"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.
A nine-year-old boy died after his mother spiked his hospital feed with salt to
mislead doctors about his illness, a court has heard.
Petrina Stocker, 42, of Romford, Essex, denies the manslaughter of her son
David Stocker.
Prosecutor Nicholas Hilliard told an Old Bailey jury David died in Great Ormond
Street Hospital in August 2001. A post-mortem examination found he
died of sodium chloride poisoning, despite being on a salt-free milk feed. At
the time of his death, David also had wasted muscles consistent with chronic
anorexia or chronic natural disorders.
Fabricate symptoms
Mr Hilliard said the salt poisoning was the last in a series of acts by Mrs
Stocker to hoodwink doctors looking after her son.
"In each, the defendant tried to fabricate aspects of David's illness, either
manufacturing false symptoms or inducing symptoms which would not otherwise be
there," he said.
"These are typical
examples of behaviour known as fabricated illness where one person seeks to
fabricate symptoms of illness in someone else" said
Prosecutor Nicholas Hilliard
David was first admitted to Oldchurch Hospital in Romford with stomach pains in
March 2001. The previously "fit and healthy child" had other
symptoms such as weight loss and lethargy, but doctors could not find out what
was wrong with him. He was later transferred to Great Ormond Street, where
doctors thought he might be suffering from a psychiatric illness. He was
discharged but was later readmitted and then moved again to Great Ormond Street.
Mr Hilliard said while David was in hospital, Mrs Stocker allegedly contaminated
samples of his urine and vomit and interfered with drips giving him drugs.
"It may seem extraordinary, but these are typical examples of behaviour known as
fabricated illness where one person seeks to fabricate symptoms of illness in
someone else," he told jurors.
'Deliberate tampering'
"The whole picture of what was happening whilst David was in hospital
demonstrates that the salt poisoning was the last event in a series designed to
produce misleading symptoms in him.
"This was sadly quite deliberate."
He said two milk bottles were most likely to have been tampered with in the ward
kitchen to which staff and parents had free access. The bottles were
examined after blood tests two days before David died showed high levels of
salt. One had contained four-and-a-half level teaspoons and David had
absorbed two teaspoons from another.
Mr Hilliard said: "The prosecution's case is that the reason for the high level
was that his mother had added salt to the special milk feed that was being given
to him."
"Why would anyone do such a thing to a nine-year-old child in hospital?...It
cannot be for any of the usual reasons. David had done no harm to anyone "
He said he was not suggesting Mrs Stocker was responsible for making David
unwell in the period before the salt was administered or that she meant to kill
her son.
But he added: "You must think there is an obvious risk to a sick child if you
add a large amount of salt to his feed."
Mr Hilliard said: "The question was, who had added the salt to his feed and why?
If it was deliberate, why would anyone do such a thing to a nine-year-old child
in hospital?
"It cannot be for any of the usual reasons. David had done no harm to anyone."
The trial was adjourned until Wednesday.
Petrina Stocker: Munchausen Mom kills son on IV
A nine-year-old boy died after his mother spiked his
hospital feed with salt to mislead doctors about his illness
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 
