“Richard [Wood] and Rebecca [Ward]’s attempt to imprison the children’s mother [i.e. Ms Fleming] exparte in England, for breach of the exparte injunction, will be heard by Jimmy Tindal [i.e. myself] on26th January 2026 . The mother will be in Turkey.”
“All the corrupt English Lawyers are desperate to put me in prison before6 February 2026 , when Judge Rahmi Coşan will decide who will be the Estate Officers of my children's worldwide inheritance. If the children and I cannot attend the6 February 2026 hearing in Kaş then Judge Rahmi Coşan is going to believe the claim that I am not the children's mother and the children's mother is missing/deceased [and] that Irem's clients are the only possible choice to be Estate Officers. My existence is extremely inconvenient and preventing the success of their desire to embezzle my children's inheritance.”
“You have no chance of getting me put in prison by alleging that I breached an ultra vires Order in an English Court with no jurisdiction… [and by] helping yourself to my children's inheritance without any authority…”
“(i) the defendant has the right to be legally represented in contempt proceedings; (j) that the defendant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation and to apply for legal aid which may be available without any means test; (l) a defendant is entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the hearing; (m) the defendant is entitled but not obliged to give written and oral evidence in their defence; (n) the defendant has the right to remain silent and to decline to answer any question the answer to which may incriminate the defendant, but that the court may draw adverse inferences if this right is exercised.”
“First, the court order and the particulars of breach of it must be clear and comprehensible and the particulars make plain the thrust of the claimant's case. Secondly, the particulars of breach must be supported by prima facie evidence contained in the affidavits or witness statements, and any exhibits, accompanying the application, so as to show a real prospect of success. Thirdly, an application must not be brought for an illegitimate purpose. Fourthly, an application must be proportionate to the need of enforcing court orders and preventing interference with justice. Fifthly, both the order and the particulars of breach must be seen and read in context and given their natural and ordinary meaning, in the light of the knowledge of the relevant participants Sixthly, in construing an order there is need to pay regard to the mischief sought to be prevented by that order. Seventhly, an order is not vitiated by cross-referring to documents…. The principle remains whether the order was clear as to what a recipient should do. Eighthly…if there can be seen to be more than one reasonable inference to be drawn, and at least one of them is inconsistent with a finding of contempt, or if an innocent explanation of the contempt is a real possibility the claimant fails.”
“1) The Respondent shall, within 7 days of this Order being communicated to her by email, take down, remove and/or delete all posts on any social media…. and/or any other posts or publications referring to the Applicants, Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP, any member or employee thereof or any barrister engaged by them in connection with these proceedings or the administration of the estate of Brendan Joseph Fleming (‘the deceased ‘) (‘the Protected Persons’) 2) Until further order, the Respondent shall not, whether by herself or by instructing or encouraging any other person: a. telephone, text, email or otherwise contact or attempt to contact the Applicants (including via any social networking website or other forms of electronic messaging) except for the purposes of serving formal court documentation in relation to this claim or other court proceedings; b. telephone, text, email or otherwise contact or attempt to contact the friends and family of the Protected Persons (including via social networking websites or other forms of electronic messaging); c. publish, or otherwise communicate, any information that alleges criminal or professional misconduct against the Protected Persons; d. publish, or repeat, or in any way or encourage the publication or repetition of any allegations of criminal or professional misconduct as against the Protected Persons and by any means and on any form of social media; e. publish, or otherwise communicate, any private and/or confidential information relating to the Protected Persons.”
‘Probate Fraud’ and another post naming them saying: ‘Relying on Mr Tindal’s Ultra Vires Orders to help yourself to Estate Funds is THEFT’
“Michelle Rose and Fiona Lawrence of VWV solicitors could not be prosecuted in Turkiye until they committed a crime in Turkiye. Now they have just done that - sending or misleading English injunction to intimidate or silence a Turkish lawyer constitutes attempted perversion of justice, intimidation of a legal representative, abuse of process and interference with the administration of justice in a foreign state.”
“On19 February 2024 , I threw a spanner into the works of Richard [Wood] and Rebecca [Ward]'s plan to misappropriate my children's inheritance in their own interests. Since then, they have, instead of releasing their plan, failed, realising their plan failed because an uncontested English grant of probate was absolutely critical to the success of their fraud. They doubled down on their tactics, became even more illicit and harmful to the children. These tactics included: (1) Concealing the existence of a trust fund left for the children’s maintenance until they were forced to disclose it on7 June 2024 ; (2) treating the 2.4 million company they misappropriated on8 January 2024 as if they owned it absolutely; (3) Making anonymous malicious social services referrals to Omagh health services, telling them to get out there as the mother is neglecting and abusing the children by obstructing administration of children's deceased father's estate. (4) Repeatedly telling the mother they cannot pay anything towards the children's maintenance unless the mother lifts the caveat. This financial coercion lasted over eight months. (5) Abusing s.125 Company Act two more times by their agents Michelle Rose and Fiona Lawrence of VWV solicitors. They misappropriated another£1.6 million worth of company shares and have since declared all company income is reserved to the companies; (6) The same VWV solicitors agents also made fraudulent declaration to HMRC that Brendan domiciled in the UK so they could justify flash selling company assets without probate to connected third parties, mostly Lindsay Kaplan, who had arranged for the will to be witnessed. Then they'd say the sale proceeds cannot go to the children because the IHT liability has gone up by over£2 million due to Brendan's false UK domicile; (7) They secretly asked Jimmy Tindal [i.e. myself] to make an order that states the mother must not make any published criticism of Richard and Rebecca. Of course he agreed, as always. Then, within two weeks of the order, they applied to Jimmy to commit the mother to prison for breach of the ex parte secret order. Again, Jimmy agreed, as always. (8) They made secret applications to the court in Kaş, Turkiye, which included many lies, [including] The mother cannot be traced, the children are living in Northern Ireland, Sophie Fleming is the mother of the youngest unrecognised child. Sophie Fleming cannot be traced….All false. No one at Kaş court made any proper checks. They have blocked the children from receiving their inheritance or income from their inheritance; (9) They spend£588,000 on legal fees and encouraged Trevor, the children’s cousin, to spend another£100,000 , expecting to be refunded from the children’s inheritance. They also expected their agents from VWV solicitors to collect around£300,000 for themselves; (10) They collected around£25,000 from Brendan’s bank accounts using the same will they knew was officially contested; (11) They told the mother that if she spends any money on lawyers, she is abusing the trust fund payments meant for the children and they will stop payments; (12) Through their VWV solicitors agents they threatened the mother’s Turkish lawyer with prison in England if he reports the fraud scheme to the Turkish prosecutor; (13) They asked Jimmy [i.e. me] to sentence their mother to prison in January 2026 so she can’t show up to a hearing in Turkiye in February 2026 and prove they have been lying to the Turkish court since April 2024. They hoped to perfect their fraud at that hearing so they can finally get grant of probate in England, based upon the court of Brendan’s home country, accepting them as estate officers. When are these idiots going to wake up and realise that their fraud scheme failed in February 2024? None of their illicit tactics or their applications to Jimmy can fix it.”
“Good news for criminals of England and Wales. You can easily get your victim imprisoned, sees their home, etc. by making an ex parte application to a judge, even if all the evidence you presented the judge proves your crime.” b. On6th July 2024 , Ms Fleming also made a further five posts in breach, including “Since Brendon died, Rebecca Ward and Richard Wood have embezzled his children's inheritance”
“1. The Court should adopt an approach analogous to that in criminal cases where the Sentencing Council’s Guidelines require the court to assess the seriousness of the conduct by reference to the offender’s culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused. 2. In light of its determination of seriousness, the Court must first consider whether a fine would be a sufficient penalty. 3. If the contempt is so serious that only a custodial penalty will suffice, the Court must impose the shortest period of imprisonment which properly reflects the seriousness of the contempt. 4. Due weight should be given to matters of mitigation, such as genuine remorse, previous positive character and similar matters. 5. Due weight should also be given to the impact of committal on persons other than the contemnor, such as children of vulnerable adults in their care. 6. There should be a reduction for an early admission of the contempt to be calculated consistently with the approach in the Sentencing Council’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea. 7. Once the appropriate term has been arrived at, consideration should be given to suspending the term of imprisonment. Usually, the Court will already have taken into account mitigating factors when setting the appropriate term such that there is no powerful factor making suspension appropriate, but a serious effect on others, such as children or vulnerable adults in the contemnor's care, may justify suspension.”