Issues Summaries

1215:  MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15TH
Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
Adoption Veto for Dads
Adopted Children Disallowed NPs
Affirmative Action
Age Of Consent
Anti-Depressants, Drug Induced Suicide
Battered Woman Syndrome
BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry
BC Legislature MUST
Big Brother, Micro-Management
Bill C-22
Birth Rate Displacement
Best interests of the Child
Breach of Trust
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
"Child's Right" or "Parents' Right"
Child Trafficking by Public Officers
Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges
Compulsory Drugging of Children
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Credit Crisis, Currency Replacment
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dad Propaganda
Disabled parents
DISS = Divorce Initiated Suicide Synd.
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Enticement Seduction Tort Claims Precluded
Estate Taxes Thieve a Child's Inheritance
Euthanasia, Spousal
Ex Parte Orders
False Accusations
Father Hatred Propaganda
Fatherlessness, State Imposed
Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency
FEMA Camps, Martial Law
Femi-Narcissism
Feminism = Socialism = Nazism
Fitness Test for Natural Parents in Divorce
Fitness Test for Students: "Transitions"
FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement
Forgiveness is NOT Compulsory
Freedom of Speech
Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact
Fundamental Justice
Globalism is Treason
Global Warming Fraud "Climategate"
Habeas Corpus Abandoned
"Hate Crime" Speech  Police
Homofacism
Homosexual Violence
Homosexual Activism
Homosexual Marriage
"Human Rights” Commissions in Canada
Human Trafficking
Imputed Income:  Fraudulent CS Orders
Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow
Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust
Judicial Falsification of Court Transcripts
Judicial Freemasonry is Racketeering
Judicial Globalization is Treason
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial Racketeering, Law Societies' Rackets
Kinship Families / Grandparents
Law Societies' Self Regulation, Corruption
Lawyers Lying in Court
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Letters to MP
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Malicious Mother Syndrome
Malicious Prosecution
Misandry = Hatred of Males
Monetary Crisis:  "Money as Debt"
Move Aways
Narcissism
Natiional Sovreignity
Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM
NAU = North American Union
Net Neutrality:  Keep Internet Free!!
No Fault Divorce
NCR = Not Criminally Responsible
Oath Keepers
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Paternity Denied, Birth Registration
Paternity Fraud, Birth Registration
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Pedophiles in Public Service
Petitions
Poofy Judges
Predatory Pregnancy
Protestant Revolution, BBC
QE = Quantitative Easing
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Sex Change Surgery
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homo's & Judges
Star Chamber's Secret Overlords
SOW = Status of Women, KILL IT!!!!
Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift
Straw Man Redemption, Free Man
Supremacy of Parliament
Target Legislation
Teachers displacing Parents
Teachers Seducing Students
Tracts and Flyers
Treasonous Public Officers not Prosecuted
Transcripts & Documents altered by Judges
"Women's Shelters" = Lesbian Gulags

Liberal Irwin Cotler: "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video

"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.

More: News: Cotler, Irwin: "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News: European Union;
Issues: Paul Watson: Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Former Liberal Justice Minister, Deputy Prime Minister

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

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"

The Liberal Party and Child Sexual Abuse

More: News: McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

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.

More: Issues: Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues: "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues: Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs",
Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...

Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Search;
Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Video

Rob Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Search;
Robert Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Video

Cycling4Children.com Equal Parenting Bike Trek's photostream

More: Issues: McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs", Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...;
Issues: Smith, Ron: DC Family Preservation Rally, Compulsory Drugging of Children;
Issues: Compulsory Drugging of Children, Thymerisol;

Beware of the "Parental Rights" IMPOSTER!!!!

"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Be on the lookout for the "Parent's Rights" IMPOSTER. Insist on "Natural Parents Only", please!

It comes as a big surprise to us that many groups that present themselves as "Parents Rights" groups REFUSE to defend the NATURAL PARENT, and and to demand RESTORATION of Natural Parents Rights taken from Canadians in the Homosexual Marriage legislation.

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!!!

More: About: Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!! "Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights";
News: Lessard, Hester - Heterosexual view of Parenthood must be ignored
News: Smith, Judge Daphne, BCSC, for Child Trafficking;
Issues: Trociuk, Darrell;
Issues: Child Trafficking, Canadian;
Testimonials: Rick Fredrickson of Saskatoon

Bill Graham, Liberal <Pedophile> Leader & Defense Minister

Bill Graham, mp - Google Search;
Bill Graham, mp - Google Video

Lawrence Metherel - Google Search

2007-06-19 Liberal MP Bill Graham announces resignation

"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

More: News: Graham, Bill: Pedophile Parliamentarian, Defense Minister

Canada Court Watch Home

Canada Court Watch Audio

Margaret Somerville, The Case Against “Same-Sex Marriage”

THE CASE AGAINST “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE”, Margaret A. Somerville.pdf

Margaret Somerville, marriage - Google Search;
Margaret Somerville - Google Videos

2010-03-12 When is euthanasia justified?, Margaret Somerville

More: Issues: Somerville, Margaret: “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE”;
Issues: Judicial Activism;
Issues: Poofy Judges

Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville

On February 14, 2006 Both Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville join together in a landmark interview
"War Against The Family".mp3

Phyllis
Schlafly

"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"

Stephen
Baskerville

"Why isn't "Focus on the Family" working for Equal Parenting?

Stephen Baskerville's Home; American Coal. for Fathers and Children

Terminology

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." .....

More, Glossary of terms

Skeletons in the Closet, 2001

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.)

Issues Summaries

Issues Summary, by Rob R

The following is a compilation of failures of the BC Family "Justice" system.

Law is unclear as to what are the “best interests of child”. The Divorce Act and FRA - maximum contact with both parents, as supported by SCC are routinely ignored by lower courts and mother gets custody, primary residency and child just gets to see Dad at alternate weekends.
The law should clearly state that children shall be entitled to the joint custody and joint residency with their parents after divorce. This is the overwhelming requirement. It will save the government millions in costs, it will reduce the emotional damage to the child from divorce, it will reduce the cost to society which already arises from divorce (addiction, crime) and will enable resources to be focused on the genuine problem areas where there is abuse, neglect etc.
Children are prevented from maximum contact with the father when Mother (who has custody) is allowed to take child across country or to another country. This is equivalent to forcible deportation which is expressly forbidden by United Nations in Rights of Child unless it is necessary - which is defined as when there is a physical threat to child. It does not mean when mother wishes to relocate.
Fathers are treated as second class citizens in courts. Fathers have to disprove false allegations and statements of mother as well as prove their own case.
Children are treated as second class citizens especially as they are denied the right to legal counsel which means it is always the father having to bring actions for access and not being enforced by the court. The Government takes away the rights of the father/child but does not take on the responsibility of enforcing the rights.
The AG enforces payment of support but does not enforce access. This is clearly a gross abuse of the child and, by definition, is sex discrimination since the majority of payers are fathers. Alberta has enforcement of access. Why does BC not adopt this.
There are no guidelines for spousal maintenance
Spousal/child support is made without any reference to living expenses of payor (mostly father). There are no guidelines provided by the Government was to what constitutes acceptable living expenses and what will not be taken into consideration. As a result awards are made which slowly bankrupt the father - who is then subject to the FMEP - drivers license withheld, garnishees, passport withheld etc. The latter are usually done by FMEP without any due process. Fundamental rights of Canadians - as set out in Charter of Rights and Freedoms are routinely taken away without due process.
Maintenance awards can only be changed by court order: violates right of parents to contract. SCC has changed this but FMEP ignores it.
There are no procedures for reduced payments in times of unemployment. Courts won't make reduction in orders for a small time, man gets behind and can never recover and so goes bankrupt.
Courts are guilty of gross professional conduct:
Judges don't read files
Judges are not appointed to a case - so it's a different judge every time
Judges rarely read the motions before hand
Judges will allow abuse of process for a mother but not a man
Judges allow proven perjured testimony to go as fact
Judges don't enforce the production of documents by women
Judges threaten jail if payments are not made - but not if access denied
Judges assume that child can live without father but not mother contrary to every psychologist report written which clearly state that fathers are more important as the child gets older.
Judges are very inconsistent: they only follow higher rulings when it suits them
Judges don't explain their decisions
judges introduce new evidence/facts into reasons for judgments
Judges are not specialized so they don't know the law.
Judges don't take a father seriously if they represent themselves.
judges routinely don't apply the law according to the charter
Neither the AG or police will prosecute for fraud or perjury in domestic cases which violates the Charter
There are no laws which protect the family - contrary to the requirements of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
The Divorce Act as currently applied causes massive deprivation of family to some 30,000 children a year contrary to their rights as well as their fathers. The First Nations are currently suing the Federal Government for $12 billion on behalf of about 140,000 natives sent to residential schools for, among other things, deprivation of family.
The Divorce process creates that number of people in about 3 years. think of the cost to the country that is going to arise.
The divorce acts routinely abuse the rights of the father to the same rights of family as enjoyed before divorce per the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
There are no support services for men - many for women but all funded by the tax payer
The Ministry of Families routinely will not investigate complaints by fathers but will always do so when made by women. If the child's right to representation was enforced in divorce, little of this would happen.
ABOVE ALL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BC, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF CANADA, IS FULLY AWARE OF THE DISCRIMINATION THAT IS PRACTICED BY THE COURTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND FATHERS AND DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT IT.

Court-ordered sexism

BLUMNER

E-mail:
Click here

By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist
Published May 16, 2004

Except for the battlefield, family court has to be the last bastion of legally enforced sexism in our society. State statutes that determine child custody arrangements and child support may be written in gender-neutral language, but they are not applied that way. Traditional concepts of the family - where the father is breadwinner and the mother controls the domestic sphere - permeate the process, often disadvantaging men who want an equal opportunity to rear their children.

David Blankenhorn, who wrote Fatherless America, says absent fathers are "the most destructive trend of our generation." But our institutions are adding to this crisis by overwhelmingly preferring the mother as the primary parent. Mothers make up five of every six custodial parents, with the system essentially telling fathers that their worth is that of check-writer.

Why is a father who gets up and goes to work every day in order to provide his children with a decent standard of living seen by the courts as less nurturing than the parent who stays home, enjoying the fruits of that labor?

I see both acts as at least equally caretaking. Yet due to a series of unwritten and unspoken gender-related assumptions, family judges tend to give mothers both decisional control over the children and financial support after a family breakup. This gives women an incentive to dissolve their relationships, as demonstrated by the fact that women initiate divorce in about 70 percent of cases.

I can imagine what dads must feel in receiving "visitation" with their children. The very notion that fathers are just "visiting" is deeply disturbing, suggesting that a father's company is like a trip to grandma's.

In a 1998 Florida State Law Review article on gender bias in family court, editor in chief Cynthia McNeely wrote: "If the treatment fathers receive in family court occurred in the workplace, an affirmative action plan would likely be implemented to rectify the pervasive discrimination and barriers fathers encounter as they seek meaningful access to their children."

Interestingly, this is one form of sex discrimination that is not only accepted but jealously guarded by feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women. In a memorandum written by NOW's government relations director in 2000, the organization denounced "men's custody groups" such as the nonprofit Children's Rights Council, because they aid "noncustodial dads in reducing their child support obligations and (in) taking away custody from moms." (According to its Web site, the mission of the Children's Rights Council is "to assure a child the frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with two parents," a dangerous notion to those feminist groups that want fathers to pay up and shut up.)

When men gain reasonable access to their children, women's groups cry foul. Last month, the California Supreme Court ruled that a divorced mother who had been awarded primary physical custody of two young sons could not move them to Ohio with her and her new husband.

In an eminently fair and reasonable decision, the high court upheld a lower court determination that moving the children so far from their father would preclude them from having an ongoing relationship with him. The Contra Costa County Superior Court had said the mother could move but she would have to relinquish custody to the father.

The California Women's Law Center called the Supreme Court's ruling "a huge step backwards" and said that a "legislative fix" is needed that would return to custodial parents a presumptive right to move away and take the kids.

Talk to Dan Montagna and the real costs of a policy like that become clear. A Pinellas County charter fishing boat owner, Montagna has been battling his ex-wife for years to prevent her from moving to California and taking their 7-year-old daughter. He says he is deeply involved in his daughter's life, accompanying her to school and gymnastics training. "She's everything," he says of his little girl.

Montagna's lucky. Since 1997 the law in Florida has been changed to end the courts' prior practice of favoring relocation for the custodial parents. So far, with help from attorney Peter Meros, Montagna has been able to keep his daughter here. But not every state has progressed to recognize that children need their fathers as well as their mothers to be part of their day-to-day lives.

Part of the problem is the legal standard used to resolve custody issues, where judges apply a "best interest of the child" analysis and thereby allow their inherent biases toward maternal nurturing to seep in. To ward against that, I suggest the adoption of a new standard recognizing that the children's interests are no more important than the constitutional rights of both parents to actively rear them.

Fathers are becoming an endangered species in part because the family courts don't fully appreciate their equal claim to their children. Sexist notions of gender roles inform too much decision-making, transforming too many men from engaged parent to alienated visitor.

Liberal Irwin Cotler: "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Former Liberal Justice Minister, Deputy Prime Minister

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs", Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...

Beware of the "Parental Rights" IMPOSTER!!!!

"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Bill Graham, Liberal <Pedophile> Leader & Defense Minister

Margaret Somerville, The Case Against “Same-Sex Marriage”

Issues Summaries

McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs",
Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...