Cause or Consent, no Child shall be removed
from a Natural Parent!!!
"Two Equal Parents may .. agree to unequal Parenting
Time, but this does NOT impugn the Parental Authority of either
Natural Parent relative to Third Party Interlopers.
1. The Bottom Layer: The Initial
Equal Parenting Agreement
Equal Parenting Agreement creating full time, all time equality
of both natural parents, subordinate to no third parties (a
Constitutional right ignored by most Family Courts); a series of
Parenting Timetables for each year and statement of intent, or
"Wishes"; the requirement that the tentative Parenting Timetable
laid out there will be reviewed and finalized annually and
incorporated into the
Annual Parenting Supplement. Parental authority and
discretion is always equal and unaffected by inequalities of
Parenting Time allocations.
2. Middle Layer: The Annual
Supplement & its Parenting Timetable
3. Top Layer: Autonomy of Both Equal
Parents on all matters not previously Constrained.
Parenting Timetable alternates all residual parenting questions
between the two otherwise equal parents who are subordinate to no
third parties. Full autonomy of each parent during their
Parenting Time as allotted in the agreed Parenting Timetable on all
residual parenting questions not previously constrained by Covenants
in the initial Equal Parenting Agreement, or the current Annual
Parenting Supplement. Full discretion on residual parenting
with the Timetabled Parent, but flexibility encouraged and provided
by Ad Hoc Agreements.
This is a Judge practicing his sexual orientation
for decades while on the BC Bench. It is inconceivable that
the Law Enforcement officers and other Judges were unaware of all
his activities. Law Enforcement Officers, are of course unable
to act without the support of the Judiciary.
The university community tells us that at least
one of the Status of
Women university profs is not just
a run of the mill Communist... she's a self professed
MAOIST!!! The difference we're told is that a MAOIST
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.
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
Bounty Hunters, typically refuse to end their claim on the
"Lohstroh, a 41-year-old
emergency-room doctor, was shot in the back Friday when he went to
pick up his two sons at their mother's home. Police say the
10-year-old boy climbed into the back of his father's sport utility
vehicle, fired a pistol several times through the back of the
driver's seat and then ran back inside the home."
NOTE-2006: Jeff called to say the crises have passed as a
consequence only of the passage of time. Danica has now left
for College. He has cut his losses and is trying to find some
happiness in what he has left. Apart from the Imputed Income and
rematerialized Debtor's Prison issues and their Damages to Jeff
personally, Jeff points out that the Child Support Tables make no
provisions for children of the Father from a previous marriage. If
a Father is made homeless by being ravaged by our BC Family Courts (an
every day experience!), so is a Child of the Father when they are of a
Jeff Hall''s Danica Petition
to put a stop to BC Judges who deny fathers
from also "imputing" income to the newly non-custodial
Father to arbitrarily raise the mother's Claim for
Child Support. BC Judges currently use Imputed Income,
Wrongful Attribution of
Court Costs (Looser/Dad pays Court Costs) and Wrongful Reclamation of Legal Aide Costs to
threaten Fathers who contemplate going into their Courtrooms
to fight for Equal Parenting with punitive
consequences for being the male Parent. This
gives Judges extraordinary political power to
intimidate and break down Canadian families who might not
otherwise fear a Judge. Fathers who are preoccupied
with getting past the Industry to see their children are the
easiest victims of punishing Judges. When the imaginary
moneys are not materialized into real dollar payments to
mothers, BC Judges may throw fathers into
We have received
numerous e mails requesting an update so I will deal with this here as
We are currently awaiting judgment to
find out if I'm to go to jail for failing to pay support based on non
existent income-after being stripped of all assets at the end of four
years of litigation.
On November 17,
2004, matters came before Justice Saunderson in Courtenay BC. Because
jail was involved I was appointed counsel through Legal Aid. Because of
the particulars of our case counsel was secured in Victoria - a 4 hour
drive from Courtenay, to ensure that our counsel that was at arm's
length from local lawyers (my ex's boyfriend amongst them). Two days
before the hearing I discovered that our counsel knew all of the
lawyers involved very well - having practiced beside them in Courtenay for ten years . Because of this, separate from what our counsel
was doing, as insurance I filed an affidavit on the morning of the
hearing (not before) which contained:
transcripts confirming our evidence had never even been read by
the court (let alone considered);
Letters from so many employers that an officer of the
court exclaimed they'd never seen anything like it in 30 years.
was reserved. That was 73 days ago and I've not heard a peep.
"I may still go to jail but I will
have at least shredded the myth that any of this has anything to do with
justice or the well being of children....."
Jeff does volunteer work
behind the scenes for parents on Hornby Island and in Courtenay. Jeff is
also a volunteer at the Community Justice Centre in Courtenay and is
certified in conflict resolution from the Justice Institute in New
At the moment the best
encapsulation of Jeff and Danica's Testimonial are represented by his links
shown here. Writing a Testimonial is always extremely difficult, and
often so overwhelming it cannot be prepared until years after the abuses
occurred. For Jeff and Danica the abuses are ongoing.
We hope that in due course, we can present a clear concise Testimonial for
what Jeff & Danica have gone through to bring them to the point that they
are now facing jail time as BC Court's "solution" to the problem of non-payment
of Child support based on Imputed Income.
Imputed Income is
income Hal's Judge deemed him to be making for the purposes of determining
Hal's child support payments for two younger children the Judge disallowed
Jeff to parent himself. If fathers' real incomes result in child
support payments that the Judge feels is too low, some Judges will
arbitrarily "Impute (deem / attribute / assign) income"
to fathers to boost his indebtedness above that required by the already
"Fraudulent" Child Support Payments.
In Jeff & Danica's case,
failure to pay child support based on his Judge's imaginary income has now
resulted in Hal's being imprisoned one week per month until his back
payments have been repaid.
The true purpose of Law
is not to abolish or restrain ...
but to preserve and
John Locke 1632-1704
have decided not to defend myself further in Committal hearings. I am
now choosing to accept a jail term of one week for each month I fail to
pay support based on equations which grant no consideration for a child who exists
in my care - and imputed income which doesn't.
On November 17th 2004, in Courtenay BC, I will
simply inform the court I submit to the punishment my government
deems just and reasonable in discharging its duties to protect our
children - based on the evidence already in its possession.
This evidence INCLUDES.
1. Accusations of extortion which left us
undefended in the midst of hearings - a crime which never occurred
2. Letters from numerous employers (including
two protesting imputed income awards)
3. Photographic evidence and third party
testimony confirming that Danica was very much a part of this family until
litigation began in April 2000 - despite testimony which claimed ties
were severed 6 years ago ... in October 1994.
4. Court transcripts displaying the FMEP
garnisheed income and continued litigation during a period it was expressly
forbidden to do so by the Supreme Court.
5. Court transcripts which display no hearing
a) our properties before they were stripped
from us; and,
b) Danica's Application FOR
consideration under sections 8,5, or 10 of guidelines
though the application was still judged to
be a 'RUSE'.
I submit to this punishment knowing not what
else to do. Further hearings only destroy us by attrition - and I don't
know how to recover from the position we've been left in.
HOWEVER, I DO
THIS WITH A CALL TO SIGN AND PASS ON
OF WHAT IS JAILING
SO MANY FATHERS THESE DAYS
2004-11-17 Hall Hearing in Courtenay, Judgment on Debtors Prison
Reserved by JUSTICE SAUNDERSON
FMEP COUNSEL AL LESLIE (ACCOMPANIED BY EX) PUSHED FOR JAIL TERM
DEFENDED BY DISPLAYING OUR EVIDENCE WAS NEVER EVEN
LOOKED AT IN SUPREME COURT BY JUSTICE SINGH -
<Editor's Note: It is a commonly reported of BC Judges that
evidence offered in the Defense of Fathers is left unread and discarded.
They then make arbitrary Judgments in boilerplate with no reading of the
Defense. This they do in breach of
Fundamental Justice >
THOUGH WE WERE TREATED AS IF OUR EVIDENCE HAD BEEN HEARD AND MATTER DEALT WITH
WHEN WE CAME BEFORE JUSTICE HIGGINBOTHAM IN THE LOWER COURT - AND HE SENTENCED
JUDGMENT WAS RESERVED BY JUSTICE SAUNDERSON -
AWAITING VERDICT - PROBABLY NEXT WEEK
FOR THOSE CURIOUS - HERE IS AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
SORRY TO BE SO BORING THESE DAYS
DEMOCRACY MUST BE MORE THAN TWO WOLVES
AND A SHEEP VOTING ON WHAT TO
HAVE FOR DINNER
settlement can be reached and Jeff Hall is incarcerated at the end of
four years of litigation in S 5373 / E0 387 / and F 6192 - I am asking
that a full and independent public enquiry be conducted with respect to
these proceedings given evidence whichseems to indicate:
That Jeff and Danica were left without counsel right in the middle of hearingsbased
on unfounded of accusations of criminal activity (amongst other things)
which resulted in them losing any opportunity to resume an adjourned
trial before their properties foreclosed on less than 24 hours later.
2. That Danica remained a
part of the family after separation in 1994 - and contact was
litigation began in April 2000. (one presumes for financial reasons
3. That litigation and the
garnisheeing income was engaged in by a publicly funded independent corporation
(the FMEP), during a period the Supreme Court had expressly forbidden
4. That litigation throughout hearings sought
more than there was to lay claim to, compelling
court hearings which could not possibly
benefit either side of the family - only those paid for court
In addition, we protest any parent being sent to jail for failing to pay
support based on 'IMPUTED' rather than actual income. We also ask
that counsel be appointed Danica Jan Hall (to commence legal action
on her behalf),
against those who have
from endless litigation being brought against her father which denied
her her most basic of human rights for the last four years.
After decades of being encouraged to
become a part of our children's lives and investing our hearts,
fathers have discovered how undervalued all this has turned out to
be. The father's movement isn't against anything at all -
it's about loss and doing our best to speak for something
The chance to hang out with our sons
without argument or them becoming 'custody chips' for barter -
and knowing the delight of our youngest daughters, helped to remain
part of our lives even in hard times, who know they are safe
enough with us to confide in whispered asides .... 'that jokes are
way funnier when you get them'.
It's also about standing up
to the untold harm being inflicted on by highly influential parties
with a vested interest in promoting conflict - not solving it.
I ask you - and I challenge you -
to read what you find at the above links. Pray by the end you will
come to see the need for moms and dads everywhere to stand together
- now more than ever - and then sign this petition given common cause.
Jeff and Danica Hall
Jeff & Danica Hall: Imputed
Income, Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Courtenay Father to be sent to "Debtors Prison" for
non-payment of child support on "Imputed Income".
Daughter of previous marriage homeless
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
agencies, which are private contractors functioning as
Bounty Hunters, typically refuse to end their claim on the
Affirmative Action has reduced White Heterosexual Anglophone Males (WHAMs)
to an underclass for program 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
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.
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH
the ideas that the State assigns
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.
"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
I, Harold Arthur Hall, of
375 21st St, Unit 1, Courtenay, BC, do swear and make oath as
Per Exhibit ”A”
filed herein, I offer the court evidence of continuing efforts to secure
gainful employment. This exhibit is divided into two parts. Part one
contains letters received from employers from August 11, 2004 to
date. Part two contains applications made prior to the hearings before
Justice Higginbotham, submitted to the affidavit record for hearing in
the Supreme Court in EO 387 on July 27. 2004, before Justice Singh.
Per Exhibit “B”
filed herein, contains letters confirming continuing volunteer work to further
my re-training in conflict resolution.
However, despite the above, I
cannot help but feel the court has become hostile to me as a result of
material contained in the above application in EO 387, not being looked at
because I did not file a ‘brief’ for this hearing.
Based on this, I have
resigned myself to incarceration and have made provision for the child in my
full time care, Danica Jan Hall (temporary foster care under Kith and Kin
provisions with the Ministry of Children and Family Development).
At present we continue to
exist on roughly $1,000 per month for the two of us (per my Affidavit and
financial statement filed on June 10, 2004, in EO 387).
BACKGROUND / Supreme Court EO
The last time we feel our
evidence was considered was on Oct. 3, 2003. At this time Madam Justice
Balance saw fit to vary the order of Justice Shabbits of Feb. 22, 2001. She
reduced imputed income from $35,000 to $22,000 effective March 1, 2003, and
varied child support owing to the Plaintiff by myself downwards from $ 504
to $ 328/ month, per Exhibit “C” filed herein, para 1 and 2.
At this time, the portion of
my application to further reduce or cancel additional child maintenance
arrears, was adjourned generally, per exhibit C above, para 3.
At this time, Madam Justice
Balance also ordered all further child maintenance arrears enforcement be
stayed for a period of 8 months ( to June 1, 2004), with the exception
of $98.70 per month being garnisheed from my pension , per Exhibit “C” above
In her Oral reasons for
Judgment, Madam Justice Balance made the following observations with respect
to a) the initial award of Justice Shabbits - b) my
efforts to secure gainful employment - and c) the hardship being
suffered by this side of the family, describing our situation as “tortured”,
per Exhibit “D”
EXCERPT / SUPREME COURT
/ E0 387 / Oct 3, 2003
Oral Reasons for
prospects appeared optimistic. However the evidence before me
indicates that such optimism was ill-founded’ … ;
‘the scope of
his employment inquiries include, but have not been limited to work in
the specialized area
of mediation. As well, he has not confined his search for employment to
the Vancouver Island area, but
has branched out and applied for positions in Vancouver and other
parts of the Lower Mainland …’.
unanticipated difficulty encountered by Mr. Hall in finding
remunerative employment, despite
his relatively good efforts, could not have reasonably been known at the
time that the February 2001
order was made.
I conclude that there is
no justifiable basis upon which this court ought to award
retroactive support as
sought by the plaintiff. In fact, it is my view, that
if I were to do so, I would convert an already
tortured situation into an unduly harsh one’.
Despite the above order,
the FMEP initiated enforcement proceedings on March 19, 2004,
per Exhibit “E”
filed herein. This exhibit also contains counter motion I filed on April 17,
2004, where, in para 2, I requested a stay of enforcement proceedings to allow
me to bring the application, adjourned by Madam Justice Balance per item 6
above, back before the Supreme Court. This was granted, by Justice Doherty, and
the matter came before Justice Singh in EO 387 on July 27, 2004.
Exhibit “F” filed
herein, displays my affidavit filed for the above hearing. The
application sought consideration for the child named Danica Jan Hall,
under section 10 of guidelines - possible further consideration under either
sections 5 or 8 of guidelines (based on photographic evidence and third
party testimony in its exhibits. In specific, this evidence affirms family
relations between the petitioner and Danica right up until litigation began
in April 2000, and that this relationship did not terminate in October 1994,
as the Petitioner alleged.
filed herein, displays the as yet unheard counter claim, filed March 16, 2000,
with respect to Danica’s entitlement to at least some consideration under
Exhibit “H” filed
herein, is the court transcript from the hearing before Justice Singh in EO
387 of July 27, 2004. where on page 9, lines 6 through 9, confirms the
court did not look at my affidavit or exhibits because of my failure to file
a ‘brief’ and matters were adjourned generally, based on this
Pursuant to this, matters
came before Justice Higginbotham on August 10, 2004, in F 6192, and an
interim order fixed fine and debt totaling roughly $ 17,000, without the
above application or counterclaim ever being heard.
I have asked Ms. Zofia
Tabaczuk-Porter to request that matters be adjourned in F 6192 until the
above application can be heard.
In addition, I have made
counsel aware of my belief that our very troubled family (and the court
itself) might stand to benefit from the Petitioner and I submitting to a
mediation. process prior to this application being made. I truly
believe that after five years of adversarial litigation in both EO 387 and S
5373, all parties stand to gain by such a process.
Unless the Plaintiff has
undergone a loss of income since her financial statement of Feb 2000, her
income ranges between $ 35,000 and $ 40,000 - with two children in her full
time care. My line 150 income last year was $11,666 and FMEP
records display that $2,310 was garnisheed from pension, GST rebates, and
income tax refunds in year 2003 – with one child in my full time care.
In addition, our properties have been sold off under court order in S 5373,
and all proceeds were directed to the Plaintiff.
I can assure the court I
truly have no motive to want to continue to live in poverty and in a state
which leaves me unable to even feed my other children when they visit.
which is respectfully submitted at YADA YADA YADA
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.