"Without Cause or Consent, no Child
shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"Two Equal Parents may .. agree to unequal Parenting
Time, but this does NOT impugn the Parental Authority of either Natural
Parent relative to Third Party Interlopers.
1. The Bottom Layer: The Initial Equal
Parenting Agreement
Initial
Equal Parenting Agreement creating full time, all time equality of
both natural parents, subordinate to no third parties (a Constitutional
right ignored by most Family Courts); a series of tentative
Parenting Timetables for each year and statement of intent, or
"Wishes"; the requirement that the tentative Parenting Timetable laid
out there will be reviewed and finalized annually and incorporated into
the
Annual Parenting Supplement. Parental authority and discretion
is always equal and unaffected by inequalities of Parenting Time
allocations.
2. Middle Layer: The Annual Supplement
& its Parenting Timetable
3. Top Layer: Autonomy of Both Equal
Parents on all matters not previously Constrained.
Parenting Timetable alternates all residual parenting questions
between the two otherwise equal parents who are subordinate to no third
parties. Full autonomy of each parent during their Parenting Time
as allotted in the agreed Parenting Timetable on all residual parenting
questions not previously constrained by Covenants in the initial Equal
Parenting Agreement, or the current Annual Parenting Supplement.
Full discretion on residual parenting with the Timetabled Parent, but
flexibility encouraged and provided by Ad Hoc Agreements.
"Honourable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious
heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use
of
FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.
This is
the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the
context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing
the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own
children. ,,,
These
FALSE ALLEGATIONS are often made with the overt or covert complicity
of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental
alienation. They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and
creating fatherlessness."
"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
16.10 Maximum
Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi
Germany. Under the British system rights are not
State-given, but God Given.
Buying
into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights,
is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no
rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
...
No one would listen to my father
, no one would give him a chance to speak. ... My dad was an abused
husband, he was abused by his wife, and the justice system. ... He
was a kind man who fought a good fight but no matter what he did or
said, he could never win with this system.
Instead their position to promote the "rights" of
a "Parent" in the widest sense of the word, making NO distinction
between NATURAL PARENTS and wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of Victoria's
assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk Decision"endorses a
Heterosexual View of the Family and must be ignored",
legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in the
lucrative Child Adoption
Market They refuse to be hampered by prior obligations to that
pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United Nations and
Liberal Irwin Cotler's
assertion that the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent has
"NO RIGHTS", making the
State, not the Natural Parents the
Protector of the Child..
Without
Cause or Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will
likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days".
This is
completely FALSE. The Judges are Agents of the Crown
and they BY DEFINITION Judges
are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only PARLIAMENT
has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed
and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after
the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the laws and
customs of the various peoples of Britain.. This was done with a
view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,
into a unified body of Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners
in their administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and principles
of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a couple of
hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was
historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a
Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Equal Parenting Roundups for Natural Parents' Rights
An EP Roundup is a gathering of NATURAL parental rights groups
that are within driving distance of one another.
An
"Equal Parenting Roundup" is a gathering of all the disparate
parental rights groups
that are within driving distance of one another. Whereas any group
can call an "Ad Hoc" Roundup with their neihbors, we hope you will have
at least one annual EP
Roundup an incorporate it into the
Equal Parenting Trek
"Honourable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious
heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use
of
FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.
This is
the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the
context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing
the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own
children. ,,,
These
FALSE ALLEGATIONS are often made with the overt or covert complicity
of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental
alienation. They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and
creating fatherlessness."
We are also fortunate to haveJay Hill, MP(Prince George – Peace River) here in British Columbia.
“I’m
pushing for equality —both parents should have equal rights and equal
access to their child,”
Hill said. “The courts
seem to start from the premise that somehow fathers aren’t responsible
parents. But both parents are deemed good parents as long as the
marriage lasts; why are they not when the marriage ends?”
We are fortunate in British Columbia to have a
number of pro-family parliamentarians. Of particular
prominence is Paul Forseth,
M.P. - member of the "For the Sake of the Children"
Committee, co-author of the
Dissenting Opinions, and a staunch advocate of pro-family
concerns. Paul has put in many years pushing to have Equal
Parenting issues brought forward to the Canadian Parliament, and
faced fierce opposition from the Prime Minister. Both
Paul and Senator Cools have pressed on to redeem fathers from groups
like the Status of Women (SOW) enduring multiple death
threats from various radical feminist groups while serving on the
Committee. These MPs are tough.
Monday Nov.7th 2005 Dear Equal
Parenting-BC: "Conservatives are committed to
Shared Parenting. The national party “Policy Declaration” that was
passed by delegates at our March 2005 Montreal convention says
clearly that: 65. Shared Parenting: A
Conservative Government will make the necessary changes to the
Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a marital breakdown, the
Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain
a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren,
unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of
the children.
My Liberal colleagues that served with me on
the Senate-Commons committee that wrote the “For
the Sake of the Children report, admitted that they have
little confidence that their Party will ever enact the needed
amendments to the Divorce Act, that completely fulfills the report
recommendations. The NDP opposed us during the Committee process,
and have never been supportive of dads.
Conservatives are the only hope for fairness
and reasonableness in Divorce and Family Law. I encourage those who
care, to focus their energy where it will help the most, by working
to elect as many Conservatives as possible. I hope that the many who
are frustrated, not become sidetracked into protest, which does
nothing during an election but undercut our ability to make good
things happen. The Liberals and the NDP will say anything in an
election to get a vote, but they will never deliver “shared
parenting”. Every vote that does not go to a Conservative in the
next election is a vote against “shared parenting”.
Paul Forseth MP
Although not from British Columbia, and less familiar
to us, we cannot neglect to recognize the solid support of once Liberal
MP, Rodger Gallaway of
Sarnia. Gallaway and Cools were frequently photographed together
while championing the rights of children to both
NATURAL PARENTS.
Arnie Hein's, "Cross My Heart" Equal Parenting Trek
CA 2005
Arnie Hein is embarking on a cross-Canada cycle to raise awareness
regarding the Father being stripped of
the family by the Family Court System. He is seeking fairness.
" I want my
kids back, at least half the time. I want this law that removes children
from their fathers - and fathers from their children -to change. I am
cycling across Canada to raise awareness of this problem.
I need other fathers to know they are not alone. I want to unify the men
and children abused by this Family Court System. It is important that
the general public becomes aware of this problem. "
"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
16.10 Maximum
Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigngs
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi
Germany. Under the British system rights are not
State-given, but God Given.
Buying
into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights,
is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no
rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
"In spite of credible revelations dating back to
April 2002 about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15
year old male prostitute named
Lawrence Metherel, Paul Martin
allowed Graham to remain
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named him to the
portfolio of Minister of Defense.
"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the age of
consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in the world) to 16
(an age which many still consider too low).
"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on
Sept. 28th, voted against raising the age of consent to 16
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will
likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days".
This is
completely FALSE. The Judges are Agents of the Crown
and they BY DEFINITION Judges
are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only PARLIAMENT
has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed
and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after
the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the laws and
customs of the various peoples of Britain.. This was done with a
view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,
into a unified body of Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners
in their administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and principles
of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a couple of
hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was
historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a
Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
The common practice in BC Courts when Fathers do not
pay Child Support -
which most of the time is merely
Imputed - is to send
non-paying Father to Prison until he or his family members pay the fees
imposed by the Judge.
Even when mothers agree that Child Support should no
longer be paid, we find that the Family
Enforcement agencies, which are private contractors functioning as
Bounty Hunters, typically refuse to end their claim on the father's
income,.
EqualParenting-BC
invites websites in other Provinces and States to create
collaborative web-pages and link with us when they share our
purpose of making available to those that need them any day of
the week
MEETINGS, within driving distance of the alienated parent
who still suffers.
Equal Parenting March on your local Courthouses & Legislative
Buildings: How-To's
A March is not a Parade.
A parade is historically derived from a
March, but the connotations are very different. A Parade is the result of
an UNCHALLENGED MARCH, and is a statement of CONQUEST! A Parade is more of a
“Look at me. I'm a Boss. I can do what I
want.” type of thing. Note the flamboyant Law-Breaking of the "Gay
Parades".
A March is NOT festive.
A March is a very serious, somber affair.
In British law, and elsewhere I suppose, to own land you have to occupy it.
To occupy it you have to walk on it at least once a year. You will
remember even Abraham had to walk on his land to lay claim to it. This
tradition / principle goes back a very long way.
To maintain occupancy rights you have to
walk on your land every so often, or you may loose your right to occupancy to squatters.
By not walking on your land, every year that goes by, the squatters have a better claim
to “your” land. If you want your land right maintained you walk on your land
once a year.
The kind of March
we would like to see is an
opportunity to exercise our right to FREE ASSEMBLY and
FREE SPEECH (like our land),
and SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT over the COURTS.
Rights you don't exercise once a year can be lost. We could just do what
is “normal” historically, and start with a few guys assembled on a corner in
such a way as to make a public statement. Images of the Salvation Army
come to mind. You might have a guy on his literal soapbox saying a few
things to anybody that would listen, while the other guys stand around with
tracts and Contact Us info. Get your new guys
into the local Meeting that
very week. If people listen, the speaker might go on about some
issue for a bit, but the idea is to keep it short, and pick up your things and
move down the street a few blocks, and do it all again at another location.
You want to STAY ON THE MOVE to get your brief message out as efficiently as
possible, and to gather up as many marchers as you can. You want some
really Big Bastard looking guys up front. Put the biggest on in front with
the Mace to set the pace. The next biggest goes further back with
the big Bass Drum pounding out the time. If it gets big, you'll want to
make some of your medium sized guys into "Sheriffs" who run along side the March
to make sure nobody interferes or gets hurt. This can be a lot of
fun, and very good for your head if you've been emotionally battered..
Hopefully, you pick up a bunch of comrades
to join you as you move along. Eventually, you may just be marching,
handing out tracts, and asking fellows to march along with you to the
<Courthouse / Legislature.>
You could plan your March to progress past the Courthouses
and terminate at the Legislative Buildings or a Park where there' lots of foot
traffic and space. Finish with a big Hurrah and Thump of the Bass
Drum. Then break up. This is all part of the
Democratic process, but Canadian government is rapidly becoming
very autocratic. There are more reasons than Equal Parenting to MARCH.
In the old days, a march was a call to
battle. You’d march around with your drums beating, your pipes and whistles
blasting, and march your men eventually down to the field, and you’d line them
up along one side. If you had an opponent – the squatters, for example - they’d
march their men down the other side, and a some point you’d go at it. To the
winner go the spoils. I don’t imagine we’d be doing that any
more. We don’t have to. We DO have to EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS, however.
The Statement to send is that:
We are here.
This is OUR land, and OUR Courts, and OUR Legislative Buildings, not
yours.
We are not going away.
We will fight your Tyranny to protect our Freedom and our children's Freedom
Equal Parenting March on your local Courthouses &
Legislative Buildings, How-To's
A parade is historically derived from a
March, but the connotations are very different. A Parade is the result of
an UNCHALLENGED MARCH, and is a statement of CONQUEST!
The kind of March
we would like to see is an
opportunity to exercise our right to FREE ASSEMBLY,
to FREE SPEECH,
and to SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT
over the COURTS.
Equal Parenting Roundups for Natural Parents' Rights
An
"Equal Parenting Roundup" is a gathering of all the
disparate parental rights groups that are within driving
distance of one another. Whereas any group can call an "Ad
Hoc" Roundup with their neihbors, we hope you will have at least
one annual EP Roundup
an incorporate it into the Equal
Parenting Trek
An
Equal Parenting Roundup is an exercise in your Freedom of
Assembly and Freedom of
Speech and Freedom of Assembly, following some of the
traditions that
established our
Supremacy of
Parliament. Ideally, you will want be evangelical
about your Roundup, you can add to it's end a Free Man's
March
1.
The Bottom Layer: The Initial Equal Parenting Agreement
Initial Equal Parenting Agreement creating full time, all time
equality of both natural parents, subordinate to no third parties (a
Constitutional right ignored by most Family Courts); a series of
tentative
Parenting Timetables for each year and statement of intent, or
"Wishes"; the requirement that the tentative Parenting Timetable laid
out there will be reviewed and finalized annually and incorporated into
the
Annual Parenting Supplement. Parental authority and discretion
is always equal and unaffected by inequalities of Parenting Time
allocations.
3.
Top Layer: Autonomy of Both Equal Parents on all matters not
previously Constrained.
Parenting Timetable alternates all residual parenting questions
between the two otherwise equal parents who are subordinate to no third
parties. Full autonomy of each parent during their Parenting Time
as allotted in the agreed Parenting Timetable on all residual parenting
questions not previously constrained by Covenants in the initial Equal
Parenting Agreement, or the current Annual Parenting Supplement.
Full discretion on residual parenting with the Timetabled Parent, but
flexibility encouraged and provided by Ad Hoc Agreements.
4.
Icing on the Cake.....
Forget about the Courts and your Ex, and go have fun with your kids!!!
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
should
ever be forgot
