"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.
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!!!
Svend Robinson (right) cries while being supported by his partner
Max Riveron. Robinson claimed "stress" caused him to steal
the jewelry he intended to give his boyfriend. Robinson continues
to practice law in BC following a deal cut with his
Special Prosecutor.
Svend's
Bill C250 added Homosexuals to the super class of groups in Canada's
retarded "Hate Law". who
can destroy in Criminal Court regular Canadians for exercising
Free Speech.
Even France has rejected Homo-marriage (preferring
France's homosexuals to emigrate to Canada?!). International societies
of Women Judges & Lawyers appear to have designated Canada as the
globe's Homosexual habitat of choice:
Meijers Latest news about globalizing Homo-Marriage & Homo-Parenting;
Coming up: 26-29 June 2005, Toronto, Canada, the conference of the
International Lesbian and Gay Law Association (ILGLaw),
Fabian Society, Communitarian
"Wolves in Sheep's' Clothing"
Globalizing National Socialism (Nazism) since 1884
In June 1989,
Gisele Marie Goudreault, 46 disobeyed a court order to hand her son
Orey over to his father, Rod Steinmann of Ponoka, who had been awarded
custody. She fled with the boy to Mexico and lived there for four months
before moving to California. ... Justice Peter Martin condemned
Goudreault's behaviour,
which prevented Orey and his father from being together during the
child's formative years. "They had the right to know and
love each other. "That possibility was totally and irrevocably
destroyed," Martin said. "What this woman did to this man and this
child is every parent's nightmare."2004-02-19
US teen 'discovers own kidnap', BBC
Darrel
should be able to sue Justice Southin PERSONALLY for DAMAGES, but will
that ever happen? All members of the Law Societies have sworn
their First Allegiance to their Society members.
BC Liberals to provide
BC Judges and Lawyers with statutory changes to legalize many of the Courts' entrenched but presently
ILLEGAL Child
Trafficking and Extortion
rackets, while creating
more jobs for Social Workers..
Judicial Racketeering
will remain a Criminal Act, but crooked Judges will likely
continue to be protected by the crooked Law Societies.
They
say it is their
"Policy" to NEVER return OVERPAYMENTS on Child Support.
They say it is their "Policy" or to NOT
acknowledge Payments to the Payee directly without going through
their Office, saying such payments are "Gifts" only,
and will NOT be considered by them to be payments of Child
Support. They say their "Policy" of removing
Passports and Drivers' Licenses, and spreading around your SINs
to strangers NOT involved in taxation is justified by the
"Greater Good"of defending a
Child's Right to receive
Support Payments. They claim Themis is a "Creation of Statute",
exercising only the powers given it by Parliament. See
Issues: Breach of
Trust of a Public Officer, Criminal
Themis operates as
Chris Beresford's
mercenary
Bounty Hunter.
We have known of Moms who, having seen what Themis has done to
Dad, have waived payment of Child Support to stop
Themis' attacks, but Themis has refused to stop.
"Carol Rhodes, former Friend of the Court Investigator ...
recently did an interview with host Richard Farr on the
KRights.com Internet Radio station. Michigan Shared parenting
activist
Robert Pedersen of
A Child’s Right was also interviewed. To listen, click
here.
"I am writing on behalf of
Darrin Bruce White. I am the oldest of his four
children. My name is
Ashlee A D Barnett-White. ...
No one would listen to my father , no one
would give him a chance to speak. ... My dad was an abused
husband, he was abused by his wife, and the justice system.
... He was a kind man who fought a good fight but no matter
what he did or said, he could never win with this system.
Things need to change for all fathers going through this
same thing. We need to help, too many kids go without a
father because of this , too many kids are hurt."
Ashlee A D Barnett-White, Eldest Daughter
He was also paying $439 a month to support an
older
child from a previous marriage.
He had to take stress leave from his job as a train engineer
for BC Rail. Master Baker ordered Darren out of his home on
two days notice.
The common practice in BC Courts when Fathers
do not pay Child Support -
which most of the time is merely
Imputed - is to send non-paying Father to Prison until he
or his family members pay the fees imposed by the Judge.
Even when mothers agree that Child Support
should no longer be paid, we find that the
Family Enforcement
agencies, which are private contractors functioning as
Bounty Hunters, typically refuse to end their claim on the
father's income,.
Affirmative Action has made White Heterosexual Anglophone Males (WHAMs) a Class
of employment ineligibility & PC Hatred since 1980
"I get government cheques..... you stupid
Canadians.. I get government cheques.", Korean Realtor
Canadian Affirmative Action programs coupled with massive
immigration from "non-traditional" sources to accommodate UN commitments
precluded white males and many white females from employment and progressive
employment in government offices.
These same White Males are now routinely subjected to
Imputed
Income by Family court Judges - the majority of whom are beneficiaries of
Affirmative Action programs - when Dad's incomes aren't as high as the Judge
expects them to be.
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.