"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.)
Imputed Income: Imaginary Income "Imputed" to Dads to
fraudulently raise Child Support Orders is Criminal Breach of Trust
Imputed
Income: Imaginary Income "Imputed" to Dads to
fraudulently raise Child Support Orders is Criminal
Breach of Trust
The Child Support Tables depend upon
an Income of the Payor only to determine from the Tables
the Child Support Payment to be paid.
The extortionate sums used in the
Tables were were first passed as part of a package
of FTSOTC
Legislation. (Once the Child Support Tables were
passed, the rest of the FTSOTC Package was cast off.)
The Tables as passed incorporated the incomes of
BOTH parents (the only sensible way to do it) but
the Liberals pressed by Hedy Fry and SOW with a Majority
Government dropped the Income of the Payee (ie, Mom)
from the Calculations, relieving the Payee (Mom) the
obligation to use her income to support the Children.
Initiatives to make Child Support contingent upon on the
Custodial Parents fulfilling her obligation to fulfill
the terms of the Custody Agreement failed. Instead
more jobs for Public Servants were created to enforce
the payment of Child Support ONLY.
Compounding
the problems already presented to Dads by these methods
only, Judges started 'Imputing" income to
artificially boost the Child Support Payments put upon
Dads who are not earning enough to support payment the
Judge has predetermined. For example, Hal was a
Widower and had a daughter, Danica, from a previous
marriage. Hal then had two children with a
new wife while living on an island near Courtenay where
the cost of living was very low. Hal was a Potter.
Mom left Hal when the two new children were toddlers.
(She is reported to have taken up with her Courtenay
lawyer - not an uncommon scenario - while their greatly
appreciated Island Property was liquidated under very
peculiar circumstances.) When our BC Family
Courts put Hal through it's torments of
Imputed Income,
Gleaned Wages,
State Imposed
Homelessness, and
Debtor's Prison, they imposed these same torments on
his daughter Danica, then a Tween. You can see
where that left BOTH Hal & Danica: homeless and
dependent on the kindnesses of neighbors for survival.
When Courtenay's Judge Higenbotham Ordered Hal to Jail
(that is
Debtor's Prison) for non-payment of
Imputed Income,
Higenbotham was ordering his daughter Danica to be not
only homeless and penniless, but also Fatherless.
In spite of all the other things being done to him,
Hal's emphasis was that the
Child
Support Tables assume the only children to support
are the Payee's children. Hal tried unsuccessfully
by his
Danica Petition to have recognized what BC Judges do
mindlessly to a Father in Family Court they also do to
his children from a previous marriage.
Themis Ltd." Mercenary Bounty Hunters for
FMEP, Chris Beresford, Director
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.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
The Danica Bill
That no government or government agency
shall intercept, garnishee, or otherwise attach an amount of income below which
an individual or their dependents can
reasonably be expected to survive on.
That mediation be made mandatory. That litigation be allowed to proceed
only after every attempt at mediation has been exhausted.
That all children comprising a family unit be entitled to equal
consideration under Federal Guidelines, irrespective of bloodlines, save where
previous provision has been made for their care.
That the practice of imputing income be abolished. That only actual income
be assessed when child support is being set, save where tax evasion or fraud
has been proven.
That a ‘shared base of information’ be built into the system to establish
assets and income.
That the business of mediation be held at arms length from the business
of litigation to ensure checks and balances.
That judges specializing in family law be appointed throughout all
hearings.
That hearings be reframed, using neutral terms (wife, husband, mother,
father, given names) rather than petitioner/respondent or
plaintiff/defendant.
That any charges of wrong doing be handled by criminal courts and not
brought on during divorce proceedings where there is incentive to fabricate
charges for financial gain. That no party be made to suffer loss from any
charge they have been served no notice of beforehand. That the burden of
proof rest with those bringing such litigation.
That court officials draft court orders when legal counsel is available to
one party only.
That Court transcripts be reported verbatim - to preserve the integrity of
public hearings - and not be subject to review or editing by court officials
.
That no individual's income be garnisheed below federal income assistance
levels.
Upon completing the above I received word that
many of the above recommendations have been implemented in
Australia. I will close by appending this article to the end of this
letter. I challenge this government to lead our families and this
province back to the basics of equality and respect for all its
citizens.
Sincerely,
Hal Jeffery
Family
Law in Crisis :
Imputed Income
This site has been assembled to support a petition located at
http://www. petitiononline.com/b4kidsok /petition.html
BACKGROUND
It is common practice in our courts to use confrontation and
adversarial strategies to resolve family matters.
However, this
approach only further distresses families already in crisis
at a time
of divorce. With parents
committing suicide, or left destitute on the
street, it is high time to implement drastic
changes to present
legislation.
If you believe the following recommendations
to be reasonable and fair
minded please support
this process and sign the
petition.
PROPOSED
LEGISLATION
That mediation be
made mandatory. That litigation be
allowed only after every effort at
mediation has
been exhausted.
That all
children comprising a family unit be
entitled to equal
consideration under Federal Guidelines
irrespective of bloodline (save
where previous provision has been made).
That the
practice of imputing income be abolished. That only
actual income be
assessed when setting child
support (save where tax
evasion has been proved).
That no
individual's income be garnisheed below federal 'income assistance'
levels.
Submitted
May 2003 to Premier Campbell and the
Honorable Geoff Plant. Attorney General, British Columbia, Canada
I am a child of this family and of this
country and I believe it is my right to be included in equations ...
and the duty of my government to ensure it is done.
in
the name of
family
and in the name of law
2004-09-10 Update from Hal
On Liberty and Law
An appeal for a
different approach
I have just received a court order
which will send me to jail October 1st, and each month thereafter, so long
as I remain unable to pay child support based on imputed not actual income
Though the amounts seem trifling at $ 329 per month, given where we have
been left at the end of 24 hearings, it is again a sum that remains out of
reach. This is the common thread that runs through 4 years of litigation
and the shield that this petition was initially erected to raise around us.
Today I am branded an irresponsible father unwilling to support
his children. However, I can honestly say that I have never had to work so
hard my entire life as I have the last four years ... or exist on
less. We would have had no problem sharing what we have at any stage had we
been left enough to provide ourselves with the basics. Throughout this has
been denied, setting up a cycle of non stop litigation compelling us
to again and again defend ourselves with no access to counsel. The end of
this process has predictably resulted in both sides of this family being
sapped. On August 11, 2004, my ex spouse testified under oath that she owes
legal bills out to the year 2007 and received less than $ 5,000 from the
forced sale of our house. This property is now back on the market for $
120,000 more than it was liquidated at. Stepping back from this one
must ask - who are the beneficiaries of all of this litigation?
It is a sad day though for all families when people like me end up going to
jail - kids like Danica get treated as non existent entities.
It is shameful - and I would suggest that something has happened in
Courtenay other than another parent deciding to starve themselves and one of
their children - in order to avoid feeding the other two.
Seeds have now been planted to raise 30,000 signatures from mothers and
fathers across the country. Please be a part of this process. The issue is
not about divorce - but the rules by which we allow ourselves to be
governed. Though we sometimes forget, we are a democracy nonetheless.
Please know our spirits are good and that we will come through this. In the
meantime we now embrace jail as an inescapable part of our lives.
With heartfelt gratitude.
Hal and Danica
Imputed Income to fraudulently raise Child
Support Orders
Imaginary Income "Imputed" to Dads to fraudulently
raise Child Support Payments is Criminal Breach of Trust
If a BC Judge thinks the Child Support you
pay based on your real Income isn't enough, they might impute Income to
you to artificially boost the Support Cheque. These "judgments' can be
free-wheeling, arbitrary and punitive for all members of the Victim's
family.
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,.
"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.
Affirmative Action has made White Heterosexual Anglophone Males (WHAMs) a Class
of employment ineligibility & PC Hatred since 1980
"I get government cheques..... you stupid
Canadians.. I get government cheques.", Korean Realtor
Canadian Affirmative Action programs coupled with massive
immigration from "non-traditional" sources to accommodate UN commitments
precluded white males and many white females from employment and progressive
employment in government offices.
These same White Males are now routinely subjected to Imputed
Income by Family court Judges - the majority of whom are beneficiaries of
Affirmative Action programs - when Dad's incomes aren't as high as the Judge
expects them to be.
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:
