Tom Ball’s last statement

June 17, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

International Business Times US
June 17, 2011 11:55 AM EDT

American Father Self-Immolates To Protest Against Family Courts

On June 15 around 5:30 pm, a 58-year-old New Hampshire father named Thomas Ball self-immolated in front of the Cheshire County Court House.  Ball was pronounced dead at the scene.

Before he died, he sent a letter [to] The Keene Sentinel to explanation his actions.  The full text of the letter can be found here. (Also in PDF format: Tom Ball’s Last Statement; 133 kB)

Ball said he set himself on fire in front of the courthouse because he was “done being bullied for being a man” by the US family court system.

Ball’s troubled started in April 2011.

He said he slapped his then four-year-old daughter, giving her a cut on the lip, when she refused to obey him after three verbal warnings.

His wife then called the child’s mental health provider.  Ball claimed the health provider told his wife that if she did not call the police, both she and Ball would be arrested….(Full Story)
_______________
Note by F4L: That article is full of errors.

• Tom Ball’s problems did not start in April 2011.  They started in April 2001, when the incident with his daughter occurred and he was arrested for the first time in his life, a Vietnam veteran and 48 years old at the time.

• Tom Ball did say that he was “done being bullied for being a man,” but he did not say that he was being bullied just by the family court system.  He did not even single out the family court system, but he felt that his rights were being violated ever since 2001, by the police, mental health providers (not necessarily the mental health provider of the daughter whom he had disciplined, but one for another daughter), the State of New Hampshire, the State Attorney General, the Legislature, the State Governor’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, his Congressmen, Senators, the Federal Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, The U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Domestic Violence, the Police department in the nation (at least the 93% of them who are actively engaged in the persecution of men), the police, prosecutors and judges in general, the NH police department, the Jaffrey NH police department, Monadnock Family Services, their lawyer Byron, Judge Sullivan, guardian ad litems, and more, but also the federal government for waging war against men since about 1975 and for running an Office on Violence against Women, even though when the government program for the persecution of men started there were equal numbers of female and male perpetrators of domestic violence.

Tom Ball did his research, and he was no crank. He was a man wronged, wronged like millions of other men (and like some women, as well).

His observations regarding the legal system that put the squeeze on him are right on the mark, and especially his remarks regarding the circumstances, origins and workings of the domestic-violence industry are on target.  Still, I should not have to summarize any of the key point that concerned him.  He wrote a very lucid statement, but obviously not just on the day he killed himself.  That statement is 12 to 15 pages long (depending on the font-size your printer uses).  Read it, you will not regret it.

For instance, did you know that 72 million Americans have been made homeless at one time or another during the 25 years or more that the U.S. Government has been waging its war against men and their families?  As I said, Tom Ball did his work, and he did it well.  Read what he wrote.  I included him in the list of men who broke, at Fathers for Life.  He broke, alright, but he did not crack.  I wish he were still with us.

Tom Ball died for you, for me and for all of our children and grandchildren.

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Economy, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Men's Issues, Media Bias, Suicides, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

The divorce from hell?

December 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It reads more like one hell of a divorce.

…Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart,” Judge Quinn remarked dryly.

No kidding…, but there is much more in the article.

Toronto Globe and Mail

December 16, 2010

In family court, a judge turns to ridicule to defuse the rage

By KIRK MAKIN

A feuding couple and their ‘high-octane hatred’ prompt a highly unusual judicial roasting

(Full Story)

In a novel twist, Judge Quinn granted the wife, Catherine, sole custody of the feuding couple’s 13-year-old daughter. However, he ordered Larry to pay Catherine just a dollar a month in spousal support.

That appears to have been a good decision, as the daughter seems to have become alienated beyond repair against her dad.  However, although the article identifies a-dollar-a-month in spousal support for the ex-wife, nothing is mentioned about how much child support the father will have to pay for kids he no longer will be able to see.

Besides, will all of the actors in the drama have seen the last of the case?  Surely there is nothing preventing someone from launching an appeal. You want to take bets on who will launch one of those?

At any rate, you will want to watch this video:

Parental Alienation ~ Emotional Kidnapping

Listen well to what Alec Baldwin says as he is being interviewed in the third video in the series. It shows how hard it is even for men who were put through the parental-alienation grinder to get away from preconception and perhaps even all-out indoctrination about men’s paternal rights.

At minute 2:22, Alec Baldwin states that men have to earn 50:50 custody. Why would that not be true of women?

At minute 3:12 Alec Baldwin mentions that he has no respect for men who abuse women and fight for custody to gain power, out of spite and for no other reason than to hurt women. Well, why does that not cut both ways?

The point that one needs to pay attention to is that if not even the target in a case of parental alienation feels that equal rights come into the picture when awarding equally or equitably shared parenting, then why would he expect the judges to have more objectivity than such a victimized father does?

Posted in Parental Alienation, Child Abuse, Child Support, Judiciary, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

Overwhelmed by demands for more child support

October 1, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Just about every day I receive requests for help with issues relating to child-custody and child-support, often quite a few of such requests on a given day.

The following message is an example, and my response is appended.

On 29/09/2010 1:07 PM, Tom [not his real name] wrote:

Hi guys,

I really need help right now...

The ex is asking for more money after almost 7 year of paiements being done EVERY month. She moved away 12 hours from here, in another province (i live in canada) with her new boyfriend in the army and now tells me she has the kids (2 of them, girl-11 and boy-8) more often blablabla...

No one can tell me what to do or what would i have really to pay... they all say i need to get a lawyer, wich i can not.... no money for that.

i'm 35, has a good job as a tehnician, always paid my pension... i've been screwd many times by layer...i still owe them money... i need help.... thinking about finishing it off real soon...

thanks,
Tom

Hello Tom,

Are you in touch with a fathers rights organization where you live?  If not, then check this directory.

Here are links to some articles that contain responses to help requests like yours (found by searching fathersforlife.org for “how to find a fathers-rights organization”)

• http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2008/04/24/father-custody-outcomes-in-children-of-divorce/
• http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2010/04/05/on-going-custody-battle/
• http://blog.fathersforlife.org/category/child-abduction/

The  actual search will produce links to many more such articles.

Make sure that when you try to find organizations you pick those that have frequent meetings of their members.  Attend those meetings and get to know some of the members and their issues.  You will then soon learn which of those organizations you find are best.

The men you will meet are at various stages of their custody and support battles.  You will learn more from them than you can learn from any lawyer.

Try to get advice on what to do to represent yourself in court.

Get your case into a Court of Queens Bench or into a Court of Justice other than the Family Court.  If you need to know why that is so, ask me again, but I suggest that you first try to discuss that with the Fathers rights organizations you find in your area.

Still, if you need to ask me, there is little more I can tell you than what is contained in this article: Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families.  That article was found through this search for articles on the subject of the history of the family court.

You may think that I am throwing a lot of reading material at you, and that that does not really help you.  If so, consider that you need to understand the context of the difficulties you find yourself in.  If you don’t understand that context, then you will not be able to find a solution, and, most importantly, you will not be able to tell your lawyer what he needs to do for you.

Don’t think that it will help you to hire a lawyer and have him do all of that for you.  If that is the way you feel will help you, then you may as well sign a blank cheque and let him fill in the amount.

Your relationship to a lawyer is similar to that between you and a building contractor.  You are the boss and will have to foot the bills.  He work for you, and to be able to do that right, you will need to give him a set of blueprints, agree with him on a price for what he must do for you, when, where, how and why it needs to be done.  (For more on that read some of the articles you can find by searching for “how to select a lawyer”.)

Moreover, you will need to make sure that your lawyer does all of that at the right time, in the right place, in the right way and for the right reasons.

You may think that all of that is a lot of work.  If so, then you are exactly right.  The money involved, alone, makes it important enough that you do all of that work.  Moreover, you will have to make sure that the right things are being done for your kids.  After all, that is why you became a father, right?

Regards,

Walter

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Child Support, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

Custodial mother needs help

September 12, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The names (except mine) shown in the following are not the real names of the parties, to protect the innocent and the guilty.

Hello Mary,

You raised a number of points that call into question Canadian rules and practices pertaining to child support due to someone like you, someone who appears to be a citizen or resident of Canada.

Firstly, I don’t know whether you are in fact residing in Quebec.  That makes it impossible for me to direct you to an organization that may be able to help you or to direct you to someone else who can do so.

If you wish to spare yourself the reading of all I stated, the most important aspect of your complaints is that you did not specify what you need help with.  The unmentioned solution to all of your problems is quite simple and obvious: apply in the court to have it grant fully shared custody to the father of your children.  In addition, you should perhaps objectively examine whether there was an equitable sharing of all of the marital assets in your case and determine whether some of the assets you received should not in all honesty be transferred to your ex.

You raised many concerns.  It will be easier for me to answer each of those by inserting my responses between the lines of your message — which I will now do.

On 11/09/2010 6:27 AM, Mary More wrote:

Subject: deadbeat dads.

The header of your e-mail messages identified the subject as being that you need my help, but, as your message shows, that is not truly what your message is all about.

I am writing to you for assistance in a matter that relates to my children.  I am a single mother of two teenage daughters that I am in custody of.   I have been separated form my husband for the past 5 years and am now divorced.  During this time I have not received any financial support from him in order to help provide for his two girls.

I am not able to direct you to a source of help because you did not tell me which Province you are located in.  I could look that up but would have no guarantee that I would be right.  You are in a better position to determine and identify that.

Why is Canada letting dead beat dads walk freely without having any consequences for their actions.

Perhaps the father of your children is a dead-beat dad, but I would leave the determining of that to the courts.  Even the worst judge would make at least a pretense of listening to both sides of a dispute before he decides where between the two sides the truth may is.  I have not heard anything from the other side in the argument.

The fact that you label your ex-husband a dead-beat dad does not look well.  Did he leave on his own volition, or did you kick him out?

That you allege that Canada has a policy of “letting dead beat dads walk freely without having any consequences for their actions” does not look good either.  The reality of that is that your accusation is not founded on facts.  The statistics on that do not support your accusation.  Moreover, my experiences as someone who has been active for decades in the field of child-support issues don’t support your accusation either.

The reality of those circumstances is that non-custodial fathers are more like than separated non-custodial mothers to pay child support, to pay much more child support and far less likely to default on such payments.  Furthermore, such fathers who default on child-support payments are far more likely than defaulting mothers to be prosecuted and to have to cope with and suffer from draconian enforcement measures.

Is it fair that one parent can walkout without taking any responsibilities providing for his kids?  Is it fair that all the burden of raising kids falls on one parent?

Court hearings ostensibly determine what is fair in such matters.  Unfortunately, such court hearings are seldom fair to fathers.  In the vast majority of divorces the courts grant women the kids, car, cash and castle and send the father packing, often with nothing more than a set of underwear, a toothbrush and a razor.

In the United States many deadbeat dads have their passport revoked, have their driver’s license suspended……. Why doesn’t Canada take drastic measures when it comes to deadbeat dads.

You correctly deem the common practice of depriving fathers who default on child support to be drastic, which of course it is.  How do you figure anyone is more likely to be able to make child-support payments when his constitutional right to free movement has been restricted?  Someone without a driver’s licence is not likely to be able to acquire any jobs that require a valid driver’s licence.  Moreover, he quite likely will be severely handicapped in travelling to a job for which he does not even require a driver’s licence but cannot travel to when no public transportation is available to help him get there.

Moreover, it is not only driver’s licences and passports of fathers defaulting with child support payments that are suspended,  All government-issued licences of defaulting fathers are suspended, which of course severely curtails their ability to earn a living.  Do you feel that those suspensions can possibly be any good for the affected children?

Jake Eke is in a new relationship with a divorced woman Liz Tryhard that has two kids, he is leading a normal life and supports her  kids and helps her renovate the house…..Doesn’t his own kids deserve a dad? Why can’t he help support his own kids? Doesn’t his kids have rights? Is it fair that he has neglected his own kids?

I assume, although you do not directly or indirectly state so, that Jake Eke is the father of the children you had with him.

You sure checked him out good, right?  Is it a criminal offence for him to have entered a relationship with a divorced woman who has children?

I wonder whether he thinks that he is living a normal life.  Is it normal for all men to form relationships with divorced women who have children by other men, after their ex-wives most likely kicked them out?

You told me that he can’t support his own kids because he is considered to be disabled.  If you feel that to be a false and fraudulent claim, telling me about it will not do you or anyone else much good.  Tell the judge in your case.  As they say, you will have to prove that in a court of law.

1) Mr. Eke has declared that he is sick and unable to provide.  If that is the case why isn’t he forced to fill up disability papers and get help from the government .

It is a little inconsistent on your part to call him first a dead beat dad and then to call him Mr.  Do you always do that so as to make sure that the recipients of your complaints about him are first put into the right frame of mind?

I do not know where Mr. Eke lives or whether it is possible for him to make false claims where he lives about disabilities that prevent him from earning a living.  If you are sure that he has engaged in an act of defrauding his government, you should perhaps consider pursuing criminal charges.

2) I am well aware that Mr. Eke is working in the renovation business and gets paid cash.  He keeps claiming that he is building his cliental slowly and that business is slow……….why isn’t he forced to get another job and provide for his kids?????

It amazes me to read how much you know about the man.  Yet you fail to consider the realities of the current state of the economy.  Canada is suffering under the same depression that has the US in its grips.  There is little money available for housing construction.  There is much competition for jobs in the construction trade, and money for home renovations is even harder to come by than is the case with money for new construction jobs.

Getting paid cash for work done is what many men do who have been driven into the underground economy to be able to eke out a living.

Did you not know any of those things before you decided to kick him out?

His daughter who is 17 of age has a job as a bus girl and makes minimum wage, why can’t he work?????

Nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong with this picture??????

I don’t know. You tell me.

I am a kindergarten teacher in a private school, my pay cheque is not enough so after I am done my job at 3 everyday I continue to my second job from 4-7 and than work on weekends, if I can be responsible why can’t he????????

Is being a kindergarten teacher a well-paying job?  If not, do you have a low-paying job because you chose to have it for convenience and not for economic considerations?  Were you forced into taking your job?

If you need a better-paying job, why don’t you get one?  If you expect that the father of your children be forced into getting another job to be able to pay for his kids, why does that not apply to you?

I have to do 3 jobs, get a line of credit, take a loan from the bank refinance my mortgage, seek help from my mom who is living on her pension and be the sole provider for those girls.

So, you indicate that you like to do low-paying jobs, live on credit, and have even your mother support you.  Has your mother not done enough for you yet?

Was being the sole provider for “those girls” your choice?

You have without a doubt some serious problems with matching your income to your expenses.  From what you explained, it appears that your debts are steadily and perhaps even quickly increasing.  The first and most important objective for successful debt management is to have a lot of income left at the end of the month, rather than having a lot of month left at the end of the money.

One way by which you can make a start with that is to cut back on a few things, such as those that you expect your ex-husband to cut back on.  Cancel your subscription to cable TV, cancel your cell phone and cut out all other things that are not absolutely necessary to survival, including the use of your car (sell it) and other such luxuries.

If that is not sufficient to bring your expenses into affordable limits, consider what capital assets you can sell.  If it is cheaper to rent an apartment than to make mortgage payments, you should go for the cheaper alternative.  You have a great advantage in that respect.  No one will expect you to live in a cardboard box under a bridge.  Our society does not expect that from women, while that expectation is at times the only one left for men who have all of their licences revoked.

I did not bring these children to the world by myself,

I hope not.  That would have been a miracle.

On the other hand, it is not difficult to become a father or a mother, while to be a father or a mother is a much more difficult task.  The burden of that is much lightened by sharing it.

It is about time that the government takes action and goes after those dead beat dads who are basically getting away with murder.

The government has done quite a bit to help out women already.  Women live on average six more years (in the US) and 7.2 more years (in Canada) than men do.  Now you want to have your ex prosecuted for murder yet?

I am frustrated at the legal system in the pursuit of this basic right for child support.   I have exhausted my financial capabilities in hiring lawyers to pursue him and have contacted the child support office in Montreal who have indicated that they have no recourse because of his lack of declared income.  So far my experience has been a series of “road blocks” and I am entirely exhausted.

Sorry, but that is pretty much the way it is.  If there is no income, then there is nothing to declare or to confiscate.

It will be up to you to prove in court that his claim to be disabled is fraudulent.  However, even if you should be able to prove that, what do you expect will happen?  Should he go to jail?  Do you think that will ensure that his child support payments can be made?

My ex-spouse is a home renovator and thus much of his work is paid in cash.  The amount of declared income is unknown

You already stated all of that.

since he has not filed an income tax return in the past few years.  I am puzzled at how the governmental system has neglected to look into this case to allow a citizen to neglect his legal obligations toward his family and government.  Why don’t we have any rights?

You told me that the government already looked into his case.  The problem is that you are not happy with what the government found.  However, if you want the father of your children to go to jail, and if you are absolutely sure of your allegations about doing work for cash under the table, then talk to the government and insist they they prosecute him for defrauding the government and for income-tax evasion.  Both are crimes that would warrant incarceration, but you have to prove them in court.  If you fail to prove your case, then you are potentially liable to be convicted of slander and libel.

However, the government has done a lot for women in that respect.  Women can commit the crimes of slander and libel with impunity.

Hoping to hear from you

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, I will keep trying until my voice his heard and things will change.  It is so unfair.

Mary More

I will post your help request and my responses to Dads & Things. It is our policy to not show the real names of the warring parties in such a case.

Other than that, I tried to offer some advice where I deemed it possible and necessary to give advice.  Unfortunately, you did not actually ask for specific help, but you railed against your ex, you slandered him, you slandered the Government of the Province of Quebec, the Federal Government of Canada, all of Canadian non-custodial fathers, and you vented your frustration.

It seems that all the help you wanted was to have someone listen to you.  I have done that and hope it will make you feel better.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
Fathers for Life
Dads & Things

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Maternal Rights, Violence by Proxy, Parental Alienation, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

FACTS EVERY ONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DESERTION

September 7, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Guest post by Roger Eldridge, National Mens Council of Ireland

Note by F4L:  I am not a legal expert in such matters, but, having gone through the experience of being deserted, some years ago, I am quite confident that what Roger describes applies as well in Canada and perhaps also in other nations.

Roger has told it well, and it should be shown to as many people as possible. –Walter

It is very clear when discussing their difficulties with callers to our help-line that many - men in particular - are very confused about the difference between separation and desertion. This is not their fault as the legal profession have made it their business to eliminate the word and concept of “desertion” from all family law proceedings. I sat in with a member of our Family Integrity and Marriage Reconciliation (FIRM) Self-Help Group when he went to discuss with his solicitor what he could do. Despite the facts supporting it, whenever he described himself as being “deserted” his own solicitor got very cross with him and told him that the judge would be very angry if he ever said anything like that in court. When he tried to talk about it further his solicitor told him that she will not represent him if he ever used the word again!

Hopefully the information given below which has been taken directly from three different legal sources will clear people’s heads and stop them mistakenly believing they are “separated” when really they are “deserted”.

The reason why solicitors create this confusion is because they have been assisting spouses who are the deserters to profit at the expense of the actual deserted spouse for the past thirty years. They tell the deserted spouse that the other spouse - the actual deserter - is entitled to separate and tell them that they should just accept that they are now “separated” and deal with it. By doing this the deserted spouse loses everything and especially is seen to be going along with the breakdown of the marriage instead of getting help to reconcile it.

Some of the most important aspects of family law are the provisions for maintenance. It is a duty of spouses to maintain the family home and the other spouse and children living there. If one of the spouses deserts the family they are still held to this duty and are forced to pay money for the maintenance of the deserted household. Logically and in the statute there is a bar to a deserter receiving such maintenance.

However the law is being operated by solicitors so that the husband is always the one ordered to pay maintenance to his wife regardless of who is guilty of desertion. This creates an ever lengthening queue of wives outside solicitors’ offices who are led to believe that they can just walk out on their marriage and still be kept in the style (or better!) they were when they were acting as a wife in the home. They are told to ensure they keep the kids with them and refuse to let them stay at home even though the law presumes that the children should be at home. This has been used for many years as a sort of “gray area” which is used to justify the “legitimise” the deserter and get money from the deserted spouse for the maintenance of the children. Solicitors advise their deserted clients to pay this money even though it is against their best interests and those of the children in the long run.

In all of this confusion and corruption of the law any chance of a reconciliation of the family is buried in anger and injustice. This has to stop.

Please pass the information below to anyone you know who is having problems in their family (i.e. by now almost everyone!) and let them know that we are available to talk to them and assist them to resist the worst practices of the courts. This is the necessary first step before moving on to the more important one of helping them to reconcile their marriage. When leaving a marriage doesn’t bring instant rewards it gives people a chance to rethink their plans. It is this critical period of time that needs to be seized upon if we are ever to stop the wanton dismemberment of families and destruction of society.

God bless,  Roger Eldridge

Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland

Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland

National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Website: www.family-men.com Email: familymen@eircom.net

Telephones: 00353 (0) 7196-67138, 00353 (0) 83-3330256

******

http://www.the-divorce-directory.com/article_desertion.html

DESERTION

Desertion, known in some states as abandonment, is considered grounds for divorce in states that have fault divorces. There are two types of desertion, actual desertion and constructive desertion. Both types of desertion must be continuous and uninterrupted for a specific period of time between one and five years depending on the state.

The most obvious situation which would constitute desertion is when one spouse leaves without a trace, never comes back and never again makes contact. However, there are other situations which constitute desertion.

Desertion vs. separation: Desertion is not the same as separation. In a separation both spouses consent to living apart. Desertion only occurs when one spouse does not consent to the separation.

The necessary elements to establish desertion include:

• No longer living in the same residence

• No longer having sexual relations

• Deserting spouse intends to end the marriage

• Deserting spouse was not justified in leaving the residence

• Deserted spouse did not consent to the desertion • Desertion has been continuous and uninterrupted for the amount of time designated by law in your state

Actual desertion vs. constructive desertion

In actual desertion the deserting spouse leave the home. Constructive desertion occurs when the deserted spouse leaves due to unbearable conditions at home caused by the other spouse. Combined with the above elements of desertion, depending on the state, conditions for constructive desertion can include:

• Physical abuse

• Mental cruelty

• Adultery

• Nonsupport

• Unjustified refusal to have sexual relations for a significant period of time

• Knowing transmission of a venereal disease

Couples contemplating divorce should be cautious about moving out of the residence in a manner which can be claimed as desertion. To avoid a claim of desertion both parties must agree to the separation and should provide each other with contact information.

The desertion period must be continuous and uninterrupted. One night spent under the same roof or one meeting for sexual relations can be considered an interruption in the desertion period, and the required length of time would start over after that date.

Exceptions

Unintentional abandonment is not considered desertion. If a spouse goes missing for a specified period of time, and efforts to find the spouse are unfruitful, the abandoned spouse may obtain a divorce. However, situations such as military personnel missing in action do not constitute desertion.

If you are facing or contemplating divorce, have been forced out of your home or have been abandoned by your spouse, contact an experienced divorce attorney today.

******

Desertion Grounds

Desertion must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.  There are two main elements to prove to establish abandonment/desertion grounds for divorce; (1) the actual breaking off of the matrimonial cohabitation (abandoning the usual marital duties, not just sexual intercourse must be established), and (2) the intent to desert the marriage.

The breaking off of matrimonial cohabitation means that the couple must actually have separate addresses, and not just maintain separate sleeping arrangements.  Ceasing to engage in sexual intercourse, even without just cause, does not constitute desertion.  But where there is a significant abandonment of marital duties, which results in practical destruction of home life, a party may be guilty of desertion.

The second element to establish abandonment/desertion is the intent to desert the marriage. The desire to separate is not necessarily synonymous with the intent to desert the marriage. Where the parties separate by “mutual consent,” neither party has established grounds for desertion.  If the person deserting cannot legally justify the desertion, then proof of the actual breaking off of the matrimonial relationship with the intent to desert entitles the other spouse to a divorce.

“Constructive desertion” involves actions or conduct resulting in the other spouse’s forced separation.  To prove constructive desertion, the spouse leaving the home must prove that the misconduct by the spouse remaining in the home constitutes grounds for divorce. Traditionally, this spouse must show that the remaining spouse conducted himself/herself in such a manner as to provoke the leaving.

It should be noted that excessive alcohol consumption not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute constructive desertion, nor is demanding that a spouse leave is not constructive desertion. Generally speaking, a spouse is not justified in leaving the other just because there has been a gradual breakdown in the marital relationship or because the parties are unable to live together in peace and harmony. The party claiming justification for leaving has the burden of proving it, unless the justification appears from the testimony given by the other party.

Defenses to desertion include (1) agreement, (2) recrimination, (3) justification, (4) pending divorce case, or (5) relocation of spouse.

Agreement:  When the separation is by consent or agreement, or is acquiesced to by the other spouse, there is a presumption that the separation by consent continues until a spouse withdraws the consent and offers to resume the cohabitation.  Refusal without justification will give rise to desertion.

Recrimination:  Where the deserted party as well as the deserting party is guilty of a fault ground, the deserted party is barred from a divorce on the grounds of the desertion.

Justification:  Where there is violence, even though the acts do not amount to cruelty, there may be a sufficient basis to constitute a fault ground for divorce.

Pending divorce case:  A spouse is not guilty of desertion where the leaving takes place after the divorce case has been instituted and during the pendency of the case.

Relocation of spouse:  A spouse is no longer expected to follow the other spouse’s change of abode, and the refusal to follow to relocate is not desertion.

******

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/desertion

DESERTION

The act by which a person abandons and forsakes, without justification, a condition of public, social, or family life, renouncing its responsibilities and evading its duties. A willful Abandonment of an employment or duty in violation of a legal or moral obligation.

Criminal desertion is a husband’s or wife’s abandonment or willful failure without Just Cause to provide for the care, protection, or support of a spouse who is in ill health or necessitous circumstances.

Desertion, which is called abandonment in some statutes, is a divorce ground in a majority of states. Most statutes mandate that the abandonment continue for a certain period of time before a divorce action may be commenced. The length of this period varies between one and five years; it is most commonly one year. The period of separation must be continuous and uninterrupted. In addition, proof that the departed spouse left without the consent of the other spouse is required in most states.

Ordinarily, proof of desertion is a clear-cut factual matter. Courts generally require evidence that the departure was voluntary and that the deserted husband or wife in no way provoked or agreed to the abandonment. Constructive desertion occurs when one party makes life so intolerable for his or her spouse that the spouse has no real choice but to leave the marital home. For an individual to have legal justification for departing, it is often required that the spouse act so wrongfully as to constitute grounds for divorce. For example, a wife might leave her husband if she finds that he is guilty of Adultery.

In desertion cases, it is not necessary to prove the emotional state of the abandoning spouse, but only the intent to break off matrimonial ties with no animus revertendi, the intention to return.

Mere separation does not constitute desertion if a husband and wife agree that they cannot cohabit harmoniously. Sexual relations between the parties must be totally severed during the period of separation. If two people live apart from one another but meet on a regular basis for sex, this does not constitute desertion. State law dictates whether or not an infrequent meeting for sexual relations amounts to an interruption of the period required for desertion. Some statutes provide that an occasional act of sexual intercourse terminates the period only if the husband and wife are attempting reconciliation.

Unintentional abandonment is not desertion. For example, if a man is missing in action while serving in the Armed Services, his wife may not obtain a divorce on desertion grounds since her spouse did not intend to leave his family and flee the marital relationship. The common law allows an individual to presume that a spouse is dead if the spouse is unexplainably absent for a seven-year period. If the spouse returns at any time, the marriage remains intact under common law.

Laws that embody the Enoch Arden Doctrine grant a divorce if evidence establishes that an individual’s spouse has vanished and cannot be found through diligent efforts. A particular period of time must elapse. Sometimes, if conditions evidencing death can be exhibited, a divorce may be granted prior to the expiration of the time specified by law.

In some jurisdictions, the law is stringent regarding divorce grounds. In such instances, an Enoch Arden decree might be labeled a dissolution of the marriage rather than a divorce.

Upon the granting of an Enoch Arden decree, the marriage is terminated regardless of whether or not the absent spouse returns. Generally, the court provides that the plaintiff must show precisely what has been done to locate the missing person. Efforts to find the absent spouse might include inquiries made to friends or relatives to determine if they have had contact with the missing spouse, or checking public records for such documents as a marriage license, death certificate, tax returns, or application for Social Security in locations where the individual is known to have resided.

Desertion is frequently coupled with non-support, which is a failure to provide monetary resources for those to whom such an obligation is due. Nonsupport is a crime in a majority of states but prosecutions are uncommon.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
All rights reserved.

desertion n. the act of abandoning, particularly leaving one’s spouse and/or children without an intent to return. In desertion cases it is often expected that a deserter who is the family breadwinner may not intend to support the family he/she left. Such conduct is less significant legally in the present era of no-fault divorce and standardized rights to child support and alimony (spousal support). Desertion can influence a court in determining visitation, custody and other post-marital issues.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.
All Right reserved.

desertion noun abandonment, abandonment of allegiance, abjuration, absence without leave, act of forsaking, apostasy, AWOL, defection, departure, derelictio, disloyalty, flight, forsaking, forswearing, leaving, mutiny,quitting, recreancy, renouncement, renunciation, repudiation, resignation, secession, unlawful departure, willful abandonment

Associated concepts: constructive desertion, willful desertion

See also: absence, dereliction, disloyalty, flight, infidelity, revolt, schism, sedition

Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E.
Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton.
Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

DESERTION, torts. The act by which a man abandons his wife and children, or either of them.
2. On proof of desertion, the courts possess the power to grant the ‘Wife, or such children as have been deserted, alimony (q.v.)

DESERTION, MALICIOUS. The act of a husband or wife, in leaving a consort, without just cause, for the purpose of causing a perpetual separation. Vide Abandonment, malicious.

A Law Dictionary,
Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

******

“It might be said that it is perverse for a divorce lawyer and family court judge to be espousing laws and policies which will reduce family breakdown, and with it the need for such services. Like most family lawyers, I have seen at first hand too many of the consequences of family breakdown and too many consequences of the impact on children. If one result of these proposed reforms is less need for divorce lawyers then most in society will rejoice!”

CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD

David Hodson,
Chairman of the Family Law Review,
Centre for Social Justice

Posted in Civil Rights, Child Support, Maternal Rights, Parental Alienation, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Capitol Weekly (U.S.A.)
2 September 2010

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support
By Malcolm Maclachlan

When Christina Brown got together with her soon-to-be ex-husband in the early 1990s, they were poor. But he’s a member of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. When the tribe’s casino opened up a few years later, the checks started rolling in, around $20,000 a month. They moved out of their mobile home into a big house. Nice cars and a 34-foot Fleetwood motor home followed.

After what she described as a worsening domestic situation, she left him in 2007. Brown, who noted that she once had a drug problem, said she’s been clean for years now.

But in other ways, her present looks a lot like her past. She’s on welfare and food stamps, living with her mother in a two-bedroom house, and running four payments behind on her car.

And there’s another crucial difference: she’s responsible for the children.  She has five over all — one before her husband, three with him and one after. The three youngest live with her, including two from her husband, but she says he hasn’t paid child support in years, despite the fact that he still gets thousands of dollars a month from the tribe.

“The court ordered him to make all these payments,” Brown said. “But I couldn’t garnish them.”….

“I didn’t mean for it to happen this way,” Brown said. “Trust me. I would have never had kids if I knew I was going to go this way. I would have gone straight education.”….(Full Story)

__________

Given that being a welfare mom as a career choice did not work out well for Christina Brown,  why does she not just give custody of her children to their respective fathers?  It looks as if at least two of her children would certainly be substantially better off.

She can then still pursue a career in education.  She is still young enough for that.  People have done it when they were in their seventies.  Perhaps it will not even cost her a dime to do so if things are similar to the way they are in Canada in that respect.  Status natives in Canada can obtain university degrees for free, with the government footing the bill.  They will not be required to run up the sometimes horrendous debts in doing so that normal mortals must labour under.

Mind you, it takes work to obtain a degree, and then it takes more work to earn a living, but, if the “government” pays for the degree, why not?   It is good for the self-esteem.

Posted in Child Support, Maternal Rights, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

Not even the mother knows for sure?

June 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today I received a request for help in solving a man’s confusion about his alleged paternity of a boy born about 15 or more years ago.  The confusion about paternity that is exhibited in the text of the e-mail message quoted farther on (my responses are interspersed) is mind-boggling but nothing new.  It is as old as civilization.

Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own. — Aristotle

The advent of civilization is strongly connected to the regulation of human sexuality through marriage.  Marriage laws somewhat relieved possible confusion about paternity, while the abolition of the institution of marriage, an age-old primary objective of communism, set back certainty about paternity to a state closer to that existing prior to the advent of civilization.

Here is the e-mail message.

Hello Jim [not his real name],

You wrote:

So here is my question to you, Do you think I have any options.

Of course you have options.  The most obvious one is to do nothing.  However, I am not sure what that option entails.  Did the mother drop the paternity assertion?  Are you paying child support?

To explore all of the options (and their consequences) available to you, get in touch with a fathers-rights organization in Oregon, provided that that is where you are located (other than your e-mail address, you provided no information on that).

I finally found my paternity test that we took in 1995, and I have been talking to numerous paternity testing facilities and they are pretty much telling me the same thing, that it’s not a very conclusive test. They tell me that each locus should be tested twice.

Well, they are the experts.  I am not.  I am more of a historian and do recall many instances in which paternity test results were falsified.  I recall the case of a Chicago lab in which a technician falsified a large number of test results, wrongly assigning paternity to many men that had been fingered (in California, and elsewhere probably too, it is a common practice to pick the name of a prospective “father” out of the phone book).  She falsified those DNA test results simply because she hated men.

You should have the paternity test repeated.  Not only that, but you should obtain two samples and have the DNA test done by two independent labs.

for each locus both mother, child and father must have 2 alleles indicated not only 1 (es. father 6,7 is ok but 11 it isn’t ok it must be perhaps 11,11?). The value of CPI must be very high to have a reliable test (130 isn’t a sufficient value).

  I had a DNA test done back in 1995, the results showed me to be 99.29% the child’s father, with 6 alleles tested.
I think the results are wrong,

What you think is immaterial.  All that matters is what you can prove.

mother 10,11….           child 10,11……            me 11                 (1.78%)
mother 8,10…..            child 10,11…….           me 11                 (3.52%)
mother 6,8……              child  7,8………           me 6,7                (3.38%)
mother 32,6…..             child  6…………           me 5,6                (1.75%)
mother 9,10…..             child 9………               me 9,10              (2.30%)
mother 10,12….            child 10,12…..           me 10                  (1.65%)

CPI 130-1
POP 99.29%

So now I’m not sure what to do, I would like to find out if he is my son, If he’s not my son well then that would be upsetting.

But I probably still would  be liable to pay child support….just because I signed the paternity papers at the hospital and also because I have a default judgment against me. The default judgment papers I received out of the blue with no court papers before them.

What’s kinda weird is, back in 1998 i think, she was suing me for child support and I contacted the [] lab that did our DNA test and I paid them the rest of the monies to get the results back.

I sent the results to Humboldt County and a month or two later I received a letter back saying that they were dismissing the entire action against me, without prejudice. I still have that court document.

I’m so confused about this whole thing,

You confused me, too.  The mother appears to have lied, either when she asserted that you were the father or when she changed her mind and asserted that you were not the father.  However, you don’t make it clear what the mother actually claimed and claims now.

What emerges quite clearly in my mind is that for unspecified reasons you declared yourself to be the father.

In cases like yours (I assume that you were not married when you made your paternity declaration, but you gave no indication of that), the chances that a man like you is not the father are about exactly 30 percent.

I Just want to know the truth.

Well, then the answer is simple.  Have another DNA test done.

If he is my son I want to know him, which she has never let me do. I seen him 2 times that’s it. Then she moved away.

Does she or doesn’t she claim that you are the father?  In either case, you need her cooperation to obtain another DNA sample.  The problem is that if she insists that you are not the father you will most likely not be able to get her to agree to provide one.  It is then also extremely unlikely that any court will override her wishes.

And if he isn’t my son, what can I do?

Thank you very much
Jim

In that regard, what you can do is not as important as is what you want to do.  Do you wish to be held to the obligation of providing financial support for another man’s child or not?  If not, then talk to a lawyer and have him take the necessary actions to have your declaration of paternity removed from the birth registry.  The decision by the Humboldt County should help you with that.

When you are done with that, put all records of that in a secure place, try to forget about it all and hope that she will never change her mind about you not being the father.

I assume that you are presently not paying child support and that you have never done so. You stated nothing to prove that assumption to be wrong.  Did you ever consider what will happen if she decides that you must be the father after all?  If she does that, you will most likely be made to pay child support arrears going back to the date of the boy’s birth, including the medical expenses associated with her hospital stay.  Do you want to do that?

The complication that would arise is that even if you were to pay those child support arrears, that would still not ensure that you will ever get to see the boy.  Even if you were to get to see the boy, your chances of establishing a bond with him would be extremely slim to non-existent.

Regards,

Walter

Post script 2010 07 02:  Jim wrote back and explained that the mother of his alleged child, the woman who left Jim years ago to spend her life with another man whom she had known at the time that Jim was supposed to have fathered her child lost custody of the child.  She separated from the other man, and Jim is now paying child support to that man.

What would you do if you were Jim?  Consider that, whether the child is Jim’s child or not, Jim has no contact of any sort with him, but that Jim pays and pays and pays….

Posted in Child Support, Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

Roadkillradio.com

May 12, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

FYI,

Here is the chance you were always waiting for, a chance to have your say in public!

RoadkillRadio.com is worth listening to (Tuesdays, PST 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.) and even worth promoting.

Home Page: RoadkillRadio.com

Listen live:

Quoted from that web page:

NOTE: We only Broadcast “LIVE…” on Tuesdays, starting approximately 30 minutes before showtime! If its not Tuesday, you will not get a live stream. The archived shows however, will stream. All archived audio on the web site is of the MP3 file format.

Archived shows:

Archived Shows
All shows [a large and interesting list — WHS] are available for mp3 download

For example:

Download Show 8 Part Two

There will be time for some open-line then an eye-opening, in-depth discussion on Fathers Rights and the Rights of Children.  Vancouver lawyer and well-known advocate Carey Linde will be joining us to talk about this issue and parental alienation.  Are the courts getting it wrong?  (Note: The first third of that portion of the show deals with provincial politics in B.C..  Skip that to get to the interview with Carey Linde.  The discussion of fathers rights, feminist judicial bias, divorce issues such as parental alienation and much more is fascinating.  It is very important for anyone living in B.C. that the discussion contains a recommendation by Carey Linde to copy the results of the poll on shared parenting run by Saskatchewan MP Vellacotte and to forward that to the B.C. Attorney General — in view of the currently going-on revisions to family rights laws in B.C.. –WHS)

From the home page:

Important and Informative! Joins US!!

Broadcasting Live from Vancouver Canada
Unabashedly Canadian, BOLD, No Apologies!
Join Kari Simpson and Terry O’Neill as they expose and examine
the issues that affect your family, rights and liberties.

This Hard-Hitting current events online show dares to be
politically-incorrect and invites all those who have been silenced to be heard!!

May 12th 2009 - 7:30 p.m. - We ran out of time last week, so as promised you will hear a tape recording of a meeting (held on April 29, 2009) between RKR’s very own Kari Simpson, social workers and the parents of three children who are being “investigated” by these so-called child protection workers. Listen as social workers REFUSE to have the meeting taped for accuracy
(click here for an advanced listen part 1).

Then you will hear how they REFUSED to provide the findings of their investigation in writing!!!! (click hear for an advanced listen part 2)

For the rest of the show it is all about the BC Election!! Joining us in-studio will be pollster Glen Robbins from SceResearch and our own, politically in-the-know commentator Ron Gray. Former B.C. Premier Bill VanderZalm will be here and we will talk to candidates as their political fates are decided by BC VOTERS!!!!

We will be taking your calls and emails! This is a must listen… a must tell your friends and family to listen to… RoadKill Radio Rumble!

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167

Important and Informative!

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions are welcome!

EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com

–Walter

http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Education, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Economy, Child Support, Judiciary, Divorce, Health, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Gay issues, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

The economic down-turn and Canada

May 5, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

By Allan Chinnery

It is now official that Canada is in a depression as deep as any that it had been in before.  The Bank of Canada interest rate at 0.25% tells you that they are scared —-less and see no solution to the problem.  However there is a bigger problem.

The smart money, that of judges and lawyers was invested offshore because with Canadas judiciary it is not safe to keep it in Canada.  Such investments lost much of their equity when the banks started going down.  Most notable of interest to members of the Canadian Bar Association would have been UBS and the British banks.

Oh well, that is the nature of the investment game and it had a better chance of survivng there than being raided by Canada’s judges and tax department.  But it is high time Canada came up with a stimulus package for Canada’s divorce industry.

There are rumors floating around among the women of Canada that just stamping their pretty little feet does not add to the national product or in anyway raise the standard of living for Canadians.  What is worse, a few way-out-there females are actually saying it might be possible that Mr. Judge stomping his $400 dollar shoes and blustering about the power of his prison gangs will not produce wealth for anyone in Canada.

These terrible and seditious rumors have caused a serious slowdown in the divorce industry making it almost impossible for the afore-mentioned investors to recoup their losses.  It has been said that there are women in Canada that are working in and outside of the home, maintaining their credit ratings, being financially responsible.  I even heard of one who, for the good of her family, was driving a 5 year old car.

No wonder the auto industry is broken.  As you can see these untruths about how money is made are destroying the whole economy and are putting the judiciary’s credibility and powers into disrepute.

Stevie and the boys should immediately hold a secret meeting on how to infuse millions of dollars into the domestic violence sector to get these heretical ideas from the minds of Canadian women.  Failure to do this will undermine the power of judges blustering and foot stomping as well as perhaps resulting in calluses on the hands of members of the Law Society.

Such things will destroy the Canada that we have known for the last 20 years as it will fall backward in time to a place requiring effort not effect.

____________
Allan Chinnery is an expunged, squeezed-dry father who survives by working as a gardener for about ten to 15 hours a week.

Posted in Child Support, Economy, Judiciary, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

Polygamy and the Canadian Constitution

January 14, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Australian - Blog
14 January 2009

Rights charter is from 2009 BC
By Janet Albrechtsen

Here I am in Canada again. And once again I am receiving a few free lessons about a charter of rights. Just about every time I am in this otherwise great country, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms is making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Reasons that Australians should be digesting as the push for an Australian charter of rights unfolds this year.

This time in Canada it’s a cracker of a story about a preacher man who has had 26 wives and more than 106 children. Clearly a sucker for punishment, 52-year-old Winston Blackmore, from the aptly named town of Bountiful in British Columbia, was arrested last Wednesday amid much media hoopla and charged with breaching BC’s criminal prohibition on polygamy.

Not taking a backward step, Blackmore says his fundamentalist Mormon beliefs on polygamy are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the charter overrides BC’s criminal code….(Full Story)

______________

F4L:  Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since many years before Pierre Elliot Trudeau “brought the Constitution home” in 1982.  That no cases prosecuting polygamy by some in a few Mormon communities were ever brought to bear is for a good reason.  The authorities wanting to launch such an action always feared that they would run the risk that they would lose such a case.

The time is now ripe to bring such a case against polygamy into the court system, where it will most likely make it up to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), whereupon it stands a good chance to be lost and for polygamy to become legal, as that appears to fit in with the agenda for social engineering that the SCC actively promoted since 1982.

SCC justices had always had large powers to engage in social engineering, but they did not have the legal power to do so and to be necessarily successful in trying.  Since 1982 they assumed the legal power to usurp the power to legislate (that is, the power to make laws) from our lawfully elected legislators (lawgivers) in provincial and federal elected bodies of government.  Since 1982 there has also been a great escalation of rulings by the SCC that illustrate what its agenda for social engineering is and will be.

Since 1982 the SCC justices assumed the power to overrule, by hook and by crook, the wishes of our elected representatives.  Ted Byfield, the publisher of the now defunct news magazine, The Report, extensively commented on the growth over the powers of the SCC justices over the years and was given to call the SCC justices “judicial activists” and the “nine kings in purple robes.”

There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone in Canada holding conservative opinions that the SCC is out to re-engineer Canadian society, so as to extinguish and replace the set of moral standards we once held sacred and adhered to.  Going by the evidence of the SCC’s decisions since shortly after 1982, the SCC’s agenda promotes: world government; socialism; equality of outcomes; income equalization regardless of the merits earned by achievements; the abolition of the traditional nuclear family; Atheism; Paganism; the abrogation of individual rights for men; supremacy for women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities; the abrogation of traditional moral standards based on the code of ethics of Christian churches, and of the right of men to own and enjoy property and to be able to be the fathers and teachers of their children.

In short, the SCC is the major force driving the conversion of Canada to a socialist state that is to be incorporated into the global socialist world regime.  Igor Shafarevich, a Russian and world-renowned mathematician who became a historian in the absence of the historians that were exterminated through the purges that took place in the USSR, summed up the agenda of socialism as follows:

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

• Abolition of private property.
• Abolition of the family.
• Abolition of religion.
• Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust. (Igor Shafarevich, in The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200)

In writing that, he aptly described the goals for the agenda of our SCC justices.

Our Supreme Court of Canada justices do not consider our Constitution to be a set of laws that they must live by, administer, interpret and apply, but that the Constitution is a living document to be changed as required so that it can be used as the tool by which to implement their agenda for social engineering. Seeing that most of our Supreme Court justices promote judicial advocacy for social changes such as those indicated above, one is forced to ask: By what law did the SCC justices assume the right to become judicial activists and to impose their world view on the Canadian people? (E. g.: SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s speeches identified below.)

1. The [Canadian] Charter — a judicial coup d’etat
   By Joanne Byfield, 2003 03 03
   If voters don’t support change, government can pay to take it to court

2. Speech by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, “UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES: What is Going On?” (Dec. 1, 2005, NZ), in which she argues that the rights of judges must transcend common law, constitutions (it follows that the principles to be overcome by judicial advocacy also include the supremacy of God) and parliamentary principles.
3. Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
   Chief Justice of Canada:  Reaction and Pro-action: Bringing Family Law Advocacy Into the 21st Century (Family Law Dinner, Ontario Bar Association, Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, January 24, 2002)

Beverley McLachlin is by no means the only SCC justice who promoted the role of SCC justices as being the purveyor of radical social change in Canada, with the aim to impose socialism.  Nevertheless, neither the people nor their elected representatives ever gave the SCC justices such powers.  Our Constitution most certainly never gave them those powers; other than that the SCC justices busily engaged themselves in writing the consequences of their judicial activism into the Constitution.

Given that the SCC justices of Canada are re-writing our Constitution, thereby turning it, step by step and cut by cut, into something the Constitution was not meant to be, the conclusion appears to be unavoidable that our SCC justices are revolutionaries and traitors to our country.  They are captives and apostles of the ideology they promote and are no longer the servants of our country but made themselves its masters and tyrants.

Posted in Abortion, Divorce, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Support, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Feminism, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Gay issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »