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.
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.
FALSE ACCUSATIONS 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
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage
16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal
BREACH OF TRUST"
the ideas that the State assigns
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.
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
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
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
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
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.
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
Skeletons in the Closet, a film drawn from the dramatized lives
of families living with a protected
Pedophile and the mental
illness it may create when a loving, faithful, Victim keeps the
Secret. This is shockingly
common. The Secret is their Power -
(You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)
a) NOT report results of studies which do
not show "expected results", and
b) if "unexpected results do eventually get
reported, they may only be reported with "expert" commentary to
explain away the deviation from the expected result that "Men are
violent" and "Women are their Victims".
The World Health has as a primary Sponsor, the
Rockefeller Foundations, a
Fabian Socialist group
which has as it's aim the conversion of the West to a Soviet style
block which can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.
See Norman Dodd.
Opponents of Equal Parenting like to tell you
that seventy something percent of Custody Cases don't go to Trial,
and are awarded as Sole Custody to Mom BY CONSENT.
What they don't tell you is that in ninety
something percent of Custody Cases that do go to Trial Mom gets Sole
Custody anyway, and Dad has to pay on top of his Lawyer fees, the
Court Costs for having lost his Application. Faced with these
abysmal odds, Dads are commonly told to "Just give her what she
wants so you can have a good relationship with her". Under
Duress many Dads foolishly acquiesce .... for
a time at least......
We prefer that Natural Parents NOT sign a Consent
Order that is not completely Equal with respect to Gender, as the
relationship of the divorced couple is greatly destabilized with
each injury to the equality of parental powers .
Pedophile Activists obviously don't go around
telling you what they're up to. Instead they call
themselves "Mentors", "Social
Workers", "Feminists" or "Homosexual Rights Activists". In
Canada, Pedophile Activists have been successful in getting
greater access to children by reducing the
of Consent to ,
and in eliminating a parents "right to know" when the child reaches
the age of
replacing them with school counselors and
Social Workers, and by, of course, eradicating fathers from
their children's lives entirely from birth on request by the mother.
the recent changes to accommodate homosexual marriage, the right of
natural parents to "parent" their natural children will soon be
removed entirely. Through these statutory changes, the term
"LEGAL PARENT" is replacing the
historic term "NATURAL PARENT"
in Canadian statutes. As a result Natural
Parents can no longer automatically claim to be the Legal Parents of
their own natural children at birth. Instead, to accommodate
the Homosexual Activists' plan to push Natural Parents aside when it
comes to parenting children, the Courts alone now decide who will be
the "parents' of all children born in Canada.
Activists are often lawyers, school counselors, teachers,
Social Workers, Sex Ed teachers,
pastors, Judges, etc. etc. They seek positions with access and
power over Children & Families, and positions to create social and
political change. The publicly undisclosed prevalence of
Pedophile & Homosexual Activists in our civil service has been
attributed to their determined politicism in the many groups like
ACT UP! , the secrecy of the
alliances made in various "secret societies" and sex clubs, and to
Sexual Nepotism in the workplace.
ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Full
Time, All Time Surveillance & Search of your digital activity
Knewton technologies' objective is to record your every
click and page and concept you view online.
data mining techniques will be used to create personality
and learning style profiles of you..... all to
"serve you and your children better" of course!
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement which is alleged by
its proponents to be in response "to the increase in global
trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected
works." The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit
physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement negotiations continue in a few hours as
Seoul, Korea plays host to the latest round of
talks. The governments have posted the
meeting agenda, which unsurprisingly focuses on
the issue of Internet enforcement [UPDATE 11/4: Post
on discussions for
day two of ACTA talks, including the criminal
enforcement provisions][UPDATE 11/5: Post on
day three on transparency]. The United States
has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with
access under strict non-disclosure agreements
and other countries (including Canada) given
physical, watermarked copies designed to guard
Despite the efforts to combat leaks, information on
the Internet chapter has begun to emerge (just as
they did with the other
elements of the treaty). [Update 11/6:
Source document now posted] Sources say that
the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free
trade agreement, focuses on following five issues:
2. A requirement to establish third-party liability for
3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie.
limited safe harbour rules for ISPs). For example, in order
for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbour, they would be
required establish policies to deter unauthorized storage
and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions are
modeled under the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30.
They include policies to terminate subscribers in
appropriate circumstances. Notice-and-takedown, which is
not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO,
would also be an ACTA requirement.
4. Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+
model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the
language currently found in U.S. free trade agreements that
go beyond the WIPO treaty requirements. For example, the
U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement specifies the
permitted exceptions to anti-circumvention rules. These
follow the DMCA model (reverse engineering, computer
testing, privacy, etc.) and do not include a fair use/fair
dealing exception. Moreover, the free trade agreement
clauses also include a requirement to ban the distribution
of circumvention devices. The current draft does not
include any obligation to ensure interoperability of DRM.
5. Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free
trade treaty language.
If accurate (and these provisions are
consistent with the U.S. approach for the past few years in
bilateral trade negotiations) the combined effect of these
provisions would dramatically reshape Canadian copyright law and
to eliminate sovereign choice on domestic copyright policy.
Having just concluded a national copyright consultation, these
issues were at the heart of thousands of submissions. If Canada
agrees to these ACTA terms, flexibility in WIPO implementation
(as envisioned by the treaty) would be lost and Canada would be
forced to implement a host of new reforms (this is
precisely what U.S. lobbyists have said they would like to
see happen). In other words, the very notion of a
made-in-Canada approach to copyright would be gone.
The Internet chapter raises two additional issues. On the
international front, it provides firm confirmation that ACTA is
not a counterfeiting treaty, but a copyright treaty. These
provisions involve copyright policy as no reasonable definition
of counterfeiting would include these kinds of provisions. On
the domestic front, it raises serious questions about the
Canadian negotiation mandate. Negotiations from Foreign Affairs
are typically constrained by either domestic law, a bill before
the House of Commons, or the negotiation mandate letter. Since
these provisions dramatically exceed current Canadian law and
are not found in any bill presently before the House, Canadians
should be asking whether the negotiation mandate letter has
envisioned such dramatic changes to domestic copyright law.
When combined with the other chapters that include statutory
damages, search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording
rules, and mandatory disclosure of personal information
requirements, it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today
than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated
behind closed doors this week in Korea.
Update II: InternetNZ issues a
press release expressing alarm, while EFF
says the leaks "confirm everything that we feared about the
secret ACTA negotiations." Electronic Frontiers Australia
Australian perspective on the ACTA dangers.
we don't want to see central governments and cable
companies choking the independent news offices and radio
frequency transmitting stations. FYI there has
been talk for a decade about converting the offensively
FREE INTERNET to a fee based platform which can have
it's content and consumption regulated. in micro scale.
Obama is presently working on this and is getting
himself the powers to regulate content on the internet
into the President's Office.
Negotiators from the United States, the
European Union and nine other countries said on Friday (20
August) they planned to finish work in September on a proposed
pact to crack down on trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which began in
Geneva two years ago, is a plurilateral trade agreement to
establish international standards on intellectual property
According to former trade negotiators, countries attempted to
clinch an agreement under the banner of the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO), but as members could not agree,
like-minded nations formed ACTA.
In March, the European Parliament defied the EU executive by
casting a vote against an agreement between the EU, the US and
other major powers on combating online piracy and threatening to
take legal action at the European Court of Justice (EurActiv
An overwhelming majority of MEPs (663 in favour and 13 against)
voted to approve a resolution criticising the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), arguing that it
flouts agreed EU laws on online piracy.
More on this topic
News:EU-US food fight hampers ACTA talks
News:EU defends itself from attack on ACTA
News:EU seeks global anti-counterfeiting pact
The countries also pledged to publicly release the final text of
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which has raised
concerns among Internet and digital rights advocates, "before
deciding to sign it".
US movie, music, software and other copyright-based industries
calculate that they lose more than $16 billion (12.5 billion
euro) in sales each year from pirated versions of their products
sold around the world. Many of these counterfeit and pirated
goods are made in China.
In a joint statement, the participating countries addressed a
number of worries that have surfaced about the pact, saying it
would not require members of the agreement to take steps that
violate "fundamental rights and liberties".
Some digital rights advocates feared that provisions aimed at
reducing online piracy of music and films could empower Internet
providers to deny service to repeat offenders.
The trade agreement "will not hinder the cross-border transit of
legitimate generic medicines," the joint statement also said.
The agreement "will not oblige border authorities to search
travellers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for
infringing materials," it added.
Some were concerned that the agreement might allow customs
officials to seize generic versions of patented drugs and to
confiscate laptops and music listening devices that contain
Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland also are taking part in
the talks. US President Barack Obama has called the talks a key
element of the US strategy for fighting the global trade in fake
goods, estimated at more than $200 billion annually.
The agreement is expected to mandate that customs officials in
all the participating countries have authority to seize
counterfeit goods without a request from the right holders or a
US officials have said they do not expect the agreement to
require changes to US law so it would not have to be approved by
Congress. However, that has only heightened concerns about what
the pact would require.
One tough remaining issue is the 27-nation EU's demand that the
pact cover "geographical indicators," which are names for food
and alcoholic products drawn from a particular location, such
Champagne or Cognac, both in France.
But US business groups worry that would mean US products as
commonplace as Kraft Parmesan cheese could potentially be
treated as illegal items under the pact and subject to seizure
by customs officials.
The United States believes that issue is resolvable by the time
negotiators hold their next round in Japan in late September,
said Nefeterius McPherson, a spokeswoman for the US Trade
Participants in the negotiations agreed that Japan would host
the next negotiating round in September and that they are
committed to resolving the remaining substantive issues at that
time, officials said.
Negotiators made progress this week in all areas of the pact
including general obligations, civil enforcement, border
measures, criminal enforcement and enforcement measures in the
digital environment, the group statement said.
Use a Firewall, Go to Jail, March 26th,
The states of Massachusetts and Texas
are preparing to consider bills that apparently are
intended to extend the national Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. (TX
MA bill) The bills are obviously related to each
other somehow, since they are textually similar.
Here is one example of the
far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills
would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of
technologies that "conceal from a communication service
provider ... the existence or place of origin or
destination of any communication". Your ISP is a
communication service provider, so anything that
concealed the origin or destination of any communication
from your ISP would be illegal – with no exceptions.
If you send or receive your email via
an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because
the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed
from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals
the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources
of incoming messages.)
Worse yet, Network Address
Translation (NAT), a technology widely used for
enterprise security, operates by translating the "from"
and "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing
the source or destination of each packet, and hence
violating these bills. Most security "firewalls" use
NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in violation.
If you have a home DSL router, or if
you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of
your favorite operating system product, you're in
violation because these connection sharing technologies
use NAT. Most operating system products (including every
version of Windows introduced in the last five years,
and virtually all versions of Linux) would also
apparently be banned, because they support connection
sharing via NAT.
And this is just one example of the
problems with these bills. Yikes.
UPDATE (6:35 PM): It's worse than I
thought. Similar bills are on the table in
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee,
UPDATE (March 28, 9:00 AM): Clarified
the paragraph above about encrypted email, to eliminate
UPDATE: I now have a
page with information about all of these bills,
including the current status in each state.
"HELP invents ideological policy-based evidence to
push for increasing institutional child care and decreasing the
time children spend with parents"
Clyde Hertzman wants to know everything he can about about
your family and children. He and his
Human Early Learning Partnerships program has been
successful in subverting our privacy laws to legalize his
collection, analysis, and reporting of your family's
personal information to global policy makers.
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.