- These costs are solely due to and a direct consequence of government's illegal position, backed up by corrupt judiciary that "ALL persons are NOT EQUAL in terms of rights and responsibilities" before the law. This is what the Nazi's believed and is what allowed "legal" extermination of Jews and others deemed "social undesirables" using the false pretext of "social good". The Nazi's also called this "social policy".
- "Social Policy" is really the implementation of a "divide and conquor" method of rule. Perfectly peaceful and legitimate viewpoints are pitted against each other, creating conflict that governments and law use to rationalize their "necessity" and crimes.
- This illegal method of achieving power is the root cause of war. Everyone is playing the dominence game, using politics and democracy to try to impose their will on all dissenting opinions, by initiating aggression. These are crimes against humanity and true law states that the initiation of aggression is the greatest evil and highest crime known to mankind.
- Ex-wife's desire to be lazy, pampered and free of responsibility is perfectly legitimate. If she had been honest, I am sure she would have been able to find a husband who agreed with her terms in exchange for her "charms". Ex-wife initiated an act of aggression against husband by misrepresenting her nature to fraudulently achieve marriage, placing husband in a partnership he did not consent to, backed up by corrupt law which allowed ex-wife to prey on her family before and after divorce.
- Husband should have been able to walk away from this sham marriage at any time, care for his daughters half time, keep all of his property, career and income. The law should have no power in these matters until a parent chooses NOT to perform their legal and moral duty for their children.
- Under the legal conditions above, it is unlikely that ex-wife would have married husband, due to no profit and therefore no conflict.
- Under the legal conditions above, it is unlikely that ex-wife would have expressed any interest in her daughters, due to no profit and therefore no conflict.
Social Costs borne by every citizen
- Every time that you are murdered, defrauded, assaulted, raped, burglarized or in general victimized by force or fraud (crime), keep in mind that the perpetrator had a parent whom they learned values from.
- It is proven on this site that divorce courts are behaving illegally and using "Darwinian unnatural selection" to favor irresponsibility and dishonesty and discouraging personal responsibility and honesty in the choice of which parent teaches values to our children. This greatly increases criminal tenancies and dependency in society. We are three generations into paying for the high social costs and declining productivity of this illegal "social policy". The only beneficiaries are our self-proclaimed "problem solvers" who have created these policies using the false pretext of "fairness".
- Every time that you hear of a parent who goes postal and murders his spouse and children, keep in mind that there are most likely divorce lawyers involved, manipulating the situation, threatening survival, escalating conflict.
- Every time that you hear of a teenager who goes postal and kills large numbers of fellow students, keep in mind that this person had parents who failed to teach peaceful moral values and how to integrate into society and meet their goals by investing effort and contributing to society.
- Every time you hear of or experience random acts of social violence, be aware that the perpetrater is very likely suffering some sort of oppression and is not intelligent enough to identify the cause and decides to take it out on their fellow citizens, whom are blamed for either allowing or causing the woes.
- Every time you hear of a terrorist act, be aware that the "terrorist" is most likely from an oppressed society, whose rulers are kept in power by our governments and corporations realizing it is far cheaper to pay a few corrupt elites well for resources and slave labor than allowing democracy and fairer resource sharing and building civilized infrastructure in these countries.
- Be aware that WE allow our rulers to engage in the above crimes against humanity and are thus morally culpable for their acts by supporting them, voting and paying taxes. Terrorists are one hundred percent legally, factually and morally correct that their right to life, self-defense and freedom includes targeting their oppressors, including those who support them, namely US.
- Half of all policing costs and officer deaths are due to domestic "incidents". This is for the simple reason that spouses cannot exercise their basic freedom to "not associate" without going through the divorce courts and risk losing their parental rights, property rights, becoming slaves and paying for "due process" which will impoverish them and their children, independent of eventual judicial decree.
- When criminals are in charge, it is productive people who are targetted. These are the people who build, maintain and improve life for everyone. Forcing them to either flee or spend an inordinate amount of their life (time and energy) defending their property and other rights from predators is a major factor destroying our collective prosperity and employment prospects. This is one of the factors that collapsed the Soviet Union.
- False pretexts and Nazi rationalizations that legally and morally valid reasons exist for initiating aggression against peaceful people is the root cause of ALL social conflict.
- False pretexts and Nazi rationalizations that legally and morally valid reasons exist for initiating aggression against countries (real objective: enslaving people, resource theft) is the root cause of war and we are on an accelerating course to what may well be the last one. Or, in the words of Albert Einstein, "the war after the next one will be fought with sticks and stones".
Direct Costs stolen from taxpayers ($6,494,400.00)
- From the perspectives of the system and self-proclaimed intellectual stakeholders in this matter, many of these costs are actually profit, the consequence of creating problems that can then be used as pretexts of why the system and its meddling so neccessary to "help" and why taxpayers must pay such high costs.
- From the perspective of taxpayers, these are costs that are extracted from them in taxes, reducing the resources they have available to survive and meet their needs in life.
- From the perspective of taxpayers, it would have been far less expensive for them to pay support to ex-wife. The legal aid fees alone far exceed any amount of support that could have been taken from husband, even if he had been able to continue his career and support continued to be stolen from his paycheque.
- From the perspective of the economy in general, this is a shifting of resources from productivity and quality of life to unproductive waste and social impoverishment. Great harm to Canadians and their desire for freedom and prosperity has and is being done by the illegal "social policy" of rewarding lazyness and anti-social acts using the false pretext of misdefined "fairness".
- From husband's perspective, the system defining a legal environment where ex-wife would conclude that her survival (extra social services benefits, avoiding fraud charges) required her to manipulate/abuse her daughter in an attempt to convince daughter to live with ex-wife, resulting in a psychotic breakdown of younger daughter and having medical assistance available is not "helping". This trauma for youngest daughter should never have happened and was a direct consequence of the system rewarding time with children, encouraging this parental manipulation and abusive behavior.
- Per law, as written, parents caring for their children (and not allowing them to become social burdens) is a legal responsibility. There is no law which states parents should be rewarded for caring for their children. The law states parents can be sanctioned if they do not. Judicial misinterpretation of the law is what creates so much child manipulation, conflict and inability to co-operate between parents. For the support payer, support payments are reduced if they manipulate their children to spend more time with them. For the support receipient, it increases support payments to do the same. Children are naturally irresponsible and will, until they mature, gravitate towards the parent who demands the least responsibility. This is yet another bias towards the least responsible parent becoming the dominent value teacher of children. True law and equal parental responsibility says that no support should be payable unless a parent chooses not to assume their EQUAL parental responsibility. Only under these conditions is the law able to step in and enforce responsibility. A desirable side-effect of this is that parents who are not responsible or interested in their children would step out of the way (no rewards), and allow the more caring, responsible parent to take over.
| Cost | Description |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal Costs stolen from husband
- The word stolen is used because these costs were extracted contrary to fact, law and reason, contrary to husbands consent.
- Husband once believed that he was free and that his contributions to civilization would be rewarded and be his to keep. If he had known it was pointless to try to better himself, he would have chosen social services, alcohol and drugs, to try to escape awareness of his slavery and powerlessness, as so many he has left behind have done. It is far more tolerable to never have had something than to have it stolen from you, after a lifetime of effort and making correct choices.
- Husband overcame the ignorance of his childhood and politically subverted state education, with ZERO help.
- Husband worked his way through high school, without family help washing dishes at 50 cents per hour.
- Husband sacrificed five years, suffered poverty and worked his way through University to get his Engineering Degree.
- Engineering Degree (October 21, 1982)
- Husband swore an oath to be the best he can be and to try to make the world a better place. This is the same oath that ALL Engineers swear to and are judged according to by their profession and peers. He has kept and is keeping this oath, despite concerted attempts by corrupt judges and government to force him to do otherwise.
- Engineers Oath (June 30, 1982)
- Husband's plan was to eventually lead Nortel Networks and he became the technical lead of his division, an adviser, breaking ground on new technologies, products and influencing direction. Husband sat on key industry committees as representative for Nortel, influencing industry standards.
- Husband designed many successful products, providing many Canadians with high quality factory employment and Canada with hundreds of millions of dollars of export and services revenue. These factories and jobs are now lost to Canada. Husband was part of a very competent and dedicated team and does not take full credit. These teams have now been disbanded, their jobs lost and many have left Canada due to predatory taxation, better opportunities and respect for the rights of productive people elsewhere.
- Some of the products that husband was the system architect for, including features, custom integrated circuits, protocols and software are below:
- Marketing Details of Vista 350
- Husband broke ground by designing Nortel's first successful product to integrate telephony with computer control.
- Husband was Nortel's key architect for Call Waiting ID (who's calling while you are on a call) including influencing industry standards, design of what is still the best performing decoder in the industry and networking protocols.
- Husband severely regrets the above accomplishment, since it allowed the deployment of the technical capability to profile people and build information databases of who they communicate with - their social networks (conspire with, from Big Brother's perspective).
- Husband earned several patents for his previous accomplishments. Note that patents take a long time to be approved. Once bushwhacked by the divorce courts, husband had too many woes to accomplish anything of significance, to date.
- Patent #1 (July 25, 1995)
- Patent #2 (March 25, 1997)
- Just one of husband's ideas put this product line far beyond any possibility of competition and saved his employer a minimum of $36,000,000.00 over its ten year product life cycle. This was also based on work prior to being bushwhacked by the courts.
- Saved Nortel 36 Million Dollars (January 18, 1996)
- Despite disproven allegations by ex-wife, all of the above was achieved with very little overtime.
- Ex-wife was not aware of husbands patents and accomplishments, since, from very early on in the marriage, ex-wife would claim that the accomplishments were due to her because she "allowed" husband to work and she deserved a "cut" for doing cooking and cleaning, while husband did everything else including caring for the children.
- Prior to divorce, except for a very depressing home environment, husband associated with the "best and brightest" and lived in an environment full of dedicated people accomplishing worthy goals (allowing better communications, improving life for everyone). Dealing with ex-wife's self-destructive behavior, irrationality and damage to family survival was the only negative. Husband was tolerating this and teaching his daughters so they would choose to leave with him when they matured enough. Ex-wife decided it was time to close her trap and filed for divorce first.
- It completely destabilized and disillusioned husband to be confronted with the irrefutable fact that himself and daughters were subject to the complete and utter irrationality, dishonesty, arrogance, antisocial and criminal behavior of the legal profession and courts. Husband was like a fish out of water in this environment. All of husbands skills, values and merits were to his detriment before dishonest judges who can only view intelligent, honest, moral people as a threat to their very survival. From the perspective of criminals, husband must be smited and prevented from teaching these values to his children, at all costs. Husband expected to find his intellectual and moral peers in the judiciary, objective and determined to guard civilized values. Instead, he found only very dangerous criminals, the enemies of all that is good and true in humanity.
- In response, husband was forced to emotionally clamp down on himself, to control his rage, to be able to function well enough to do whatever he could for his daughters, since failing them was not an option. To some, it now appears that husband has been polarized to become a Vulcan (Star Trek, completely logical, no emotions). The truth is that reason leads, emotions follow, under control. Dealing with the facts is the only way to solve problems and husbands problems were massive, requiring full intellectual capacity, unencumbered by spurious emotions. Husband no longer has any tolerance for unreason if it negatively affects his daughters or self. The only exception is that flexibility and patience is required to raise children. Ex-wife has become polarized in the opposite direction, completely irrational, emotional and victimhood, since that is what the courts and system rewards. Ex-wife has now become a pity addict, in addition to her ongoing alcoholism.
- Husband's environment, deemed by law was such that the rewards for his accomplishments were being stolen (taken from his pay) and given to his ex-wife, subsidizing her alcoholism, lazyness and poor role model. This validated ex-wife's deceitful, lazy survival methods in the eyes of his daughters, increasing the probability that they would learn and make the same choices. Every career accomplishment, reward and effort of husband worked to the detriment of his daughters and them learning honesty, self-sufficiency, the work ethic and to be productive members of society.
- Husband's employment lasted until May 1996. It was not psychologically possible to do his job with all the conflict woes with the courts and ex-wife and being forced to pay a drunk to neglect his daughters. By judicial decree, husband was allowed very minimal time and influence with his daughters and it was not easy to stand helplessly by, with police and jail awaiting, should he intervene. Husband was forced to quit his career before he made very expensive mistakes, ending his career, on the recommendation of his doctor. This cost ten years of seniority, a future with infinite possibilities, a secure pension, benefits second to none and ability to associate with his friends, betters and peers.
- Doctor's Recommendation, to cease career (April 16, 1996)
- An unanticipated consequence to losing his career and income was that, once the support payments that were being stolen from husband's paycheque ended, ex-wife realized that her interest in her daughters and opposition to husband's participation in their lives was greatly diminished. She realized that being a mother and not being paid for it (ie; responsibility without reward) was not to her liking. Husband and ex-wife settled for joint custody shortly thereafter, with husband agreeing to pay support and caring for his daughters's nearly half time. Note that husband was extorted into compromising with this mad woman by illegal judicial acts.
- Before the ink had even dried on the settlement, ex-wife and her lawyer (paid for by tax dollars) hired a private investigator to intrude in husband's affairs. These investigators alienated ALL the potential clients husband was courting (and husband was depending on these contracts, to pay support) and caused husband to lose these contracts. Husband was not able to pay any support.
- Husband and ex-wife spent years (until daughters chose father full time) locked in a daily, bitter battle for the hearts and minds of their daughters. Ex-wife was promising daughters irresponsibility, no rules, no curfew, and offered to supply alcohol and cigarettes to daughters and their friends any time. Husband was fighting using stability, fairness, predictability and actually participating in his daughters lives, paying attention to them, teaching them and having fun and lives together. Husband won, daughters decided that reason, known boundaries and a parent who actually cares is better than an unstable negligent drunk.
- Husband has been forced to keep his income low and work just enough for family survival, but not enough to attract predators. The rest of his time, apart from parenting has been spent "plotting" how to effectively deal with the criminals in this matter.
- Husband has been forced to refuse many job offers over the years. Here's one that would not take a verbal "NO" and insisted on making a formal offer:
- Refused Job Offer (November 10, 2000)
- Husband's state imposed woes also caused him to miss out on the tech boom of the late 1990's which made many engineers less competent than him instant stock option millionaires. Socialist readers will not see a problem with this and consider these losses to be just. The problem is, no rewards equals no effort, implosion of productivity and poverty. The only choice is to tolerate property rights and people being rewarded according to merit (in all areas, including parental rights, when a choice must be made) or suffer universal impoverishment.
- Husband is in a trap where any equity such as home ownership, stock portfolio, retirement savings or even a positive bank account balance (yes, the state actually stole from his bank account) attracts predators, since 1994. As a consequence, husband has been prevented from participation in the economy, having any economic security, retirement savings or protection from inflation.
- Since life is time and energy, illegal judicial acts have created major problems for husband and daughters, which have required major time and energy to counter. In effect, a large portion of OUR lives has been stolen and wasted, just so the system can profit from the pointless conflict and our attempts to squirm out of this foul trap.
- The point is made of what has been stolen from husband and his daughters. Justice demands VERY LARGE reparations and penalties for the criminals in this matter.
Personal Costs paid by ex-wife
- The word paid is used because ex-wife made all of the choices (encouraged by a very corrupt system) resulting in her woes and sorry situation.
- Despite being the target of determined state "help", ex-wife has paid the greatest cost of all parties - a pointless, wasted life and shunning by family and society.
- Ex-wife was taught by her mother that she was special, deserving of rewards without effort. Her good looks during youth allowed her to achieve this with men, reinforcing this incorrect view.
- Her mother's "no fault" divorce taught her that behavior during marriage is irrelevant and females always achieve custody, generous child support and all it took was marrying a prosperous man to be set for life.
- Because of ex-wife's entitlement view of marriage, she did not even try to be a mother or partner and interpreted husbands demands she be so as "abuse" and infringements on her "freedom". The frustration of ex-wife not being on easy street and responsibilities being part of marriage to a man whom she would never had chosen if not for financial benefits was undoubtedly a contributing factor to her unhappiness in marriage. Husband does not apologize or feel any remorse. Ex-wife fraudulently misrepresented herself to "entrap" husband in a marriage that should be annulled. Husband more than fulfilled his end of the marriage partnership and parenthood, ex-wife did not. Ex-wife chose to be a deadbeat mother both during and after marriage, to date. The choices and therefore consequences are completely hers.
- The court's refusal to deal with facts and place ex-wife on a remedial path of dealing with her addictions and problems caused ex-wife's problems and costs to her daughters to get far worse.
- The court's refusal to deal with facts left ex-wife under the impression that getting help for her addictions would prove husbands point and be to her detriment. Years later, ex-wife did go for 3 weeks rehab, got drunk the day she got out (to celebrate completion). It is thus not certain whether any person or professional, apart from ex-wife making different choices could have altered ex-wife's self-destructive trajectory.
- The financial rewards of more child support if ex-wife managed to drive father out of his children's lives caused her to manipulate her daughters, ultimately causing ex-wife to lose the love, respect and trust for parents that children appear to be born with, but can learn differently. Ex-wife and daughters are completely alienated, a complete loss of respect.
- The financial rewards of more child support if ex-wife was unemployed, "no strings attached" social services, plus inherent laziness prevented ex-wife from getting a job, assuming personal responsibility and having a life. Ex-wife is now completely addicted to dependency.
- Many people, including husband and daughters have tried to help ex-wife. All attempts to help have been met by ex-wife further adapting to dependency, demanding that "help" continue and any conditions of responsibility in exchange for "help" was "abuse". In other words, there is no helping this woman and all attempts just make her more dependent. It appears to be a general TRUTH that it is impossible to help someone who will not help themselves. Many states, Canada included, derive a lot of political power by pretending to help. The reality in this and many cases is that they are doing harm.
- Ex-wife has alienated virtually ALL family and friends. She is all alone, without daughters, family or true friends, alcohol her only comfort. She will never be trusted with her grandchildren.
- Ex-wife will forever believe that husband has destroyed her life, deprived her of the benefits of divorce, ripped her off of hundreds of thousands of dollars in support and manipulated her daughters against her. This is for the simple reason that ex-wife is unwilling to admit that her actions have consequences and believes everything is due to others acting to her detriment.
- Husband was once of the opinion that ex-wife should roast in hell for what she has done to her daughters. The actual consequences of her own actions are a far worse punishment than husband would have advocated.
- In fact, husband believes ex-wife should be compensated for the system using her as a pawn, encouraging lies and not dealing with truth. A firm judicial statement (as written law demands) that personal responsibility, dealing with her problems as a pre-requisite to being in her daughters lives would have at least given ex-wife a chance of averting the disastrous fate she has been manipulated to choose.
Personal Costs stolen from both daughters
- The word "stolen" is used because, per law, the judiciary are trustees of children's best interests, from the children's perspective. No child, if they had the maturity to choose, would willingly choose as the judiciary did "on their behalf". An irresponsible, negligent, manipulative, drunken mother is the last choice, worse than being wards of the state, that should have been chosen. The judicial definition of "children's best interests" used but unstated by the courts does not include their survival and learning to become productive members of society.
- Both daughters spent their entire formative years in a conflictual environment due to friction between their parents. The courts attributed this conflict as being due to unreasonableness of the spouses, mainly husband and "philosophical" differences. The truth is that these philosophical differences are between criminal and antisocial versus civilized, "children's best interests", moral and the law, as written. The courts have consistently chosen the criminal side and disobeying the facts and law.
- Prior to separation the conflict was due to ex-wife's refusal to contribute to family survival, compromise, assume some responsibility, pay attention to her daughters and control her alcohol and financial excesses. At least during this period, due to ex-wife's disinterest in her daughters, husband was able to have some quality time and do his best to teach the children, without ex-wife sabotaging his parental direction, apart from interfering in his discipline attempts.
- After separation, ex-wife "discovered" an interest in her daughters and a bitter war for the "hearts and minds" of the children ensued and lasted until the children matured enough to reject the allure of irresponsibility and chose to live with father full time.
- Ex-wife fought by promising her daughters the "freedom" of no rules or expectations. Ex-wife freely provided notes to the school "excusing" rampant skipping, no curfews, no supervision, promising to provide alcohol and cigarettes, or a place to be "alone" with boys (father very careful to provide no opportunities) to her underage daughters and their friends and providing an open-door escape from husband's discipline. For example, when oldest daughter got caught stealing on numerous occasions, she escaped her "grounding" by running to her mother whose opinion is "stealing is not wrong because the store is rich and you can have whatever you want". Another example was skipping. In all cases, ex-wife would sabotage and provide escape routes from fathers necessary discipline, as well as stating the infraction was not wrong and father was taking daughters rightful "freedom" away, trying to enslave and control them, a violation of their rights. The major weak point in ex-wife's strategy was that she neglected to actually pay attention to, care for, get to know or acknowledge her daughters as people, meet their social needs, or, in general participate in their lives, apart from cooking. Another weak point is that ex-wife lives in a daily drunken stupor and does not appear to have any clear memory of past events or the common sense to see that actions have consequences. From the children's perspectives (since husband was teaching them how to think and be objective), ex-wife was continuously losing credibility, since her lies and manipulations became clearer and clearer, as the children matured. For daughters, living with ex-wife was very unpredictable and confusing. At this point in time, ex-wife has ZERO credibility with her daughters or anyone else.
- Husband fought by doing what all parents should do, earning trust, providing encouragement, structure and an environment where his daughters could achieve their wants and needs by positive behavior. Husband was fair, predictable and the children knew where they stood and the relationship between their actions and consequences. In addition, husband led by example, took the time to know his daughters, have fun and activities together. Husband also took the time to teach his daughters how to think and make sense out of life and people. Husband also had friends and a social network, including many other parents with children to play with. Daughters knew for a fact that their father was one hundred percent for them and never had any reason to mistrust or feel otherwise. Father also doubled up on the love and nurturing, to make up for their mother's lack and betrayals.
- Both daughters get along with and trust males more than females, especially youngest daughter who has female trust issues. Neither daughter will be able to trust or tolerate their mother, on any issue.
- Both daughters have been deprived of a mother and viable female role model. On the rare occasions that father managed to meet and bring home an acceptable female, both daughters overwhelmed them by being clingy, in need of female attention. In addition, it never took long for said females to conclude there was too much conflict with ex-wife and the system for any sort of viable relationship with father.
- Both daughters attended what father considers inadequate primary schools, since ex-wife had legal control in this crucial area. They started out in the Catholic school board (fathers choice, during marriage), with their emphasis on personal responsibility and the basics. Once child protection services started to be called by school on a regular basis, ex-wife changed over to "Alternative" schools which did not provide objective testing or marks. Husband unsuccessfully argued in court for educational control, to no avail. It was deemed that an idiot mother in educational control is superior to a highly educated and accomplished father. Apparently, ex-wife believed these schools would be more tolerant of "different" behavior and not call in "professionals" so often. She was wrong.
- Because of the court induced irresponsibility / responsibility value war between parents, both daughters had very confusing childhoods, with each parent telling them exact opposite things.
- Both daughters have suppressed memories of their early childhoods and time with their mother, due to unpleasantness. Because of this court induced conflict, two childhoods have been lost. Children should not be burdened with woes such as these, detracting from their learning and maturing to become happy, productive members of society.
- Because of the court induced irresponsibility / responsibility value war between parents and ex-wife providing escape routes from fathers behavioral consequences ("harsh" discipline such as grounding or extra chores), husband was forced to mitigate consequences and do a fine balancing act in the area of discipline. As a consequence, both daughters were developmentally delayed in their full acceptance of personal responsibility and choosing to excel, rather than muddle through school. There was a lot of skipping school, encouraged and allowed by ex-wife's fake notes, by older daughter.
- Because of inferior early education, both daughters, now that they have chosen the challenge of university science careers (Biopharmaceutical, Aerospace Engineering) have had major catching up to do on paying attention, time management and determination skills.
Personal Costs stolen from oldest daughter
- The word "stolen" is used because, per law, the judiciary are trustees of children's best interests, from the children's perspective. No child, if they had the maturity to choose, would willingly choose as the judiciary did "on their behalf". An irresponsible, negligent, manipulative, drunken mother is the last choice, worse than being wards of the state, that should have been chosen. The judicial definition of "children's best interests" used but unstated by the courts does not include their survival and learning to become productive members of society.
- Draft Affidavit of Oldest Daughter
- Compared to youngest daughter, older daughter suffered less. She was older and more mature when divorce hit. This allowed her to deal with her mother's manipulations better.
- The most traumatic experience for older daughter was being held a prisoner of her mother for six months, fully convinced that her mother would kill herself if daughter contacted or went back to live with her father and sister. This is outlined in her draft affidavit.
Personal Costs stolen from youngest daughter
- The word "stolen" is used because, per law, the judiciary are trustees of children's best interests, from the children's perspective. No child, if they had the maturity to choose, would willingly choose as the judiciary did "on their behalf". An irresponsible, negligent, manipulative, drunken mother is the last choice, worse than being wards of the state, that should have been chosen. The judicial definition of "children's best interests" used but unstated by the courts does not include their survival and learning to become productive members of society.
- Because younger daughter was five when separation occurred, she had less stable time than her sister in her early years. Towards the end of the marriage, husband had tried everything and exhausted all possibilities of influencing ex-wife's determination to destroy herself and family. Husband was forced to admit defeat and the gloves were off, all pretence of dealing with issues tactfully, in any but a direct, factual manner were dropped. From husband's perspective, it was a proven fact that ex-wife was bound and determined to destroy her family and he demanded change. This was interpreted by ex-wife and later the courts as abuse on his part.
- In mid 2003, youngest daughter changed radically and lost her friendly, bubbly, optomistic personality and became hunted and withdrawn. On November 17, 2003 she collapsed in the hall at school, suffered a major psychotic breakdown, requiring three months of emergency psychiatric hospitalization and ongoing counseling, to date.
- It turns out that social services was demanding proof from ex-wife that her daughters were living with her, as she claimed, when in actual fact, they were living with their father full time and had been for a very long time. Ex-wife was terrified of being caught for welfare fraud and having her "entitlements" reduced by the amount that was intended for the daughters she was not caring for. In other words, ex-wife's rum supply was at risk, her greatest terror.
- As a consequence of this, ex-wife convinced younger daughter that she was evil, unfit to live and was the cause of her mother's alcoholism and woes in life by choosing to live with her father. The behavior demanded by ex-wife was that youngest daughter live with her, which youngest daughter could not choose. Daughter decided that she had destroyed her mother and was unfit to live and, eventually, collapsed, unable to function.
- In early November, 2003, husband was forced to conclude that youngest daughters problems were beyond his abilities to help and sent a registered letter to ex-wife outlining the facts and prohibiting ex-wife from communicating with younger daughter in any manner.
- Husband secured a referral from his family physician for psychiatric help for daughter.
- Before psychiatric help was available, on November 17, 2003 younger daughter collapsed in the hall at school and father took her to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario emergency ward. Daughter was admitted and spent three months under care. Here is the intake questionaire regarding state of mind filled out by younger daughter.
- The doctors had never seen such a bad mix of symptoms which included psychotic, obsessive-compulsive, disociation, depression, anxiety, all of which were indicative of daughter having suffered from extreme trauma. Daughter was barely able to stand up or speak.
- During treatment, very dangerous drugs were required and it nearly killed father to have to consent to this. The drugs are APO-Fluvoxamine (Wikipedia), Clonazepam (Wikipedia), Quetiapine (Wikipedia) and Lorazepam (Wikipedia). All of these drugs are either anti-psychotics, anti-ocd, anti-anxiety or anti-depressents and very powerful and dangerous. Husband has issues with using drugs to control symptoms, as opposed to understanding what the basic root causes are and dealing with them.
- Younger daughter had to be declared mentally incomptent and unable to make her own medical choices by the doctor in charge. Both father and daughter lost the legal ability to remove her from care.
- Near the end of January, 2004, the doctors were starting to talk about putting youngest daughter into a long term institution for care, due to no progress. Clearly, this period of time was not a pleasant one for youngest daughter, father, her sister and many caring family friends. It appeared that younger daughter was lost, forever.
- Against father's and Children's Aid stated wishes and a verbal agreement not to, the doctors decided to use shock treatment and granted ex-wife's demand that youngest daughter visit at her home for a day. The doctors had at least concluded that the mother was a major key to understanding the problem. Despite acting against fathers and child protection services wishes, they were correct.
- Younger daughter went to visit her mother and grandmother. Within an hour, something snapped and younger daughter demanded bus fare from her grandmother, to go home to her father and sister. Daughter was not familiar with the bus routes and her fool grandmother gave her bus fare, instead of calling father. Father called grandmother to see how his daughter was doing and was informed that she had left. A very confused and vulnerable teenage girl, out on temporary leave from psychiatric care, unable to make choices or function, was all alone, trying to use the transit system, which she did not understand. Father was furious and he and oldest daughter went to look for his daughter. After three hours of fruitless searching, they were forced to give up. When they got home, youngest daughter was sitting on the front step, waiting.
- This was the sign that the doctors were looking for, for younger daughter to decide she wanted to live and actually make a choice on her own behalf. Within a week, it was agreed that younger daughter would be much better off with her father and sister and not imprisoned under full time medical care.
- The doctors arranged for long term counseling (Dr. Elizabeth Esmond, disociation) for daughter and re-integration with school and released her back to her family.
- Husband maintained his position that ex-wife was not allowed to have unsupervised access with younger daughter. On July 2, 2004, a lawyer (your legal aid tax dollars at work, still) threatened husband with legal consequences should he not grant access.
- Husband replied and refused this demand.
- On July 19, 2004, the demand for access was repeated, by the same lawyer.
- Husband replied and again refused this demand. This was the end of demands and contact from this particular lawyer.
- Over the years, youngest daughter has slowly healed to the point she is mostly recovered. She will be wrestling with self-esteem and believing that anything she wants for herself is selfish (as opposed to healthy self-interest) problems for a very long time.
- Youngest daughter's development has been delayed by having to suffer and deal with issues that no child should be exposed to. The courts were aware of these proven dangers from the very first day in court, as has been irrefutably proven. So were child protection services, whose ineptness will also be proven.
Why You Should Demand government deal with dishonest judges and pay reparations demanded
- Despite inevitable attempts to blame husband for these social costs by not obeying the law, the truth is: Husband could not and therefore did not obey judges who illegally ordered him to behave contrary to law and his "children's best interests". Husband is fully compliant with the intent and letter of law, as written and proven on this site.
- Husband believes his fellow citizens should be grateful to him for the following:
- Teaching his beautiful (and therefore, potentially deadly) daughters social values and respect for the rights of others, otherwise, your prosperous sons may have found themselves in the same trap as husband.
- Teaching his daughters personal responsibility, thus preventing them from becoming socialized to dependency, themselves and their children, burdens on society.
- Teaching his daughters that life is under their control and they can be happy, empowered, contributing members of society, rather than unhappy, powerless dependents.
- Teaching his daughters that beauty and looks are transient things and that they should rely on contributing to society by academic excellence, acquiring skills and honest trade rather than depending on a man for meeting their goals in life.
- Husband is in full accord with the unstated, but very real social contract (true job of law to enforce) among civilized people that "I will refrain from initiating force or fraud against you, if you agree to do the same". Husband considers that, if he had allowed his daughters to be improperly socialized to dishonesty and dependency, this could only be interpreted as a moral lapse and act of aggression against his fellow citizens.
- Husband has demanded reparations totaling $55.5 Million Dollars (thus far). It is not unreasonable that, given husband's past accomplishments, skills and ambitions that he may have achieved this on his own, by contributing to civilization and his profession, if his human rights had been respected and he was left alone, free of systemic predations and able to raise his daughters properly, in peace.
- The above amount is less than $2.00 per man, woman and child in Canada. For this you get: Government restored to its proper role of serving all people equally, courts prevented from discriminating and creating social conflict. Major social savings from conflict reduction (estimate it costs more than $55 Million Dollars for one day of domestic conflict). Divorce courts making more objective custody decisions, favoring personal responsibility and a reversal of the social trends of irresponsibility, crime, entitlements and impoverishment. Is social survival not worth a lousy $2.00 each?
- The facts and knowledge husband proves could not be achieved in a million years and zillion dollars of government studies. This is for the simple reason that governments have the wrong perspective. All government "solutions" have the requirement that they must be "hands on", be managed by them, generate ongoing revenue and the political appearance that the costs of said "solution" are "necessary". Under no circumstance should problems be solved by eliminating the causes. Any bureaucrat proposing changing a law to eliminate problems, without providing a rationalization for an ongoing program to manage the problem for political/economic gain would be considered an insane heretic - how can government exist if it actually solves problems?
- The closest government was able to come to dealing with these issues is the "For The Sake of the Children Report", a joint committee research effort of the Senate and Parliament of Canada (Senator Anne Cools, Roger Galloway M.P.) who studied the very high abusive and conflictual costs of divorce on children and families. This report outlines the same issues raised on this site, but, as a political document, does not make the points very forcefully or outline how truly devastating the social costs are.
- The above report was responded to and rationalized away by the department of Justice, who claimed the need for more "study". In close to ten years, nothing has changed, except a massive transfer of wealth from families to divorce lawyers and legions of abused, traumatized by manipulation and conflict children and enslaved fathers.
- The bottom line is that government, the courts, the legal and psychiatric professions and the people have been aware of these Nazi crimes, systemic child abuse, destruction of civilized values and damage to society for a very long time. Nothing has been done and no solution appears to be in the works by our "public servants". It can only be concluded that some very powerful entrenched interests are profiting and preventing the obvious solution of reining in the courts from being considered. It is time for "plan B". The first strategic move has been made - informing the people that these antisocial tyrants can be fought, at least to a stalemate, thus far.
girard perregaux replica watches
Re: Social Costs