Taken into Custody – by Stephen Baskerville

5 Responses to Taken into Custody – by Stephen Baskerville

1. Walter Schneider says:

   July 20, 2008 at 20:58

   Quoted from the preceding statement by Ashley Donovan contained in comment #4:

   “An individual may have a relationship with virtually anyone or anything. There are probably emotional and legal ties to such relationships but typically no legal action is involved in the formation or dissolution of such relationships.”

   That is an interesting view, although it is not constructive for any civilization that wishes to differentiate itself from savagery. Ashley Donovan’s opinion essentially puts the worth of a marriage on a level with fetishism and bestiality. It follows that the absolute best way to avoid the devastation of divorce is not to have one and to have “relationships” only with things and animals who don’t or can’t file for divorce.

   Views like that in regard to the worth of families are common-place amongst feminist social engineers. One of the clearest descriptions (and condemnation) of such view was yet provided by Dr. Karin Jaeckel when she addressed in on of her speeches the issue of children of divorce and parental abduction in bi-national families:

   “The very best definition of what German families are was given by Ulla Schmidt, the new SPD-health-minister in Berlin, when she proclaimed: “Family is, if all eat out of the same refrigerator.”

   With that explanation things become perfectly clear: families in Germany are mixed together and change at random, with only the need of a fridge and something to eat from.

   Friedrich Engels must be joyfully dancing around in his grave.” (Source: http://fathersforlife.org/kj/wash/teil3.htm )

   You will note that many family dogs and family cats, even fish and more exotic pets, eat out of fridges out of whom proper family members help themselves.

   Heaven forbid that I should ever be eating out of the fridge of a “family” of which I would not under the best of circumstance want to be a part, but there it is: As soon as you I eat of someone else’s fridge (or let someone else eat out of yours or mine) you or I enter into a relationship with him and all of his other family members who eat out of the same fridge as he does.

   We could move from fridge to fridge and keep joining an ever larger global family in which no one knows anyone but everyone loves everyone else, ostensibly given all of us a global case of bliss.

   No thank you. Life was a lot less complicated and not as chaotic when a marriage was between a man and his wife and lasted until death parted them.

   There is really nothing but the Ashley Donovan’s of the world to prevent us from re-attaining that simple and orderly state of existence.
2. Walter Schneider says:

   July 20, 2008 at 19:55

   Dr. Charles E. Corry wrote:

   RE: Stephen Baskerville’s Book – Taken Into Custody

   Ms. Donavan,

   Your basic premise is incorrect and your argument collapses.

   Consider:

   [Quoted from a prior message (much repetition of her initial message and just containing more unsubstantiated opinions identical or similar to those in her initial message shown above) by Ashley Donovan to Dr. Corry]:

   An individual may have a relationship with virtually anyone or anything. There are probably emotional and legal ties to such relationships but typically no legal action is involved in the formation or dissolution of such relationships.

   An intimate relationship usually involves sexual favors and may be anything from a one-night stand to a couple living together for many years. Usually there are no legal ties involved but some couples who live together for an extended period may have a revocable trust, or similar instrument drawn up to define property, inheritance, financial responsibilities, etc. More and more older couples are doing this today.

   Marriage is fundamentally a legal contract that defines such issues as marital assets, paternity of children, inheritance, and a whole body of law that lies behind the contract. Marriage usually implies an intimate relationship, but not always. Many married couples are together for economic reasons, habit, or for the sake of the children. And many marriages today are still arranged, mail order, or for convenience or other reasons, so there may not be a “relationship” in the sense you imply.
   [End quote]

   The problem that Dr. Baskerville addresses is the fact that there is no other contract in law except marriage that can be broken unilaterally by one party and the State encourages that breakup and usually financially rewards the party initiating the termination of the contract. Also, in many cases the divorce results in the destruction of the father’s relationship with the children of the marriage. Virtually every pathology of our society correlates best with single mothers.

   I’d suggest you leave religion out of your argument as well. Most of the world’s population are not Christians but most societies practice marriage in one form or another.

   Widespread divorce is a modern invention as until the 20th Century people didn’t live long enough to marry and divorce, and economics forced most married couples to stick it out for their brief lifespan. So when you start preaching about what Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul may or may not have said about divorce you are trying to walk on water, or very thin ice.

   Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.

   Equal Justice Foundation

   Issues of interest to the Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/ are:

   Civilization http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization.htm
   Courts and Civil Liberties http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts.htm
   Domestic Violence http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm
   Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado http://www.dvmen.org/
   Emerson case http://www.ejfi.org/emerson.htm
   Families and Marriage http://www.ejfi.org/family/family.htm
   Prohibitions and the War On Drugs http://www.ejfi.org/Prohibition/Prohibition.htm
   Vote Fraud and Election Issues http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting.htm
3. 

   David Millar

   says:

   July 19, 2008 at 03:08

   Well! It may be kindly observed that it’s a good thing that people are trying to make sense of the senseless, but I’m afraid that Ashley Donavan’s speculations are so confounded that they may themselves constitute obfuscation.

   The easiest way of finding suspects in an apparent crime is to ask, “Who benefits”. If the apparent crime is the active and illegal promotion of fatherlessness on children, then the beneficiaries of this criminal conduct are those who make money by and through that process. This recognition will leave us looking at lawyers (and their fellow travelers as Judges & Justices), psychologists, sociologists, social workers, and government bureaucrats.

   Mr. Ashley Donovan appears to be of the “professional” mindset that will refuse to see (or at least acknowledge even perhaps to him/her self) that they are exploiting children by reducing and/or eliminating the formerly unassailable right of parents to parent their children.

   Those of us who have been on the receiving end of this choreographed moral, intellectual, and state sponsored abuse tend to be a little more sensitive than the inexperienced average citizen with professional endemic liars. Or, perhaps more accurately phrased as “professionally trained to tell a misleading story”.

   Assuming then that Ashley is a lawyer, a wannabe lawyer, or an otherwise invested professional in this abuse of process, I will attempt either to expose or deprogram Ashley’s thoughts as suggested to me by the below copied missive. I will reference passages of that text by reference to single capitalized letters that I will insert in the text below.

   A. The statement by Ashley @A is a misrepresentation not just of Baskerville’s writing in general, but even of the (unmarked) quote attributed to him.

   B. This statement is false by Canadian “law” practices, at least in BC, of which I can cite personal experience. BC is subject to the Family Relations Act (RSBC1996), which is unconstitutionally employed to enjoy the benefits of ‘controlling’ marriage from the Federal government, to the province of (inter alia) BC. Or, more properly said from a provincial point of view, to allow the province to administer unrestricted ‘divorce’, whether the parties are married or not, without imposing a massive welfare payout penalty to the now unwed mothers, on themselves as provincial leaders.

   The authority of the Feds is specified @ s.91 of the Constitution of Canada (1867), and marriage and divorce are Federal authorities. Likewise, “divorce” in Canada cannot be issued from a provincial court, but only by the “high” court (as derived from British law to be the Court of King’s Bench), manifesting in contemporary Canada as the provincial “Supreme Court”, and variously among provinces, the “Court of Queen’s Bench”. Needless to say, this defect in authority has nevertheless been successfully ignored by the province of BC, as using among other devices the FRA, which unlawfully purports that the child is the property of the mother, and hearing “family” causes within the provincial courts is now fraudulently authorized. It is here to look for all other symbols and signs of abuse of process, for here are they authorized.

   So great is the custom of subversion in BC, that the access to the “high” court actually under the scrutiny of provincially appointed “Masters”, notwithstanding that the court is supposed to be represented only by Federally selected judges (albait still paid by the province, just like provincial court judges, only twice as much). So! You won’t even get to see a SCBC Justice unless your case has been approved by a provincially appointed judge.

   If that may account for the evident ignorance of one aspect of law, there is more than enough at B to float a weight of it. At 1 & 2 of B we have the bald (and, to my experience, false) assertion that civil/”Family” court legal processes are different, and, that Baskerville is confused and/or ‘mixed’ in asserting equal right of parents.

   As far as I’m aware, in America the individual States have authority over marriage and divorce. Both there and here in Canada, the outcome of judicially rendered decisions is 90% sole custody female, and 10% sole custody male. As a matter of fact, as far as I have been able to determine, this outcome is common throughout the English speaking world. There are a lot of Constitutions in that, and a lot of statute laws. You wouldn’t think they’d all be the same, nor that they’d produce like outcomes, but there you have it.

   I can ease your confusion if you would be so kind as to think of it as a business model. You promise to off-load financial responsibility for unwed mothers from government. You promise to expand the authority of the State to the equivalent of the most repressive regimes in the history of the species by making virtue seem vice, and vice versa. You promise to eviscerate the very root of society, the family, to allow the government to concoct a new idealiity out of whole cloth.

   All you want in exchange for all this is 10% of the families that exist every year. You will be able to reveal their most intimate secrets, if of course you have enabling legislation that purports to give you authority over their children, AND the ability to force an excommunicated parent to pay for the abuse in the form of child and/or matrimonial financial support to what is almost invariably the instigator of divorce or separation.

   And, too, of course, the business plan must allow for 10% of the custody awards to go to males, as they are the target gender, to keep them spending money on lawyers. It fits comfortably with the male psyche, ’cause most males will approach a 10% chance of success in the wan delusion that they are the 10%, and the other 90% deserved what they got, for being mean to females, and otherwise just not as decent gentlemen as we ourselves are.’ It also fits nicely with the prey/predator ratio of 10:1. Enough to satisfy the pack’s taste for blood, yet not enough to threaten the existence of the herd.

   So! Everybody wins, right? Actually, wrong. Fathers and their children lose 100% of the time a case goes to court. In Canada, at the very least.

   C. Well, at last! The ME Generation speaks! “Marriage is not a prison”, “nor these stone walls a cell”, no doubt. Good God! “Marriage” has always been used as a tool of the state for its own reasons. Among the common folk, their own reason was to make life for the future. Life in the flesh “If”, as they say, “God wills it”, and life in the spirit in honoring an oath made as a bond before God. NOW, to have this duty to honor reduced to a petulant fickleness, is to transform the meaning of the object (i.e. the word “marriage”) completely! “Black: It’s the new White”.

   When, where, why and how did personal pique become as a matter of right? It is done by the making of a money hole, the creation of an industry that appeals to the trivial, and rewards them for their vagrancy: the “right to divorce” argued as “I’m not your prisoner”. And, is self-sustaining in the damage it does to each generation of children. Which just brings the business back to them that started it, for more of the same.

   D. “Mr. Baskerville’s ideas, if enacted, would also cause people of religion to reject civil marriage and enter spiritual or contract marriages whereby they will not be forced to remain married to someone because a spouse will refuse to go along with a divorce.” This statement bears repeating in it’s original place below. It is so incredibly specious to propose people of religion would ever have support for civil marriage! Then to propose the consequence would be restricted to a forced choice between “spiritual” or (hilariously), “contract” marriage. Again! Proposing, perhaps unconsciously, that conduct has consequences only depending on whether you had made any vows of any worth at whatever passed for you as a marriage ceremony. Just as a normal state of affairs, “without”, as they say, “prejudice”.

   E. This sentence is seriously confused. There is a difference between “due process” as a legal phrase, and “divorce”, which is a legal motion. ‘Due process’ means that all ancillary rights are observed by the court in a ‘proceeding’ against a party. That means where notice (of motion, or intent) ought to be given, legal notice is given. That means where time for reply is necessary for fairness, time is available. ‘Due process’ means the presumption of innocence, and a fair and impartial hearing.

   Divorce is a civil process since the 19th Century, as is the birth certificate. Formerly these offices were held by the varied churches, which helped keep the churches alive, the religion alive, and the community alive and aware. That strength was the target of early 20th C communists, such as in Russia, where the divorce process was facilitated with ‘no fault’ divorce, and they managed to transform the peasant society of Russia into a state machine of proletarian robots.

   The law supported the Church’s position, that marriage was a sacrament, as long as that suited it. Now the law supports the position that itself, law, is the mother of the children and father of the nation. Under that licence, the law now extends the ability to control, and homogenize, the children of the nation, or a portion thereof, and expose the parties to full disclosure. The erasure of one parent does not erase 50% of the child’s genes. They are also committing cultural genocide of the custom of being of 50% of its ancestors. Or, what? That it’s OK, because it’s all in the family, like drowning kittens and aborting babies, and it ain’t no body’s business but our own?

   The common law Rule of Law was and is, this: “The father is the owner of the child, against the world, as against the mother.” Marriage was regarded at the very least as a solemn, if not sacred, oath. Divorce could be had, but only on such serious grounds as crimes against fidelity, and before a jury, as this was a criminal offense.

   I can guarantee you, Ashley, that Baskerville does not advocate the abandonment of “due process” as it is properly understood. Nor has he ever to my knowledge tried to make divorce per se any more difficult. He has merely proved that “divorce” has become an act of cold-blooded exploitation that eats children alive.

   Ashley! Tell us the truth now! You’re not some 12-year old mall girl, are you? -dwm-
4. Walter Schneider says:

   July 18, 2008 at 15:13

   Ashley,

   Thanks for your opinion, even though it is not framed within the context of the basic premise of “Taken Into Custody”.

   It seems that you perhaps did not read the whole book by Stephen Baskerville (the proper formal address for whom, by the way, is not Mr. but Dr., as he has a Ph.D. in political science). Assuming that you read his whole book, as you imply, it would follow that your address of Mr. is a calculated and deliberate slight.

   We know that your prescription for easy and legal marriage dissolution did not prevent the escalating dismantling of society in the developed nations — through the deconstruction of the foundation and building block of society, the traditional nuclear family — while we also know that civilization came into existence through the nurturing of the symbiosis of marriage and society.

   Your proposal would in effect continue the inexorable dismantling of society that came about through the feminist push for “no-fault” divorce.

   Every marriage is a roller coaster ride with ups and downs. Why not enjoy the whole ride, all of its ups and downs, rather than to permit people (mostly women) to bail out whenever they feel the time is right?

   You may wish to refresh your memory or simply add to your knowledge about the consequences of the epidemic of “no-fault” divorce:

   —quote—
   For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.

   — Rebecca O’Neill
   —end quote—

   The preceding quote is from Rebecca O’Neill’s compendium of statistics pertaining to the consequences of the epidemic of “no-fault” divorce.
   http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php?PHPSESSID=04a5571963443f82281d8c0bd4332322

   The results are in: It’s official, the experiment with the fatherless family has failed.

   It is time to begin the reconstruction of society. Stephen Baskerville’s book is the first step — problem recognition — to successfully designing and implementing that.

   –Walter
5. Walter Schneider says:

   July 18, 2008 at 14:31

   Ashley Donavan wrote, 2008 07 18:

   Mr. Baskerville‘s Book – Taken Into Custody

   RE: This quote from his book suggesting ways to “fix” the domestic court system re family custody hearings/decisions:

   …(a) setting reasonable limits on unilateral divorce when children are involved; (b) establishing a rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting for children of divorce or separation; and (c) restoring and enforcing the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and companionship of their children.”

   The highlighted statement presents a serious problem with his book (and thinking)

   The idea that he is suggesting and urging (the right for one spouse to stop a divorce when there are children) would have the effect of destroying marriage itself.

   He is mixing the troubling problem within civil/domestic court of unequal justice and then intruding into this situation an attempt to change the divorce process itself.

   1. Family court process is one issue. 2. Divorce process is another issue.

   They shouldn’t be confused or mixed. He confuses them and mixes them.

   The fundamental problem today that he appears to want to speak to, i. e., that family court discriminates unjustly, is not caused by no-fault divorce process (it is caused by unjust discrimination too often taking place against one parent in the family court system regarding the custody of children).

   It has been caused by the displacement of a primary right in American society and that is the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty (a human-right both spouses in any divorce should be allowed to maintain within any legal process in the United States).

   When one examines individual and specific cases of family disputes in the domestic court system you can see that it is this right has been virtually dismissed by family court.

   Thus, there have been women have used this “protection” of “process” to retain custody of their children because of this failure of family court to assure the right to be considered innocent of wrong until PROVEN guilty for the ex-spouse (it appears today that whoever acts first in obtaining restraining orders, etc., creates an unfair “edge” in family court).

   Stephen Baskerville’s idea (and urging) that making divorce, itself, more difficult and/or that the other spouse has to agree to a divorce before it can take place within the legal system will destroy marriage as we know it (it will result in an escalation of crimes like murder and open living without regard to family court law).

   It is also unjust. Marriage is not a prison, it is a relationship. If the relationship fails, it is not moral to legally imprison either spouse within it. Children are a product of a relationship and should always be seen by and within the legal system outside of that specific relationship.

   Mr. Baskerville’s ideas, if enacted, would also cause people of religion to reject civil marriage and enter spiritual or contract marriages whereby they will not be forced to remain married to someone because a spouse will refuse to go along with a divorce.

   I’m surprised that so many people/media are listening to this man and not questioning the implications of his ideas about the divorce process, itself.

   It is also important to see that he is using a failure of the family court system regarding child custody to actually intrude on the right to divorce itself when the issues are not the same….

   His thinking about how to reform the divorce process, itself, carries this serious and fatal flaw regarding his ideas about how best to reform the family court system.

   The need for family court reform comes in reinstating the now-discarded/ignored concept of family court that every citizen should be seen as truly innocent until PROVEN guilty.

   His concept about reforming the divorce process by allowing the spouse who does not want a divorce (when there are children) to disallow due process (divorce) to the spouse who does want one, should be rejected.

   Ashley Donavan

Comments are closed.