"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.
In
"Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform"
McLellan warns that <Horrors!>
"Provincial
Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody...
and perpetuate the domination of men over women"
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.
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!!!
"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
"The Family Courts
are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Habeas
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 -
BREAK IT!
(You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)
Lawyers for Themis Ltd claims their policy is
not created internally
but is given them directly from their Director
Chris Beresford.
They
say it is their
"Policy" to NEVER return OVERPAYMENTS on Child Support.
They say it is their "Policy" or to NOT
acknowledge Payments to the Payee directly without going through
their Office, saying such payments are "Gifts" only,
and will NOT be considered by them to be payments of Child
Support. They say their "Policy" of removing
Passports and Drivers' Licenses, and spreading around your SINs
to strangers NOT involved in taxation is justified by the
"Greater Good"of defending a
Child's Right to receive Support
Payments. They claim Themis is a "Creation of Statute",
exercising only the powers given it by Parliament. See
Issues: Breach of Trust of a
Public Officer, Criminal
Themis operates as
Chris Beresford's
mercenary
Bounty Hunter.
We have known of Moms who, having seen what Themis has done to
Dad, have waived payment of Child Support to stop
Themis' attacks, but Themis has refused to stop.
"Carol Rhodes, former Friend of the Court Investigator ...
recently did an interview with host Richard Farr on the
KRights.com Internet Radio station. Michigan Shared parenting
activist
Robert Pedersen of
A Child’s Right was also interviewed. To listen, click
here.
Who is the Protector of a Child's Right, now that Natural
Parents Rights have been eliminated in the Homosexual Marriage
Legislation? It is the State. The State will pretend
to "Protect" the Rights of a Child against the 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.
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.
More:
