Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust

Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Surveilance
Adoption Veto for Dads
Adopted Children Disallowed NPs
Affirmative Action
Age Of Consent
BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry
BC Legislature MUST
Big Brother, Micro-Management
Bill C-22
Best interests of the Child
Birth Registration - Paternity Fraud
Birth Registration - Paternity Denied
Breach of Trust
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
Child Trafficking by Public Officers
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dads
Disabled parents
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Drugging of Children, State
Enticement Seduction
Ex Parte Orders
Fabian Socialism
False Accusations
Father Hatred Propaganda
Fatherlessness, State Imposed
Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency
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
Grandparents Raising Children
Habeus Corpus Abandoned
Homofacism
Homosexual Activism
Homosexual Marriage
Human Trafficking
Imputed Income
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
Law Societies' Self Regulation, Corruption
Lawyers Lying in Court
Letters to MP
Legislative Changes
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Malicious Mother Syndrome
Malicious Prosecution
MCF = Ministry Children & Families
Misandry, Hatred of Males
Money as Debt / Money Masters
Move Aways
Narcissism
Natiional Sovreignity
Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM
NAU - North American Union
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Pedophiles Fear Dads!!
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Petitions
Poofy Judges
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Protestant Revolution, BBC
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homosexuals, Judges
Status of Women's Father Hatred
Star Chamber's Secret Overlords
Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift
Supremacy of Parliament
Target Legislation
Teachers displacing Parents
Teachers Seducing Students
Tracts and Flyers
"Women's Shelters" Lesbian Gulags

Will Parliament Remedy the "No Fault" premise of Divorce Law?

The Canadian Parliament might also consider eliminating the threat to the matrimonial bond inherent in "No Fault" Divorce. Permitting one marriage partner to unilaterally end a joint relationship with impunity is very destabilizing to Canadian families, and creates too much business in Family Law . We think Canadians still get married for more reasons than just establishing a temporary monogamy within which to share spousal benefits and to establish paternity claims. We think Canadians still think of marriage as a relationship of Trust and security, in the tradition of the oft spoken vow of "For Better or Worse".

With "No Fault Divorce", there is no remedy when the Trust placed in a "Spouse" is breached. There is therefore no deterrent for matrimonial predators who by becoming a "spouse" have free license 24/7 to take children, inheritance and family assets, and hold these hostage from the distraught father. There is no fund established with the "saved" litigation costs to insure the victim of Divorce as there is in other "no-fault" schemes. Since ~1972 Canadian legislation has been gutted of such dearly held values by "No Fault Divorce" and has been devolved into a division of assets and other financial obligations. Only the lawyers gain by putting so much more within their grasp.

We think there is substantial merit in:

Reestablishing the "Fault" in Divorce legislation. If couples prefer to live under a cohabitation agreement there is nothing to prevent them. But if a couple wishes to live as a "married" couple, why should legislation preclude them from living as "married" in the historic sense?

Reestablishing the Enticement laws, providing the injured spouse with claims against third parties who entice their spouse to end their marriage. This one change will make the ubiquitous father-hatred groups unprofitable to run, and leave families to succeed or fail of their own accord. It also gives children a chance at recouping their inheritance from these professional Misandrists

Reestablishing the Seduction laws, providing the injured spouse with claims against third parties who seduce their spouse into adulterous relationships.

More... Issues

Canada Court Watch Home

Canada Court Watch Audio

What happens to kids, when their Dads are taken away from them?

We apologize that the following figures have not been developed for the Province of BC specifically. We hope to do this over time. We do know, however that women often move to BC from Alberta and the rest of Canada to have their divorces done here in BC where the misandry of the Family Courts will maximize their powers to destroy their husbands.

Children from fatherless homes account for:

63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).

Children from fatherless homes are:

11 times more likely to exhibit violent behavior than children from intact "married" homes.
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to runaway.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in state-operated institutions.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.

"37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights." (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July 1993.)

"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

Child Support

Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all non-custodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

source: http://njlaw924.com/id39.html

What happens to Canadians when Judges Drive Dads and Boys into servitude and compliance

Judges and their elite Star Chamber entrench their power and status to rule over Canadians with impunity and unbridled narcissism.

Feminist and Homosexual Activists as Judges effect their political agenda without the consent of the Canadian demographic. They with full knowledge and intent (scripted in the sixties & seventies by their Activist writers) circumvent due democratic process and knowingly contravene the founding legal constructs of Canada in the BNA & in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Activist Judges happily and routinely breach the Trust placed in them by their employer, the Canadian Taxpayer.

Lawyers routinely Entice into self-destruction and financial rape vast numbers of families entering their doors. Because of the Statutory self-regulation of the BC Law Society, we know of no limiting factor to cap the Activism of the Judiciary other than prosecuting Judges and Lawyers who exceed the powers granted them by Statute.

The BC Law Society pimps BC women, and use them as their hookers. With others (also conspicuously funded by the Taxpayer), Law Society members instruct women to hook fathers and families into the Courts and the financial ruin a "Legal Marriage" entails. Children NEED this threat to their security to be EXTERMINATED.

Faced with the entrenched Father Hatred and Affirmative Action of the burgeoning civil service, boys and young men despair. Having no vision for a Future or a university education, they become prone to fulfill the Father Hatred prophecies of BC university's Women's Studies faculties and Feminist Activists.

Children Raised in Sole Custody in profoundly greater risk

2005-xx-xx Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

"Children of single parents were at higher risk of physical abuse and of all types of neglect and were overrepresented among seriously injured, moderately injured, and endangered children. Compared with their counterparts living with both parents, children in single parent families had:

a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a 63% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using the Endangerment Standard);

an 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect and a 165% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical neglect;

a 74% greater risk of being harmed by emotional neglect and a 64% greater risk of experiencing any countable emotional neglect;

a 220% (or more than three times) greater risk of being educationally neglected;

an approximately 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect;

an approximately 90% greater risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child maltreatment; and

a 120% (or more than two times) greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or neglect."

Judicial Accountability Act Proposals

2006-11-10 Top judges rebuke Tories Federal plan would allow police to help appoint judiciary - workopolis.com;   "Beverley McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice, along with a powerful council of the country's top judges issued an unprecedented rebuke yesterday to Justice Minister Vic Toews for hatching a plan to arbitrarily change the way judges are chosen. The Canadian Judicial Council expressed dismay that Mr. Toews is planning to introduce "significant changes to the composition and functioning of the Judicial Advisory Committees," secret groups which are set up in each region to vet candidates for the 1,100 federal judgeships across the country.   Chief Justice McLachlin, who chairs the council, urged Mr. Toews to include the judiciary and key legal bodies in any discussion of changes to the committee vetting process."

We need in the very least some kind of JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT which will look something like::

Divide the Law Society into two groups of Judges and Practicing Lawyers to protect the Lawyers who would make Cases against Judges. There would be some Law Society Members who may practice as Barristers, and some as Solicitors, but a Judge must RETIRE from the Practice of Law and become unable to affect the Law Society while they act as a Judge. On removal of a Judge for Judicial Activism, the Law Society may deny their return to Practice from Retirement for specified cause, such as the case made during an unsuccessful Criminal Charge of Breach of Trust or Treason.

The Judges naturally divide into two bodies, the Provincial and Federal Judicial Societies to parallel the Provincial and Federal Courts. Membership in both Judicial Societies must be precluded. Federal Judges would be tried by Provincial Judges according to the JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, and the Provincial Judges would be tried by the Federal Judges. They could be tried both in Tort and in Criminal Court for Breach of Trust and for Treason.

Make Judicial Appointments for a FIXED TERM of no more than five years (Jimmy Pattison where are you when we need you?)

Judicial Re-Appointment must meet a Test for Judicial Re-Appointment which demonstrates the prescribed Impartiality (that is an Activism Free record.) and Non-Infamy with the Electorate.

Automatic Temporary Suspension Without Pay for a Judge who is going to Trial in Tort or in Criminal Court, pending its outcome.

Eradication of Freemasonry from the Judiciary and Law Societies. Both are granted special privileges by Parliamentary Statute which they receive In Trust.. Judicial Candidates and sitting Judges must be vetted for Occult practices resulting in Public Safety concerns such as Pedophilia. Pedophilia is an established part of Occult worship (See Malachi Martin among others) and is reported to be a tolerated practice of some high ranking Judges.

Trial by Jury of Judges before non-allied and non-associated Judges, e.g.. Federal Judges tried before Provincial Judges, visa versa..

NO SPECIAL PROSECUTORS for Judges or other Public Servants being tried.

Under the "federal" division of powers in the BNA (Constitution Act, 1867)) Education falls into the Provincial domain. A parallel Provincial Statute to amend the licensing and Suspension of Teachers would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also Four Missions

Kinship Families, Grandparents raising Grandchildren

Natural Grandparents Rights Proposals;   Social Works & Foster Parents get funding for raising other people's children, Grandparents don't because they're a "Kinship Family". See Saskatoon G I F T (Grandparents Involved Full Time) Dorothy Bird: (306) 382-3650

We say that's WRONG, and Grans should not be jeopardizing their financial stability to raise an unexpected New Arrival. 2008-01-09_Documentary to focus on kinship families "Tammy Brockhaus, with her grandson, Alex, is one of thousands raising a grandchild in Canada. W-5 is airing a documentary on the issue of grandparents raising grandchildren on Feb. 9 .. Brockhaus is a 58-year-old widow who has been raising her six-year-old grandson, Alex, since he was 30 days old. While the last six years have proved to be a challenge for her, Brockhaus, who also has three grown children, has found fulfillment raising a child the second time around."

Removal of Judges

Do we have any such provision? Who executes the required actions in the event a Judge has to be removed? Submit new info on Removal of Judges

Removal of judges from office, Oklahoma Constitution

(a) In addition to other methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws, the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the Judiciary.

(b) Cause for removal from office shall be: Gross neglect of duty; corruption in office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of any offense involving moral turpitude; gross partiality in office; oppression in office; or other grounds as may be specified hereafter by the legislature.

(c) Cause for compulsory retirement from office, with or without compensation, shall be mental or physical disability preventing the proper performance of official duty, or incompetence to perform the duties of the office"

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

2006-03-10 The right to abandon your child by Mona Charen;
"This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" ... A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men."   ...   More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy."

COMMENT: Roe V. Wade was a "Femi-Narcissistic" decision, looking after the interests of the Mother only. The principal established there established was extrapolated into a Mother's "murder rights" expressed in minimal sentences when murdering their children. Equal Parenting eliminates much of this.

Father dealt difficult hand by the system

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

Latest Columns

Father dealt difficult hand by the system "Even last week, when the family court file of Elaine and Leo Campione was released to the press -- in significant measure because Mr. Campione didn't oppose the media's bid to see it .. There is, to be frank, an underlying perspective of feminist oppression from which all else springs. .. Women are seen first as victims -- generally of male power and particularly of husband power -- and presumed to be truth-tellers and good mothers until proven otherwise. The starting point for men is that they are abusers and deadbeat dads in the making unless they can prove the contrary, and if it takes years for them to demonstrate that, oh well."

Judicial Activism / Judicial Tyranny is Criminal Breach of Trust

Axe Activist Judges!

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
is predicated on
JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
is CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST &

JUDICIAL GLOBALIZATION is TREASON

AXE ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!

HRH Queen Elizabeth,
Constitutional Monarch of the Commonwealth

Since the Declaration of the Commonwealth in 1649 - an outcome of the English Civil War - the British Monarch has become a "Constitutional Monarch".  Beginning with the Magna Charta , the vocabulary of the various Agreements made during the devolution of powers are clearly those of a Trust, and the Positions created along the way and how they are structured are also those of a TRUST.   The Monarch, since King Richard the Lionheart is the TRUSTEE,    Parliament, the Trustee, and the monarch's Governors, the scrutineers of Parliament as Trustees.

See also Reformation Day, October_31st; and Guy Fawkes / Bonfire Night, November 5 - Origins

As Constitutional Monarch, our Queen, her Courts, her federal Governor General, and her provincial Lieutenant Governors MUST REMAIN SILENT on political process. The totality of Legislative powers are granted only to Parliament.

The Queen retains the right , however to - on APPEAL regarding a potentially corrupt or tyrannical Government - to Order the Dissolution of Parliament and put the legislative process back into the hands of the people by calling an Election.

The British Monarch remains the Legal Guardian & Protector of her subjects' self-government against a Parliament or Court who for a time exercise her ABSOLUTE powers of legislation IN TRUST by virtue of their election.

The devolution of Monarchial powers to an elected Parliament began in Britain during the Crusades, was formalized in the Magna Carta in 1215, and became absolute with the Declaration of the Commonwealth in 1649 following the trial and Execution of Charles I for Treason.   (So should Activist Judges be tried!!!) These changes were pursued largely due to the availability and popularization in the common Languages of the Bible. Bible reading during the Reformation provided a documented Challenge to the claims that the Legislators ruled by "Divine Right".   Puritans like Cromwell sought to create a Congregational form of civil government with which to displace the Pontiffs of his day.

Charles I had unfortunately insisted on pursuing the European example in his use of the dreaded "Star Chamber" - a secret Court which could unlawfully impose any penalty in it's victims with impunity. Although formally abolished in subsequent years, lawyers tell us the Star Chamber continues to function within the Canadian Judiciary today as a not-so-secret Secret Society.

In the restored Monarchy of William and Mary, the English Bill of Rights, 1689, also required that the Sovereign cannot deny certain rights, such as Freedom of Speech in Parliament, Freedom from Taxation without Parliament's consent and Freedom from Cruel and Unusual punishment.

Many fathers, mothers & children would argue that the BC's "Ministries" routinely deal out "Cruel and Unusual Punishment".

The Courts and fellow Law professionals are firstly Librarians and Stewards of WRITTEN and pre-existing Common law having (since 1649) NO LEGISLATIVE POWERS.   Instead, Courts have turned the Law upside down, contrary to the will of Parliament, Solicitor Adrian Pellman

The Courts, Law Societies and other Offices of the Public Servant are themselves creations of Parliament by virtue of PARLIAMENTARY STATUTE to ADMINISTER the aggregate of Common and Statutory Law, but always with NO LEGISLATIVE POWERS.

Parliament is "Supreme" over the Courts & Public Servant. The Electorate is Supreme over Parliament at the end of a Term. Within a Term, the Electorate may Appeal to the Constitutional Monarch (who has NO Legislative powers) to Dissolve Parliament and Call an Election. This is our system, forged in 1649 that the World has envied and emulated. Since 1982, this remains unchanged with the possible exception of a Constitutional Amendment. To satisfy the Amending Formula, contending Provinces are invited to go to the SCC for Mediation.

We're not sure how an Appeal to the Queen post-1982 would work out because it has until recently been unnecessary. But if the SCC claims to have displaced Parliament in some fashion, it cannot claim to have assumed parliamentary powers without also assuming parliamentary vulnerability to removal upon Appeal of the Electorate. A Canadian Appeal goes first, of course to the Governor General. At any time, since 1982 the Notwithstanding Clause gives any Province the right to unravel the 1982 changes, and essentially revert back to the 1867 relationships. The SCC did NOT become "supreme" in 1982. 2003-06-15 If judges want to make policy, they should disrobe and run for office Judges must still confine themselves to the Law as it is written by Parliamentarians, not by Law Faculties nor by fellow Judges, nor by the dreaded Star Chamber. (which Courts claim permits them to commit crimes with impunity, Star Chamber. Judicial Immunity) The old Liberals created this viral threat to Canadian Representative Democracy by inviting the Judiciary to implement policies which would fail if exposed to the censorship of Parliament. The old Liberal Governments stood by and did NOTHING as the SCC began squatting on Parliament's Supremacy in Legislation and its derivative Policy. Liberal Leader Bill Graham continues to act as SCC Lackey while the Judiciary takes the reins of Power from our Parliament, moving Canadians without Liberal opposition towards Serfdom of the Electorate and a Judicial Neo-Feudalism. Young Opposition MPs need to ponder why they would follow Graham's continuing support for the SCC's squatting on Parliamentary Supremacy. Opposition MPs must SUPPORT the Government to remove Activist Judges as soon as they commit the Offence, to preserve Canadians' self government and international autonomy.

2006-05-10 Vellacott resigns aboriginal post, <Liberals support Supremacy of SCC>;

2006-05-10 Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott resigns as Chairman ... Aboriginal Affairs Committee, CPAC video

The Charter Revolution & the Court Party - Google Search by F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, Catharine A. MacKinnon

The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It
by Phyllis Schlafly
Summary of what has happened in Divorce Law since 1970, Adrian Pellman,LLB, UK; "Essentially, what has happened is that the Courts have virtually turned the Law upside down, contrary to the express intention of Parliament..."

Charter Rights of Natural Fathers ignored by Activist Judges

The most outrageous example of Judges usurping the role of Parliament is, of course these "New Priests" making the false claim that the Charter's protection against discrimination based on "sex" means protection against discrimination based on "sexual orientation". Does the Charter protect sexual orientations such as polygamists, pedophiles and bestiality? Of course not!

What the Charter DOES say is:

S.15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability.

S.28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to MALE and FEMALE persons.

The Charter makes absolutely NO REFERENCE to SEXUAL ORIENTATION. This is simply a wish of the Judiciary they have read into the Charter, while ignoring the clear wishes of the Electorate. On this point they have simply been taking care of their own. See: Egan v. Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similarly the Family Law Judges, in BC especially, typically ignore the Statutes of Parliament in the Divorce Act, which require Judges to remove custodial rights of a Parent who will not use those rights to maintain the relationship with the other parent, usually the mother, and assign those rights to the other parent, usually the father.

The Charter's usage of the word "sex" is as the common usage of "gender". The Charter's clear intent is that there to be no discrimination between male and female, even in such questions as Parenting.   The Courts are driven inexorably towards Equal Parenting by the Charter, the "Supreme Law of Canada". And yet they do not comply with our instructions to them in the Statutes of a duly elected Parliament.
2006-xx-xx Why Shared Parenting Should Be Implemented, Rinaldo Del Gallo

Father's and Charter Rights, Dave M, 2006

"...    The common law states this: "The father is the owner of the child, against the world, as against the mother".

The government of Canada states this:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on ... sex ....,   and

28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

So, the position of the law is sole paternal custody, the position of the Queen as personified by Parliament is that no one employed by government may discriminate based on gender, and yet, over ninety percent of the custody cases brought to court produce sole maternal custody orders. Effectively the Courts brought in divorce on demand and the presumption of sole maternal child custody in express defiance of Parliament. The lawyers and judges of Canada, in conspiracy and collusion with their professional "friends" around the world, (the example here is from Great Britain) have stated this: "nothing should change" from what they have decided on their own to do.

"The Courts have quite willfully frustrated the intentions Parliament. I was actually present at a seminar when the 1984 Act, which was supposed to have altered things, had just been produced and an eminent Barrister said that “it was the opinion of the judiciary that nothing should change”. Just as courts had turned the 1970 Act upside down they simply denied the spirit of the 1984 Act." The Pellman Brief Adrian Pellman, solicitor. 2003 Pellman's, 1 Abbey Street, Eynsham. Oxford. 0X6 1HR. Tel:01865-884400. Fax: 01865-8844.

What this adds up to is known as "Mixed War", a condition defined by Black's Law Dictionary as that in which a portion of the government (in this case the state paid and authorized courts) engages in hostile actions against a segment of the population (in this case fathers and/or married men). Normally, men know no choice but to fight against a declaration of war. The alternative is ignoble oblivion. However, ....

Being that males have a predisposition to 'protect' women and children, they have for far too long deferred to the predations that are being foisted upon them. And due to the subtlety of the propaganda war that is being waged ....

Men are being yoked and chained to slavery by the courts of Canada. Their love of their children and their own value to society are being held worthless by these courts because ..., well ..., hey! It's just business! ...   "      ..   David M, Surrey, BC

Judicial Activism & Tyranny

More: Issues: Breach of Trust;
Issues: Judicial Activism;
Issues: Judicial Interpretation;

Judicial Activism, Judicial Tyranny - Google Search

Supremacy of Parliament

2005-12-13 Criminal Code on Organized crime struck down my BC Government Directory, Heather Holmes, BCSC Judge

Judicial "Bench gods" Attack the Canadian Family

• Watch the CFAC VIDEO message "Canadian Judicial: "Bench gods" (2.8MB - WMF)

• Read the CFAC News Release (1-3-2007)
• Read the REAL Women of Canada Media Release (1-3-2007)
• Decision opens up 'Pandora's Box" for family law says Catholic Rights League (1-3-2007)
• Read the Institute for Canadian Values News Release (1-3-2007)
• Read this website by a woman raised by a homosexual parent (1-3-2007)
• My Father Was an Anonymous Sperm Donor by Katrina Clark, Dec 17, 2006, The Washington Post

2003-03-12 Heather Has 3 Parents, Stanley Kurtz

SCC Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin on Divine Right of Judiciary

2006-04-26 A Judge's Right <to Judicial Activism>, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin on Divine Right of Judges, SCC.pdf;

1609-xx-xx King James I, On Divine Right of Kings

1649-01-30 Charles I of England, Tried and beheaded for Treason;
Divine Right of <Judiciary>;

International Association of Women Judges;

National Association of Women Judges;

National Organization of Women

BC Judge & Pedophile, David Ramsey, Special Prosecutor

BC MP Svend Robinson, Special Prosecutor

BC Judges Mary Southin & Duncan Shaw support Pedophile rights

Byron Prior goes to Ottawa

More: Judicial Tyranny

2006-05-13 Judges rule supreme <McLachlin claims>, Michael Coren; "Let us be entirely candid here. ...   Consider this quotation: "The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. I believe that judges have the duty to insist that legislative and executive branches of government confirm to certain established and fundamental norms, even in times of trouble." The author? Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin ...   Soon after Rosalie Abella was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2004, of course, it told the government of Canada that opposition to gay marriage <and the expunging of NATURAL PARENTS' RIGHTS> was unconstitutional -- effectively forcing the hand of a Liberal party that had never once listed gay marriage as a policy and had in fact voted against it at all previous conventions."

In Commonwealth Countries virtually all Powers, including that of Legislation have since 1649 been removed from the Monarch and vested in Parliament, as Trustee for the Electorate. The vestigial powers of the Constitutional Monarch include Ordering a dissolution of Parliament on Appeal by the Electorate, precipitating an Election. Crimes of Treason once committed against the person of the Monarch, are now committed jointly against Crown & Parliament, supposing the Electorate has made no Appeal.

2006-05-xx Attack on judiciary shatters strategic silence, MP's shot at Chief Justice brings Conservative disdain for judges back into spotlight;

Another example of a Public Servant in Breach of Trust calling for the resignation of a duly elected Representative MP.   Removing an MP is the job of the Electorate, not some puffed-up Public Servant and her Cabal!   It is SCC Chief Beverly McLachlin, of course, who should have been forced to resign on penalty of criminal prosecution when she first moved into Judicial Activism.