Anoneumouse (the appellant) appeal the order(s) at section 5 because:

The original order errd in law, and did not take into account some factor which ought to have been taken into account, that he incorrectly exercised his discretion, in contravention (HRA 1998. 6-1 and 11. in relation to The first Protocol Article 1. And

Subsequently errd in law, and disregarded family proceedings rule 10.26 in contravention of HRA 1998. Article 6 [1]. and incorrectly exercised his discretion in contravention HRA 1998. 6-1 and 11 in relation to The first Protocol Article 1.

"Failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice":

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, Lawful, full and freely representing all the estates of the people of this Realm... for vindicating their ancient Rights and Liberties. Declare...

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void...

1. 6. - (1) Human Rights Act 1998. It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right

2. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 all courts are required to make their decisions in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the usual procedures apply for appeals to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights. Courts have to interpret legislation in a way, which makes it compatible with the European Convention, and they can invalidate secondary legislation if it is not compatible with the Convention.

3. The orders have infringed my rights under The Human Rights Act 1998 specifically but not limited to The First Protocol Article 1 Protection of Property

4. I am a natural, legal person in this matter and I have not been convicted of a crime. The orders deprive me of my possessions (property and assets), which is not subject to the conditions provided for by law.

5. The law in England, states in the Bill of Rights 1689 'That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."

6. Human Rights Act 1998. 11 Safeguard for existing human rights. 11. A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;

7. In 1913 (Bowles v Bank of England) it was ruled that:
"The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, cannot be relied on by the crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions."

8. (Hansard, 21 July 1993), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'

9. This information was laid before the Court on the 20/01/03 again on the 15/04/03 in compliance with family proceedings rule 10.26and was dismissed as desuetude and a matter for my MP and not a legal consideration for the court.

10. In 2002 (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council ("Metric Martyrs") ) In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental.…….The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689……Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test:….

I am not sure what happened in the family division but there must have been a lot of hair pulling and the nashing of teeth

The appeal went unreported and the Court did not grant the Appellant (me Anoneumouse) under section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Declaration of Incompatibility in respect of the pretended powers within s23, s24, s25 under the matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

But my full pension was restored

'Ubi jus ibi remedium' (Where justice or right, there is remedy)