Remember, Remember the 5th of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot, I see no reason
why Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes thumbnail

    ● EP-BC Home About  Issues & Petitions  TaxCap Testimonials News  Reference Meetings  Fun Stuff Members


Issues Area Home

1215:  MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15TH
Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Surveilance
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
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, Thymerisol
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Credit Crisis, Currency Replacment
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dads
Disabled parents
DISS = Divorce Initiated Suicide Syndrome
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Enticement Seduction
Ex Parte Orders
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
Global Warming Fraud "Climategate"
Habeus Corpus Abandoned
"Hate Crime" Speech  Police
Homofacism
Homosexual Activism
Homosexual Marriage
"Human Rights” Commissions in Canada
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
Kinship Families & Grandparents raising Children
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
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Paternity Denied Fathers at Birth Registration
Paternity Fraud, Birth Registration
Pedophiles Fear Dads!!
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Pedophiles in Public Service
Petitions
Poofy Judges
Protestant Revolution, BBC
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homosexuals, 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
"Women's Shelters" Lesbian Gulags

Notable Authorities






Albrecht, Katherine :  RFID Spychips
Annett, Kevin: Child Trafficking in Beautiful BC
Asher, Jeffrey
Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken .. Custody
Baxter, Dorian: Canada Courtwatch
BC Conservatives
Beck, Glenn Beck: World Government
Bennett, Richard: Purpose Driven & Catholicism
Blick, Edward:  Global Warming & Marxism
Blumner,Court Ordered Sexism
Boys of St. Vincent <Mount Cashel>, NL
Burrows, Lynette: Homo Adoption
Carley, Dr. Rebecca: Vaccinations
Carr, William Guy:  Pawns in the Game
Christie, Doug:  Freedom of Speech, Assembly
Chopra, Dr. Shiv: Health Canada
Coulter, Ann: Free Speech
Cools, Senator Anne:  Lying Lawyers
Coffman, Dr. Michael:  Global Warming
Coleman, John:  Global Warming Fraud
Conspiracy of Silence, Boystown Pedophiles
Cromwell, Oliver: Supremacy / Parliament
Cuddy, Dennis L.
Cumbey, Constance :  New Age Nazism
Dodd, Norman:  NWO Fabian Socialists
Dutton, Don:  RADAR, "Rethinking DV"
EP-Australia
Federer, Bill: Endang'd Speeches, Quran
Farrell, Warren:  Why Men Earn More
Fischer, Greg:  Family Preservation Festival
Fogal, Connie:  No NAU
Forseth, MP Paul:  FTSOTC Panelist
Fromm, Paul:  Free Speech, CAFE
FTSOTC 48 Recom's
Gage, Richard: Architects & Engineers 9/11
Gairdner William
Galloway, Roger:   FTSOTC Panelist
Geldof, Sir Bob:  The Love..
Gerrish, Brian:  EU's "Common Purpose"
Griffin, G. Edward:  Fed Reserve
Grignon, Paul:  "Money As Debt"
Gunderson, Ted:  FBI
Haeck, Lisa:  Sexual Abuse
Haines, Bruce, QC: Justice Review
Hiebert, MP Russ:  Human Rights Commission
Hill, MP Jay: EP Legislation
Hinton , Betty:  Status of Women's "Hit List"
Howse, Torm
"In a Small Town" Pedophile Boy Scouts
Iserbyt, Charlotte: Dumbing Down
Jones, Alex
Kay, Barbara, National Post
Kennedy, John F:  targeted, Assassination 1963
Kernberg, Dr. Otto: Personality Disorder
Keyes, Alan :
Kruk, Edward: Child Custody
Leslie, Sarah: "Pied Pipers of Purpose"
LInde, Carey: Statutory Ammendments
Lively, Scott:  "Pink Swastika"
Luther, Martin: "Sola Scriptura"
Martin, Malachi: Globalization, Occult
McManus, John:  Stopping NAU
McKay, Dr. Marty
McLean, Candis
MacKenzie, Rob:  "Paul Revere Ride", EP Trek 2006
McQuaid, Robert: Fix Children's Aide Society, CAS
Millar, David
Mills, Dennis:  Former MP Targetted by Homsexuals
Monckton, Lord Christopher
Monarchy, David Starkey
Monteith, Dr. Stanley:  Tax Exempt Foundations
Murtari, John:  Hunger Striker for Time with Son
Nash, Dave:  Cross Canada Run
Nazanin:  Persian Beauty for a Free Iran
Neufeld, Gordon: Hold - Kids
Nicolosi, Joseph:  Treatment of Homosexuality
O'Connor, Matt: Original F4J-UK
PAFE = Planetary Alliance for Fathers in Exile
Palin, Sarah
Paul, Dr. Ron:  Sound Money
Peck, Dr. Scott: "People of the Lie"
Pedersen, Rob: EP Bike Trek US, 2007
Pellman, Adrian, LLB:  Judicial Activism
Perloff, James: Shadows of Power
Phenomenon: The Lost Archives
Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam
Plywood Man, NWT
Quigley, Carroll: Banking, Globalization
Rhodes, Carol: Friend.Court = Enemy. Family
Riplinger, Gail: Luciferian Bibles
Roberts, Carey
Roberts, Elise
Roscoe, Peter:  Judicial Bigotry
Russo, Aaron: NAU, CFR, Rockefellers
Ruppert, Michael C
Saburido, Jacqueline:  Don't Drink
Sacks. Glenn
Secret Files of the Inquisition
Schlafly, Phyllis:  Global Governance
Simons, Frank: Courts From Hell
Schafer, Nancy:  Child Trafficking at CPS
Simpson, Kari:  Road Kill Radio
Smith, Ron:  DC Rally, Drugging of Children
Soever, Alar
Sodhi, Eeva
Somerville, Margaret:“Same-Sex Marriage”
Still, Bill:  "Money Masters", "The Mystery of Oz"
Stopps, Gordon  Vs Just Ladies, BCHRT
Stormer, John:  Betrayed ..  Bench
Story, Christopher:  "Perestroika Dec.
Sutton, Anhony:  Wall Street & Hitler
Taylor, Captain Tony:  F4J-US "Fatherless Day"
Trociuk Darrell, BC Birth Registration
Tyndale, William, "God's Outlaw", RIP 1536
V for Vendetta / Guy Fawkes the Hero
Vellacott, MP Maurice
Ventura, Jesse:  Conspiracy Theory
Vieira, Dr. Edwin:  Fiat Empire
Wagener, William
Warren, Elizabeth: Collapse Middle Class
Watson, Paul:  EU's Nazi  Origins
William III & Mary II:  "Bill of Rights" 1689
Wooldridge, Nancy:  Canadian Grans
Zepezauer, Frank:  Feminist Crusades

Your Articles

Let Ex Husbands Be Fathers
Perception vs Reality
Some Facts...
Both Parents Vital
Broken Homes, Bleak Future
Justice Review
Fatherneed
Rights of fathers Ignored?

Petitions, Class Action

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

thetruthandjusticefoundation.org

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

BC Statutory Amendments

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 grants Rights Responsibilities 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, Pedophile Parliamentarian & 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

















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 Guy Fawkes thumbnail"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::

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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

  4.  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.

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

  6. 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.

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

  8. 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

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 "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." 

Dave Nash, "Cross Canada Run" Equal Parenting Trek 2010


Dave Nash Single Parent Show Interview (March 11/2010) - Part 1.wmv

Dave Nash Single Parent Show Interview (March 11/2010) - Part 1.wmv

Dave Nash Single Parent Show Interview (March 11/2010) - Part 2.wmv

Petition For Equal Shared Parenting Family Law Reform In Canada

Petition For Equal Shared Parenting Family Law Reform In Canada

To:  The House of Commons of Canada

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Michael Ignatieff – Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe - Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton – Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Elizabeth May – Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson
The House of Commons of Canada in Parliament Assembled

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, Citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to the following:

THAT WHEREAS the Canadian Family Justice System is failing Children and their Families by creating an adversarial atmosphere that is contradictory to the best interests of children. As Canadian Family Court Judge, Justice Harvey Brownstone stated in an interview with CBC’s Susan Ormiston, “My position is that the Family Court is the last place that parents in conflict should be going to, to convert themselves from ex-partners, to co-parents. That is what they need to do, and it doesn't happen in a courtroom, because a courtroom sets parents up to wage war, not peace, and for the sake of their children, their children need their parents to be at peace."

WHEREAS the Canadian Government is failing Children by refusing to fulfill its legal obligation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed on May 28th, 1990 and consented to on December 13th, 1991. As it stands today, Canada is failing its children in regards to its Family Law practices, on 19 specific articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

WHEREAS the Canadian Government is failing Children by refusing to reform the Family Law system in Canada, by continually ignoring repeated proposed legislation calling for Family Law reform in this country; such as the reccomendations put forth in the 1998 report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access entitled, “For The Sake Of The Children”, as well as the Honourable Jay Hill’s Private Members Bill, Bill C-245, that was introduced before Parliament in October of 2002.

Upon introducing Bill C-245 before the House Of Commons, Mr. Hill stated, "Shared parenting should not be awarded only under special circumstances, but it should be granted under all circumstances, except in cases of proof of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or if it is not in the best interests of the child. Child custody remains an important issue to many Canadians. This bill aims to force change in an area the government continues to ignore."

WHEREAS the Federal Government of Canada is now being given another opportunity to finally put Children’s best interests forward with the introduction of an Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill, Bill C-422, that was introduced before Parliament on June 16th, 2009, by M.P. Maurice Vellacott of Saskatoon. Bill C-422 would reform the Divorce Act, and make Equal Shared Parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children.

Upon introducing Bill C-422 before parliament, Mr. Vellacott stated, “Unfortunately many Canadian Families experience the break up of a marriage, and when this happens the results can be devastating to children. Children are caught in the middle, but should not be used as a weapon, or alienated from one of the parents. Aside from proven abuse or neglect, Canadians want Equal Shared Parenting to be the presumption in our courts when marriages break up, because it is in the best interests of children, and because it is part of an enlightened equality agenda.”

WHEREAS Bill C-422 is very important in bringing Canadian legislation in line with what the best research says about the best interests of children. In his December 2008 research paper, CHILD CUSTODY, ACCESS & PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: The Search For A Just And Equitable Standard, Professor Edward Kruk of The University of British Columbia states, “Children of divorce want equal time with their parents and consider shared parenting to be in their best interests. Seventy per cent of children of divorce believe that equal amounts of time with each parent is the best living arrangement for children, and children who have had equal time arrangements have the best relations with each of their parents after divorce.

WHEREAS the vast majority of the Canadian public, 78 percent, supports Equal Shared Parenting legislation, with a high of 86 percent in the province of Quebec, and among supporters of major Political Parties in Canada, Equal Shared Parenting is supported by 78 percent of Conservatives, 78.5 percent of NDP’s, 80.6 percent of Liberals and 83 percent of Bloc Quebecois.

WHEREAS the Conservative Party’s own Policy Declaration states in section K, under the title SOCIAL POLICY, #69, “The Conservative Party believes that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act should grant joint custody, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should be allowed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and Grandchildren, unless it is demonstrated not to be in the best interest of the child.”

WHEREAS Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has written, “These groups demanded that the custody and access regime created by the Divorce Act of 1985 be replaced with a shared parenting regime in which both parents are given equal rights to bring up their children. These are sensible and overdue suggestions, and the fact they are being made shows that men and women are struggling to correct the rights revolution, so that equality works for everyone.”

THEREFORE, your petitioners request that the Canadian Government stop failing the children of this country, and that the House of Commons in Parliament assembled revise the Divorce Act and pass Private Members Bill C-422, to ensure that the best interests of children are put forth in our courts, by making Equal Shared Parenting the normative determination in dealing with situations of divorce involving children. We also request that adequate judicial training and accountability be implemented to ensure compliance with the legislation and the will of Parliament.

Sincerely,

Petition For Equal Shared Parenting Family Law Reform In Canada

2009-10-08

Hello Everyone. My name is Dave Nash, and on April 25th, 2010, Parental Alienation Awareness Day, I will attempt to break the Guiness World Record for the Fastest Crossing of Canada on Foot (Male). The current record is 72 days, 10 hrs and 23 min. It was set from June 21st, to September 1st, in 1991 by Al Howie, who ran across Canada, from St John's, Nfld, to Victoria, BC, a distance of 7295.5 km (4,533.2 miles).

I am attempting to break this World Record to raise awareness about our Country's FAILING and BROKEN, so-called "Family" Justice System, as well as our Governments' UNWILLINGNESS and OUTRIGHT REFUSAL to reform the system for the sake of our children.

Furthermore, I am attempting to break the World Record for the Fastest Crossing of Canada on Foot to help get your support as a Canadian Citizen, for an Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill, Bill C-422, that was introduced before Parliament on June 16th, 2009, by MP, Maurice Vellacott of Saskatoon.

Bill C-422 would reform the Divorce Act, and help put Children's best interests forward by making Equal Shared Parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children.

I ask you, don't the Children of Divorce deserve the right to have an Equal Relationship with both their Mother and their Father???

If you believe that Children do, then please visit http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com/ to see how you can help ensure that Equal Shared Parenting becomes the Law in Canada.

I thank you in advance for your support.

 
Dave Nash

 

Dave Nash, "Cross Canada Run" Equal Parenting Trek 2010

Dave Nash, run - Google Search;
Dave Nash, run - Google Video

Petition For Equal Shared Parenting Family Law Reform In Canada

2010-07-14 Runner crossing Canada for kids’ right to parents Canada News Winnipeg Sun

More:  Issues:  Nash, Dave: Cross Canada Run 2010

"Child's Right" or "Parents' Right"

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.

This is why they are using the Nazi vocabulary of "Rights & Responsibilites" instead of "God-Given Rights" of Common Law, and conditioning you to  "Child's Rights" & "Parental Responsibilities".

More:  Issues:  "Child's Right" or "Parents' Right" ;
 Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake";
News:  Hertzman, Clyde: World Bank Consultant;
News:  OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Global Prosperity Shared Globally

Edward Kruk:  Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility

edward kruk, ubc - Google Search edward kruk, ubc - Google Videos

2008-12-xx_Kruk-Child-Custody(full).pdf

More:  Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake"

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

Themis Ltd."  Mercenary Bounty Hunters for FMEP, Chris Beresford, Director

 

Themis Ltd. & Themis Inc. are PRIVATE Subsidiaries of Maximus Inc.

EPT: ANGUS, Bob: Passport Removal & SIN Publishing by FMEP, 2010

Themis Ltd.(CA)  & Themis Inc. (US). are PRIVATELY owned subsidiaries of Maximus Inc. It's documents are NOT open to the public

Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, Chris Beresford, Director
Phone: (604) 660-2528


More:  News:  Themis Ltd. & Themis Inc.;
News:  Maximus Inc;
Issues:  FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement Program;
Issues:  Imputed Income;
Issues:  Poofy Judges;
Issues:  Homosexual Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation

Clyde Hertzman, MD:  World Bank Consultant, Human Early Learning Partnerships

Clyde Hertzman, World Bank - Google Search;
Clyde Hertzman - Google Video

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.

Human Early Learning Partnerships - Google Search;
Human Early Learning Partnerships - Google Video

More:  News:  Hertzman, Clyde: World Bank Consultant;
News:  OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Global Prosperity Shared Globally

Bob Angus:  Passport Removal & SIN dissemination by Themis/ FMEP

EPT: ANGUS, Bob: Passport Removal & SIN Publishing by FMEP, 2010

More:  Meetup: EPT: ANGUS, Bob: Passport Removal & SIN Publishing by FMEP

Family Maintenance Enforcement Program,
FMEP

 

FMEP, Family Maintenance Enforcement - Google Search;
FMEP, Family Maintenance Enforcement - Google Videos

More:  Issues:  FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement Program;
Issues:  Imputed Income;
Issues:  Poofy Judges;
Issues:  Homosexual Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation

Child Support Tables are Hyper-inflated, Orders are Doubled

Status of Women's Fraud

After much wrangling with SOW, the rapacious Child Support Tables and the  removal of Punitive measures for False Allegations were accepted by the Joint Senate-Commons Committee on Child Custody and Access for passage into Law, ON CONDITION that passed with it would be the Equal Shared Parenting Legislation.   We are told the thinking was that with Equal Parenting in place, the Child Support Tables would become insignificant.

The Liberal Government, however,  double crossed the Committee by splitting the compromised Bundle and and passing alone the Child Support Tables. while "tabling" the Equal Shared Parenting Legislation.

Geologist Alar Soever later analyzed  the Tables in 2002-04-02  Child Support Tables, Alar Soever

2004-02-19  Hedy Fry (SOW) fights fairness in Custody

More Child Support Fraud;
Letters to MP: I have $104.58 left over after paying child support;
Testimonials: Darren White, RIP
Testimonials:  Mark Dexel, RIP of Kamloops, BC;
Testimonials:  Manley, Perry:  RIP
Testimonials:  Jeffery, Hal & Danica
Issues:  Custody Orders not Enforced;
Issues:  Parental Alienation Syndrome;
Issues:  Imputed income;
Issues:  Child Support Fraud;
Issues:  Debtors' Prison Reinstituted
 


     
Copyright 2002  equalparenting-bc.ca 

 

        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.