"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.)
"The
topic assigned to me this morning is
"Paradigm Shifts in Law and Changing
Philosophical Perspectives."
This assignment requires a study of
how the gigantic strides in other fields of human knowledge have
affected and continue to affect law in general and judicial doctrines in
particular....
"Let
me begin with
the well-known caveat that,
traditionally. laws and judicial
decisions are territorial in scope
and are binding only within the
country of the issuing authority.
This concept flows from the
centuries-old view that sovereignty
is absolute within a state's
boundary.However. the advances of
science, the cross-pollination of
technology, and the realities of our
ever-shrinking world have gradually
assaulted this doctrine.
A
new paradigm has emerged. demanding
the universalization of laws and of
the judicial rulings interpreting
them....
<Who's demanding this
universalization? The Judges
only!!!?>
"Verily.
issues concerning diverse subjects like
international trade. banking, intellectual property, immigration, human
rights. human dignity and criminal law enforcement have built up a
burgeoning literature on the subject of
judicial globalization. One of
the leading academics in this field.
Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter of
Harvard Law School, says that
modern judges should "see one
another not only as servants or even representatives of it particular
government or party, but as fellow professionals in a profession that
transcends national borders.
...
<TREASON!!!!!>
Judicial globalization, sometimes referred to as
''World
Constitutionalism"
or more simply as
"international judicial cooperation".
is
necessitated by the basic similarities of issues facing many courts all
over the world at present."
In
May 2002, the Bush administration “un-signed” the
Rome Statute, the multilateral treaty paving the way for a
permanent
International Criminal Court (“ICC”) by declaring invalid
President Clinton’s signing of the same treaty during his final
day in office.
Subsequently, President Bush signed
the
American Service members’ Protection Act (“ASPA”), a law
designed to ensure that American and allied soldiers and
government officials would not be subject to the jurisdiction of
the ICC. By August 2003, the Bush administration had
signed bilateral “impunity agreements” with more than
thirty-five countries guaranteeing that United States troops
would be immune from the prosecutorial reach of the ICC.3
Likewise, the United Nations resolution authorizing the
deployment of a multinational force to Liberia, which was
sponsored by the United States and adopted by the Security
Council on August 1, 2003, contained language guaranteeing any
U.S. troops immunity from the
International Criminal Court.
Interestingly,
the media debate surrounding the Bush administration’s
controversial rejection of the ICC highlights a sharp
ideological schism regarding the role the United States should
play in the creation and implementation of a permanent
international criminal tribunal. While some commentators argue
that the creation of a supranational criminal court is
inevitable in the modern global context, and the United States
should not shirk its responsibility to contribute to
the legitimization and development of such a court,
others
argue that the sovereignty of the United States would be invaded
by a court wielding universal jurisdiction to try global crimes.
This debate represents a contemporary moment in an ongoing
philosophical discourse about the meaning of sovereignty as it
applies to the nation-state—a discourse altered dramatically by
global denationalization.
"Anyone who knows anything of
history knows that great social
changes are impossible without
feminine upheaval. Social
progress can be measured exactly
by the social position of the
fair sex, the ugly ones
included."
-- Karl
Marx
With barely four years of legal practice under her belt (none of
it in the Courtroom apparently) it's hard to think of a better example
of how
Affirmative Action has gone wrong than the case of
Beverly McLachlin.
Breach of trust by public officer
122.
Every official
who, in connection with the duties
of his office, commits fraud or a
breach of trust is guilty of an
indictable offence
and liable to
imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, whether or not
the fraud or breach of
trust would be an offence if it were committed in
relation to a private person.
The case law
preferred by Pound and his followers allowed them to
slip out from under the constraints of the timeless and
universal precepts foundational to the Common Law. Case
law <claim the Judges> allows judges to “make law.” One
of Pound’s followers, <former>
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, made this
amazing statement: “We are under
a constitution, but the constitution is what we <Judges>
say it is.”
"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.
"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.
A beautify of English
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
likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying in Courts
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 be Lawmakers..
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 then in
existence.. This was done with a view to aggregate
existing various customs into a unified system of Justice.
The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their administration of
Common Law
were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and
Danelaw
The process of documentation took
only a couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC
body of law which historical, popular, and has served for
centuries as a Benchmark against which new
Statutory Law may be measured and perhaps mollified in
"Fairness".
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.
going
beyond the
strict
letter of the Constitution to strike down laws
