Hearing Purpose


Bring closure to the matter of RG03D0085


Restore Ian Jolliffe’s ability to contact the children




Obtain a signature from Julie Ann Jolliffe on


The Statement of Fact




The Consent Order (Amended)










The children: Robert Lawrence Jolliffe and Victoria Marie Jolliffe


No malice is meant by the content of this document its use is to convey the validity of the Statement of Fact & Consent Order.



Table of Contents


Statement of Fact - Notes................................................................................................. 3

Consent Order - Notes..................................................................................................... 4

Leave instruction to the petitioner from respondent............................................................. 5

Respondents prevention of petitioners contact and access to the children............................ 6

Respondent alienating the children by naming a fictitious child.............................................. 6

Respondent manipulating email & Yahoo conversations to further prevent access to children 7

Respondent withholding sexual relationship since 1995....................................................... 7

Petitioners failure to provide Child Support payments......................................................... 8

Breakdown of petitioners immediate debt........................................................................... 9

Harassment - by respondent to petitioner with knife.......................................................... 10

Harassment - by respondent, phone calls to the Vice President of Ian Jolliffe's Employer... 11

Harassment - by respondent, phone calls to the Project manager of Ian Jolliffe Employer.. 11

Harassment - by respondent to petitioners partner while he was at work........................... 12

Harassment - by respondent to Ian Jolliffe contract employer............................................ 12

Accusations of violence and criminal damage against the petitioner.................................... 12

Respondent refusal of 2nd valuation of house - ₤20K-₤40K difference.............................. 13

Deliberately missing from respondents Form E - Pension information................................ 14

Missing from Form E - Respondent’s untaxed cash income.............................................. 15

Respondent lies on Form E.............................................................................................. 17

Respondent co habiting - Still denied................................................................................ 18

Lies and disposal of petitioner’s personal effects by the respondent................................... 19

Redirection of respondent’s debt to petitioners parents address........................................ 20



Statement of Fact – Notes


Please see attached Statement of Fact


The Statement of Fact is indeed that


It documents, for the sake of the children (Robert & Victoria) and their future relationship with their natural father Ian Jolliffe it documents the true events of what happened, it also demands a retraction from Julie Ann Jolliffe for various lies & accusations against Ian Jolliffe.


The Statement of Fact partly documents the support arrangement for the children; this support arrangement is more clearly documented on page 4 of this document.


Julie Ann Jolliffe has continually refused to sign the Statement of Fact; this has extended the length of this matter by over eight months as the financial component of the separation was basically agreed to in June/July 2004.


Both parties have received additional cost due to this delay by Julie Ann Jolliffe.



Consent Order – Notes


Please see the content of attached consent order


House Value

₤165,000 estimated (see page 13 about refusal of second valuation)


Outstanding mortgage



Endowments Value

₤27,000 (Cashable)


Ian Jolliffe Pension Value



Ian Jolliffe Consent Order Lump Sum

₤4,600 (please see page 8 & 9 about costs & debt, ₤12,000 was requested but was never presented to court due to Judge Burgess biased actions)

(I actually received a cheque for ₤3,089.01)


After all monies change hands


Julie Jolliffe



Gain, House+ Endowments

Loss, Mortgage + Lump Sum






Ian Jolliffe



Gain, Pension + Lump sum



Ian Jolliffe, would like it documented that the difference in gain to Julie Ann Jolliffe of ₤76,800 is to be used to maintain a home for the children and provide their support into the future.

Also note Ian Jolliffe is unable to claim his pension until he is 55 and it has been frozen since 2003 as he does not have the funds to contribute to it.


The amendment to the consent order changes the sequence which monies change hands


Was: Ian Jolliffe gives house, Ian Jolliffe gives endowments, and Julie Jolliffe gives lump sum


Now: Ian Jolliffe gives endowments, Julie Jolliffe gives lump sum, and Ian Jolliffe gives house.

Ian Jolliffe is not gaining from this separation, the Lump Sum will cover the debt and costs associated with this separation, his pension he can not draw from for 15 years nor can he presently deposit funds into.



Leave instruction to the petitioner from respondent


Written by Julie Ann Jolliffe to Ian Jolliffe, after a heated argument spilled out in front of our children.




This is the only document to say Julie Ann Jolliffe threw Ian Jolliffe out; it was intolerable for Ian Jolliffe and became worse daily.


The day Ian Jolliffe finally had to leave, after packing his possessions there were no spaces, no voids in the matrimonial house. He simply did not exist while he lived in the matrimonial home; he was hounded out of view and told to leave daily. This hounding of Ian Jolliffe and her demands for him leave was also preformed while Julie Ann Jolliffe had her friends to family visiting the matrimonial home.


Julie Ann Jolliffe committed adultery for several years and when admitted to Ian Jolliffe she had been doing so, she made it clear that she would do so again when the opportunity arrived.


After Julie Ann Jolliffe told Ian Jolliffe, Ian Jolliffe discovered that both children were aware that Julie Ann Jolliffe had a boy friend, Victoria was too young to understand but Robert was fully aware of what the implications were, other people who knew were Julie Ann Jolliffe mother, her brothers and any friends she had visit the matrimonial home.



Respondents prevention of petitioners contact and access to the children


Ian Jolliffe has been refused access or the ability to contact the children by Julie Ann Jolliffe

There is no legal or moral reason why Ian Jolliffe has been refused access to his children by Julie Ann Jolliffe.


This has been preformed verbally on many occasions, and in writing via Rowberry Morris; this has been ongoing since Julie Ann Jolliffe threw Ian Jolliffe out.


The children have been told by Julie Ann Jolliffe that Ian Jolliffe has abandoned them, and other unfounded and character destroying statements. Robert the eldest son now refuses to communicate with Ian Jolliffe on any level based on what he has been told by Julie Ann Jolliffe. Ian Jolliffe gets the occasional letter from his daughter Victoria but has only ever replied and has not made the first move since being prevented to; this was due to possible ramification from Julie Ann Jolliffe.


Ian Jolliffe was refused information about councillors which the children were seeing due to the separation and also refused the ability to attend the counseling sessions. This is stated in writing also.


Threats from Julie Ann Jolliffe to Ian Jolliffe have included


Preventing him “forever” from seeing the children

Physical violence against him with the use of Julie Ann Jolliffe’s brothers

Court injunctions against Ian Jolliffe by Julie Ann Jolliffe

Julie Ann Jolliffe reporting Ian Jolliffe to the police for sexually molesting the children



Respondent alienating the children by naming a fictitious child


In an effort to continue the alienation of the children from their natural father, Julie Jolliffe said to the children that Ian Jolliffe had another child “Thomas” which is aged 17-18, this child was supposed to be from a relationship with a woman previous to Julie Jolliffe & Ian Jolliffe meeting. Julie Jolliffe would periodically tease Ian Jolliffe over the years about this child, even though it was known by both party’s that the child was not Ian Jolliffe’s

Ian Jolliffe received very distressed communications from his children that this child existed; this was another act of Julie Jolliffe to blacken Ian Jolliffe’s character.



Respondent manipulating email & Yahoo conversations to further prevent access to children


Transcripts from Email & Yahoo instant messenger were manipulated and though Rowberry Morris were used to identify Ian Jolliffe of acting in an inappropriate way to the children, these forms of communication by Ian Jolliffe with the children was then forbidden.


The original unedited transcripts were given to Berrys Solicitors which conveyed a completely different story; and it was shown Ian Jolliffe was not acting inappropriately; this form of communication has never been reinstated.



Respondent withholding sexual relationship since 1995


Julie Ann Jolliffe refused any sexual relationship with Ian Jolliffe since June 1995.

This started when their daughter Victoria was six months old.


Ian Jolliffe between the birth of their son Robert and the conception of their daughter Victoria had received Chemo Therapy and had a testical removed due to cancer, Ian Jolliffe was told by the doctors that he was no longer capable to fathering children.

Julie Jolliffe became pregnant and the question was asked if the child was Ian Jolliffe’s, after the birth Victoria was obviously Ian Jolliffe’s based on looks and Ian Jolliffe dispelled any idea that she could have been someone else’s child.


Julie Ann Jolliffe did not let this go and continued to bear a grudge against Ian Jolliffe.


Previous to that event their sexual relationship was strained as Julie Ann Jolliffe had been subject to sexual abuse in a previous relationship lasting five years.



Petitioners failure to provide Child Support payments


Ian Jolliffe financial status has collapsed and has been in the process of near collapse for about eight months.


Ian Jolliffe has run up debt in an effort to maintain Julie Ann Jolliffe and the children, this debt has been compounded due to legal and associated travel costs.

Ian Jolliffe borrowed from banks, credit cards, family members, co workers and friends in an effort to continue to support his UK family, these avenues of finance have now been exhausted.


It came to the point that the charges to maintain the debt, paying for rent and food to live and supporting Julie Ann Jolliffe and their children was not possible.

Julie Ann Jolliffe at the time and still is currently co habiting with her boyfriend who is fully employed and bringing an income to Julie Ann Jolliffe’s household.


With the continued financial demand Ian Jolliffe would have become bankrupt, homeless, unemployed and subsequently ejected from the USA due to a revoked Visa. He would have had to return to the UK with his now homeless partner, and two homeless children with the only option to live in the matrimonial home. Other unseen USA problems such as medical cover has to be paid for, the charge for medical services is ₤450 per hour without insurance and also ₤160 charge to walk in the door, there is still charges with insurance. Dental fee’s run into ₤1000’s even with insurance.


Ian Jolliffe has always considered his children first and to best support his family on both sides of the Atlantic the monies for maintaining Julie Ann Jolliffe and their children was used for debt management.


Ian Jolliffe has been quite willing in providing for his UK family as the consent order clearly shows to a sum of about ₤60,000. This would have been resolved last June except for the reluctance of Julie Ann Jolliffe to sign the Statement of Fact which will ensure the children are aware of what really happened.


Breakdown of petitioners immediate debt


All Ian Jolliffe has asked is that the children know the truth to what happened and that the debt directly accumulated through the event of Julie Ann Jolliffe throwing him out of his home and away from his children be zeroed.

Please find a break down of the modification to the consent order sum, as of today, note I have entered some items as US dollars due to the varying exchange rate


Management of debt charges $465 * 8 months



$3,720 (Dollars)

Berrys Solicitor




Natwest Current Account




Natwest Credit Card




Capital One Credit card



Keiseier Permente Hospital



$694 (Dollars)

Cash Debt to my Family, GD 1770, D320



Cash Debt to Jackie’s Family



$1,700 (Dollars)

Cash Debt to friends



$320 (Dollars)

Sub Total



$6,602 (Dollars)




Total (UK) + (US $ at current rate of exchange)




Documents available on request


Harassment - by respondent to petitioner with knife


Julie Ann Jolliffe Licking a large kitchen knife 

Caption says “I taste blood yum yum


Sent via the internet to Ian Jolliffe 22nd September 2003 from Julie Ann Jolliffe


Threats have been verbally made to Ian Jolliffe by Julie Ann Jolliffe that she have harm caused to him by her brothers mainly  Mark Froude.


Mark Froude is known to the Reading and Southampton Police, The Courts and to a number of Jails. He has committed various criminal offences. The Police & CID would visit the matrimonial home when a crime fitted his profile was committed.

Mark Froude has attacked his mother, his brother and a pet dog with a carving knife at their home. His choices of weapon are kitchen knives.

Medically Mark Froude has been diagnosed as a Paranoid Schizophrenic and normally takes very strong medication for it.

Mark Froude is not a nice person by any ones standards.



Harassment - by respondent, phone calls to the Vice President of Ian Jolliffe’s employer in USA

by Julie Ann Jolliffe 01189 671023  Julie Ann Jolliffe home telephone number



Harassment - by respondent, phone calls to the Project manager of Ian Jolliffe’s employer in USA

by Julie Ann Jolliffe 01189 671023 Julie Ann Jolliffe home telephone number



Other calls were placed to Ian Jolliffe employers in USA, which were not captured




Harassment - by respondent to petitioners partner while he was at work

by Julie Ann Jolliffe


Ian Jolliffe’s home phone number has been changed as Julie Ann Jolliffe harassed Ian Jolliffe’s partner aggressively several times while he was at work. This was documented by the MCI Telephone Company.



Harassment - by respondent to Ian Jolliffe’s contract company

by Julie Ann Jolliffe


The company which Ian Jolliffe’s is on contract to, had lobby ambassadors, and members of the Safety & Security team harassed via telephone, this was escalated to the Global Security Manager. Who made it clear if it did not stop my employment would be terminated.


A letter was sent to Rowberry Morris informing them if the harassment continued an injunction would be placed on Julie Jolliffe.




Accusations of violence and criminal damage against the petitioner


This event never happened, and as part of the statement of fact is to be retracted


Ian Jolliffe was accused by Julie Ann Jolliffe in writing of causing damage and banging doors & windows when he visited the matrimonial home to see their children.

This did not happen there was no evidence of damage or were there any witnesses ever produced.


Subsequently he has been verbally accused of breaking into Julie Joliffe’s car and causing further damage to the matrimonial home, these accusations were alleged to happen while he was in the USA at the time as Ian Jolliffe’s passport will show.

A rumour was also mentioned that he murdered (ripped to pieces) the children’s rabbit while it was in its cage at the matrimonial home. Once again this occurred while Ian Jolliffe was in the USA



Respondent refusal of 2nd valuation of house - ₤20K-₤40K difference


An effort was made to obtain a second valuation of the matrimonial home, as similar or identical houses in the same area are listed ₤20,000 to ₤40,000 more than the ₤145,000 the matrimonial home is claimed to be worth. Permission still has not been granted for a second valuation. It’s documented at the court that both parties agree on the house value. Ian Jolliffe has never agreed to the house value as a second valuation was never preformed.


Email Dated 28th February 2004




Some weeks ago you asked us to carry out a valuation for separation purposes I have contacted your wife with relation to the property in south reading however she has refused me access.  Could you please call me to discuss.


Kind Regards,

George Steedman

Sales Consultant

Tel: 0118 953 8718

Fax: 0118 953 8709

E-mail: gsteedman@romans.co.uk


Click on the link above to see the largest selection of properties in Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire plus take a look at our virtual tour section.

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee please note that unauthorised dissemination, copying or accessing of this e-mail and its contents is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform us immediately by telephone or e-mail.



Deliberately missing from respondents Form E - Pension information


Letter dated 22nd September 2003, omitted from Julie Ann Jolliffe’s Form E signed 30th December 2003, Information provided when challenged.



Missing from Form E - Respondent’s untaxed cash income

Cash income of many years and Julie Ann Jolliffe still denies this


Shown adverts in Natures gift, Harris Arcade, Reading, Not displayed here flyers & business cards.


Julie has several cell phones, 0779 212 9571 & 0779 918 6225 are displayed here; she also receives clients at the matrimonial home and makes visits to clients homes.

Julie Ann Jolliffe AKA Julia obtains ₤40 per hour income on a good day and ₤20 per hour on a bad with minimal overheads.



Respondent lies on Form E


Ian Jolliffe receives no pleasure in identifying lies which have been entered on the Form E by Julie Ann Jolliffe.


Ian Jolliffe is dumfounded that Julie Ann Jolliffe has made such statements on her Form E when they can so easily be proved as lies. These lies have been previously raised to Berrys Solicitors.


Item 4.2 This is completely untrue,

Julie Ann Jolliffe did not have a valid passport at the point that she threw Ian Jolliffe out; she had not had one for many years before that so foreign travel was impossible.

Julie Ann Jolliffe and Ian Jolliffe took two holidays overseas, One in 1985 to Greece and one with the family in 2001 to Jersey, there was a day trip to France before Robert their eldest son aged 15 this March was born.

Julie Ann Jolliffe will not be able to produce travel records, a passport or any photographs of such holidays if challenged for them.

Julie Ann Jolliffe was frequently out socializing often every night for weeks at a time, the money was obtained though her cash income from Julia Tarot it was not preformed with Ian Jolliffe, Ian Jolliffe would look after the children or Ann Froude Julie’s mother would do so if Ian Jolliffe was working late. Julie Ann Jolliffe admitted that her socializing included committing adultery.

Ian Jolliffe and Julie Ann Jolliffe were constantly in debt, as an example please review CCJ issued by Reading County Court on behalf of the Co Op bank as an example, Julie Ann Jolliffe administered the money in the household. Ian Jolliffe worked for many years a 12, 15, 18 plus hour day to provide an income for his family, for several years he only got to see his son at weekends as the child was asleep when Ian Jolliffe left for work & was asleep when he arrived home from work.


Item 1.8, Julie Ann Jolliffe current boy friend was at the time and still is living in the matrimonial home.


Item 1.9, same as 1.8


Item 2.6, Deliberately omitted pension details see other section in this document and copy of pension letter detailing this.


Item 2.18, Deliberately omitted untaxed cash income from her Julia Tarot Business, this a ₤40 per hour income on a good day and ₤20 per hour on a bad with minimal overheads.


Respondent co habiting - Still denied


Julies Ann Jolliffe has had her latest boyfriend living in our matrimonial home since August 2003

The reason Julie Ann Jolliffe denies this is as admitted verbally by Julie Ann Jolliffe that it affects the Council tax she has to pay (claming single adult) and also effects several government benefits she is claiming.


Assorted photos, others available also witnessed


Lies and disposal of petitioner’s personal effects by the respondent


Upon documenting some of Ian Jolliffe’s personal effects, which still remained at the matrimonial house.


Julie Jolliffe stated that some items which belonged to Ian Jolliffe’s previous employers had been returned to them. (The items were not identified).


Ian Jolliffe was not aware of any such items & subsequently contacted his former employers back to 1991 and current employer and no such items had been returned to them.


Ian Jolliffe raised that no items had been returned to former or current employers to Berrys Solicitors and directly to Rowberry Morris Solicitors on several occasions. No reply was given to either which was the supposed employer or what items were meant to have been returned.


As Ian Jolliffe did not have any items belonging to former employers, Julie Jolliffe has disposed of Ian Jolliffe’s personal effects and has lied to cover the incident.


Ian Jolliffe can delve further into the past but felt it was pointless as there were no items belonging to former employers.


Redirection of respondent’s debt to petitioners parents address.


In an effort to dodge the debt ran up by Julie Ann Jolliffe on Natwast bank account number 15018083 changed the address on this debt to Ian Jolliffe’s parents address.


The redirection of Julie Ann Jolliffe debt to Ian Jolliffe’s parents address has caused great distress to his parents, His parents have received many threats from the bank and from a debt collection agency, this is yet unknown but Ian Jolliffe’s parents perfect credit rating has been adversely affected.


The debt is clearly Julie Ann Jolliffe as the account activity will show, Ian Jolliffe has not used this account for many years and only made deposits, Ian Jolliffe also corrected on several occasions previous debt generated by Julie Ann Jolliffe.


Julie Ann Jolliffe flatly refused to remove Ian Jolliffe’s name from the account this was after Julie Ann Jolliffe had thrown Ian Jolliffe out of his home and he was not using the bank account. Debt was being run up by Julie Ann Jolliffe. After several “polite” attempts to have Ian Jolliffe’s name removed from the account, the debt was still increasing he had no option but instruct Natwest bank to freeze the bank account.