Page 3

Nondisclosure in your affidavit of the second bank account is still a relevant issue in respect of an equitable settlement. "Jointly owned property" does not only mean the house.. The business regardless of partnership issues was a jointly owned property. You locked me out of both house and my business. That fact is undeniable, It was not done by agreement nor was it lawful or fair. I opted to allow a bit of peace to prevail within the home, an element of quietude at least, not wishing to batter doors down, nor having resource to make a claim against you. Being locked out I was jobless cashless and homeless. I could do no other than to leave all matters of administration of our joint interests in your hands. In trust. My first priority,I being in effect a displaced person, was my basic personal survival. It appears that you did everything in your power to keep me in disadvantage. Unduly and unfairly. One wonders why. Your deliberate efforts to undermine my personal security my peace and lawful freedoms has been overpowering on many counts. Intrusions that caused me to be made homeless several times. Malicious interference that has caused great harm against all rights. At the very least your actions were a neglect of duty of care. What say you? Inference that you were not in a rational state of mind may be made by reference to what would be your proscribed moral and legal duties and responsibilities. Honourable execution of your civil obligation was sacrificed and neglected to my unfair loss and to your sole undue gain. Your observed psychology is morally deviant in your subject /victim's view.
One wonders whether you knew what you were doing , to what extent you were aware of the possible damage your actions would cause. Mad, bad, or sad is arguably of little relevance but undoubtedly much avoidable damage, hurt and loss was caused.
You continue as per always to denegrate my character many libelous and defamatory statements . many lies designed to discredit. As I have said, calling me everything except my true name. you still have a problem with that. Relate to Reinold as you may, he is the man you cheated and robbed. Your jaded obsessions obscure the best part of the man you divorced, from view.. And Dianne relate to the issues, this is not a family matter, this is strictly between you Ms. Allen and I. A matter of unfinished business, rights in law. It is to Reinold that a proper account is overdue.Without equitable resolution privately it is Reinold Godden that will be making application to the court. It doesn't say "Rhino" on the marriage lines,the bank statements the tax returns the mortgage agreement or the deeds, nor does it refer to "Rhino" on any court documents. Assuming familiarity will not serve you well. Reinold Godden is not your husband his true character and personality was perhaps missed displaced by your own bewildering delusional obsessions.. Your own lies have stood in the way of all lasting common good. Your present professional status is not a license granting you any absolution in law. The unlawful means are unjustifiable, legally or morally by the common standard.
Being without valuable consideration for the undue loss of the use of my property ,enough time having been afforded to you to organise your affairs properly the court would seem to be the only way left. I didn't make you homeless, nor did I steal from you. In my statement to the court I was all times fair.
Contrary to your professed view I have at all times cooperated with the court agreement up to the point that you attempt to disadvantage me unfairly. My solicitor told me she could have completed within two weeks of the court hearing. Everyone would have been smiling by now.
In a recent email you ask "what breach of trust?" such a question implies that you truly may not know right from wrong. marriages are based on honesty, trust and a dedication to a common cause. Partnerships also. Both may be inspired by love. Mutual commitment to solving problems to the benefit of the greater common good. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander,"so to speak. Working in close co-operation transparently without want nor need for deceiving and manipulative powerplay. Without a need for any morbid secrecy. Mutual support against all adversity.Inclusively, without division
You wrote down the question, you ought to be able to work out for yourself where you were in breach of trust. "Don't tell dad." and "don't tell my husband" illlustrate well the shortfall in your own personal definition of trust, given the context.
Prior to our separation it is evident that you acted with questionable integrity. Toby informed me that you took it upon yourself to discuss "getting rid of Dad", a year before our separation. Sworn to secrecy whilst you organised your strategy for making that come about. Conspiratorial complicity. I was oblivious, no one broke the pact until many years later.
Well Dianne you could have approached the subject of divorce in a more practical way. Not least you may have incuded me into your discussion.
You relate that you entered into discussion with two third parties toward an agreement against my rights, between Barret, the bank manager,("Steve", you called him) and yourself. all three acted knowingly to deceive against the professional and against moral code of best practice. Without my informed consent. A "gentlemen's agreement " you say. It makes you look like thieves.
Meanwhile, say nothing of the domestic account with H.S.B.C..
A "no paper agreement" that when the house was sold you would repay your debt. without me the agreement is wholly voidable. Unlawful in fact.
You may have been merely paying for his discreet confidence. Without verifiable account in transparency and good faith it is more likely that the agreement was designed to cover unlawful practice. You might try and show me evidence that your story is true. Your word to now has been most ambiguous. consistently unsafe. As I am a named party on the account and joint owner of the property in Abercrave and joint owner of the business I may be right to surmise that I have been the victim of a fraudulent deception designed to separate me from my legitimate rights of ownership by unfair and unlawful means.
Your bank manager,(Steve..?) explained to you that the partnership had not been dissolved you disclosed that in a letter. You cast blame on him for the oversight. It wasn't his job to dissolve the partnership nor to help obstruct my rights of joint ownership. Meanwhile in a little known undisclosed domestic account with H.S.B.C.... On the opposite side of a not very wide street. The Barclay's "oversight" it would appear may well have been worth paying for. Nod, nod, wink wink,say no more.
Have you repayed your debt yet? If so could you provide verifiable proof, I am ENTITLED to proper account of my jointly owned invested assets.
"my husband is crazy and anyway he doesn't know" is not a viable defence for fraudulent deception and concealment of accounts.

This letter may seem over long but the narrative brings to light factors worthy of consideration. It is helpful in the preparation of a more succinct submission in application. to the court. If you wish, you may use it for what it's worth, perhaps as evidence that I am harassing you, I don't know.
I will be providing a key to the documentary evidence that will back my claim. It is a lot of work but I am adjusted to that. I will be the litigant in person, you may challenge and contest if you wish but take advice. .There will be a bundle of stuff to read. A suit for damages and a claim for compensation. It will be left to judge to ensure equitable division.
I contend that as you profitted unduly and having invested the proceeds unfairly gained towards your sole betterment your true financial status would have to be assessed. Bank accounts and pension fund, not ignoring any debt as yet undischarged. In the light of your past action the court would be best advised to take the matter out of your hands.
Truth be known, I don't think you are well suited to handling matters fairly and properly. You appear to have neither the wit nor the will.I believe you are incompetent to the task. You may be or have been ill or you may have acted with criminal intent.It would not be for me to pass judgement I am merely the damaged party making a claim. I believe you are vulnerable and have no wish to hold you in unfair disadvantage against your rights.
Believe me Dianne I have never wished you harm and have accomodated what I regard as your illness with great pains upon myself. Beyond the call of common duty.
I will attempt now to deal with the problem from my end. Damage limitation by equitable divison. Either we settle amicably by private agreement or by the clinical division of a court judgement,
You have written recently about conscience and remorse. Answer for your own Dianne. I will write about your allowance to Emma to live with Lewis under the cover of "Further education". She was 16 years of age. Lewis has freely divulged his part of the disasterous affair voluntarily , sobbing over the telephone. It would easily be noticed that you make a very partial use of the word "abuse". More on that later.
I hope you can understand the content well enough, if not you might try the C.A.B. or a solicitor. Perhaps you have a colleague or friend who might assist you. Part #4 is coming soon. I close for now yours sincerely, Reinold Godden.