"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.
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!!!
"THE leading family judge in England reinforced
the traditional view of marriage yesterday as he rejected an attempt by
two lesbians to have their Canadian wedding legalised in Britain.
.. Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson lost their High Court fight
to be recognised in law as a married couple. .. The British
couple used human rights laws to argue that the union should have full
legal status under English law. But Sir Mark Potter, President of the
Family Division of the High Court, also cited human rights legislation
in dismissing their application. .. He ruled that “to accord
a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly
in the face of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as fail
to recognise physical reality”. .. The
university professors,
who married while working in Vancouver in 2003, said that they were
“deeply disappointed by the judgment” and claimed that it perpetuated
discrimination." NOTE: Another example of Lesbians their
exercising the Courts to gain favorable precedents with NO STATUTORY
BASIS. Note also exchange of lawyers between the countries.
The UK Courts shouldn't allow Canadian Law or a Canadian Lawyer
presenting Canadian arguments in a UK Court. They should
immediately consider the possibility of trying for Treason anyone
pushing Canadian Law into UK Courts.
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
Childhood
Sexual abuse is a recurring theme. We take extreme issue with
Religious Training which obligates
sexual abuse victims to "Forgive" their Perps before the Truth is told
and the Perp repents. Quashing a victims' report often results in
Displaced Aggression, perhaps murder.
Absent
father is the most highly correlated background factor found in
homosexuals, both male and female. Absent Father is a
developmental, NON-genetic factor. If homosexuality were genetic
there should be NO correlation with developmental factors, and
these factors should show Statistical Independence. They don't.
Also highly correlated to homosexual males is the "Lastborn Male" (of
several
children)
factor, a clearly NON-genetic factor, and suggestive of fatherly
neglect. Female Serial Killers may be of the Lesbian variety, or
the "Black
Widow" type. For some reason, many women applaud the "Grey
Widow" type, which we believe would not be possible without the
gross negligence and Femi-Narcissism of Courts in Division of Assets and
it's concurrent violence to Inheritance provisions for children of a
previous marriage.
1.
Money (74%)
2. Control (13%)
3. Enjoyment (11%)
4. Sex (10%)
5. Drugs, Cult involvement, cover up, or feelings of inadequacy
(24%)
From
Female Serial Killers
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.
"The CCP is the darling of powerful
liberal-left special interest groups who are used to getting their way
if they make enough noise -- notably feminists, gay-rights activists and
aboriginals. .. The CCP may be funded by Canadian taxpayers,
but it has been taken over by the very special interest groups that are
its major beneficiaries. Aided by their ideological supporters in the
academic and legal communities, these "rights-seeking" advocacy
organizations use the program to fund court cases whose goal is a
radical interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ..
Most of the time, when such cases get to court, these left-leaning
government-funded organizations are opposed by traditionalist or
right-of-centre groups who receive no tax dollars to cover their legal
expenses.
"Please all watch May 15, & May
16, 2006 then give CBC feedback
liaison@cbc.ca or
cbcinput@cbc.ca. ... This
documentary is regarding CAS and it's power. As this story unfolds
exposing the Durham Children's Aid Society and the nightmare that
has rocked a kinship family it will carefully relate the gut
wrenching detailed story of the "Abuse of CAS's power" and a system
that is not held accountable by anyone. This show will reveal
the over drugging, and sexual abuse of a young boy, J while in the
"care" of the Durham CAS. ... As well
CBC will show how CAS covered up of the abuse, and the grandparents
$60,000.oo fight to get J out of the hands of the CAS. Plus many
more heartbreaking events concerning the Durham Children's Aid
Society located in Oshawa, Ontario. The dates are as follows for the
airing:
Monday May 15, 2006 and
Tuesday May 16, 2006 at 6:00 PM. LOCAL CBC Television as well as
Radio with 3 1/2 to five minute segments.
Tuesday May 16, 2006 at
10:00 PM with Peter Mansbridge on the National News about a 22
minutes time frame.
There are no words to describe
the suffering and the trauma that these children and grandparents
have endured." Thanks, Betty
"I receive death threats and abuse on a regular
basis. My address and phone number have been placed on the Internet by
gay militants and people told to harass and assault me. Jokes were made
when my father died, insults made about my family. ..I have been told by
editors and publishers that I will never work as a writer in various
places because I defend marriage. But I will not react in kind and I
will not surrender. I do, however, want people to know that there is
hatred at work."
www.EqualCustodyAct.com;
Dr. Mark Klein:
"Equal
Custody Act is a federal act Dr. Klein would propose which would give
equal rights to moms AND dads in custody cases. Currently men's civil
rights for the most part are being ignored in family courts. Dr. Klein
is currently in the "testing the waters" phase of a bid for the
presidency of the United States of America. Dr. Klein's key plank on his
platform is the Equal Custody Act. The Equal Custody Act will restore
civil rights to dads as the Civil Rights Act restored equal rights for
African Americans in the 1960's."
"Unfortunately,
disparate, decontextualized and
sometimes illegitimate findings can be easily cited and are often
employed to back up fallacious claims. Even cases of "scientific
studies"…demonstrate serious inconsistencies and indicate the enigmatic
nature of empirical research which is so often treated as "objective""
Dear
Members,
We have great news. There is a joint physical care bill that has
taken us completely by surprise. SF507 just passed out of the Senate
Judiciary committee and is now on its way to the Senate Floor. Below
is a copy of the bill that is exactly what we have been working for.
Since HF22 was passed into law (2004) we have been watching the
court rulings. What we have found is that most judges approved of
the law but a small few ignored it. One of them was Judge Pelton and
as you know we took action against him. The second thing we found is
that most judges do not find existing cases to qualify for joint
physical care. They claim that the bill is not considered a change
of circumstance; well the legislators appear to disagree with the
courts. SF507 will give every parent the right to request JPC, in
addition make it very difficult for the courts to deny it. This is a
very important bill and it needs your help for it to have a chance
to become law this year......
Senate
File 507
"Section 1. Section 598.41,
subsection 5, paragraph a, Code 2007, is amended to read as follows:
a. If joint legal
custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of
either parent during the proceedings on the initial dissolution
petition or during the proceedings on a modification of the original
custody border. A
rebuttable presumption exists that a request for
joint physical care by either parent is in the best interest of the
child, the burden of proof to rebut the presumption rests on the
party denying that joint physical care is in the best interest of
the child, and such party shall demonstrate that joint physical care
is not in the best interest of the child by clear and convincing
evidence. If the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that joint physical
care is not in the best interest of the child and denies the request
for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding
of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child. In
determining the best interest of the child relative to the denial of
a request for joint physical care, the court shall consider that the
best interest of the child includes the opportunity for maximum
continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both
parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the
child may result from this contact.
Existing Legislation: Iowa Code 2003: Section 598.41;
"1. a. The court, insofar as is reasonable
and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody
award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which
will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing
physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents
have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage
parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the
child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to
the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such
contact with one parent. ... "
Iowa's Bill HF22, Presumption of Joint Physical
Custody
"If joint legal custody is awarded
to both parents, the court may award joint physical care....
If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not
in the best interest of the child. b. If
joint physical care is not awarded under paragraph "a", and only one
joint custodial parent is awarded physical care, the parent
responsible for providing physical care shall support the other
parent's relationship with the child. Physical care awarded to one
parent does not affect the other parent's rights and
responsibilities as a joint legal custodian of the child.
Rights and responsibilities as joint legal custodian of the child
include, but are not limited to, equal participation in decisions
affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education,
extracurricular activities, and religious instruction."
In 1945, the United Kingdom implemented a program of
change at the hands of a new left wing government. The
structure of support built up in previous decades, the
way change was sold to the public, outcomes themselves
have much to teach us about America's future.....
These changes did not take place by accident. They were
planned by British cultural elites, particularly by
members of the
Fabian Society, who had worked for over a
half-century to promote the policies finally implemented
by Labour governments after 1945.
The Fabians advocated a gradual, democratic socialist
takeover rather than violent revolution. Fabians sought
control over more banal aspects of life -- transport,
utilities, medicine -- that were far less threatening to
the general public than the prospect of armed
revolution.
"Some even believe we are
part of a secret Cabal
working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing
my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others
around the world to build a more integrated global political and
economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I STAND
GUILTY, and I AM PROUD OF IT",
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.
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in the
lucrative 
